Brandon J. Puckett

Channel dredging of deep-water ports along the U.S. Atlantic coast is critical to maintaining regional economies. Scheduling challenges for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and possible reductions in right whale interactions resulted in a temporary permit for year-round dredging, which was previously limited to winter months to reduce impacts on fisheries and protected species. Potential impacts of summertime channel dredging to fishery-significant finfish and blue crab were assessed via trawl surveys conducted before, during (July 2nd – August 2nd, 2022) and after dredging in Beaufort Inlet, North Carolina, USA between May - November 2022 and 2023. There was no significant difference in the median density of finfish, sciaenid fishes, or blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) between dredged and non-dredged strata, irrespective of time relative to dredging. Within Beaufort Inlet channel, overall finfish and sciaenid densities increased linearly with distance from the inlet during the late summer/fall surveys, consistent with the outmigration of estuarine fish. Considering potential interactions with federally protected species, these findings suggest that winter dredging may minimize negative ecological impacts.

Living shorelines, a prevalent nature‐based coastal infrastructure technique, typically merge the restoration of coastal habitats (e.g., salt marsh, oyster reef) with gray infrastructure (e.g., rock or concrete breakwaters) to provide coastal erosion protection. With increasingly frequent and severe storms, living shorelines have been shown to effectively limit coastal erosion and loss; however, there is still uncertainty regarding the effects of living shorelines on nekton communities as compared to natural marshes and gray coastal protection strategies like bulkheads. Here, we present a dataset of living shoreline‐associated nekton species recorded over a 20‐year period in North Carolina, USA. We harmonized nekton abundance and biomass data from five different studies (each ranging in duration from 2 to 4 years) across 12 living shorelines with paired natural marshes and, in some cases, bulkheads. These studies used different gear types and sampling methodologies, and therefore future users of this dataset must carefully consider the limitations of different subsets of the data and ensure that they do not make direct catch comparisons across sites that used different methodologies. Altogether, we identified a total of 62 species groups at living shorelines, natural reference marshes, and bulkheads across three categories (i.e., crustacean, mollusk, and fish) between 2001 and 2024. We identified 49 species groups on living shorelines, 49 species groups in natural marshes, and 5 species groups on bulkheads. For each living shoreline and paired natural marsh and/or bulkhead shoreline, we report individual species counts, biomass (when available), and the sampling method. In addition, we report on the living shoreline type, age, and location. In total, these data provide vital insight into how living shorelines function as habitat for nekton, and they can be used to evaluate living shoreline effectiveness as a predominant nature‐based solution for coastal protection and biodiversity enhancement. The data are released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Background: Combined impacts from anthropogenic pressures and climate change threaten coastal ecosystems and their capacity to protect communities from hazards. One approach towards improving coastal protection is to implement “nature-based solutions” (NBS), which are actions working with nature to benefit nature and humans. Despite recent increases in global implementation of NBS projects for coastal protection, substantial gaps exist in our understanding of NBS performance. To help fill this gap, we systematically mapped the global evidence base on the ecological, physical, economic, and social performance of NBS interventions related to coastal protection. We focused on active NBS interventions, such as restoring or creating habitat, adding structure, or modifying sediment in six shallow biogenic ecosystems: salt marsh, seagrass, kelp forest, mangrove, coral reef, and shellfish reef. Methods: We identified potentially relevant articles on the performance of NBS for coastal protection using predefined and tested search strategies across two indexing platforms, one bibliographic database, two open discovery citation indexes, one web-based search engine, and a novel literature discovery tool. We also searched 45 organizational websites for literature and solicited literature from 66 subject matter experts. Potentially relevant articles were deduplicated and then screened by title and abstract with assistance from a machine learning algorithm. Following title and abstract screening, we conducted full text screening, extracted relevant metadata into a predefined codebook, and analyzed the evidence base to determine the distribution and abundance of evidence and answer our research questions on NBS performance. Results: Our search captured > 37,000 articles, of which 252 met our eligibility criteria for relevance to NBS performance for coastal protection and were included in the systematic map. Evidence stemmed from 31 countries and increased from the 1980s through the 2020s. Active NBS interventions for coastal protection were most often implemented in salt marshes (45%), mangrove forests (26%), and shellfish reefs (20%), whereas there were fewer NBS studies in seagrass meadows (4%), coral reefs (4%), or kelp beds (< 1%). Performance evaluations of NBS were typically conducted using observational or experimental methods at local spatial scales and over short temporal scales (< 1 year to 5 years). Evidence clusters existed for several types of NBS interventions, including restoration and addition of structures (e.g., those consisting of artificial, hybrid, or natural materials), yet evidence gaps existed for NBS interventions like alteration of invasive species. Evaluations of NBS performance commonly focused on ecological (e.g., species and population, habitat, community) and physical (e.g., waves, sediment and morphology) outcomes, whereas pronounced evidence gaps existed for economic (e.g., living standards, capital) and social (e.g., basic infrastructure, health) outcomes. Conclusions: This systematic map highlights evidence clusters and evidence gaps related to the performance of active NBS interventions for coastal protection in shallow, biogenic ecosystems. The synthesized evidence base will help guide future research and management of NBS for coastal protection so that active interventions can be designed, sited, constructed, monitored, and adaptively managed to maximize co-benefits. Promising avenues for future research and management initiatives include implementing broad-scale spatial and temporal monitoring of NBS in multidisciplinary teams to examine not only ecological and physical outcomes but also economic and social outcomes, as well as conducting further synthesis on evidence clusters that may reveal measures of effect for specific NBS interventions. Since NBS can deliver multiple benefits, measuring a diverse suite of response variables, especially those related to ecosystem function, as well as social and economic responses, may help justify and improve societal benefits of NBS. Such an approach can help ensure that NBS can be strategically harnessed and managed to meet coastal protection goals and provide co-benefits for nature and people.

