![[Skip Navigation]](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20081011044341im_/http://www.csc.noaa.gov/images/pixel.gif)
|
For the Expert:
Restoration Research
< Home
Adobe Acrobat Version
Research advances the sciences that guide restoration. This, in turn, often results in the development of new methods for implementing and monitoring restoration projects. These new methods are incorporated into restoration programs through pilot studies or experimental designs that can further improve our understanding. A coordinated experimental research program can explain patterns in monitoring data. In addition, by incorporating the principles of adaptive management into the experimental approach, scientists can suggest corrective measures that can lead to improved restoration results in other efforts in similar ecosystems. Because restoration science is still relatively young, experimentation at restoration sites by restoration programs offers an important opportunity to learn by doing.
The ingredients for a successful research program are a funding sponsor, a stable knowledge base (i.e., institutional knowledge), ongoing monitoring programs, and extensive resources for field studies (i.e., labor and equipment). Most often, these circumstances coalesce in a university setting, with leadership provided by a prominent faculty member and support provided by graduate students, postdoctoral associates, and collaborators. Often, these programs integrate National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR) support and study sites. Prominent examples include Rutgers University programs involved in Delaware Bay marsh restoration through the Public Service Enterprise Group and San Diego State University's Pacific Estuarine Research Laboratory on southern California wetlands. Other research institutions involved in coastal restoration research include the following:
- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research, Beaufort, North Carolina
- U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Wetlands Research Center, Lafayette, Louisiana
- National Coral Reef Institute, Fort Lauderdale, Florida
- Oregon Institute of Marine Biology, Charleston
- Jackson Estuarine Lab, University of New Hampshire, Durham
- Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point
- Wetland Ecosystem Team, University of Washington, Seattle
- Coastal Research Lab, University of New Orleans, Louisiana.
Federally funded programs that are nationally and regionally significant have been instituted to promote the study and protection of estuarine areas and to develop restoration tools and technologies. These programs, discussed below, offer opportunities for research, collaboration, and restoration project funding.
The NERR program was established by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 to protect and study estuarine areas through a network of 25 reserves from different biogeographic regions of the United States. One focus topic for the program is habitat restoration. An inventory of restoration activities within the NERR program is currently underway. At several reserves, restoration research is currently being conducted. These reserves include the Tijuana River, California; South Slough, Oregon; and Rookery Bay, Florida.
The Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology supports the scientific development of innovative technologies for understanding and reversing the impacts of coastal and estuarine contamination and degradation. In addition, the institute develops approaches for restoring habitats.
The Coastal Restoration and Enhancement through Science and Technology program in Louisiana and Mississippi is a research initiative developed through an alliance between NOAA, 11 universities, and the USGS National Wetlands Research Center. The program office opened in 2002, and the first call for proposals is expected in 2003. The program's goal is to integrate research to improve coastal habitat restoration through the following:
- better coordination of programs and projects
- assessment and improvement of existing methods
- development of new approaches and modeling
- improvement of tools, communications, and outreach
- increased understanding between scientists, managers, and the public.
The NOAA Restoration Research Program, part of the NOAA Restoration Center, was developed to advance the science of restoration ecology in coastal habitats. The program supports research on coastal ecosystem structure and function. Specifically, the program focuses on studying the recovery process of restored coastal habitats, developing and testing innovative restoration methods, and establishing success criteria and monitoring protocols. Staff from the NOAA Fisheries Science Centers and the NOAA Office of Habitat Conservation work in partnership with the scientific community to provide expertise in developing improved restoration techniques.
Table 1 provides a list of various studies, organized by habitat type, conducted to improve the understanding and methodology of restoration.
| Salt Marsh - Hydrology restoration and tidal channel development |
-
 |
| courtesy Jeff Crooks, Tijuana River NERR |
Tidal marsh channel development
Set up experimental design to evaluate marsh colonization rates and fish use in created channels versus channels allowed to develop naturally (ongoing).
Tijuana Estuary, California
Vivian-Smith, 2001, In: Handbook for Restoring Tidal Wetlands , Zedler (ed), CRC Press; pp. 39-88.
|
 |
| modified from Zeff, 1999 |
-
Channel morphometry (i.e., measurement of channel shape)
Examined a natural tidal marsh channel network (1039 channel segments) to identify principles that can be applied to restoration projects.
Cape May Peninsula, New Jersey
Zeff, 1999, Re storation Ecology 7(2):205-211.
|
 |
| from Williams and Orr, 2002 |
- Evolution of restored dike-breached marshes
Reviewed 15 re-flooded sites to allow prediction of marsh evolution rates and establishment patterns of tidal channel systems.
