Principles of coastal habitat restoration
Contents
What is habitat restoration?
Restoration of coastal habitats aims at re-establishing the environmental conditions and natural processes that enable a characteristic biological community to develop and persist. This generally requires identifying and sufficiently removing or mitigating the causes of habitat degradation and restoring essential conditions such as hydrodynamics, sediment dynamics, substrate characteristics, water quality and ecological connectivity.
Restoration should therefore primarily target the habitat and the processes that maintain it, rather than attempt to reconstruct an ecosystem by introducing a predetermined assemblage of species. Where appropriate habitat conditions have been restored, biological communities can develop through natural colonisation and succession. Active reintroduction may sometimes be needed when natural recolonisation is constrained, for example by the absence of nearby source populations.
The term ecosystem restoration is nevertheless widely used in the scientific literature and international policy. It generally refers to assisting the recovery of degraded ecosystems rather than literally reconstructing all their biological components and interactions.
General principles
Conservation is preferable to restoration
Conservation of intact natural habitats and the processes that maintain them should generally have priority over restoration after degradation. Restoration is often costly and its outcome uncertain, while ecological structures and interactions that have developed over long periods cannot necessarily be recreated. Restoration should therefore not be considered an equivalent substitute for preventing degradation of natural habitats.
|
At Mont-Saint-Michel, restoration of natural tidal and sedimentary processes required removal of the nineteenth-century causeway connecting the Mont to the mainland. The causeway had, however, become habitat for protected and regionally uncommon plant species. Conservation requirements therefore necessitated transfer and restoration of this vegetation when the causeway was removed.[1] |
However, conservation of particular species or existing biological communities is not necessarily equivalent to conservation of natural habitats and processes. This distinction is important where present habitats and communities have developed as a consequence of former human modification. Species-oriented conservation objectives can then conflict with restoration of natural habitat dynamics. For example, species that have colonised formerly reclaimed estuarine land may become conservation targets, whereas restoration of the estuary would require re-establishing tidal exchange and the associated hydrodynamic and sedimentary processes. Restoration planning should therefore consider whether the objective is to preserve an existing community or to restore the natural habitat and processes that sustain ecosystem development.'
Choose the restoration objective
Restoration requires a choice of the state toward which the habitat should be restored. A pristine state is seldom a realistic reference, particularly in coastal areas that have been influenced by human activities for centuries. Different historical reference periods can represent different habitats and biological communities, and there is generally no ecological criterion that uniquely determines which hystorical state should be preferred. The choice of a restoration objective is therefore also a societal and political choice, informed by ecological knowledge and by what is feasible under present and future environmental conditions.
Human use cannot always be separated from the chosen reference state. Some habitats and communities have developed under long-standing activities such as grazing, harvesting or fishing and may depend on continuation of such practices. Restoration should therefore identify not only the physical and biological characteristics of the intended habitat, but also the human uses that contributed to and are compatible with its maintenance.
Remove the cause of degradation
The causes of habitat degradation should first be identified and sufficiently removed or mitigated. Otherwise restoration cannot result in durable recovery. For example, restoring vegetation is unlikely to succeed if the hydrological alteration, poor water quality, erosion or other environmental pressure responsible for its disappearance persists.
Correct diagnosis is therefore essential. Apparent restoration success despite persistence of the presumed cause of degradation may indicate that the cause was incorrectly identified or was no longer limiting, or that success was assessed over an insufficient period.
Restore habitat conditions and natural processes
Restoration should aim at recovering the physical and chemical conditions and natural processes that maintain the habitat, rather than reproducing its former appearance or species composition. These are the conditions and processes that have contributed to shaping and maintaining the habitat and its characteristic biological community.
Important conditions in coastal environments include tidal regime, hydrodynamics, elevation, sediment supply and characteristics, salinity, water quality and connectivity. In large systems such as estuaries, restoration also requires attention to spatial scale. Hydrological connections should be re-established at a scale that permits migration, dispersal and recolonisation by organisms. Reference ecosystems can provide useful guidance for restoration objectives, but should not necessarily be regarded as blueprints for reconstruction of a historical species composition, particularly where environmental conditions have changed.