Background: Shallow, tropical coral reefs face compounding threats from climate change, habitat degradation due to coastal development and pollution, impacts from storms and sea-level rise, and pulse disturbances like blast fishing, mining, dredging, and ship groundings that reduce reef height and complexity. One approach toward restoring coral reef physical structure from such impacts is deploying built structures of artificial, natural, or hybrid (both artificial and natural) origin. Built structures range from designed modules and repurposed materials to underwater sculptures and intentionally placed natural rocks. Restoration practitioners and coastal managers increasingly consider incorporating – and in many cases have already begun to incorporate – built structures into coral reef-related applications, yet synthesized evidence on the ecological (coral-related; e.g., coral growth, coral survival) and physical performance of built structures in coral ecosystems across a variety of contexts (e.g., restoration, coastal protection, mitigation, tourism) is not readily available to guide decisions. To help fill this gap and inform management decisions, we systematically mapped the global distribution and abundance of published evidence on the ecological (coral-related) and physical performance of built structure interventions in shallow (≤ 30 m), tropical (35°N to 35°S) coral ecosystems. Methods: To identify potentially relevant articles, we used predefined and tested strategies to search two indexing platforms, one bibliographic database, two open discovery citation indexes, one web-based search engine, one novel literature discovery tool, 19 organizational websites, and information requested from stakeholders. Discovered articles were screened according to preset eligibility criteria first by title and abstract and second by full text. Articles included during full text screening were coded to extract metadata following a predefined framework. We analyzed and visualized the evidence base to answer our primary and secondary research questions and to identify knowledge clusters and gaps. Findings are reported in a narrative synthesis. Results: Our search discovered > 20,000 potentially relevant unique articles, of which 258 were included in the systematic map. The evidence base spans 50 countries, and the volume of evidence increased over the past five decades. Built structures were most commonly installed for coral restoration (61%) or coastal protection (12%). Structures were predominately characterized as artificial (87%), with fewer hybrid or natural interventions. Evidence clusters existed for intentionally designed artificial structures and outcomes associated with coral-related ecological performance, including coral mortality, growth, recruitment, cover, and diversity. Pronounced evidence gaps occurred at the intersection of several ecological coral-related performance outcomes (e.g., connectivity, microbiome) across all types of built structures; gaps also existed across most ecological coral-related outcomes for artwork and repurposed artificial structures. Physical performance of built structures was most frequently evaluated for outcomes related to waves (n = 14) and sediment and morphology (n = 11) with pervasive evidence gaps across other outcomes like storm surge and water level. Conclusions: While the systematic map highlighted several evidence clusters, it also revealed pronounced evidence gaps surrounding the coral-related ecological and physical performance of built structures in coral ecosystems. The compiled evidence base will help inform policy, management, and future consideration of built structures in reef-related applications, including habitat restoration, environmental mitigation, and coastal protection. Map findings also point to promising future research avenues, such as investigating seascape-scale ecological effects of and the physical performance of built structures.

