Coastal restoration evaluated using dominant habitat characteristics and associated fish communities

Increasing coastal populations and urban development have led to the loss of estuarine habitats for fish and wildlife. Specifically, a decline in complexity and heterogeneity of tidal marshes and creeks is thought to negatively impact fish communities by altering the function of nursery grounds, inc...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:PloS one 2020-10, Vol.15 (10), p.e0240623-e0240623
Hauptverfasser: Schulz, Kailee, Stevens, Philip W, Hill, Jeffrey E, Trotter, Alexis A, Ritch, Jared L, Tuckett, Quenton M, Patterson, Joshua T
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page e0240623
container_issue 10
container_start_page e0240623
container_title PloS one
container_volume 15
creator Schulz, Kailee
Stevens, Philip W
Hill, Jeffrey E
Trotter, Alexis A
Ritch, Jared L
Tuckett, Quenton M
Patterson, Joshua T
description Increasing coastal populations and urban development have led to the loss of estuarine habitats for fish and wildlife. Specifically, a decline in complexity and heterogeneity of tidal marshes and creeks is thought to negatively impact fish communities by altering the function of nursery grounds, including predator refuge and prey resources. To offset these impacts, numerous agencies are restoring degraded habitats while also creating new ones where habitat has been lost. To improve understanding of what contributes to a successful restoration, six quarterly sampling events using two gear types to collect small- and large-bodied fishes were conducted to compare the fish community structure and habitat characteristics at three natural, three restored, and three impacted (i.e. ditched) areas along the coast of Tampa Bay, Florida. Overall, impacted sites had significantly lower small-bodied and juvenile fish diversity than natural and restored areas, while restored sites harbored a greater number of fish species than impacted sites for both large- and small-bodied fish. Habitat features such as shoreline slope differentiated impacted and restored from natural areas. Although we did not find a direct correlation, habitat heterogeneity likely played a role in structuring fish communities. These findings provide guidance for future coastal restoration or modification of existing projects. Specifically, the habitat mosaic approach of creating a geographically compact network of heterogenous habitat characteristics is likely to support fish diversity, while decreasing shoreline slope in a greater amount of area within coastal wetland restorations would more closely mimic natural areas.
doi_str_mv 10.1371/journal.pone.0240623
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2453675327</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A639142806</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_b34aaddb276342eab0be27530e3c7fd4</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A639142806</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c758t-9fb906f059ead876d498f5a7733693be2bd52eb1e95e5d131cb0ebeeccf5a7f63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk12LnDAUhqW0dLfb_oPSCoXSXsw0Go16U1iGfgwsLPTrNhyTo2bQZDaJS_vvG2fcZSx7UbxQkud9k_N6ThS9TMg6oUXyYWdGq6Ff743GNUkzwlL6KDpPKpquWEro45Pvs-iZcztCcloy9jQ6o5RUCSHleSQ3BpyHPrbovLHgldEx3kI_gkcZj07pNpZmUBq0jzuolQcfiw4sCI9WOa-Ei0HLGJwzQh1UjXJdLMwwjFp5he559KSB3uGL-X0R_fz86cfm6-rq-st2c3m1EkVe-lXV1BVhDckrBFkWTGZV2eRQFJSyitaY1jJPsU6wyjGXCU1ETbBGFGKiGkYvotdH331vHJ8DcjzNcsqKnKZFILZHQhrY8b1VA9g_3IDihwVjWw42lNQjr2kGIGWdFoxmKUJNwg2CC0EqikZmwevjfNpYDygFam-hX5gud7TqeGtueSiWlNVk8G42sOZmDPnzQTmBfQ8azXi4d5ZQWpZlQN_8gz5c3Uy1EApQujHhXDGZ8ktGqyRLSzKltH6ACo_EQYnQTY0K6wvB-4UgMB5_-xZG5_j2-7f_Z69_Ldm3J2yH0PvOmX6cetAtwewICmucs9jch5wQPg3DXRp8GgY-D0OQvTr9Qfeiu-6nfwGlwgdH</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2453675327</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Coastal restoration evaluated using dominant habitat characteristics and associated fish communities</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Schulz, Kailee ; Stevens, Philip W ; Hill, Jeffrey E ; Trotter, Alexis A ; Ritch, Jared L ; Tuckett, Quenton M ; Patterson, Joshua T</creator><contributor>Bryhn, Andreas C.</contributor><creatorcontrib>Schulz, Kailee ; Stevens, Philip W ; Hill, Jeffrey E ; Trotter, Alexis A ; Ritch, Jared L ; Tuckett, Quenton M ; Patterson, Joshua T ; Bryhn, Andreas C.