Fish assemblages of three common artificial reef designs during early colonization

In this study, we compared the early fish colonization of three types of artificial reefs deployed in the coastal waters of Saba and St Eustatius in the Caribbean: reef balls®, layered cakes and piles of locally obtained basaltic rock. As an indicator of performance, three fish assemblage parameters...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Ecological engineering 2020-10, Vol.157, p.105994, Article 105994
Hauptverfasser: Hylkema, Alwin, Debrot, Adolphe O., Osinga, Ronald, Bron, Patrick S., Heesink, Daniel B., Izioka, Ayumi Kuramae, Reid, Callum B., Rippen, Jorien C., Treibitz, Tali, Yuval, Matan, Murk, Albertinka J.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue
container_start_page 105994
container_title Ecological engineering
container_volume 157
creator Hylkema, Alwin
Debrot, Adolphe O.
Osinga, Ronald
Bron, Patrick S.
Heesink, Daniel B.
Izioka, Ayumi Kuramae
Reid, Callum B.
Rippen, Jorien C.
Treibitz, Tali
Yuval, Matan
Murk, Albertinka J.
description In this study, we compared the early fish colonization of three types of artificial reefs deployed in the coastal waters of Saba and St Eustatius in the Caribbean: reef balls®, layered cakes and piles of locally obtained basaltic rock. As an indicator of performance, three fish assemblage parameters (abundance, biomass, species richness) were measured using underwater visual censuses at 11 months post-deployment and 4 months after restoration from hurricane damage. All artificial reef plots showed higher values for fish abundance, biomass and species richness than control plots covered by bare sand, which shows that artificial reefs can locally enhance the fish assemblage. However, the effect differed among artificial reef plots. Fish abundance was 3.8 times higher on the layered cake plots compared to the reef ball plots, while fish biomass was 4.6 times higher. Rock pile plots had intermediate values. Species richness did not differ significantly among different artificial reef plots. Three-dimensional modelling revealed that layered cakes had a smaller gross volume, shelter volume and total surface area than reef balls. The availability of multiple small shelters in the layered cake design appeared to be more relevant than other physical parameters, as the layered cake plots had higher fish abundance than the reef balls plots. We concluded that on Saba and St. Eustatius, layered cake plots performed better than reef ball plots after one year of colonization. Rock pile plots, made of local volcanic rock, showed an intermediate performance, and were 4–10 times cheaper to construct. If observed differences are consistent with other locations and persist during further colonization, current efforts to deploy reef balls could better be allocated to deploy artificial reef structures with a higher shelter density. •Fish abundance and biomass differed per artificial reef type.•This difference is driven by the availability of small shelters.•Artificial reef deployment can be more efficient by choosing better performing or cheaper designs.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2020.105994
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2461618282</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0925857420302822</els_id><sourcerecordid>2461618282</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c384t-9e8222da4f3ffdaa40b4ce07b8f15de50b7fc4c11d462f6c0b6397aca2274a153</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkF1LwzAUhoMoOKc_QQh43ZmkSdtciQy_YCCIXoc0PelS2mQmnTB_vR3dvVcHXt4PzoPQLSUrSmhx363AhB58u2KEHTUhJT9DC1qVLCukZOdoQSQTWSVKfomuUuoIISUTcoE-nl3aYp0SDHWvW0g4WDxuIwA2YRiCxzqOzjrjdI8n1eIGkmt9ws0-Ot9i0LE_TN4-ePerRxf8Nbqwuk9wc7pL9PX89Ll-zTbvL2_rx01m8oqPmYSKMdZobnNrG605qbkBUtaVpaIBQerSGm4obXjBbGFIXeSy1EYzVnJNRb5Ed3PvLobvPaRRdWEf_TSpGC9oQStWscklZpeJIaUIVu2iG3Q8KErUEZ_q1AmfOuJTM74p9zDnYHrhx0FUyTjwBhoXwYyqCe6fhj__PHyA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2461618282</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Fish assemblages of three common artificial reef designs during early colonization</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Hylkema, Alwin ; Debrot, Adolphe O. ; Osinga, Ronald ; Bron, Patrick S. ; Heesink, Daniel B. ; Izioka, Ayumi Kuramae ; Reid, Callum B. ; Rippen, Jorien C. ; Treibitz, Tali ; Yuval, Matan ; Murk, Albertinka J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Hylkema, Alwin ; Debrot, Adolphe O. ; Osinga, Ronald ; Bron, Patrick S. ; Heesink, Daniel B. ; Izioka, Ayumi Kuramae ; Reid, Callum B. ; Rippen, Jorien C. ; Treibitz, Tali ; Yuval, Matan ; Murk, Albertinka J.