San Francisco Bay, California
Williams and Orr, 2002, Restoration Ecology 10(3):527-542.
|
 |
| from Williams et al., 2002 |
- Developing hydraulic geometry relationships between tidal flows and channel geometry
Collected data from existing and historic (using old maps) mature marshes to predict the direction and rate of evolution in immature or disturbed systems.
San Francisco Bay, California
Williams et al., 2002, Restoration Ecology , 10(3):577-590.
|
 |
| from Hood, 2002 |
- Linking slough geometry and ecological processes
Measured ebb flow, exit time of floating detritus, organic content of bed sediments, and benthic community structure in sloughs of various size and structure to inform restoration design.
Chehalis River, Washington
Hood, 2002, Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 59:1418-1427.
|
 |
| from Williams and Desmond, 2001 |
- Influence of channel morphology on fish use
Explored relationships between channel habitat characteristics, such as channel order, width, depth, bank slope, water quality, and sediment composition and fish use to provide recommendations for future restoration.
San Diego Bay, California
Williams and Zedler 1999 Estuaries 22(3A):702-716
Williams and Desmond, 2001 In: Handbook for Restoring Tidal Wetlands , Zedler (ed), CRC Press; pp.235-269 .
|
 |
| from Portney, 1999 |
- Temporary detrimental effects of restoring tidal hydrology on water quality
Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Portney, 1999, Environmental Management 24(1):111-120.
|
|
| Salt Marsh - Elevation manipulation |
 |
| courtesy Craig Cornu, South Slough NERR |
-
Effect of elevation on salt marsh recovery after diking and subsidence
Graded marshes to three elevations using dike material. Found mid-elevation marshes to have both rapid vegetation colonization and tidal channel development.
South Slough, Oregon
Cornu and Sadro, 2002, Restoration Ecology 10(3):474-486.
|
|
|
|
| Salt Marsh - Plant ecology |
 |
| from Boyer and Zedler, 1999 |
- Use of soil amendments for increasing establishment, growth, and function of salt-marsh vegetation
Found that added nitrogen increased the short-term growth of Spartina foliosa and Salicornia bigelovii , but little effect on long-term growth or accumulation of soil organic matter or nutrients.
San Diego Bay, California
Boyer and Zedler, 1999, Restoration Ecology 7(1):74-85.
Boyer et al., 2000, Estuaries 23:711-721.
|
 |
| from Disney and Miles, 2000 |
- Improve pickleweed establishment
Compared soil enrichment and propagation techniques for pickleweed ( Salicornia virginica) . Found that pickleweed mulch rototilled into the soil increased establishment over transplanting or cuttings.
Suisin Bay, California
Disney and Miles, 2000, State of the Estuary (San Francisco Bay) Restoration Primer, p. 50.
|
 |
| from Sullivan, 2001 |
-
Importance of diversity in salt marsh restoration
Compared the effects of species richness on ecosystem function. Found that a high-diversity of seedlings resulted in more complex canopies, increased biomass, and increased nitrogen accumulation.
Tijuana Estuary, California
Sullivan, 2001, In: Handbook for Restoring Tidal Wetlands . Zedler (ed), CRC Press; pp. 119-155.
|
|
|
 |
| from Travis et al., 2002 |
-
Compare genetic diversity of Spartina alterniflora on restored and natural sites
Evaluated the genetic diversity of native plants that have colonized salt marshes constructed from dredge sediments. Found that genetic diversity of was comparable with natural populations.
Sabine National Wildlife Refuge, Louisiana
Travis et al., 2002, Restoration Ecology 10(1):37-42.
|
 |
| from Lindig-Cisneros and Zedler, 2002 |
-
Natural seedling recruitment in restored sites
Found that favorable physical conditions alone were not enough to establish species-rich salt marsh vegetation. With the possible exception of perennial pickleweed ( Salicornia virginica), most salt marsh plants should be sown or planted to ensure establishment.
Tijuana Estuary, California
Lindig-Cisneros and Zedler, 2002, Estuaries 25(6A):1174-1183.
|
 |
| courtesy Michael Materne, USDA NRCS 2001 |
-
Develop a seed-based system of propagating Spartina alternaflora over large areas with improved performance
Tested artificial seed production and evaluated clones with high seedling vigor and exceptional resistance to disease.
Louisiana
Harrison et al., 2001, Louisiana Agriculture 44(3):4-6.
|
|
| Salt Marsh - Fish and invertebrate growth and habitat use |
 |
| from Able et al., 2000 |
-
Changes in fish populations after restoring tidal flow
Compared species composition, richness, abundance, and size in a restored marsh and a reference marsh. Found that all parameters were either the same or greater in the restored marsh.
