Henry Dang

Simple rules can guide whether land- or ocean-based

conservation will best benefit marine ecosystems
Introduction

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

researchers and will be expanded on later.

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 of the four methods more favorable.

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

intervention is the best option.

 Citation

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