</creatorcontrib><description>Increasing coastal populations and urban development have led to the loss of estuarine habitats for fish and wildlife. Specifically, a decline in complexity and heterogeneity of tidal marshes and creeks is thought to negatively impact fish communities by altering the function of nursery grounds, including predator refuge and prey resources. To offset these impacts, numerous agencies are restoring degraded habitats while also creating new ones where habitat has been lost. To improve understanding of what contributes to a successful restoration, six quarterly sampling events using two gear types to collect small- and large-bodied fishes were conducted to compare the fish community structure and habitat characteristics at three natural, three restored, and three impacted (i.e. ditched) areas along the coast of Tampa Bay, Florida. Overall, impacted sites had significantly lower small-bodied and juvenile fish diversity than natural and restored areas, while restored sites harbored a greater number of fish species than impacted sites for both large- and small-bodied fish. Habitat features such as shoreline slope differentiated impacted and restored from natural areas. Although we did not find a direct correlation, habitat heterogeneity likely played a role in structuring fish communities. These findings provide guidance for future coastal restoration or modification of existing projects. Specifically, the habitat mosaic approach of creating a geographically compact network of heterogenous habitat characteristics is likely to support fish diversity, while decreasing shoreline slope in a greater amount of area within coastal wetland restorations would more closely mimic natural areas.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240623</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33091008</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Animals ; Aquatic sciences ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Coastal ecology ; Coasts ; Cockroaches ; Community structure ; Conservation of Natural Resources ; Creeks ; Earth Sciences ; Ecology and Environmental Sciences ; Ecosystem ; Ecosystems ; Environmental aspects ; Environmental protection ; Environmental restoration ; Estuaries ; Evaluation ; Fish ; Fish habitat improvement ; Fish populations ; Fisheries ; Fishes - physiology ; Florida ; Habitats ; Heterogeneity ; Humans ; Laboratories ; Marshes ; Nursery grounds ; Population ; Prey ; Restoration ; Sampling ; Shoreline protection ; Shorelines ; Slopes ; Supervision ; Tidal marshes ; Urban development ; Urban populations ; Urban Renewal - trends ; Wetland conservation ; Wetlands ; Wildlife ; Wildlife conservation ; Wildlife habitats</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2020-10, Vol.15 (10), p.e0240623-e0240623</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2020 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2020 Schulz et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2020 Schulz et al 2020 Schulz et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c758t-9fb906f059ead876d498f5a7733693be2bd52eb1e95e5d131cb0ebeeccf5a7f63</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c758t-9fb906f059ead876d498f5a7733693be2bd52eb1e95e5d131cb0ebeeccf5a7f63</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-0998-7951 ; 0000-0002-0941-2154</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7580894/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7580894/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,725,778,782,862,883,2098,2917,23853,27853,27911,27912,53778,53780,79355,79356</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33091008$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Bryhn, Andreas C.</contributor><creatorcontrib>Schulz, Kailee</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stevens, Philip W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hill, Jeffrey E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Trotter, Alexis A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ritch, Jared L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tuckett, Quenton M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patterson, Joshua T</creatorcontrib><title>Coastal restoration evaluated using dominant habitat characteristics and associated fish communities</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>Increasing coastal populations and urban development have led to the loss of estuarine habitats for fish and wildlife. Specifically, a decline in complexity and heterogeneity of tidal marshes and creeks is thought to negatively impact fish communities by altering the function of nursery grounds, including predator refuge and prey resources. To offset these impacts, numerous agencies are restoring degraded habitats while also creating new ones where habitat has been lost. To improve understanding of what contributes to a successful restoration, six quarterly sampling events using two gear types to collect small- and large-bodied fishes were conducted to compare the fish community structure and habitat characteristics at three natural, three restored, and three impacted (i.e. ditched) areas along the coast of Tampa Bay, Florida. Overall, impacted sites had significantly lower small-bodied and juvenile fish diversity than natural and restored areas, while restored sites harbored a greater number of fish species than impacted sites for both large- and small-bodied fish. Habitat features such as shoreline slope differentiated impacted and restored from natural areas. Although we did not find a direct correlation, habitat heterogeneity likely played a role in structuring fish communities. These findings provide guidance for future coastal restoration or modification of existing projects. Specifically, the habitat mosaic approach of creating a geographically compact network of heterogenous habitat characteristics is likely to support fish diversity, while decreasing shoreline slope in a greater amount of area within coastal wetland restorations would more closely mimic natural areas.