Delaware Bay, New Jersey
Able et al., 2000 In: Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Marsh Ecology, Weinstein and Kreeger (eds), Klewer Academic Publishers, pp. 749-773.
|
 |
| from Raposa, 2002 |
-
Changes in fish and crustaceans populations after restoring tidal flow
Found that restoration resulted in rapid changes in the composition, density, size, and distribution of fish and crustaceans.
Narragansett, Rhode Island
Raposa, 2002, Restoration Ecology 10(4):665-676.
|
 |
| from Raposa and Roman 2003 |
-
Effect of different tidal restrictions on fish community composition
Compared fish and decapod crustacean utilization along a gradient of tide-restricted and subsequently restored marshes. Found that species richness increased with restoration only at the most tide-restricted site.
Provincetown, Massachusetts and southern Rhode Island
Raposa and Roman, 2003, Estuaries 26(1):98-105.
|
 |
| from Williams and Zedler, 1999 |
-
Fish assemblages in restored marsh
Found that fish assemblages peaked soon after restoration, then later declined as sediment and hydrologic processes changed and stabilized.
Williams and Zedler, 1999, Estuaries 22(3A):702-716.
|
 |
| from Warren et al., 2002 |
-
Long-term monitoring of salt marsh restoration
Found fish assemblages may take over a decade to reach those found in natural marshes.
Long Island and Fisher's Island Sounds, Connecticut
Warren et al., 2002, Restoration Ecology 10(3):497-513.
|
-
Marsh terracing for creating fish habitat
Found greater abundances of some fish species associated with the marshes of the terrace field than with the unvegetated shallow water habitat. Experimenting in 2003 with smaller terrace cell size to increase the amount of marsh area in the terrace field.
Sabine National Wildlife Refuge, Louisiana and Galveston Island State Park
Rozas and Minello, 2001, Wetlands 21(3):327-341
http://galveston.ssp.nmfs.gov/ecology/
Projects/Current/C3_effectofcellsizeterrace.htm
|
- Measured fishery distribution patterns in order to estimate potential populations in restored marshes with various channel configurations.
Minello and Rozas, 2002, Ecological Applications 12(2):441-455.
|
 |
| from Tupper and Able, 2000 |
-
Movements and food habits of striped bass ( Morone saxatilis )
Found that creek use and diets of striped bass were similar in natural and restored marshes.
Delaware Bay, New Jersey
Tupper and Able, 2000, Marine Biology 137:1049-1058.
|
- Functional performance of restored marshes over time
Compared fish densities, prey resources, and diet composition at three restored marshes of varying ages and a natural marsh. Found a pulse of productivity 2-3 years after restoration, but differences were still present between the restored and natural marshes after 20 years.
Salmon River, Oregon
Gray et al., 2002, Restoration Ecology 10(3):514-526.
|
|
 |
| from Madon et al., 2001 |
-
Determine the value of marsh area and accessibility for fish
Developed, tested, and applied a bioenergetics model for the California killfish ( Fundulus parvipinnis) , with potential use in designing salt-marsh restoration.
Tijuana Estuary, California
Madon et al., 2001, Ecological Modelling 136(2-3):149-165.
|
- Contribution of marsh habitats to fish growth
Used mass-balance model to determine how marshes in different stages of recovery contribute to the growth of juvenile salmon.
University of Washington
Gray, personal communication, 2003 (ayesha@u.washington.edu).
|
|
| Seagrass - Genetics |
 |
| from Williams and Orth, 1998 |
-
Genetic diversity and structure of natural and transplanted eelgrass beds
Found little reduction in genetic diversity in Chesapeake Bay transplantations; potentially due to use of seeds and seedling recruitment.
Chesapeake and Chincoteague Bays
Williams and Orth, 1998, Estuaries 21(1):118-128.
|
- Genetic diversity of transplanted eelgrass ( Zostera marina ) populations
Found that transplanted eelgrass populations with higher genetic diversity developed more flowering shoots, achieved greater seed germination, and had a higher leaf-shoot density.
Southern California, Chesapeake Bay, and New Hampshire
Williams, 2001, Ecological Applications 11(5):1472-1488.
|
|
| Seagrass - Seeds for restoration |
|
|
 |
| from Harwell and Orth, 1999 |
-
Protecting seeds from predation, burial, and transport
Planted seeds with burlap (1.0-mm mesh size) covering them. Found that seeds survived 26% to 51% better than seeds without protection.
York and Piankatank Rivers, Chesapeake Bay
Harwell and Orth, 1999, Aquatic Botany 64(1):51-61.
|
 |
| courtesy Bob Orth, Virginia Institute of Marine Science |
- Broadcasting seeds from a boat
Planted 9.1 million seeds in 74 1-acre plots. The plots were visible from preliminary aerial photo monitoring.
