Search

Boundary spanning – the practice of facilitating knowledge exchange to address complex sustainability challenges – has the potential to align research and policymaking and increase the uptake of research in decision making. But the goals, methods, and outcomes of boundary-spanning activities in the environment sector can be difficult to describe, missing an opportunity to share lessons learned and improve as a community of practice. This paper describes boundary-spanning activities to integrate research about environmental sustainability with federal ocean policy dialogues in the U.S. We describe the process of organizing, facilitating, and learning from a series of meetings in which five interdisciplinary researchers engaged with federal ocean policy audiences. While the longer-term impacts of the activities associated with these meetings are subtle and remain difficult to detect, more immediate outcomes are observable. These include new professional relationships among researchers and policy staff, reported relevance of the research to general policy discourse, and a narrative that frames the opportunity for policymakers to learn from past industrialization on land as they manage an emerging industrial revolution in the ocean. By presenting the process and outcomes of our boundary-spanning activities, we aim to stimulate timely debate within ocean policy, management, and research communities about the importance of multiple benefits provided by healthy and intact ocean ecosystems and how to protect them in the face of the expanding industrialization of the ocean.

Widespread global declines in shellfish reefs (ecosystem‐forming bivalves such as oysters and mussels) have led to growing interest in their restoration and protection. With restoration projects now occurring on four continents and in at least seven countries, global restoration guidelines for these ecosystems have been developed based on experience over the past two decades. The following key elements of the guidelines are outlined: (a) the case for shellfish reef restoration and securing financial resources; (b) planning, feasibility, and goal setting; (c) biosecurity and permitting; (d) restoration in practice; (e) scaling up from pilot to larger scale restoration, (f) monitoring, (g) restoration beyond oyster reefs (specifically mussels), and (h) successful communication for shellfish reef restoration projects.

Progress on spatial conservation efforts in marine environments is often summarized with the simplistic metric of extent. However, targets require a more nuanced view, where ecological effectiveness, biodiversity, representation, connectivity and ecosystem services must all be recognized. Furthermore, these targets must be achieved through equitable processes and produce equitable outcomes. This paper calls for a clearer definition of what is to be ‘counted’ in assessing progress in marine conservation, through the use of both traditionally defined marine protected areas and a limited subset of other equivalent areas. It calls for future effort to draw a clear distinction between non-extractive areas such as no-take marine reserves, and the more numerous extractive areas. To be considered protected, sites must be ecologically effective, and be equitably managed to support all stakeholders. Spatial extent of coverage is only one constituent part of conservation effort, however, and much greater effort is needed to ensure that sites are selected to achieve optimum conservation outcomes for biodiversity and for ecosystem services. The paper reviews some of the existing views and approaches to defining and delimiting marine protection priorities. It recommends that with a clearer set of metrics for defining protection, and for assessing progress and setting future targets, marine conservation will be better placed to achieve lasting outcomes, including halting biodiversity loss and securing or enhancing ecosystem service provision. Protected spaces will continue to play a major role in future oceans, but they also need to be configured within a wider spatial framework.

Progress on spatial conservation efforts in marine environments is often summarized with the simplistic metric of extent. However, targets require a more nuanced view, where ecological effectiveness, biodiversity, representation, connectivity and ecosystem services must all be recognized. Furthermore, these targets must be achieved through equitable processes and produce equitable outcomes.This paper calls for a clearer definition of what is to be ‘counted’ in assessing progress in marine conservation, through the use of both traditionally defined marine protected areas and a limited subset of other equivalent areas. It calls for future effort to draw a clear distinction between non‐extractive areas such as no‐take marine reserves, and the more numerous extractive areas. To be considered protected, sites must be ecologically effective, and be equitably managed to support all stakeholders.Spatial extent of coverage is only one constituent part of conservation effort, however, and much greater effort is needed to ensure that sites are selected to achieve optimum conservation outcomes for biodiversity and for ecosystem services. The paper reviews some of the existing views and approaches to defining and delimiting marine protection priorities.It recommends that with a clearer set of metrics for defining protection, and for assessing progress and setting future targets, marine conservation will be better placed to achieve lasting outcomes, including halting biodiversity loss and securing or enhancing ecosystem service provision. Protected spaces will continue to play a major role in future oceans, but they also need to be configured within a wider spatial framework.

Restoration of degraded ecosystems is an important societal goal, yet inadequate monitoring and the absence of clear performance metrics are common criticisms of many habitat restoration projects. Funding limitations can prevent adequate monitoring, but we suggest that the lack of accepted metrics to address the diversity of restoration objectives also presents a serious challenge to the monitoring of restoration projects. A working group with experience in designing and monitoring oyster reef projects was used to develop standardized monitoring metrics, units, and performance criteria that would allow for comparison among restoration sites and projects of various construction types. A set of four universal metrics (reef areal dimensions, reef height, oyster density, and oyster size–frequency distribution) and a set of three universal environmental variables (water temperature, salinity, and dissolved oxygen) are recommended to be monitored for all oyster habitat restoration projects regardless of their goal(s). In addition, restoration goal-based metrics specific to four commonly cited ecosystem service-based restoration goals are recommended, along with an optional set of seven supplemental ancillary metrics that could provide information useful to the interpretation of prerestoration and postrestoration monitoring data. Widespread adoption of a common set of metrics with standardized techniques and units to assess well-defined goals not only allows practitioners to gauge the performance of their own projects but also allows for comparison among projects, which is both essential to the advancement of the field of oyster restoration and can provide new knowledge about the structure and ecological function of oyster reef ecosystems.