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Aquatic sciences</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Coastal ecology</subject><subject>Coasts</subject><subject>Cockroaches</subject><subject>Community structure</subject><subject>Conservation of Natural Resources</subject><subject>Creeks</subject><subject>Earth Sciences</subject><subject>Ecology and Environmental Sciences</subject><subject>Ecosystem</subject><subject>Ecosystems</subject><subject>Environmental aspects</subject><subject>Environmental protection</subject><subject>Environmental restoration</subject><subject>Estuaries</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Fish</subject><subject>Fish habitat improvement</subject><subject>Fish populations</subject><subject>Fisheries</subject><subject>Fishes - physiology</subject><subject>Florida</subject><subject>Habitats</subject><subject>Heterogeneity</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Laboratories</subject><subject>Marshes</subject><subject>Nursery grounds</subject><subject>Population</subject><subject>Prey</subject><subject>Restoration</subject><subject>Sampling</subject><subject>Shoreline protection</subject><subject>Shorelines</subject><subject>Slopes</subject><subject>Supervision</subject><subject>Tidal marshes</subject><subject>Urban development</subject><subject>Urban populations</subject><subject>Urban Renewal - trends</subject><subject>Wetland conservation</subject><subject>Wetlands</subject><subject>Wildlife</subject><subject>Wildlife conservation</subject><subject>Wildlife habitats</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk12LnDAUhqW0dLfb_oPSCoXSXsw0Go16U1iGfgwsLPTrNhyTo2bQZDaJS_vvG2fcZSx7UbxQkud9k_N6ThS9TMg6oUXyYWdGq6Ff743GNUkzwlL6KDpPKpquWEro45Pvs-iZcztCcloy9jQ6o5RUCSHleSQ3BpyHPrbovLHgldEx3kI_gkcZj07pNpZmUBq0jzuolQcfiw4sCI9WOa-Ei0HLGJwzQh1UjXJdLMwwjFp5he559KSB3uGL-X0R_fz86cfm6-rq-st2c3m1EkVe-lXV1BVhDckrBFkWTGZV2eRQFJSyitaY1jJPsU6wyjGXCU1ETbBGFGKiGkYvotdH331vHJ8DcjzNcsqKnKZFILZHQhrY8b1VA9g_3IDihwVjWw42lNQjr2kGIGWdFoxmKUJNwg2CC0EqikZmwevjfNpYDygFam-hX5gud7TqeGtueSiWlNVk8G42sOZmDPnzQTmBfQ8azXi4d5ZQWpZlQN_8gz5c3Uy1EApQujHhXDGZ8ktGqyRLSzKltH6ACo_EQYnQTY0K6wvB-4UgMB5_-xZG5_j2-7f_Z69_Ldm3J2yH0PvOmX6cetAtwewICmucs9jch5wQPg3DXRp8GgY-D0OQvTr9Qfeiu-6nfwGlwgdH</recordid><startdate>20201022</startdate><enddate>20201022</enddate><creator>Schulz, Kailee</creator><creator>Stevens, Philip W</creator><creator>Hill, Jeffrey E</creator><creator>Trotter, Alexis A</creator><creator>Ritch, Jared L</creator><creator>Tuckett, Quenton M</creator><creator>Patterson, Joshua T</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0998-7951</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0941-2154</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20201022</creationdate><title>Coastal restoration evaluated using dominant habitat characteristics and associated fish communities</title><author>Schulz, Kailee ; Stevens, Philip W ; Hill, Jeffrey E ; Trotter, Alexis A ; Ritch, Jared L ; Tuckett, Quenton M ; Patterson, Joshua T</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c758t-9fb906f059ead876d498f5a7733693be2bd52eb1e95e5d131cb0ebeeccf5a7f63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Aquatic sciences</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Coastal ecology</topic><topic>Coasts</topic><topic>Cockroaches</topic><topic>Community structure</topic><topic>Conservation of Natural Resources</topic><topic>Creeks</topic><topic>Earth Sciences</topic><topic>Ecology and Environmental Sciences</topic><topic>Ecosystem</topic><topic>Ecosystems</topic><topic>Environmental aspects</topic><topic>Environmental protection</topic><topic>Environmental restoration</topic><topic>Estuaries</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Fish</topic><topic>Fish habitat improvement</topic><topic>Fish populations</topic><topic>Fisheries</topic><topic>Fishes - physiology</topic><topic>Florida</topic><topic>Habitats</topic><topic>Heterogeneity</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Laboratories</topic><topic>Marshes</topic><topic>Nursery grounds</topic><topic>Population</topic><topic>Prey</topic><topic>Restoration</topic><topic>Sampling</topic><topic>Shoreline protection</topic><topic>Shorelines</topic><topic>Slopes</topic><topic>Supervision</topic><topic>Tidal marshes</topic><topic>Urban development</topic><topic>Urban populations</topic><topic>Urban Renewal - trends</topic><topic>Wetland conservation</topic><topic>Wetlands</topic><topic>Wildlife</topic><topic>Wildlife conservation</topic><topic>Wildlife habitats</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Schulz, Kailee</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stevens, Philip W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hill, Jeffrey E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Trotter, Alexis A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ritch, Jared L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tuckett, Quenton M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patterson, Joshua T</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Schulz, Kailee</au><au>Stevens, Philip W</au><au>Hill, Jeffrey E</au><au>Trotter, Alexis A</au><au>Ritch, Jared L</au><au>Tuckett, Quenton M</au><au>Patterson, Joshua T</au><au>Bryhn, Andreas C.