Chesapeake Bay
Orth, 2003, presented at 1 st National Estuarine Restoration Conference, Baltimore, Maryland. More information available online at http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/
|
|
| Seagrass - Transplant methods |
 |
| courtesy Fred Short, University of New Hampshire |
- Improve success and cost effectiveness of transplanting adult eelgrass
Developed and tested the Transplanting Eelgrass Remotely with Frame System (TERFS), where 200 eelgrass shoots are tied to a wire frame and dropped into place from a boat. Preliminary results show that eelgrass is increasing at the 1-acre sites.
New Hampshire
Short, 2003, presented at 1 st National Estuarine Restoration Conference, Baltimore, Maryland
|
 |
| courtesy Kevin Kirsch, NOAA |
- Restore eelgrass in areas of propeller scars and vessel groundings
Placed bird roosting stakes in transplanted areas to provide a source of natural fertilization and compared to application of water-soluble fertilizers. Found the bird stakes produced the highest recovery rates for Halodule wrightii .
South Florida
Kenworthy et al., 2000, technical report available online at http://shrimp.bea.nmfs.gov/~mfonseca/lvfinalreport.pdf
|
 |
| courtesy Kamille Hammerstrom, NOAA |
- Tested the effectiveness of placing sediment-filled, biodegradable fabric tubes to deploy fine sediment and prevent further erosion.
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
Hammerstrom, personal communication, 2003 Kamille.Hammerstrom@noaa.gov
|
|
| Seagrass - Improving conditions for restoration |
 |
| from Blanton et al., 2002 |
|
 |
| courtesy Battelle |
-
Placed glass blocks in new portion of pier and planted eelgrass under area of blocks. Eelgrass survived the first year; monitoring is ongoing.
Clinton, Washington
Thom et al., 2003, presented at Puget Sound Research Conference. Available 2004 online at http://www.psat.wa.gov
|
 |
| from Gayaldo et al., 2001 |
|
|
| Reef research |
 |
| from Epstein et al., 2001 |
- Mariculture of clonal coral fragments
Developed methods for growing and transplanting coral fragments and gravid colonies in the laboratory and in the field.
Northern Red Sea
Rinkevich, 1995, Restoration Ecology 3(4):241-251.
Epstein et al., 2001, Restoration Ecology 9(4):432-442.
|
 |
| from NCRI website |
- Reattachment of corals after vessel grounding
Monitored reattached, tagged coral to determine size and health. Compared results to undamaged sites.
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Gilliam et al., date unknown, http://www.nova.edu/ocean/ncri/index.html
|
 |
| from NCRI website |
|
 |
| from NCRI website |
- Examined the effects of reef structure on fish assemblages, the effects of coral larval attractants on coral recruitment, and the interaction between fish assemblages and coral recruitment.
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Quinn et al., date unknown, http://www.nova.edu/ocean/ncri/index.html
|
 |
| from Edwards and Clark, 1998 |
- Global review of coral transplant projects
Recommended transplanting only when natural recovery fails and specified types of coral that transplant better than others (e.g., massive species better than branching species).
Global
Edwards and Clark, 1998, Marine Pollution Bulletin 37(8-12):474-487.
|
|
| Oyster Reef research |
- Characteristics of intertidal oyster reef formation and subsequent use by resident and transient species
Found that a living habitat was formed by oyster settlement on constructed experimental reef within three years. A conceptual model will be developed to describe reef succession and function.
South Carolina
Coen et al., 1999 in Oyster Reef Habitat Restoration: A Snynopsis and Synthesis of Approaches, Luckenback et al. (eds), Virginia Institute of Marine Science Press, pp. 133-158
http://www.dnr.state.sc.us/marine/
mrri/shellfish/reefold.htm
|
|
| Mangrove research |
 |
| from Lewis and Streever, 2000 |
- Natural recovery with hydrology restoration
Found that if hydrology was restored planting was only necessary if seeds or seedlings were not able to reach the restoration site.
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Lewis and Streever, 2000, technical report available online at http://www.wes.army.mil/el/
wrtc/wrp/tnotes/vnrs3-2.pdf
|
 |
| from Baran and Hambrey 1998 |
- Effect of coastal restoration measures on fish assemblages
Found that mangrove restoration increased organic inputs and positively affected estuarine and coastal fish assemblages, but had no effect on fish in the upper estuary and wetlands.
Southeast Asia
Baran and Hambrey, 1998, Marine Pollution Bulletin 37(8-12):431-440.
|
|
Additional information is available in:
Borde, A.B. L.K. O'Rourke, G.W. Williams, R.M. Thom, and H.L. Diefenderfer. 2003. National Review of Successful and Innovative Restoration Projects. Prepared for NOAA Coastal Services Center, by Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory, Sequim, Washington.
|
