Category Archives: marine

Addressing ghost nets in Australia and beyond – update of EMR feature

Posted on 20 October 2019 by teinm | Comments Off

Britta Denise Hardesty, Riki Gunn and Chris Wilcox

[Update of EMR feature – Riki Gunn, Britta Denise Hardesty and James Butler (2010) Tackling ghost nets: local solutions to a global issue in Northern Australia, Ecological Management & Restoration, 11:2, 88-98. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1442-8903.2010.00525.x]

Key words. derelict fishing nets, ghost gear, GGGI, Indigenous livelihoods

Figure 1. Dead turtle caught in a derelict ghost net. (Photo: Jane Dermer, Ghost Nets Australia)

Introduction. The focus of our 2009 feature was to highlight the work of Indigenous rangers in addressing the local but widespread problem of abandoned, lost or derelict fishing gear (ALDFG) in Northern Australia, particularly ‘ghost nets’ that are carried on the currents and continue to fish long after they are no longer actively used (Figs 1-4). We also aimed to raise awareness of the efforts required to address this complex issue, whilst highlighting the work of Indigenous rangers working in the region. The feature reported ghost net removal efforts taking place in Australia’s Gulf of Carpentaria – which, by 2009, involved the removal of 5532 nets by over 90 Indigenous rangers from more than 18 Indigenous communities. This highlighted the transboundary nature of the ghost gear issue, and identified that most nets likely originated from beyond Australia’s waters.

Figure 2. Napranum ranger Philip Mango releasing juvenile turtle trapped in ghost net. (Photo: Ghost Nets Australial)

Further work. Since 2010, the understanding of and approaches to addressing the derelict fishing gear issue have increased substantially. This has been reflected both in domestic efforts within Australia, and more broadly in the international community.

Domestically, in the last decade, the ranger program across northern Australia has evolved and grown, enabling more Indigenous people to remain culturally connected to their land and sea country through meaningful employment. Ranger activities generally involve a range of restoration activities including feral and weed management, in addition to (for coastal groups) ghost net removal. Across northern Australia, Indigenous ranger groups continue to remove nets on their country, demonstrating the success of the initial program supported by the Australian government. To date, nearly 15,000 ghost nets (three times the number reported in 2010) have been removed from the region. The net removal program has extended beyond Ranger groups working in the Gulf of Carpentaria to include the Torres Strait, the western part of the Northern Territory Coast, and parts of the Kimberly coastline in Western Australia.

Globally, the world is focused on the United Nations Sustainability Development Goals (SDGs) which aims to provide a ‘shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future’ (https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgs).

A key focus for the SDGs is to help preserve the world’s oceans, a topic which touches on food security, poverty and economic growth, among other goals. Ensuring fishing practices are aligned with these goals includes reducing gear losses into the marine and coastal environment. In recognition of the issue and to end ALDFG, there is now a multi-stakeholder alliance of fishing industry, private sector, multinational corporations, non-government organizations, academics and governments, the Global Ghost Gear Initiative (GGGI), which is focused on solving the problem of abandoned, lost and derelict fishing gear worldwide. Both CSIRO and GhostNets Australia were founding members of this alliance and have been instrumental in engagement and scientific endeavours which inform the GGGI.

Fig 3. An enormous effort is invested by Indigenous rangers in removing ghost nets from beaches along the northern Australian coastline (Photo: World Animal Protection/Dean Sewell)

Based on collaborative research between GhostNets Australia and CSIRO, it was determined that the primary source of derelict nets washing ashore along Australia’s northern coastline was the Arafura Sea. Engagement with fishers in the region through a series of workshops identified that major causes of gear loss included snagging of nets and over-capacity in the region. We also identified opportunities to help resolve ghost net issues in the region, though stakeholder engagement, points of intervention and livelihood tradeoffs. Much of this overcapacity and overcrowding has been attributed to illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. Subsequently, Indonesia went through a substantial change in practices with regards to allowing foreign vessels in their waters, effectively closed their borders to foreign fisheries operators. Anecdotally, information from multiple ranger groups in Northern Australia suggests that this highly publicized and significant change in practice has resulted in a substantial decrease in the number of ghost nets washing ashore along at least part of the northern Australian coastline.

Another outcome from the collaborative research effort was a new understanding based on deep citizen science engagement and modelling to identify potential high risk areas where ghost nets were likely to cause the most harm to turtles. In this work, we were able to suggest interdiction points for ghostnets, before they entered the Gulf of Carpentaria where they were likely to kill wildlife. We also identified the nets that were most harmful to wildlife and we estimated that nearly 15,000 marine turtles had likely been killed by derelict nets in the region.

