Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
The researchers wanted to see which methods of conservation were both cost effective
and yielded the best results, in terms of marine ecosystems. This is due to the widespread
degradation of marine ecosystems throughout the world. They determined that there were two
factors that played a major role in marine ecosystems. The first and most obvious was the marine
system itself, and the other was the terrestrial environment adjacent to the inshore systems. So,
using these two factors, the researchers separated the two into four groups of conservation
methods. These methods were marine preservation, marine restoration, land preservation, and
finally land restoration. It was stated that traditionally marine protection of already intact systems
was one of the most effective methods of conservation, and that restoration was a low propriety
option due to its high cost and low rate of success. This belief however, was later refuted by the
Methods
The researchers conducted their case study in Queensland Australia, in Morton Bay. The
location of study required catchments that flowed into the marine systems. The reason for this
requirement being that the researchers wanted to focus on suspended sediments flowing from
riparian areas into the inshore systems. Once the suspended sediments reached the inshore
systems, it would alter the clarity of the water directly influencing the survival of light sensitive
organisms such as kelp. Sea grass meadows were chosen as the test system due to this major role
in a marine ecosystem, and how easily they are influenced by both land based and ocean based
processes. Their goal was to see which of the four methods would best keep the sea grass
meadows intact after thirty years. In regards to marine restoration, the researchers would go
about planting new colonies of sea grass in environments that were suitable for their survival, but
not currently occupied by other sea grass colonies. For marine preservation, the area instated
environmentally friendly moorings, and restricted things that could damage the seafloor such as
weighted fishing nets. Land restoration relied on revegetation in the riparian zones to reduce
erosion and runoff. Finally, regarding land preservation, land containing its intact vegetation was
turned into nature reserves preventing actions that could potentially lead to an increase in runoff.
Results
The results that the researchers found were not as simple as one method being better than
the other, but rather one being more beneficial than the other in certain cases. For example, if
their goal was to increase the amount of habitat suitable for sea grass, then land restoration was
the best option. However, they reasoned that the effectiveness of this option also relied on how
fast the sea grass would be able to recover and spread to the habitable areas once runoff was
reduced letting light reach these areas. So, the researchers reasoned that the most cost effective
method that would maximize the extent of existing marine habitat long term would be through
direct restoration of marine ecosystems. Even though it initially cost more than the other options,
overtime the money used in transplanting sea grass will be stretched through the years.
Discussion
The researchers were quite surprised with their results that strayed away from the
traditional idea of preservation over restoration. They were even more surprised by their
conclusion of marine restoration as one of the most cost effective methods, even though it
initially cost more than the other methods and had a high fail rate. However, the researchers
noted that not all marine ecosystems are the same, and that there are certain situations that make
One situation that makes land restoration favorable is if the marine ecosystem can
recover more quickly than it declining at a ratio of 1:1.4. In this case the researchers concluded
that land restoration by securing catchment banks with vegetation to reduce erosion as the best
option. If the catchment leading inshore are intact and the rate of land decline is high, then land
protection is the best option. Marine protection is best when the catchments are intact with a low
rate of loss. Finally the researchers stated that if marine habitats rate of decline was greater than
its expansion than marine restoration should be prioritized regardless of what occurs on land.
Also, if the rates of marine ecosystems expansion and decline are similar then ocean
Saunders, M. I., Bode, M., Atkinson, S., Klein, C. J., Metaxas, A., Beher, J., . . . Possingham, H.
P. (2017). Simple rules can guide whether land- or ocean-based conservation will best
benefit marine ecosystems. PLOS Biology, 15(9). doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2001886