University of Groningen
Return of the native facilitated by the invasive?
Christianen, M. J. A.; Lengkeek, W.; Bergsma, J. H.; Coolen, J. W. P.; Didderen, K.;
Dorenbosch, M.; Driessen, F. M. F.; Kamermans, P.; Reuchlin-Hugenholtz, E.; Sas, H.
Published in:Marine biology research DOI:
10.1080/17451000.2018.1498520
IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below.
Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Publication date: 2018
Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database
Citation for published version (APA):
Christianen, M. J. A., Lengkeek, W., Bergsma, J. H., Coolen, J. W. P., Didderen, K., Dorenbosch, M., Driessen, F. M. F., Kamermans, P., Reuchlin-Hugenholtz, E., Sas, H., Smaal, A., van den Wijngaard, K. A., & van der Have, T. M. (2018). Return of the native facilitated by the invasive? Population composition, substrate preferences and epibenthic species richness of a recently discovered shellfish reef with native European flat oysters (Ostrea edulis) in the North Sea. Marine biology research, 14(6), 590-597.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17451000.2018.1498520
Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Take-down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=smar20
Marine Biology Research
ISSN: 1745-1000 (Print) 1745-1019 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/smar20
Return of the native facilitated by the invasive?
Population composition, substrate preferences
and epibenthic species richness of a recently
discovered shellfish reef with native European flat
oysters (Ostrea edulis) in the North Sea
M. J. A. Christianen, W. Lengkeek, J. H. Bergsma, J. W. P. Coolen, K. Didderen,
M. Dorenbosch, F. M. F. Driessen, P. Kamermans, E. Reuchlin-Hugenholtz, H.
Sas, A. Smaal, K. A. van den Wijngaard & T. M. van der Have
To cite this article: M. J. A. Christianen, W. Lengkeek, J. H. Bergsma, J. W. P. Coolen, K. Didderen, M. Dorenbosch, F. M. F. Driessen, P. Kamermans, E. Reuchlin-Hugenholtz, H. Sas, A. Smaal, K. A. van den Wijngaard & T. M. van der Have (2018) Return of the native facilitated by the invasive? Population composition, substrate preferences and epibenthic species richness of a recently discovered shellfish reef with native European flat oysters (Ostrea�edulis) in the North Sea, Marine Biology Research, 14:6, 590-597, DOI: 10.1080/17451000.2018.1498520
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17451000.2018.1498520
© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
View supplementary material
Published online: 27 Jul 2018. Submit your article to this journal
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Return of the native facilitated by the invasive? Population composition,
substrate preferences and epibenthic species richness of a recently discovered
shellfish reef with native European flat oysters (Ostrea edulis) in the North Sea
M. J. A. Christianen a,b,c, W. Lengkeeka, J. H. Bergsmaa, J. W. P. Coolenc,d, K. Didderena, M. Dorenboscha, F. M. F. Driessena, P. Kamermansd, E. Reuchlin-Hugenholtze, H. Sasf, A. Smaalg, K. A. van den Wijngaardhand T. M. van der Haveaa
Aquatic Ecology Group, Bureau Waardenburg, Culemborg, the Netherlands;bDepartment of Aquatic Ecology & Environmental Biology, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands;cAquatic Ecology and Water Quality Management Group, Environmental Science Department, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands;dWageningen Marine Research, Yerseke, the Netherlands;eWorld Wide Fund for Nature Netherlands, Zeist, the Netherlands;fSas Consultancy, Amsterdam, the Netherlands;gAquaculture and Fisheries Departement, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, the Netherlands;hARK Natuurontwikkeling, Nijmegen
ABSTRACT
After being ecologically extinct for almost a century, the discovery of a shellfish reef with native Europeanflat oysters (Ostrea edulis) in the Dutch coastal area of the North Sea by the authors of this study called for an extensive survey to better understand some of the key requirements for the return of the native oyster in coastal waters. We assessed habitat conditions, its potential for increasing biodiversity, and the role of substrate provision by other bivalves such as the invasive alien Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas). Using underwater visual census, O. edulis size-frequency distributions and attachment substrate was investigated, as well as the composition of the epibenthic community and substrata types inside quadrats that were distributed across the reef. This reef was found to be composed of native European flat oysters, invasive alien Pacific oysters and blue mussels (Mytilus edulis), alternated with sandy patches. The O. edulis population (6.8 ± 0.6 oysters m−2) consisted of individuals of different size classes. In quadrats with native and non-native oysters the number of epibenthic species was 60% higher compared to adjacent sand patches within the reef. Notably, our results showed that the native oyster predominantly used shell (fragments) of the invasive Pacific oyster as settlement substrate (81% of individuals). Our results optimistically show that conditions for native oyster restoration can be suitable at a local scale in the coastal North Sea area and suggest that the return of native oysters may be facilitated by novel substrate provided by invasive oysters at sites where their distribution overlap.