There have also been some technological improvements in this area. These fall into both reporting and in tracking nets. Electronic data collection has improved the quality of data collection and can ensure errors are minimised. Development of the tool has also been designed such that those with reduced literacy are also able to collect valuable information, a feature that can be important in many communities. Using icons and photos to help identify nets improved data reliability.

Also within Australia, alternative livelihoods programs such as Ghost Net Gear evolved into the Ghost Net Art Project where the art works have excited the International art community. This has resulted in purchases by many internationally renowned purveyors of artwork including the British Museum, the Australian National Museum and the Australian Maritime Museum. Works from Indigenous artists can also be seen at Australia’s Parliament House, and exhibitions have taken place in Monaco, Alaska, Singapore and France as well as in numerous national and regional galleries around Australia. A commemorative stamp was even made from the Ghost Nets artwork that lives in the Australian National Museum.

Figure 4. Large nets can become entangled in coastal vegetation. (Photo: World Animal Protection/Dean Sewell)

Future directions. While GhostNets Australia has not formally continued as a non-governmental organization, many of the components initiated through the program have continued and grown through time, as exemplified above. This early work also helped springboard CSIRO’s engagement in capacity building with the Indonesian government to tackle Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing. This had led to a strong research collaboration relationship between the two countries, with a shared goal of reducing IUU fishing, building capacity on marine resource management, and improved monitoring, control and surveillance efforts in Indonesia.

CSIRO is also involved in an aerial (re)survey of the coastline across Northern Australia. In affiliation with World Animal Protection and Norm Duke and Jock Mackenzie from James Cook University, we are looking at changes in the number of ghost nets along the shoreline (Figs 3 and 4). Stereo images were recorded along the entire coastline and we are comparing ghost nets observed across the region with two other aerial surveys that have taken place in the last decade. The team have just completed flights (September 2019), so we are looking forward to analysing the images and comparing ghost net numbers across the region.

Contact. Denise.hardesty@csiro.au; CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. rikigunn1@outlook.com; chris.wilcox@csiro.au

Comments Off on Addressing ghost nets in Australia and beyond – update of EMR feature

Posted in Coastal & marine, Community involvement, Cultural & socio-economic issues & solutions, Education & communication, EMR 20th anniversary updates, Fauna & habitat, Indigenous land & sea management, Integrating ecosystems & industries, marine, Northern Territory, Pollution issues & solutions

Seagrass restoration off the Adelaide coast using seeds and seedlings – UPDATE of EMR feature

Posted on 25 August 2019 by teinm | Comments Off

Jason Tanner

[Update of EMR feature article : Tanner JE, Andrew D. Irving, Milena Fernandes, Doug Fotheringham, Alicia McArdle and Sue Murray-Jones (2014) Seagrass rehabilitation off metropolitan Adelaide: a case study of loss, action, failure and success.Ecological Restoration & Management 15: 3, 168-179. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/emr.12133]

Key words: Amphibolis, Posidonia, Recruitment facilitation, Seagrass loss

Figure 1: Bag layout for small-scale experiments on Amphibolis recruitment facilitation (top left), Amphibolis seedlings (top right), close-up of basal ‘grappling hook’ that allows seedlings to attach (bottom left), and examples of older style double-layered bags with and without seedlings attached (bottom right).

Introduction: Over the last half century or so, over 6,000 hectares of seagrass has been lost off the Adelaide coast due to anthropogenic nutrient and sediment inputs. This loss has led to coastal erosion, decreased habitat, loss of carbon storage, and decreased fish abundance. Recent improvements to wastewater treatment and stormwater runoff have led to some natural recovery, but changes in sand movement resulting from the loss now prevent recolonization of many areas. Our September 2014 feature article in EMR described how SARDI have been working with other state government agencies and universities to develop a cost-effective technique to restore these areas. Typical seagrass restoration costs on the order of AUD$1 million per hectare, but by facilitating natural recruitment of Amphibolis, yet over the last 17 years we have developed a technique that only costs a few tens of thousands of dollars. As described in the feature, this technique uses hessian sand bags (Fig. 1) to provide a stable recruitment substrate while seedlings become established, and has resulted in the re-establishment of small trial patches of seagrass restoration (10-100 m²) which are now over 10 years old (Fig. 2) Importantly, these sites have been colonized by Posidonia and Zostera seagrasses, and provide habitat for faunal assemblages that are similar to those of nearby natural meadows, suggesting potential for small plots to act as ‘starters’ for ecosystem recovery.

Figure 2: Examples of Amphibolis restoration showing progression of establishment from 12 months (top left), 41 months (top right), 58 months (bottom left) and 8 years (bottom right).

