School of BioSciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia; School of Life and Environmental Science, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia.
School of BioSciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia.
Sci Total Environ. 2019 Jun 10;668:139-152. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.357. Epub 2019 Mar 1.
Artificial reefs (ARs) have been advocated and implemented as management tools for recreational fisheries, species conservation and habitat replacement. For ARs to function as substitute habitat for degraded natural reefs, they should perform as close as possible to local natural reefs, however this is seldom investigated. Here we evaluated the performance of new custom-designed reef structures (CDARs) as fish habitat. As a benchmark for their success, we compared fish abundance, diversity and community composition on CDARs to another commonly used AR type (Reef Balls (RBs)) and nearby natural reefs. Fish were monitored on all reef types over two recruitment seasons at three locations in Port Phillip Bay, Australia. Overall, there were no consistent differences in fish density among reef types, although densities on both AR designs were markedly lower than natural reefs at some locations. However, fish species richness on the CDARs was, on average, 2× higher than natural or RB reefs. There were large dissimilarities in fish community composition among reef types across all locations and years. These dissimilarities declined over time with the CDARs becoming more similar to natural communities than to RB reefs. Our results suggest that CDARs can play a role in reef fish conservation where natural reefs are under threat, supporting natural community structure and enhancing local biodiversity. Overall, our findings suggest that location of deployment, rather than design, has a more significant influence on fish abundances on ARs, whereas reef design is an important determinant of species diversity and community structure irrespective of location. ARs represent an important management tool for enhancing fisheries productivity and conservation in areas where reef habitat has been degraded or lost. However, failure to incorporate consideration of reef location and design into future AR deployments may lead to poor performance and failure to achieve restoration or conservation goals.
人工鱼礁（ARs）已被提倡和实施为休闲渔业、物种保护和栖息地替代的管理工具。为了使 AR 能够作为退化天然礁的替代栖息地，它们应该尽可能接近当地的天然礁，但这很少被研究。在这里，我们评估了新定制的礁结构（CDARs）作为鱼类栖息地的性能。作为它们成功的基准，我们将 CDAR 上的鱼类丰度、多样性和群落组成与另一种常用的 AR 类型（礁球（RBs））和附近的天然礁进行了比较。在澳大利亚菲利普港湾的三个地点，我们在两个招募季节对所有礁类型进行了鱼类监测。总体而言，鱼类密度在礁类型之间没有一致的差异，尽管在一些地点，两种 AR 设计的密度明显低于天然礁。然而，CDARs 上的鱼类物种丰富度平均比天然礁或 RB 礁高 2 倍。在所有地点和年份，礁类型之间的鱼类群落组成存在很大差异。这些差异随着时间的推移而减少，CDARs 变得越来越类似于天然群落，而不是 RB 礁。我们的结果表明，在天然礁受到威胁的情况下，CDARs 可以在保护礁鱼方面发挥作用，支持天然群落结构并提高当地生物多样性。总的来说，我们的研究结果表明，部署地点而不是设计，对 AR 上的鱼类丰度有更显著的影响，而礁设计是决定物种多样性和群落结构的重要因素，而与地点无关。AR 是增强渔业生产力和保护在礁栖息地退化或丧失的地区的重要管理工具。然而，如果在未来的 AR 部署中不考虑礁的位置和设计，可能会导致性能不佳，无法实现恢复或保护目标。