ARTICLE HISTORY Received 24 January 2018 Accepted 25 June 2018 Published online 27 July 2018 SUBJECT EDITOR Dan Smale KEYWORDS
Ostrea edulis; facilitation; native oyster restoration; invasive alien species; North Sea; biodiversity
Introduction
Until approximately one century ago, European flat oyster reefs were widely distributed over the North Sea, and covered ∼20% of the Dutch part of the North Sea floor (over 25,000 km2; Olsen 1883). However, overfishing exacerbated by habitat degra-dation and diseases have pushed native oyster reefs to become ecologically extinct in the North Sea and elsewhere across the globe (Lotze et al. 2006; Beck et al. 2011), leaving the area named ‘Central Oyster Grounds’ (Olsen 1883) empty of oysters. After the decline of the native European flat oyster (Ostrea
edulis, Linnaeus, 1758, referred to as ‘native oyster’ below), the invasive alien Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas, Thunberg, 1793, also Magallana gigas, but see Bayne et al. 2017, referred to as ‘invasive oyster’ below) was introduced in the south-west of the Nether-lands for farming in the 1970s (Reise et al.2017a). This invasive oyster quickly expanded in the coastal waters of the North Sea and estuaries as this species was not susceptible to the Bonamia parasite, which caused mortality in native oysters, while it has a more opportu-nistic larval ecology and does not show brood care to the extent of the native oyster (Smaal et al. 2015).
© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
CONTACTM. J. A. Christianen Marjolijn.Christianen@wur.nl Bureau Waardenburg, P.O. Box 365, 4100 AJ Culemborg, the Netherlands; Department of Aquatic Ecology & Environmental Biology, Radboud University, P.O. Box 9010, 6500 GL Nijmegen, the Netherlands; Aquatic Ecology and Water Quality Management Group, Environmental Science Department, Wageningen University, 6700 AA, Wageningen, the Netherlands
The supplementary material for this article (Appendix 1) is available athttps://doi.org/10.1080/17451000.2018.1498520 MARINE BIOLOGY RESEARCH
2018, VOL. 14, NO. 6, 590–597
https://doi.org/10.1080/17451000.2018.1498520
The historical locations of native oyster reefs offshore in the North Sea (Fariñas-Franco et al.2018) and current invasive oyster reefs in the near-shore areas of the North Sea only show limited overlap (Smaal et al. 2015), suggesting that large unoccupied areas that were previously occupied are potentially available as a habitat for the native oyster. Restoration attempts, however, are hampered partly because detailed knowl-edge about the habitat requirements and suitable con-ditions for the restoration of the native oyster in the North Sea areas are scarce (Gercken and Schmidt 2014; Smaal et al.2015).
Oyster reefs provide critical ecosystem functions, which have motivated multiple efforts to restore oyster ecosystems across the world. Native European flat oysters create biogenic reefs and thereby provide rare hard substrate in North Sea areas dominated by soft sediments. Aside from providing a fishery com-modity since ancient times (Günther 1897), oysters can provide a number of critical ecosystem services as they can protect shorelines, filter the water and provide a nursery and habitat for associated commer-cial species, resulting in an estimated economic value of $5500–$99,000 per hectare per year (Grabowski et al. 2012). Additionally, oysters provide non-market ecosystem services includingfiltration benefits for sub-merged aquatic vegetation and by creating biogenic structures they provide habitat, settling substrate, nursery or foraging areas for other invertebrates and fish. This is also true for non-native oysters (Lemasson et al.2017).
The groundwork for successful oyster reef restor-ation has been laid in large-scale projects that showed initial success including those for Crassostrea virginica in Chesapeake Bay, Pamlico Sound (North Car-olina), and O. edulis in Strangford Lough (Northern Ireland) and Limfjord (Denmark) (Brumbaugh et al. 2000; Dolmer and Hoffmann 2004; Kennedy and Roberts2006; Brett et al.2011). Together, these restor-ation projects show that the return and restorrestor-ation of native oyster beds is feasible but only when conducted on a large scale, with high investments, when following a critical assessment of location suitability (e.g. temp-erature, low bottom shear stress), under presence of a substantial source of larvae in close proximity, with high availability of suitable substrate, and when located in areas without bottom disturbance (Beck et al. 2011). Restoration requirements for the native oyster O. edulis are expected to be stricter compared with other oyster species as their dispersal distance is more limited due to their mechanism of brood care (up to 10 km (Berghahn and Ruth2005), and the settle-ment of spat requires relatively smooth and clean
settlement substrates (e.g. clean surface of empty shells), also referred to as‘cultch’, which can potentially limit recruitment due to limited substrate availability (Brumbaugh et al. 2000; Kennedy and Roberts 2006; Brett et al. 2011). The provisioning of bivalve settling substrate (such as live shells and shell fragments of native mussels Mytilus edulis, Linnaeus, 1758, and inva-sive oyster C. gigas) in the North Sea may potentially facilitate native O. edulis settlement in areas where the distribution of both oysters overlaps.
