The elephant in the room: Introduced species also profit from refuge creation by artificial fish habitats

Diversity and structure of epibenthic communities across subtidal artificial hard habitats in the Bay of Cherbourg (English Channel)

To inform the performance of ecological engineering designs for artificial structures at sea, it is essential to characterise their impacts on the epibenthic communities colonising them. In this context, the present study aims to compare the community structure among natural and four different artificial hard habitats with different ages and features installed in the Bay of Cherbourg (English Channel): i) cinder blocks and ii) boulders, both installed six years prior to the study, and iii) smooth and iv) rugous concrete dykes, both installed one year prior to this study. Results showed that artificial habitats installed six years ago harboured communities with functional and taxonomic diversity characteristic of mature communities but were still different from those of natural habitat. Conversely, the two dyke habitats installed one year prior to this study presented a poorly diversified community dominated by opportunistic taxa. Furthermore, while the concrete used for the two dyke habitats presented different rugosity properties, both habitats supported similar communities, suggesting that such eco-engineering measures did not affect the settlement of early colonisers. Overall, this study highlights the need for long-term monitoring to comprehensively evaluate epibenthic colonisation of artificial structures.

Influence of habitat features on the colonisation of native and non-indigenous species

Marine artificial structures provide substrates on which organisms can settle and grow. These structures facilitate establishment and spread of non-indigenous species, in part due to their distinct physical features (substrate material, movement, orientation) compared to natural habitat analogues such as rocky shores, and because following construction, they have abundant resources (space) for species to colonise. Despite the perceived importance of these habitat features, few studies have directly compared distributions of native and non-indigenous species or considered how functional identity and associated environmental preferences drive associations. We undertook a meta-analysis to investigate whether colonisation of native and non-indigenous species varies between artificial structures with features most closely resembling natural habitats (natural substrates, fixed structures, surfaces oriented upwards) and those least resembling natural habitats (artificial materials, floating structures, downfacing or vertical surfaces), or whether functional identity is the primary driver of differences. Analyses were done at global and more local (SE Australia) scales to investigate if patterns held regardless of scale. Our results suggest that functional group (i.e., algae, ascidians. barnacles, bryozoans, polychaetes) rather than species classification (i.e., native or non-indigenous) are the main drivers of differences in communities between different types of artificial structures. Specifically, there were differences in the abundance of ascidians, barnacles, and polychaetes between (1) upfacing and downfacing/vertical surfaces, and (2) floating and fixed substrates. When differences were detected, taxa were most abundant on features least resembling natural habitats. Results varied between global and SE Australian analyses, potentially due to reduced variability across studies in the SE Australian dataset. Thus, the functional group and associated preferences of the highest threat NIS in the area should be considered in design strategies (e.g., ecological engineering) to limit their establishment on newly built infrastructure.

Does the incorporation of shell waste from aquaculture in the construction of marine facilities affect the structure of the marine sessile community?

The growth of the human population causes significant harm to ecosystems, directly affecting the biological diversity of coastal areas by replacing natural habitats with artificial structures such as breakwaters, ports, and marinas. The hard substrate from those marine facilities lacks the topographic complexity of natural habitats. Because of that, artificial habitats usually do not support a diverse community to the same extent as rocky shores in the surroundings. To address this issue and bring a strategic solution to the improper disposal of shell waste from aquaculture farms, we evaluated how increasing the environmental heterogeneity of walls by incorporating mussel and oyster shells on artificial concrete affected the diversity of sessile organisms from the subtidal zone. Adding shells to concrete positively affected ascidians' richness. Substrates with added shells supported more species than flat substrates in total. They promoted species that did not occur on flat substrates that simulated the traditional walls of marinas and harbors. However, it did not affect the number of bryozoans and the average species richness. Consequently, incorporating shells resulted in communities with completely distinct structures from those on flat substrates. Adding shells affected the community structure, reducing the dominance by the exotic bryozoan Schizoporella errata, and promoting the occurrence of other groups, such as ascidians. Using shell residues from aquaculture on marina walls adds substrate for colonization. Still, it is also likely to provide refuges for fragile and vulnerable organisms, like crevices and pits in natural habitats. Because of that, the increment in diversity was mostly group-specific and restricted to ascidians. This research reinforces the importance of creating complex artificial coastal structures, inspired by the blue economy, for a more heterogeneous coverage of sessile communities and reduced presence and dominance of exotic species. Thus, the strategy tested here, besides the effects on the sessile community, also supports efforts to reduce inappropriate waste disposal in the environment.