Further work undertaken: Since our original article in EMR, we have continued monitoring the 1 hectare trial patches and expanded our focus to include additional species in the restoration, especially Posidonia. We have also started assessing how bags degrade over time under different storage conditions, as operationalizing this technique will require bags to be stored potentially for a month or more between filling and deployment. Importantly, the SA Government has now allocated funds for a proof of application, which will involve the deployment of hessian bags over approx. 10 hectares in late autumn 2020.

Further results to date: Two 1 hectare trials were deployed in June 2014, with 1,000 bags in each (Fig. 3). After 9 months, these bags had an average 6.2 Amphibolis seedlings each, which was typical for bags deployed outside the winter recruitment season in previous years. After a further 12 months, this increased to 9.2 seedlings per bag, within the range of densities previously seen for small-scale winter deployments (7-23 seedlings per bag). A further 12 months later, densities had decreased to 3.1 seedlings per bag. In 2017, a third 1 hectare trial was established with 2,500 bags, although these bags only had 1.2 seedlings each after 9 months. Unfortunately loss of nearly all marker stakes on all three plots due to suspected disturbance by fishing gear meant that further monitoring was not possible. It should be noted that for the successful small-scale deployments, stem densities between 2 and 5 years were very low, and it was only after 5-7 years that success was evident.

Planting Posidonia seedlings into the bags showed good success over the first 3-4 years, with seedlings becoming established and developing into what appeared to be adult plants with multiple shoots, which did not allow individual seedlings to be identified (Fig. 4). However, leaf densities declined substantially in the 12 months following the February 2016 survey, and recovery has been slow in the 2 years since. Trials with different fill types (different sand/clay mixes, different amounts of organic matter added) indicated that this did not influence establishment success or growth, and neither did planting density. Small and large seeds, however, tended to fare poorly compared to those of intermediate size (10-13 mm). These results have been supported by short-term tank experiments, which also showed that there is only a short window for collecting fruits (those collected on 28 Dec formed an average 3.3 120 mm long leaves each after 2 ½ months, while those collected 6 days earlier or 3 days later formed < 2 leaves which were no more than 80 mm long). After collection, fruits that did not release their seedling within 2-3 days performed poorly, and seedlings were best planted within 10 days of release. Whilst earlier Posidonia field experiments were undertaken by divers planting seedlings, which is time consuming and expensive, in 2017 seedlings were planted either onshore or on the boat, and then glued into the bags prior deployment. This was as successful as planting underwater after 1 and 2 years, with an average 20% seedling survival, and leaf lengths of 20-25 cm, across all treatments.

Bags filled with moist sand rapidly dried out in storage, and did not deteriorate any quicker than those filled with dry sand, although it should be noted that in this experiment all bags had good air circulation around them, which would not be the case if they were stored in bulk. Bags left outdoors exposed to the elements deteriorated quicker than those stored indoors, and pallet wrapping led to them rapidly becoming mouldy.

Figure 3: Pallets of sand bags ready for deployment (top left), and typical images of deployment

Lessons learned and future directions: While the hessian bag method has resulted in the successful establishment of small patches of seagrasses that have persisted for around a decade, and which are now functioning like natural patches due to colonization by other marine plants and animals, the development of the technique has not been straightforward. Refining the technique has required the development of a good understanding of the timing of recruitment, and the willingness to put conventional wisdom to the test. This work has also required funders to take a long-term view, and to be willing to accept the fact that success cannot be established within a conventional 3-year funding cycle. In this case, it was only 5-7 years and 2 funding cycles after deployment that we saw our small-scale trials being successful. Now that we have established the technique at a small-scale, we are experiencing a new set of challenges with scaling up. The 1 hectare plots have not been as successful as we had hoped. In part, this may be due to low bag density – our small-scale plots were equivalent of approx. 10,000 bags per hectare, not the 1,000-2,500 that we have used. Consequently, our next trial with involve a range of bag densities, from 1,000 to 10,000 bags per hectare. In our previous article, we had indicated that we were looking at developing novel coatings to improve the life of the hessian bags, however, this proved cost prohibitive and reduced the ability of seedlings to attach to the bags. Instead, we have now commenced a new collaboration with textile scientists to look at alternative natural fibres that might last longer than hessian but still be cheap, effective and biodegradable.

Stakeholders and Funding bodies: SA Department for Environment & Water, SA Water, Adelaide & Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resource Management Board, Australian Research Council, South Australian Research & Development Institute, Flinders University

Contact information: A/Prof Jason Tanner, Principal Scientist – Environmental Assessment & Rehabilitation, SARDI Aquatic Sciences, PO Box 120, Henley Beach, SA. 5022. Tel: +61 8 8429 0119. Email: jason.tanner@sa.gov.au

Figure 4: Example of Posidonia rehabilitation at time of planting (left – January 2012), after 2 years (middle – February 2014) and 4 years (right – February 2016).