Background: Shallow, tropical coral reefs face compounding threats from habitat degradation due to coastal development and pollution, impacts from storms and sea-level rise, and pulse disturbances like blast fishing, mining, dredging, and ship groundings that reduce coral reefs’ height and variability. One approach toward restoring coral reef structure from these threats is deploying built structures. Built structures range from engineered modules and repurposed materials to underwater sculptures and intentionally placed natural rocks. Restoration practitioners and coastal managers increasingly consider incorporating built structures, including nature-based solutions, into coral reef-related applications. Yet, synthesized evidence on the ecological and physical performance of built structure interventions across a variety of contexts (e.g., restoration, coastal protection, mitigation, tourism) is not readily available to guide decisions. To help inform management decisions, here we aim to document the global evidence base on the ecological and physical performance of built structures in shallow (≤ 30 m) tropical (35° N to 35° S latitude) coral ecosystems. The collated evidence base on use cases and associated ecological and physical outcomes of built structure interventions can help inform future consideration of built structures in reef restoration design, siting, and implementation. Method: To discover evidence on the performance of built structures in coral reef-related applications, such as restoration, mitigation, and coastal protection, primary literature will be searched across indexing platforms, bibliographic databases, open discovery citation indexes, a web-based search engine, a novel literature discovery tool, and organizational websites. The geographic scope of the search is global, and there is no limitation to temporal scope. Primary literature will be screened first at the level of title and abstract and then at the full text level against defined eligibility criteria for the population, intervention, study type, and outcomes of interest. Metadata will be extracted from studies that pass both screening levels. The resulting data will be analyzed to determine the distribution and abundance of evidence. Results will be made publicly available and reported in a systematic map that includes a narrative description, identifies evidence clusters and gaps, and outlines future research directions on the use of built structures in coral reef-related applications.

Background: Anthropogenic pressures and climate change threaten the capacity of ecosystems to deliver a variety of services, including protecting coastal communities from hazards like flooding and erosion. Human interventions aim to buffer against or overcome these threats by providing physical protection for existing coastal infrastructure and communities, along with added ecological, social, or economic co-benefits. These interventions are a type of nature-based solution (NBS), broadly defined as actions working with nature to address societal challenges while also providing benefits for human well-being, biodiversity, and resilience. Despite the increasing popularity of NBS for coastal protection, sometimes in lieu of traditional hardened shorelines (e.g., oyster reefs instead of bulkheads), gaps remain in our understanding of whether common NBS interventions for coastal protection perform as intended. To help fill these knowledge gaps, we aim to identify, collate, and map the evidence base surrounding the performance of active NBS interventions related to coastal protection across a suite of ecological, physical, social, and economic outcomes in salt marsh, seagrass, kelp, mangrove, shellfish reef, and coral reef systems. The resulting evidence base will highlight the current knowledge on NBS performance and inform future uses of NBS meant for coastal protection.Methods: Searches for primary literature on performance of NBS for coastal protection in shallow, biogenic ecosystems will be conducted using a predefined list of indexing platforms, bibliographic databases, open discovery citation indexes, and organizational databases and websites, as well as an online search engine and novel literature discovery tool. All searches will be conducted in English and will be restricted to literature published from 1980 to present. Resulting literature will be screened against set inclusion criteria (i.e., population, intervention, outcome, study type) at the level of title and abstract followed by full text. Screening will be facilitated by a web-based active learning tool that incorporates user feedback via machine learning to prioritize articles for review. Metadata will be extracted from articles that meet inclusion criteria and summarized in a narrative report detailing the distribution and abundance of evidence surrounding NBS performance, including evidence clusters, evidence gaps, and the precision and sensitivity of the search strategy.

Eastern oysters (Crassostrea virginica) are an important component of the ecology and economy in coastal zones. Through the long-term consolidation of densely clustered shells, oyster reefs generate three-dimensional and complex structures that yield a suite of ecosystem services, such as nursery habitat, stabilizing shorelines, regulating nutrients, and increasing biological diversity. The decline of global oyster habitat has been well documented and can be attributed to factors, such as overharvesting, pollution, and disease. Monitoring oyster reefs is necessary to evaluate persistence and track changes in habitat conditions but can be time and labor intensive. In this present study, spectral and structural metrics of intertidal oyster reefs derived from Unoccupied Aircraft Systems (UAS) and Structure from Motion (SfM) outputs are used to estimate intertidal oyster density. This workflow provides a remote, rapid, nondestructive, and potentially standardizable method to assess large-scale intertidal oyster reef density that will significantly improve management strategies to protect this important coastal resource from habitat degradation.