The Tree of Life eDNA metabarcoding reveals a similar taxonomic richness but dissimilar evolutionary lineages between seaports and marine reserves

Coastal areas host a major part of marine biodiversity but are seriously threatened by ever-increasing human pressures. Transforming natural coastlines into urban seascapes through habitat artificialization may result in loss of biodiversity and key ecosystem functions. Yet, the extent to which seaports differ from nearby natural habitats and marine reserves across the whole Tree of Life is still unknown. This study aimed to assess the level of α and β-diversity between seaports and reserves, and whether these biodiversity patterns are conserved across taxa and evolutionary lineages. For that, we used environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding to survey six seaports on the French Mediterranean coast and four strictly no-take marine reserves nearby. By targeting four different groups-prokaryotes, eukaryotes, metazoans and fish-with appropriate markers, we provide a holistic view of biodiversity on contrasted habitats. In the absence of comprehensive reference databases, we used bioinformatic pipelines to gather similar sequences into molecular operational taxonomic units (MOTUs). In contrast to our expectations, we obtained no difference in MOTU richness (α-diversity) between habitats except for prokaryotes and threatened fishes with higher diversity in reserves than in seaports. However, we observed a marked dissimilarity (β-diversity) between seaports and reserves for all taxa. Surprisingly, this biodiversity signature of seaports was preserved across the Tree of Life, up to the order. This result reveals that seaports and nearby marine reserves share few taxa and evolutionary lineages along urbanized coasts and suggests major differences in terms of ecosystem functioning between both habitats.

The impact of habitat complexity on the structure of marine sessile communities and larvae supply

Coastal infrastructure replaces complex and heterogeneous natural habitats with flat, two-dimensional concrete walls, reducing refuges against predation, which modifies the composition and identity of the dominant species in sessile communities. This modification in the community structure can also change the reproductive propagules available in plankton, affecting the recruitment dynamics in communities from natural habitats nearby. Here, we tested the combined effects of the habitat type (simple vs. complex with holes) and predation on the diversity, larval production, and structure of sessile communities from a recreational marina. Complex substrates showed a larger biomass and a greater abundance of solitary organisms, mainly ascidians and bivalves, that benefited from refuges. Barnacles and calcified encrusting bryozoans dominated simple, flat substrates. The difference in dominance affected the pool of larvae produced by the communities. After eight months, communities growing on flat substrates produced more barnacle larvae than those from complex substrates, where larvae of ascidians were more abundant. However, this difference disappeared after 18 months of community development. The difference in the pool of larvae between simple and complex substrates did not affect the structure of the community on flat substrates nearby, which was determined by the predation regime. In the studied region, communities in artificial environments are under intense predation control, suppressing eventual recruitment differences in communities developing in flat substrates. Large interventions that modify habitat topography, creating refuges in the subtidal zone, can change the dynamic of the sessile communities in artificial habitats and, consequently, the larval supply in the vicinities. However, differences in larval supply will only translate in distinct sessile communities when the scale of intervention encompasses large areas, and other processes do not buffer the differences in recruitment.

Make a difference: Choose artificial reefs over natural reefs to compensate for the environmental impacts of dive tourism

In the marine environment, natural reef habitats are amongst the most threatened by human activities. Although reef-based ecotourism can benefit local economies, dive tourism can damage sensitive habitats. One solution to managing conflicts between the economic value of diving and its ecological threats is the deployment of artificial reefs near popular dive sites. We surveyed recreational divers to assess divers' use, preference, and perceptions of diving artificial versus natural sites. We found that more divers prefer to dive in natural than artificial habitats, with associated biodiversity the most popular reason for preferring natural habitats, and appreciating shipwrecks the most popular reason for preferring artificial ones. Despite our sample population being highly educated and experienced, predominantly European divers, only 49 % of them perceived artificial reefs as important or somewhat important for diverting pressure from sensitive natural habitats. Similarly, only 13 % of respondents exhibited preference to avoid coral reefs to protect them. These results highlight the fact that more needs to be done to educate divers about the potential importance of artificial habitats in diverting divers from natural reefs. We suggest encouraging divers to switch out a proportion of their dives in vulnerable natural sites for artificial reefs. This is not only true for coral reefs, but should be applied to other natural reef habitats that are popular with divers such as kelp forests, sponge gardens and serpulid and coralligenous reefs. We hope that this study will provide a platform to stimulate a diver-led discussion and campaign for increased uptake of artificial reef use, resulting in reduced impacts on natural reefs.

Artificial fish nurseries can restore certain nursery characteristics in marine urban habitats

Port areas are subjected to multiple anthropic pressures that directly impact residing marine communities and deprive them of most of their essential ecological functions. Several global projects aim to rehabilitate certain ecosystem functions in port areas, such as a fish nursery function, by installing artificial fish nurseries (AFN). In theory, AFNs increase fish biodiversity and juvenile fish abundance in port areas, but studies on this subject remain scarce. Thus, the present study aimed to examine whether the use of such AFNs could restore part of the nursery function of natural habitats by increasing fish and juvenile abundance, and by decreasing predation intensity compared to bare docks. Two years of monitoring on AFNs showed they hosted 2.1 times more fish than on control docks and up to 2.4 more fish juveniles. Fish community structures were influenced by both treatment (AFN and Control) and year of monitoring. In general, AFNs hosted a greater taxonomic diversity of fish than controls. The predation intensity around these structures was significantly lower in the AFNs than in controls. Part of the definition of a fish nursery was thus verified, indicating that AFNs might be an effective restoration tool. However, we also noted that total fish abundance and Young of the Year (YOY) abundance decreased in controls, possibly due to a concentration effect. Further detailed monitoring is necessary to distinguish between these effects.