It was with great excitement that we planned the combined meetings of Northeast Aquaculture Conference and Exposition (NACE) and the International Conference on Shellfish Restoration (ICSR) with the 33rd Milford Aquaculture Seminar (MAS). Bringing these different but complementary audiences together resulted in a meeting that combined many different aspects of fisheries restoration and aquaculture under one umbrella.Four hundred attendees including government representatives, research scientists, industry, and academia at both the university and vocational high school levels attended this event. The meeting commenced on Wednesday December 12th 2012, with over eighty people attending seven field trips to area aquaculture farms and research facilities. The formal program began on Thursday, December 13th with a plenary session including invited speakers Eric Schwabb, Acting Assistant Secretary for Conservation and Management at NOAA; Sebastian Belle, Executive Director of the Maine Aquaculture Association and Boze Hancock from the Nature Conservancy, who discussed the role of aquaculture in fisheries restoration. John Bullard, the Northeast Regional Administrator of NOAA Fisheries Service, addressed the group during the luncheon the following day. The technical papers and workshops presented were divided into 35 sessions over three days of the meeting and included topics such as the history of aquaculture, aquaculture hatchery innovations, siting and planning issues, risk management, aquaculture business management, ocean acidification, climate change, as well as aquaculture disease issues and potential remedies. Having persons present who have experienced problems and successes, along with those in manufacturing and government responsible for addressing concerns and sharing best practices, was invaluable. Discussions among this cross-section of persons who represent different aspects of aquaculture were as important as the well-presented and interesting formal papers and poster sessions. These discussions were facilitated by the many opportunities presented during the large trade show, reception, breaks, lunches, banquet and lobster bake held throughout the meeting.The importance of and need for aquaculture were made evident by all who were in attendance. We are grateful to the twenty four meeting sponsors and to all those who participated and made this such an important and memorable meeting.While oyster restoration efforts have been under way in the Chesapeake Bay for more than two decades, until recently, varying reporting methods and success criteria made it difficult to determine how much progress had been made. A goal to “Restore native oyster habitat and populations in 20 out of 35 to 40 candidate tributaries by 2025” was set in the 2010 strategy to implement the Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration Executive Order (signed by President Obama in 2009). This goal made it a priority for state and federal fishery managers, academics, and scientists working on oyster restoration to collaboratively define a “restored tributary” and a “restored reef” to enable them to track progress. A team of these people, led by NOAA staff, agreed on “oyster metrics” in 2011 (http//preview.tinyurl.com/8kmbdpm) that specify key metrics and target ranges for them, including tributary size, how to determine how much restorable bottom a tributary contains, how much of that restorable bottom needs to be restored, and the minimum oyster density and biomass in that restored bottom to count a tributary as restored. These new metrics enable experts to clearly see how oyster restoration efforts are working and use adaptive management to improve these efforts. These metrics serve as a tool to plan and evaluate oyster restoration consistently across the Chesapeake Bay, and the consensus-based framework used to develop them may have broader application to other restoration activities.In the past, oyster restoration in Maryland was performed primarily

The oyster habitat in the USA is a valuable re- source that has suffered significant declines over the past century. While this loss of habitat is well documented, the loss of associated ecosystem services remains poorly quan- tified. Meanwhile, ecosystem service recovery has become a major impetus for restoration. Here we propose a model for estimating the volume of water filtered by oyster popula- tions under field conditions and make estimates of the contribution of past (c. 1880-1910) and present (c. 2000- 2010) oyster populations to improving water quality in 13 US estuaries. We find that filtration capacity of oysters has declined almost universally (12 of the 13 estuaries exam- ined) by a median of 85 %. Whereas historically, oyster populations achieved full estuary filtration (filtering a vol- ume equivalent or larger than the entire estuary volume within the residence time of the water) in six of the eight estuaries in the Gulf of Mexico during summer months, this is now the case for only one estuary: Apalachicola Bay, Florida. By contrast, while all five estuaries on the North Atlantic coast showed large decreases in filtration capacity, none were achieving full estuary filtration at the time of our c. 1900 historic baseline. This apparent difference from the Gulf of Mexico is explained at least in part by our North Atlantic baseline representing a shifted baseline, as sur- veyed populations were already much reduced by exploita- tion in this region.