Comments Off on Seagrass restoration off the Adelaide coast using seeds and seedlings – UPDATE of EMR feature

Posted in Assisted regeneration, Coastal & marine, EMR 20th anniversary updates, marine, reconstruction, Research summary, Restoration & management theory, South Australia, Techniques & methodology

Seagrass rehabilitation and restoration, Cockburn Sound, WA

Posted on 14 March 2016 by teinm | Comments Off

Key words. Coastal ecosystems, transplanting trials, compensatory restoration, Posidonia

Introduction. Seagrasses are flowering plants that form extensive underwater meadows, transforming bare sandy areas into complex 3-dimensional habitats for a diverse faunal community. They provide a wide range of ecosystem services including nutrient cycling, carbon sequestration, and coastal stabilization. Once impacted, seagrass meadows can take decades to recover.

The need for seagrass restoration is mainly driven by loss of seagrass due to human activities including ocean discharges and coastal developments, although changing ocean conditions (warming temperatures and increasing acidity) and sea-level rise now provide additional challenges.

Posidonia australis, from planting unit to spreading and merging shoots.

Figure 1. Posidonia australis showing spreading and merging shoots from what were initially only single planting units (see inset).

Cockburn Sound project. In 2003, the Seagrass Research and Rehabilitation Plan (SRRP) was established to meet stringent environmental management conditions for two separate industrial development projects in Cockburn Sound, Western Australia. Both projects, Cockburn Cement Ltd and the state Department of Commerce, impacted upon seagrass ecosystems.

The SRRP was aimed at developing and implementing seagrass restoration procedures that are economically feasible and environmentally sustainable. The collaborative project team was coordinated by BMT Oceanica and included researchers from Murdoch University, The University of Western Australia, Edith Cowan University, the Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority, environmental consultants and a marine engineering firm.

Works and their results. Implementing the SRRP involved a range of experimental transplantings of the seagrass Posidonia australis (a slow-growing meadow-forming species).

The transplant trials resulted in good health and high survival rates of transplanted shoots. This showed that meadows can be restored and thus are likely to develop and return to the same ecological functions as natural meadows.

In this case, donor material was harvested from a site that was to be destroyed as part of the permitted development. In other cases, donor material has been harvested from meadows that have demonstrated varying levels of recovery, with a number of years required for recovery depending on the intensity of harvesting. The project resulted in site-specific solutions as well as generic technical guidelines for manual transplantation to restoration sites from donor sites.

Lessons and limitations. The main lessons for practice to date are:

While the results of this project are encouraging, the challenge of achieving biological diversity in seagrass meadows, particularly to the equivalence of a natural seagrass meadow, has not yet been demonstrated.
The scale of this particular project is still small (3.2 Ha) relative to the amount of restoration required. Focus needs to be on research into how such projects can be scaled-up. Seed-based restoration may be more appropriate for some species (including Posidonia).
Selection of a restoration site is a strong factor contributing to the success of transplanted material (i.e. the likelihood of success if higher where seagrass was present before).

Contact. Dr Jennifer Verduin, lecturer, Murdoch University , Tel: +61 8 93606412/0404489385; Email: j.verduin@murdoch.edu.au

Also see:

EMR project summary – report on the seagrass transplanting trials:

Full EMR feature article

Comments Off on Seagrass rehabilitation and restoration, Cockburn Sound, WA

Posted in Coastal & marine, Ecosystem services, marine, Standards, Techniques & methodology, Western Australia

Restoring Sydney’s underwater forests: Crayweed transplant success

Posted on 7 March 2016 by teinm | Comments Off

Ezequiel M. Marzinelli, Alexandra H. Campbell, Adriana Vergés, Melinda A. Coleman and Peter D. Steinberg

Key words: Seaweeds, coastal biodiversity, kelp ecosystems, Phyllospora comosa, Crayweed

Introduction: Seaweeds are major habitat-forming organisms that support diverse communities and underpin ecosystem functions and services along temperate coastlines globally. Key species of seaweeds are, however, declining and while conservation in a preventative sense is a partial solution to the challenge of habitat degradation, the status of many of the world’s ecosystems clearly demonstrates that conservation, alone, is not sufficient. Crayweed (Phyllospora comosa) is a large habitat-forming seaweed that forms extensive underwater forests on shallow rocky reefs throughout south-eastern Australia, supporting unique diversity and economically important species such as crayfish (Sagmariasus, Jasus) and abalone (Haliotis). However, Crayweed went locally extinct from around 70 km of Sydney’s coastline in the 1980s, coincident with peaks in heavy sewage discharges; and, despite subsequent significant improvements in water quality, it has not reestablished naturally (Coleman et al. 2008).

