The Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science, Pakefield Road Lowestoft, Suffolk NR33 0HT, UK.
Institute of Estuarine and Coastal Studies, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, UK.
Mar Pollut Bull. 2013 Oct 15;75(1-2):33-45. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.08.009. Epub 2013 Sep 4.
Physical and biological seabed impacts can persist long after the cessation of marine aggregate dredging. Whilst small-scale experimental studies have shown that it may be possible to mitigate such impacts, it is unclear whether the costs of restoration are justified on an industrial scale. Here we explore this question using a case study off the Thames Estuary, UK. By understanding the nature and scale of persistent impacts, we identify possible techniques to restore the physical properties of the seabed, and the costs and the likelihood of success. An analysis of the ecosystem services and goods/benefits produced by the site is used to determine whether intervention is justified. Whilst a comparison of costs and benefits at this site suggests restoration would not be warranted, the analysis is site-specific. We emphasise the need to better define what is, and is not, an acceptable seabed condition post-dredging.
物理和生物海底影响在停止开采海砂后仍可能长期存在。虽然小规模的实验研究表明,减轻这种影响是可能的,但在工业规模上,修复的成本是否合理尚不清楚。在这里,我们使用英国泰晤士河口的一个案例研究来探讨这个问题。通过了解持久影响的性质和规模,我们确定了可能用于恢复海底物理特性的技术,以及成本和成功的可能性。对该地点产生的生态系统服务和商品/效益的分析用于确定干预是否合理。虽然对该地点的成本和效益进行比较表明修复没有必要,但该分析是特定于地点的。我们强调需要更好地定义疏浚后可接受的海底状况。