Valuation of ecosystem services can provide evidence of the importance of sustaining and enhancing those resources and the ecosystems that provide them. Long appreciated only as a commercial source of oysters, oyster reefs are now acknowledged for the other services they provide, such as enhancing water quality and stabilizing shorelines. We develop a framework to assess the value of these services. We conservatively estimate that the economic value of oyster reef services, excluding oyster harvesting, is between $5500 and $99,000 per hectare per year and that reefs recover their median restoration costs in 2–14 years. In contrast, when oyster reefs are subjected to destructive oyster harvesting, they do not recover the costs of restoration. Shoreline stabilization is the most valuable potential service, although this value varies greatly by reef location. Quantifying the economic values of ecosystem services provides guidance about when oyster reef restoration is a good use of funds.

Native oyster reefs once dominated many estuaries, ecologically and economically. Centuries of resource extraction exacerbated by coastal degradation have pushed oyster reefs to the brink of functional extinction worldwide. We examined the condition of oyster reefs across 144 bays and 44 ecoregions; our comparisons of past with present abundances indicate that more than 90% of them have been lost in bays (70%) and eco regions (63%). In many bays, more than 99% of oyster reefs have been lost and are functionally extinct. Overall, we estimate that 85% of oyster reefs have been lost globally. Most of the world's remaining wild capture of native oysters (> 75%) comes from just five ecoregions in North America, yet the condition of reefs. in these ecoregions is poor at best, except in the Gulf of Mexico. We identify many cost-effective solutions for conservation, restoration, and the management of fisheries and nonnative species that could reverse these oyster losses and restore reef ecosystem services.

Reefs and beds formed by oysters such as the Eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica and the Olympia oyster, Ostrea lurida Carpenter 1864† were dominant features in many estuaries throughout their native ranges. Many of these estuaries no longer have healthy, productive reefs because of impacts from destructive fishing, sediment accumulation, pollution, and parasites. Once valued primarily as a fishery resource, increasing attention is being focused today on the array of other ecosystem services that oysters and the reefs they form provide in United States coastal bays and estuaries. Since the early 1990s efforts to restore subtidal and intertidal oyster reefs have increased significantly, with particular interest in small-scale community-based projects initiated most often by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). To date, such projects have been undertaken in at least 15 US states, for both species of dominant native oysters along the United States coast. Community-based restoration practitioners ...

The importance of restoring filter-feeders, such as the Eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica, to mitigate the effects of eutrophication (e.g. in Chesapeake Bay) is currently under debate. The argument that bivalve molluscs alone cannot control phytoplankton blooms and reduce hypoxia oversimplifies a more complex issue, namely that ecosystem engineering species make manifold contributions to ecosystem services. Although further discussion and research leading to a more complete understanding is required, oysters and other molluscs (e.g. mussels) in estuarine eco- systems provide services far beyond the mere top-down control of phytoplankton blooms, such as (1) seston filtration, (2) benthic-pelagic coupling, (3) creation of refugia from predation, (4) creation of feeding habitat for juveniles and adults of mobile species, and for sessile stages of species that attach to molluscan shells, and (5) provision of nesting habitat.

Since the early 1990s, efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay’s devastated oyster stocks have focused on the construction of small (∼2 ha.) intertidal shell reefs designed to mimic historic 3-dimensional reef habitat. The reefs are managed as oyster sanctuaries to allow adult oysters to accumulate, grow, and spawn over time. To enhance the effectiveness of this strategy, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation initiated a, program in 1997 to train students and volunteers to grow large numbers of hatchery-produced oysters for stocking sanctuary reefs in selected tributaries. In 1998, a significant increase in spat settlement was documented in the Lynnhaven River, a small tributary where volunteer-grown oysters were transplanted onto a sanctuary reef, providing further direction for restoration efforts. Since then, the program has expanded to include more than 500 citizens and 120 school classes on a Bay wide scale. This paper describes the strategy for restoring oysters in two small Virginia tributaries using volunteers, specifically middle and, high school students, to grow broods-tock (i.e., reproductively mature) oysters for transplanting onto state-managed sanctuary reefs using small-scale aquaculture techniques. To date, volunteers enlisted in a program dubbed the Chesapeake Bay Foundation “Oyster Corps” have grown and stocked more than 250,000 hatchery-produced oysters in Virginia’s portion of Chesapeake Bay. Small scale aquaculture techniques have provided a simple, yet effective, means of involving the public in a restoration effort designed to increase oysters by a factor of 10 by the year 2010.

Historic baselines are important in developing our understanding of ecosystems in the face of rapid global change. While a number of studies have sought to determine changes in extent of exploited habitats over historic timescales, few have quantified such changes prior to late twentieth century baselines. Here, we present, to our knowledge, the first ever large-scale quantitative assessment of the extent and biomass of marine habitat-forming species over a 100-year time frame. We examined records of wild native oyster abundance in the United States from a historic, yet already exploited, baseline between 1878 and 1935 (predominantly 1885–1915), and a current baseline between 1968 and 2010 (predominantly 2000–2010). We quantified the extent of oyster grounds in 39 estuaries historically and 51 estuaries from recent times. Data from 24 estuaries allowed comparison of historic to present extent and biomass. We found evidence for a 64 per cent decline in the spatial extent of oyster habitat and an 88 per cent decline in oyster biomass over time. The difference between these two numbers illustrates that current areal extent measures may be masking significant loss of habitat through degradation.