The overall aim of this ongoing project is to restore Crayweed forests to the Sydney metropolitan coastline. In this case study, our specific aims were to determine (i) whether this species supports different biodiversity than other similar extant habitat-forming seaweeds – thus providing a rationale for restoration – and (ii) whether restoring this species and its associated biodiversity would be feasible; that is, could we achieve levels of survival, recruitment and diversity similar to those in reference locations where this species still occurs.

Works undertaken:

Surveys. We compared biodiversity (densities of abalone, communities of fish and epifauna) associated with crayweed and two major habitat-forming seaweeds in NSW, the kelp Ecklonia radiata and the fucoid Sargassum vestitum, and barren habitats.

Transplanting. We transplanted Crayweed from extant populations north and south of Sydney into three Sydney reefs where Crayweed was once abundant, creating 1 – 4 replicate patches ranging from 5 – 20 m² in each site, with densities of 15-20 per m², which are within the range of patch-sizes and densities in natural populations (Fig 1).

Figure 1. A 20m2 Crayweed restoration patch being set up by divers.

Results to date: The surveys of extant Crayweed found that it supported much higher numbers of abalone and different communities of associated epifauna than other similar, extant habitat-forming seaweed species or barren habitats (Marzinelli et al. 2014; Marzinelli et al. 2016).

The Crayweed we transplanted onto Sydney’s reefs generally survived (40-70%), grew (c. 60 cm, total length) and reproduced (5-12 recruits per 0.1 m²after 1 year) (Fig 2) similarly to those in reference populations (Campbell et al. 2014). In some restored locations, these populations are apparently self-sustaining, with first generation progeny found over 200 m away from the initial transplanted patches.

Figure 2. Recruits growing next to the restoration patch (6 months after transplantation).

Because the ultimate goal is not only to restore Crayweed but also the biodiversity it supports, we quantified several components of associated biodiversity in replicate ‘restored’, reference and control (non-restored) locations several times before and after the restoration efforts. Initial results on some of these components (e.g. epifauna) suggest that restoring associated biodiversity can indeed be achieved by restoring Crayweed, but to successfully restore all associated species is likely to be a complex and long-term process (Marzinelli et al. 2016).

Lessons learned and future directions: Critical to success are (i) the significant improvement in water quality along the Sydney coastline in recent years, (ii) understanding the ecology and biology of this species, which has male and female adult plants that reproduce synchronously once stressed through the process of outplanting (osmotic stress and drying), and (iii) on a more practical level, minimizing the period between collection and outplanting, which should be done in the same day. In one of the sites, herbivory on the outplanted Crayweed limited restoration success, so we are now identifying the species responsible to guide site selection in future larger-scale restoration efforts.

Stakeholders and Funding bodies. This project is being carried out by researchers at the Sydney Institute of Marine Science & the Centre for Marine Bio-Innovation, University of New South Wales (EMM, AHC, AV, PDS), and NSW Fisheries (Department of Primary Industries; MAC). It is supported by the NSW Recreational Fishing Trust (DPI), the NSW Environmental Trust (OEH) and the Sea Life Trust.

Contact: Dr Ezequiel M. Marzinelli, Senior Research Fellow, Sydney Institute of Marine Science & Centre for Marine Bio-Innovation, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia; Tel: +61(0)2 93858723; Email: e.marzinelli@unsw.edu.au

Comments Off on Restoring Sydney’s underwater forests: Crayweed transplant success

Posted in Coastal & marine, marine, New South Wales, reconstruction, Standards, Techniques & methodology

Case Study: Restoring the Lost Shellfish Reefs of Port Phillip Bay

Posted on 6 March 2016 by teinm | Comments Off

Simon Branigan

Key words: shellfish reefs, native flat oyster, blue mussel, ecological restoration, marine ecosystem

Background. Globally, shellfish reefs are the most threatened marine habitat on earth. Research published by The Nature Conservancy documented that that over 85% of shellfish reefs have been lost from coastal areas worldwide, with 99% of shellfish reefs ‘functionally extinct’ in Australian coastal waters, including within Port Phillip Bay (Shellfish Reefs at Risk Report).

This dramatic loss of shellfish reef habitat in Port Phillip Bay had occurred by the mid to late 20^th century, caused by over-harvesting through destructive dredge fishing, further compounded by pollution, predation and disease in later years.

In an Australian first, The Nature Conservancy Australia (TNC) are part of a research partnership that are trialling different approaches to restoring Port Phillip Bay’s lost shellfish reefs (video link).