The detrimental ecological impacts of engineered shoreline protection methods (e.g., seawalls) and the need to protect the coastal zone have prompted calls for greater use of natural and nature‐based infrastructure (NNBI). To balance competing needs of structural stability and ecological functioning, managers require assessments of NNBI designs and materials for differing environmental settings (e.g., among wave‐energy regimes). To examine the effects of setting and oyster‐based NNBI design on the provision of shoreline protection, we constructed reefs from two substrates: a novel, biodegradable material (Oyster Catcher, OC) and traditional oyster shell bags (SB) on low‐ and high‐energy eroding salt marsh shorelines, designated based on fetch and boat wake exposure. Both reef types buffered marsh elevation change on the high‐energy shoreline relative to unaltered controls, but only SB reefs were able to do so on the low‐energy shoreline. Additionally, both shorelines experienced high ambient rates of retreat and declines in marsh vegetation shoot density. Although constructed reefs did not mitigate marsh retreat on the low‐energy shoreline, novel OC reefs significantly reduced retreat relative to SB reefs and control sites (no reefs) on the high‐energy shoreline. Those SB reefs were severely damaged by storm events, increasing their areal footprints at the expense of vertical relief. Conversely, OC reefs on both shorelines exhibited steady oyster recruitment and growth and hosted higher densities of larger oysters. To successfully provide shoreline stabilization benefits, oyster‐based NNBI must be structurally stable and able to promote sustained oyster recruitment and growth. Our results indicate that deliberate decisions regarding NNBI substrate, siting, and configuration can produce resilient reefs, which reduce rates of erosion and, in some cases, enhance vertical accretion along salt marsh edges. The growth trajectory, structural stability, and co‐benefit provisioning of OC reefs demonstrate the potential of alternative restoration substrates to provide valuable oyster habitat along threatened marsh shorelines.

Metapopulation and source–sink dynamics are increasingly considered within spatially explicit management of wildlife populations, yet the application of these concepts has generally been limited to comparisons of the performance (e.g., demographic rates or dispersal) inside vs. outside protected areas, and at spatial scales that do not encompass an entire metapopulation. In the present study, a spatially explicit, size‐structured matrix model was applied to simulate the dynamics of an Eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) metapopulation in the second largest estuary in the United States—the Albemarle‐Pamlico Estuarine System in North Carolina. The model integrated larval dispersal simulations with empirical measures of oyster demographic rates to simulate the dynamics of the entire oyster metapopulation consisting of 646 reefs and five reef types: (1) restored subtidal reefs closed to harvest (i.e., sanctuaries or protected areas; n = 14), (2) restored subtidal reefs open to harvest (n = 53), (3) natural subtidal reefs open to harvest (n = 301), (4) natural intertidal reefs open to harvest (n = 129), and (5) oyster reefs on manmade, hard structures such as seawalls (n = 149). Key findings included (1) an overall stable, yet slightly declining oyster metapopulation, (2) variable reef type‐specific population trajectories, largely dependent on spatiotemporal variation in larval recruitment, (3) a greater relative importance of inter‐reef larval connectivity on metapopulation dynamics than local larval retention processes, and (4) spatiotemporal variation in the source–sink status of reef subpopulations wherein subtidal sanctuaries and reefs located in the northeastern portion of the estuary were frequent sources. From a management perspective, continued protection of oyster sanctuaries is warranted. Sanctuaries represented only 6.2% of the total reef area, however, they harbored 19% (± 2%) of all oysters and produced 25% (± 6%) of all larvae settling within the metapopulation. Additional management priorities should focus on restoration or conservation of subpopulations that serve as frequent source subpopulations (including those with poor demographic rates, but high connectivity potential), and management of harvest from sink subpopulations. The application of a source–sink framework and similar integrated modeling approach could inform management of oysters in other systems, as well as other species that exhibit similar metapopulation characteristics.

The generality of ecological patterns depends inextricably on the scale at which they are examined. We investigated patterns of crab distribution and the relationship between crabs and vegetation in salt marshes at multiple scales. By using consistent monitoring protocols across 15 U.S. National Estuarine Research Reserves, we were able to synthesize patterns from the scale of quadrats to the entire marsh landscape to regional and national scales. Some generalities emerged across marshes from our overall models, and these are useful for informing broad coastal management policy. We found that crab burrow distribution within a marsh could be predicted by marsh elevation, distance to creek and soil compressibility. While these physical factors also affected marsh vegetation cover, we did not find a strong or consistent overall effect of crabs at a broad scale in our multivariate model, though regressions conducted separately for each site revealed that crab burrows were negatively correlated with vegetation cover at 4 out of 15 sites. This contrasts with recent smaller‐scale studies and meta‐analyses synthesizing such studies that detected strong negative effects of crabs on marshes, likely because we sampled across the entire marsh landscape, while targeted studies are typically limited to low‐lying areas near creeks, where crab burrow densities are highest. Our results suggest that sea‐level rise generally poses a bigger threat to marshes than crabs, but there will likely be interactions between these physical and biological factors. Beyond these generalities across marshes, we detected some regional differences in crab community composition, richness, and abundance. However, we found striking differences among sites within regions, and within sites, in terms of crab abundance and relationships to marsh integrity. Although generalities are broadly useful, our findings indicate that local managers cannot rely on data from other nearby systems, but rather need local information for developing salt marsh management strategies.