Once suitable conditions have been restored, natural colonisation, succession and interactions between organisms and their environment should be allowed to determine ecosystem development. Introduction of habitat-forming species can be appropriate where natural recolonisation is strongly limited, as can occur for isolated seagrass beds or oyster reefs, but cannot compensate for unsuitable habitat conditions.
Factors influencing restoration success
Restoration success depends on adequate understanding of the habitat and the processes responsible for its degradation, restoration at an appropriate spatial scale, and sufficient time for natural recovery. An understanding of risks is important to set meaningful goals and establish logical strategies that take the interests of stakeholders into account.
Long-term success depends on support from local communities and users, particularly where maintaining restored conditions requires changes in human activities. The involvement of multiple stakeholders may complicate habitat restoration because of divergent interests and sometimes even opposition. In some cases, long-standing human activities are integral to maintaining the habitat state selected as the restoration objective.
Define criteria for restoration success
Restoration objectives and measurable criteria for evaluating them should be established before intervention. Success should not be defined solely by survival of introduced organisms or similarity to a predetermined species composition. Evaluation should consider whether the required habitat conditions and processes have been restored and whether a self-sustaining biological community is developing.
Not every development different from the anticipated biological community represents restoration failure. Competition, colonisation and succession are natural processes. If restored environmental conditions persist and a self-sustaining community develops, dominance by species other than those originally expected can be part of natural ecosystem development.
Monitor and adapt
Restoration should be monitored for a period appropriate to the timescale of habitat and ecosystem development. Short-term survival of planted or transplanted organisms does not demonstrate durable restoration. Species that respond sensitively to relevant environmental conditions can be used as bioindicators to monitor progress toward restoration objectives.
Models can be helpful in the interpretation of monitoring data and guide adjustments to the restoration plan. If development does not follow the expected trajectory, the causes should be investigated and management adapted where necessary. This should primarily involve reconsidering whether essential habitat conditions and processes have been adequately restored rather than manipulating the developing community simply because it differs from the anticipated species composition.
Lessons from restoration projects
A global review by Bayraktarov et al. (2016)[2] compiled 954 observations from 235 studies of restoration or rehabilitation of coral reefs, seagrass, mangroves, salt marshes and oyster reefs. The review revealed large variations in restoration costs, project scale and reported success. Most projects were small and short-lived, and monitoring costs were seldom reported. Restoration success was generally evaluated from short-term survival of restored organisms, often during only the first one or two years. These findings illustrate the difficulty of judging whether restoration has resulted in durable habitat and ecosystem recovery
A more recent global synthesis of 160 studies found that abundance and diversity of animals in restored coastal habitats were on average similar to natural reference sites, but responses varied greatly among projects and were difficult to predict[3]. Such results underline that restoration success depends on what is measured and over what period. Establishment or survival of particular species is not by itself evidence that a self-sustaining habitat and ecosystem have been restored.
Restoration of specific coastal habitats
The measures required to restore a habitat depend strongly on ecosystem type and local conditions. Specific restoration approaches are discussed in the Coastal Wiki articles dealing with mangroves, coral reefs, salt marshes, oyster reefs and seagrass meadows.
References
- ↑ Zambettakis, C., Goret, M., Lerest, M. and Hemon, A. 2025. Restauration de la végétation de la digue d'accès au Mont-Saint-Michel. Analyse de 10 années de suivi. Le Journal de Botanique 118-119-122: 30–44
- ↑ Bayraktarov, E., Saunders, M.I., Abdullah, S., Mills, M., Beher, J., Possingham, H.P., Mumby, P.J. and Lovelock, C.E. 2016. The cost and feasibility of marine coastal restoration. Ecological Applications 26: 1055–1074.
- ↑ Sievers, M. et al. 2024. Enhanced but highly variable biodiversity outcomes from coastal restoration: A global synthesis. One Earth 7: 623–634.
Please note that others may also have edited the contents of this article.
|