</creatorcontrib><description>In this study, we compared the early fish colonization of three types of artificial reefs deployed in the coastal waters of Saba and St Eustatius in the Caribbean: reef balls®, layered cakes and piles of locally obtained basaltic rock. As an indicator of performance, three fish assemblage parameters (abundance, biomass, species richness) were measured using underwater visual censuses at 11 months post-deployment and 4 months after restoration from hurricane damage. All artificial reef plots showed higher values for fish abundance, biomass and species richness than control plots covered by bare sand, which shows that artificial reefs can locally enhance the fish assemblage. However, the effect differed among artificial reef plots. Fish abundance was 3.8 times higher on the layered cake plots compared to the reef ball plots, while fish biomass was 4.6 times higher. Rock pile plots had intermediate values. Species richness did not differ significantly among different artificial reef plots. Three-dimensional modelling revealed that layered cakes had a smaller gross volume, shelter volume and total surface area than reef balls. The availability of multiple small shelters in the layered cake design appeared to be more relevant than other physical parameters, as the layered cake plots had higher fish abundance than the reef balls plots. We concluded that on Saba and St. Eustatius, layered cake plots performed better than reef ball plots after one year of colonization. Rock pile plots, made of local volcanic rock, showed an intermediate performance, and were 4–10 times cheaper to construct. If observed differences are consistent with other locations and persist during further colonization, current efforts to deploy reef balls could better be allocated to deploy artificial reef structures with a higher shelter density. •Fish abundance and biomass differed per artificial reef type.•This difference is driven by the availability of small shelters.•Artificial reef deployment can be more efficient by choosing better performing or cheaper designs.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0925-8574</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1872-6992</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2020.105994</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Amsterdam: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Abundance ; Artificial reef ; Artificial reefs ; Biomass ; Coastal waters ; Colonization ; Deployment ; Fish ; Fish abundance ; Habitat restoration ; Hurricanes ; Layered cake ; Parameters ; Physical properties ; Piles ; Reef ball ; Restoration ; Shelter availability ; Shelters ; Species richness ; Storm damage ; Three dimensional models ; Underwater ; Volcanic rocks</subject><ispartof>Ecological engineering, 2020-10, Vol.157, p.105994, Article 105994</ispartof><rights>2020 Elsevier B.V.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier BV Oct 1, 2020</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c384t-9e8222da4f3ffdaa40b4ce07b8f15de50b7fc4c11d462f6c0b6397aca2274a153</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c384t-9e8222da4f3ffdaa40b4ce07b8f15de50b7fc4c11d462f6c0b6397aca2274a153</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925857420302822$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27903,27904,65309</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hylkema, Alwin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Debrot, Adolphe O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Osinga, Ronald</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bron, Patrick S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heesink, Daniel B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Izioka, Ayumi Kuramae</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reid, Callum B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rippen, Jorien C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Treibitz, Tali</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yuval, Matan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Murk, Albertinka J.</creatorcontrib><title>Fish assemblages of three common artificial reef designs during early colonization</title><title>Ecological engineering</title><description>In this study, we compared the early fish colonization of three types of artificial reefs deployed in the coastal waters of Saba and St Eustatius in the Caribbean: reef balls®, layered cakes and piles of locally obtained basaltic rock. As an indicator of performance, three fish assemblage parameters (abundance, biomass, species richness) were measured using underwater visual censuses at 11 months post-deployment and 4 months after restoration from hurricane damage. All artificial reef plots showed higher values for fish abundance, biomass and species richness than control plots covered by bare sand, which shows that artificial reefs can locally enhance the fish assemblage. However, the effect differed among artificial reef plots. Fish abundance was 3.8 times higher