Shellfish reefs are intertidal or subtidal three-dimensional habitats formed by oysters and/or mussels at high densities. Shellfish reefs can vary in appearance depending on the dominant reef-forming species. There are many common attributes of shellfish reefs including:

They provide habitat and refuge for other species including sessile and mobile organisms, supporting high levels of species diversity and unique assemblages;
They can accrete dead shell material such that the reef grows in size and mass over time;
They provide food for other organisms, either when consumed directly or through the species assemblages they support.

Figure 1. Clumping native Flat Oysters at 9ft Bank in Port Phillip Bay

Figure 2. Remnant Oyster Reef in Georges Bay, St Helens, Tasmania. (Photo: Chris Gillies)

Restoring the Lost Shellfish Reefs of Port Phillip Bay. A three-year trial was established in late March 2015 to investigate the following research questions:

Can the oysters simply grow on the bottom or do they need a rubble base?
Can oysters be deployed at a young age and survive, or is it more beneficial for a grow-out on aquaculture leases to gain a ‘headstart’?
At what densities do we need to deploy mature mussels? (i.e. Can they create mussel beds naturally on the sediment or require substrate?)

Reference ecosystem. Historical information and relictual evidence shows that the shellfish reefs of Port Phillip Bay were subtidal with the dominant species being native flat oyster (Ostrea angasi) and Blue Mussel (Mytilus (edulis) galloprovincialis). Healthy reference sites for such reefs are very limited in Southern Australia. Within Port Phillip Bay the only site found so far is a dispersed clumping reef called 9ft Bank (Fig 1). A remnant shellfish reef also occurs in Georges Bay, off St Helens in Tasmania (Fig 2). Further research is planned for the Tasmanian site to complete a biological assessment to inform long-term restoration targets and reef design at Port Phillip Bay and other future sites in the region.

Locations of the restoration trials: The intent is to conduct restoration trials in three locations within Port Phillip Bay, although currently works are occurring at only two sites: Wilson Spit (Outer Geelong Harbour) and Margarets Reef (Hobsons Bay) (Fig 3). These are both old shellfish reefs that are largely dead and covered by sediment (Fig 4). The depth range is between 6 to 8 metres depth with Wilson Spit being a silty mud bottom and Margarets Reef sand.

Figure 3. Port Phillip Bay Shellfish Reef Restoration sites.

Figure 4. Relictual evidence of previous oyster reef at Wilson Spit restoration site. (Photo: Paul Hamer).

Works Undertaken. As Port Phillip Bay is both reef substrate- and recruitment-limited a reconstruction approach (involving rebuilding substrates and reintroducing oysters and mussels) is a necessary starting point for the restoration, with the longer term expectation of natural colonisation.

The trial has involved the deployment of a total of 6 tonnes of limestone marl substrate in a patchwork of 1m x 1m plots at both sites. Native flat oysters are being raised at the Victorian Shellfish Hatchery and their larvae settled on recycled scallop shells (called cultch) (Fig 5). The larvae are then left for a 3-6 month period on an aquaculture lease before being deployed onto the substrate base (Fig 6). To date over 20,000 live oysters have been deployed to seed the reefs. In addition, over 6 tonnes of blue mussel have also been deployed at different densities and in 3 x 3m plots (Fig 7).

Figure 5. Cultch spat growing out at the Bates Point Aquaculture Lease. (Photo: Ben Cleveland)

Figure 6. Limestone rubble base with cultch spat. (Photo: Paul Hamer)

Figure 7. Deployed mussel bed at Margarets Reef. (Photo: Paul Hamer)

Monitoring Methodology. The University of Melbourne are contracted to lead the monitoring in Stage 1 of the restoration trial. Baseline sampling was conducted of the trial pre-deployment (trial layout is shown in Fig 8) and subsequent monitoring to be carried out 6 months and 12 months after deployment. Monitoring includes measuring:

Oyster survival per shell on the various substrate treatments
Oyster growth on the various substrate treatments
Mussel survival (inner cores only) and mussel growth as well as shell cover and predator density
Baseline community sampling (pre-deployment) of mobile fish, cryptic fish, mobile invertebrates, benthic biota and benthic substrate.

Figure 8. An example of the oyster reef experimental design at the Margaret Reef site.

Lessons Learned and Future Directions. Early monitoring results from both sites show that oyster spat survival is greater if deployed on a rubble base than directly to the seabed, with cultch loss high on sand, due to burial. Oysters grew on average five times as fast on rubble than sand over winter. We conclude from this that elevation is important for both the survival and growth of oysters.

For the mussels the highest density treatment had the highest mortality at both sites, suggesting that the low density treatment improves survival and may be the most cost effective approach.

The most abundant predator was the native Eleven-arm Seastar (Coscinasterias calamaria).