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Coastal restoration evaluated using dominant habitat characteristics and associated fish communities</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2020-10-22</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>15</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>e0240623</spage><epage>e0240623</epage><pages>e0240623-e0240623</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Increasing coastal populations and urban development have led to the loss of estuarine habitats for fish and wildlife. Specifically, a decline in complexity and heterogeneity of tidal marshes and creeks is thought to negatively impact fish communities by altering the function of nursery grounds, including predator refuge and prey resources. To offset these impacts, numerous agencies are restoring degraded habitats while also creating new ones where habitat has been lost. To improve understanding of what contributes to a successful restoration, six quarterly sampling events using two gear types to collect small- and large-bodied fishes were conducted to compare the fish community structure and habitat characteristics at three natural, three restored, and three impacted (i.e. ditched) areas along the coast of Tampa Bay, Florida. Overall, impacted sites had significantly lower small-bodied and juvenile fish diversity than natural and restored areas, while restored sites harbored a greater number of fish species than impacted sites for both large- and small-bodied fish. Habitat features such as shoreline slope differentiated impacted and restored from natural areas. Although we did not find a direct correlation, habitat heterogeneity likely played a role in structuring fish communities. These findings provide guidance for future coastal restoration or modification of existing projects. Specifically, the habitat mosaic approach of creating a geographically compact network of heterogenous habitat characteristics is likely to support fish diversity, while decreasing shoreline slope in a greater amount of area within coastal wetland restorations would more closely mimic natural areas.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>33091008</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0240623</doi><tpages>e0240623</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0998-7951</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0941-2154</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1932-6203
ispartof PloS one, 2020-10, Vol.15 (10), p.e0240623-e0240623
issn 1932-6203
1932-6203
language eng
recordid cdi_plos_journals_2453675327
source MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; PAIS Index; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS); PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry
subjects Animals
Aquatic sciences
Biology and Life Sciences
Coastal ecology
Coasts
Cockroaches
Community structure
Conservation of Natural Resources
Creeks
Earth Sciences
Ecology and Environmental Sciences
Ecosystem
Ecosystems
Environmental aspects
Environmental protection
Environmental restoration
Estuaries
Evaluation
Fish
Fish habitat improvement
Fish populations
Fisheries
Fishes - physiology
Florida
Habitats
Heterogeneity
Humans
Laboratories
Marshes
Nursery grounds
Population
Prey
Restoration
Sampling
Shoreline protection
Shorelines
Slopes
Supervision
Tidal marshes
Urban development
Urban populations
Urban Renewal - trends
Wetland conservation
Wetlands
Wildlife
Wildlife conservation
Wildlife habitats
title Coastal restoration evaluated using dominant habitat characteristics and associated fish communities
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-15T15%3A14%3A26IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Coastal%20restoration%20evaluated%20using%20dominant%20habitat%20characteristics%20and%20associated%20fish%20communities&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Schulz,%20Kailee&rft.date=2020-10-22&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=e0240623&rft.epage=e0240623&rft.pages=e0240623-e0240623&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0240623&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA639142806%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2453675327&rft_id=info:pmid/33091008&rft_galeid=A639142806&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_b34aaddb276342eab0be27530e3c7fd4&rfr_iscdi=true