on the layered cake plots compared to the reef ball plots, while fish biomass was 4.6 times higher. Rock pile plots had intermediate values. Species richness did not differ significantly among different artificial reef plots. Three-dimensional modelling revealed that layered cakes had a smaller gross volume, shelter volume and total surface area than reef balls. The availability of multiple small shelters in the layered cake design appeared to be more relevant than other physical parameters, as the layered cake plots had higher fish abundance than the reef balls plots. We concluded that on Saba and St. Eustatius, layered cake plots performed better than reef ball plots after one year of colonization. Rock pile plots, made of local volcanic rock, showed an intermediate performance, and were 4–10 times cheaper to construct. If observed differences are consistent with other locations and persist during further colonization, current efforts to deploy reef balls could better be allocated to deploy artificial reef structures with a higher shelter density. •Fish abundance and biomass differed per artificial reef type.•This difference is driven by the availability of small shelters.•Artificial reef deployment can be more efficient by choosing better performing or cheaper designs.</description><subject>Abundance</subject><subject>Artificial reef</subject><subject>Artificial reefs</subject><subject>Biomass</subject><subject>Coastal waters</subject><subject>Colonization</subject><subject>Deployment</subject><subject>Fish</subject><subject>Fish abundance</subject><subject>Habitat restoration</subject><subject>Hurricanes</subject><subject>Layered cake</subject><subject>Parameters</subject><subject>Physical properties</subject><subject>Piles</subject><subject>Reef ball</subject><subject>Restoration</subject><subject>Shelter availability</subject><subject>Shelters</subject><subject>Species richness</subject><subject>Storm damage</subject><subject>Three dimensional models</subject><subject>Underwater</subject><subject>Volcanic rocks</subject><issn>0925-8574</issn><issn>1872-6992</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkF1LwzAUhoMoOKc_QQh43ZmkSdtciQy_YCCIXoc0PelS2mQmnTB_vR3dvVcHXt4PzoPQLSUrSmhx363AhB58u2KEHTUhJT9DC1qVLCukZOdoQSQTWSVKfomuUuoIISUTcoE-nl3aYp0SDHWvW0g4WDxuIwA2YRiCxzqOzjrjdI8n1eIGkmt9ws0-Ot9i0LE_TN4-ePerRxf8Nbqwuk9wc7pL9PX89Ll-zTbvL2_rx01m8oqPmYSKMdZobnNrG605qbkBUtaVpaIBQerSGm4obXjBbGFIXeSy1EYzVnJNRb5Ed3PvLobvPaRRdWEf_TSpGC9oQStWscklZpeJIaUIVu2iG3Q8KErUEZ_q1AmfOuJTM74p9zDnYHrhx0FUyTjwBhoXwYyqCe6fhj__PHyA</recordid><startdate>20201001</startdate><enddate>20201001</enddate><creator>Hylkema, Alwin</creator><creator>Debrot, Adolphe O.</creator><creator>Osinga, Ronald</creator><creator>Bron, Patrick S.</creator><creator>Heesink, Daniel B.</creator><creator>Izioka, Ayumi Kuramae</creator><creator>Reid, Callum B.</creator><creator>Rippen, Jorien C.</creator><creator>Treibitz, Tali</creator><creator>Yuval, Matan</creator><creator>Murk, Albertinka J.</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><general>Elsevier BV</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QH</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H97</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>P64</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20201001</creationdate><title>Fish assemblages of three common artificial reef designs during early colonization</title><author>Hylkema, Alwin ; Debrot, Adolphe O. ; Osinga, Ronald ; Bron, Patrick S. ; Heesink, Daniel B. ; Izioka, Ayumi Kuramae ; Reid, Callum B. ; Rippen, Jorien C. ; Treibitz, Tali ; Yuval, Matan ; Murk, Albertinka J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c384t-9e8222da4f3ffdaa40b4ce07b8f15de50b7fc4c11d462f6c0b6397aca2274a153</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Abundance</topic><topic>Artificial reef</topic><topic>Artificial reefs</topic><topic>Biomass</topic><topic>Coastal waters</topic><topic>Colonization</topic><topic>Deployment</topic><topic>Fish</topic><topic>Fish abundance</topic><topic>Habitat restoration</topic><topic>Hurricanes</topic><topic>Layered cake</topic><topic>Parameters</topic><topic>Physical properties</topic><topic>Piles</topic><topic>Reef ball</topic><topic>Restoration</topic><topic>Shelter availability</topic><topic>Shelters</topic><topic>Species richness</topic><topic>Storm damage</topic><topic>Three dimensional models</topic><topic>Underwater</topic><topic>Volcanic rocks</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hylkema, Alwin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Debrot, Adolphe O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Osinga, Ronald</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bron, Patrick S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heesink, Daniel B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Izioka, Ayumi Kuramae</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reid, Callum B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rippen, Jorien C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Treibitz, Tali</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yuval, Matan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Murk, Albertinka J.