We consider that scale is important in helping to minimise early losses and this hypothesis will be tested in the second stage of the trail. Planning is in place to scale-up the trial to 20 x 20m plots in late 2016, with a mixed-species approach, combining mussels and oysters rather than having separate treatments. Elevation through large and small limestone rubble will also be tested, integrated with recycled shells sourced from restaurants and wholesalers.

Stakeholders and Funding. The Restoring the Lost Shellfish Reefs of Port Phillip Bay Project is a key element of The Nature Conservancy Australia’s Great Southern Seascapes Program and delivered in partnership with the Victorian Government (Fisheries Victoria) and Albert Park Yachting and Angling Club. All partners have contributed funding towards the project and continue to fundraise.

Contact. Simon Branigan, Estuaries Conservation Coordinator, The Nature Conservancy Australia, Suite 2.01, The 60L Green Building, 60 Leicester Street, Carlton, VIC 3053, Australia. Tel: 0409087278. Email: simon.branigan@tnc.org

WATCH FIRST VIDEO: Shellfish reef restoration in Port Phillip Bay

WATCH SECOND VIDEO: Trialling shellfish reef restoration techiques for potential application across Australia

Comments Off on Case Study: Restoring the Lost Shellfish Reefs of Port Phillip Bay

Posted in marine, Planning, monitoring & assessment, Pollution issues & solutions, Standards, Techniques & methodology, Victoria

Conserving and restoring biodiversity of the Great Barrier Reef through the Representative Areas Program (RAP)

Posted on 5 March 2016 by teinm | Comments Off

Key words: Coral reef, no take zones,

The Great Barrier Reef is the world’s largest coral reef ecosystem (344,400 square km) and a World Heritage Area on the north-east coast of Australia. It contains a high diversity of endemic plants, animals and habitats. It is a multiple-use area with different zones in which a wide range of activities and uses are allowed, including tourism, fishing, recreation, traditional use, research, defence, shipping and ports. Components of the ecosystem have been progressively showing symptoms of decline.

Coral Trout is one of more than 1625 fish found on the Great Barrier Reef

Existing ecosystems. Coral reefs are like the building blocks of the Great Barrier Reef, and comprise about seven per cent of the ecosystem. The balance is an extraordinary variety of other marine habitats and communities ranging from shallow inshore areas to deep oceanic areas over 250 kilometres offshore and deeper than 1000 metres, along with their associated ecological processes. The abundant biodiversity in the Great Barrier Reef includes:

Some 3000 coral reefs built from more than 400 species of hard coral
Over one-third of all the world’s soft coral and sea pen species (150 species)
Six of the world’s seven species of marine turtle
The largest aggregation of nesting green turtles in the world
A globally significant population of dugongs
An estimated 35,000 square kilometres of seagrass meadows
A breeding area for humpback whales and other whale species
More than 130 species of sharks and rays
More than 2500 species of sponges
3000 species of molluscs
630 species of echinoderms
More than 1625 species of fish
Spectacular seascapes and landscapes such as Hinchinbrook Island and the Whitsundays
215 species of bird

Crown-of-thorns single injection (C) GBRMPA cropped

Diver injecting Crown of Thorns Starfish

Impacts on the ecosystem. The main threats to the Great Barrier Reef ecosystem are:

Climate change leading to ocean acidification, sea temperature rise and sea level rise
Catchment run-off of nutrients, pesticides and excessive sediments
Coastal development and associated activities such as clearing or modifying wetlands, mangroves and other coastal habitats
Overfishing of some predators, incidental catch of species of conservation concern, effects on other discarded species, fishing of unprotected spawning aggregations, and illegal fishing.

4. GBRMPA staff - public consultation(2)

GBRMPA staff meeting to plan and discuss Representative Areas Program (RAP) at Townsville offices

Restoration goals and planning. A primary aim of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) is to increase biodiversity protection, with the added intent of enabling the recovery of areas where impacts had occurred. A strong foundation for this has been achieved through the Representative Areas Program, by developing a representative and comprehensive network of highly protected no-take areas, ensuring they included representative examples of all different habitat types.

The rezoning also provided an opportunity to revise all the zone types to more effectively protect the range of biodiversity.

A further aim was to maximise the benefits and minimise the negative impacts of rezoning on the existing Marine Park users.

These aims were achieved through a comprehensive program of scientific input, community involvement and innovation.

More information on the extensive consultation process is available at http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au.

An example of Green Zones (marine national park) and Yellow Zones (conservation park)

Monitoring. An independent scientific steering committee with expertise in Great Barrier Reef ecosystems and biophysical processes was convened to define operational principles to guide the development of a comprehensive, adequate and representative network of no-take areas in the Marine Park (Fernandes et al 2005). Science (both biophysical and social science) provided the best available information as a fundamental underpinning for the Representatives Areas Program.

There are currently over 90 monitoring programs operating in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and adjacent catchment. These programs have largely been designed to address and report on specific issues, location or management.

Reef management. GBRMPA’s 25-year management plan outlines a mix of on-ground work, policies, strategies and engagement. The actions include:

increasing compliance focus to ensure zoning rules are followed
controlling Crown-of-thorns Starfish (Acanthaster planci) outbreaks
ensuring cumulative impacts are considered when assessing development proposals
setting clear targets for action and measuring our success
monitoring the health of the ecosystem on a Reef-wide scale
implementing a Reef Recovery program to restore sites of high environmental value in regional areas — regional action recognises the variability of the Reef over such a large area and the variability of the issues and interests of communities and industries in each area.

Benefits of zoning to date. The benefits reef ecosystem health are already occurring including:

More and bigger fish: Larger fish are important to population recovery as they contribute more larvae than smaller fish. James Cook University research shows the network of no-take marine reserves benefits species of coral reef fish targeted by fishers (especially Coral Trout), with not only more fish, but bigger fish in reserves — some zones have around twice as much fish biomass compared to zones open to fishing.
Improved fish recruitment: Research in the Keppel Islands suggests increased reproduction by the more abundant, bigger fish in reserves. This not only benefits populations within those reserves, it also produces a ‘spill over’ when larvae are carried by currents to other reefs, including areas open to fishing.
Improved resilience: The spillover effects also mean the connectivity between reserve reefs is intact. Spatial analysis shows most reserve reefs are within the dispersal range of other reserve reefs, so they are able to function as a network.
Sharks, dugongs and turtles: These species are harder to protect because they are slow growing and slow breeding. They are also highly mobile, moving in and out of protected zones. Despite this, available evidence shows zoning is benefiting these species.
Reduced crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks: Outbreaks of crown-of-thorns starfish appear to be less frequent on reserve reefs than fished reefs. This is particularly important as Crown-of-thorns Starfish have been the greatest cause of coral mortality on the Reef in recent decades.
Zoning benefits for seabed habitats: Zoning has improved protection of seabed habitats, with at least 20 per cent of all non-reefal habitat types protected from trawling.

How the project has influenced other projects. In November 2004, the Queensland Government mirrored the new zoning in most of the adjoining waters under its control. As a result, there is complementary zoning in the Queensland and Australian Government managed waters within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.

The approach taken in the Representative Area Program is recognised as one of the most comprehensive and innovative global advances in the systematic protection and recovery of marine biodiversity and marine conservation in recent decades and has gained widespread national international, and local acknowledgement of the process and outcome as best practice, influencing many other marine conservation efforts.

Stakeholders. As a statutory authority within the Australian Government, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is responsible for managing the Marine Park. However, as a World Heritage Area, management of the ecosystem is complex jurisdictionally.

Both the Australian and Queensland governments are involved in managing the waters and islands within the outer boundaries through a range of agencies. GBRMPA works collaboratively with the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service through the joint Field Management Program to undertake day-to-day management of the Great Barrier Reef, including its 1050 islands, many of which are national parks. The program’s activities include surveying reefs and islands, dealing with environmental risks such as ghost nets and invasive pests, responding to incidents, maintaining visitor facilities, and upholding compliance with Marine Park legislation and the Zoning Plan.

A wide range of stakeholders have an interest in the Great Barrier Reef, including the community, Traditional Owners, a range of industries and government agencies, and researchers. The public, including the one million people who live in the adjacent catchment (around 20 per cent of Queensland’s population), benefit from economic activities. In recent years, the number of tourists carried by commercial operators to the Great Barrier Reef averaged around 1.6 to 2 million visitor days each year (GBRMPA data) with an estimate of an additional 4.9 million private visitors per annum.

Resourcing. The resourcing required for rezoning of the Great Barrier Reef over the five-year period of the RAP (1999–2003) was significant. It became a major activity for the agency for several years, requiring the re-allocation of resources particularly during the most intense periods of public participation. However, the costs of achieving greater protection for the Reef are readily justified when compared to the economic benefits that a healthy Great Barrier Reef generates every year (about AUD$5.6 billion per annum).

Further information: www.gbrmpa.gov.au

Contact: info@gbrmpa.gov.au

All images courtesy Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority

Comments Off on Conserving and restoring biodiversity of the Great Barrier Reef through the Representative Areas Program (RAP)

Posted in Assisted regeneration, Coastal & marine, Community involvement, Cultural & socio-economic issues & solutions, Ecosystem services, Fauna & habitat, Integrating ecosystems & industries, marine, Pest animal issues & solutions, Planning, monitoring & assessment, Policy & legislation, Pollution issues & solutions, Queensland, Standards, Threatened species & communities