</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Aqualine</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 3: Aquatic Pollution &amp; Environmental Quality</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Ecological engineering</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hylkema, Alwin</au><au>Debrot, Adolphe O.</au><au>Osinga, Ronald</au><au>Bron, Patrick S.</au><au>Heesink, Daniel B.</au><au>Izioka, Ayumi Kuramae</au><au>Reid, Callum B.</au><au>Rippen, Jorien C.</au><au>Treibitz, Tali</au><au>Yuval, Matan</au><au>Murk, Albertinka J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Fish assemblages of three common artificial reef designs during early colonization</atitle><jtitle>Ecological engineering</jtitle><date>2020-10-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>157</volume><spage>105994</spage><pages>105994-</pages><artnum>105994</artnum><issn>0925-8574</issn><eissn>1872-6992</eissn><abstract>In this study, we compared the early fish colonization of three types of artificial reefs deployed in the coastal waters of Saba and St Eustatius in the Caribbean: reef balls®, layered cakes and piles of locally obtained basaltic rock. As an indicator of performance, three fish assemblage parameters (abundance, biomass, species richness) were measured using underwater visual censuses at 11 months post-deployment and 4 months after restoration from hurricane damage. All artificial reef plots showed higher values for fish abundance, biomass and species richness than control plots covered by bare sand, which shows that artificial reefs can locally enhance the fish assemblage. However, the effect differed among artificial reef plots. Fish abundance was 3.8 times higher on the layered cake plots compared to the reef ball plots, while fish biomass was 4.6 times higher. Rock pile plots had intermediate values. Species richness did not differ significantly among different artificial reef plots. Three-dimensional modelling revealed that layered cakes had a smaller gross volume, shelter volume and total surface area than reef balls. The availability of multiple small shelters in the layered cake design appeared to be more relevant than other physical parameters, as the layered cake plots had higher fish abundance than the reef balls plots. We concluded that on Saba and St. Eustatius, layered cake plots performed better than reef ball plots after one year of colonization. Rock pile plots, made of local volcanic rock, showed an intermediate performance, and were 4–10 times cheaper to construct. If observed differences are consistent with other locations and persist during further colonization, current efforts to deploy reef balls could better be allocated to deploy artificial reef structures with a higher shelter density. •Fish abundance and biomass differed per artificial reef type.•This difference is driven by the availability of small shelters.•Artificial reef deployment can be more efficient by choosing better performing or cheaper designs.</abstract><cop>Amsterdam</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><doi>10.1016/j.ecoleng.2020.105994</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0925-8574
ispartof Ecological engineering, 2020-10, Vol.157, p.105994, Article 105994
issn 0925-8574
1872-6992
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2461618282
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Abundance
Artificial reef
Artificial reefs
Biomass
Coastal waters
Colonization
Deployment
Fish
Fish abundance
Habitat restoration
Hurricanes
Layered cake
Parameters
Physical properties
Piles
Reef ball
Restoration
Shelter availability
Shelters
Species richness
Storm damage
Three dimensional models
Underwater
Volcanic rocks
title Fish assemblages of three common artificial reef designs during early colonization
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-28T01%3A45%3A41IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Fish%20assemblages%20of%20three%20common%20artificial%20reef%20designs%20during%20early%20colonization&rft.jtitle=Ecological%20engineering&rft.au=Hylkema,%20Alwin&rft.date=2020-10-01&rft.volume=157&rft.spage=105994&rft.pages=105994-&rft.artnum=105994&rft.issn=0925-8574&rft.eissn=1872-6992&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2020.105994&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2461618282%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2461618282&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0925857420302822&rfr_iscdi=true