After being ecologically extinct for almost a century, the discovery of a shellfish reef with native oysters in the coastal‘Voordelta’ area of the Dutch North Sea by the authors suggested that habitat conditions are locally still favourable. In this study, the conditions at this reef were investigated to better understand the requirements for large-scale restoration and the return of the native oyster. The restoration of the threa-tened and protected native oyster (reefs) is supported in (inter-) national government policy (EU Red List of habitats, Gubbay et al.2016) and plans are being devel-oped to restore and protect these reefs (OSPAR, Minis-try of Infrastructure and Environment2015; Sundseth and Creed 2008). Using underwater visual census O. edulis size-frequency distributions and attachment preference was measured, as well as the composition of the bivalve community, epibenthic community and substrata types inside quadrats that were distributed across the reef. Specifically, the importance of invasive oyster shell fragments as a settlement substrate for native oyster was investigated.
Materials and methods
Fieldwork and measurements were performed at a recently discovered shellfish reef with native European flat oysters, located in the coastal zone near Zeeland, the Netherlands (the so-called Voordelta) (range lati-tude, longitude; 51.77N, 3.85E – 51.79N, 3.85E, WGS84) in the Dutch part of the North Sea (Figure 1). Scuba divers discovered the European flat oysters in a Pacific oyster reef, which was already known, after pre-selecting a search area based on favourable con-ditions for oyster presence. These concon-ditions included the availability of suitable substrate for settlement of oyster larvae such as empty shells of mussels and oysters, a nearby source of oyster larvae and the absence of bottom disturbingfishing activities caused by the presence of big stones. The oyster reef is located at close proximity to the ‘Brouwerssluis’, a water outlet of Lake Grevelingen, a saline lake with limited tidal range. This sluice has been open year-round since 1998 enabling oyster larvae to travel
from Lake Grevelingen, where native O. edulis occur naturally and in aquaculture plots, to enter the coastal area of the North Sea (Sas et al.2016). Addition-ally, the reef is located close to the shore and is bor-dered by breakwaters on the south side. Various, seemingly random artificial heaps of large boulders are locally scattered over the sea floor, possibly as a result of spilling or dumping at the time of constructing the Brouwersdam (finished in 1971), which likely pre-vents bottom disturbance by fishing activities. These breakwaters are colonized by blue mussels (M. edulis) and Pacific oysters (C. gigas), and the empty shells of these bivalves are deposited as substrate in the sur-rounding soft sediments.
The extent of the oyster reef (Figure 1c) was sur-veyed by a scuba diver following the outer edges of the reef while deploying small buoys at regular inter-vals. The outer reef edge was drawn around shellfish patches with five living oysters per m2 or more,
following the native O. edulis oyster bed habitat definition (Haelters and Kerckhof2009; OSPAR 2009). These buoys were then plotted using a handheld GPS by the boat crew. Subsequently, the presence of the reef within the extent was validated by a haphazardly placed series of short dives at point locations and later also by the visual census transect measurements. Measurements were taken of O. edulis size-fre-quency distributions and attachment preference, as well as the composition of the bivalve community, epi-benthic community and substrata types. These were conducted by scuba divers in 75 quadrats that were spread across the oyster bed along 15 transect lines (Figure 1). Along a transect line of 25 m,five quadrats (50 cm × 50 cm) were placed 5 m apart. For two trans-ects the distance between quadrats was adjusted to 2.5 m to fit five quadrats within the extent of the reef. All transect lines were positioned perpendicular to the coast and were randomly set up across the Figure 1.(A) The Netherlands with (B) the location of the shellfish reef with native European flat oysters (O. edulis) that was recently discovered in the Haringvliet coastal zone (Voordelta) in the Dutch part of the North Sea. Note the tidal water outlet (marked with a grey arrow) of Lake Grevelingen (‘LG’). (C) A detailed map of the extent of the shellfish reef with native oysters, with transect locations, note that the bank’s northern border has not yet been confirmed (indicated by a dashed line). (D) an aerial photo of the breakwater ‘Blokkendam’. (E) An impression of the shellfish reef with native O. edulis that is also inhabited by Pacific oysters (C. gigas), blue mussels (M. edulis) and epibionts (photos D and E by Peter van Rodijnen).
oyster reef in between the reef’s extent. The positions of the start and endpoint of the transect were marked by handheld GPS. All measurements were con-ducted simultaneously in each quadrat by two obser-vers using underwater visual census and scuba. One observer was measuring species richness, while the other performed the other measurements. To assess the population composition, the density and cover of live O. edulis, C. gigas and M. edulis was estimated. All other bivalves were grouped into other bivalves. Additionally, the size-frequency distribution was
determined from the 122 O. edulis individuals found in the quadrats. Oyster shell width was measured as the longest axis of the right valve (distance between the anterior and posterior tip) with a calliper to the nearest millimetre. To assess the species richness, epi-benthic invertebrates (>5 mm) were identified within the quadrat in thefield. For colony forming organisms only the percentage cover was estimated and only abundance was collected for solitary invertebrates. The observed species were identified to species level or thefinest taxonomic level possible. Species richness was compared between patches with native oysters and bare sand patches within the reef. The substrate preference for O. edulis settlement was investigated by careful visual inspection of all individual native O. edulis found in the quadrats. The (shell) material attached to the umbonal area (or dorsal tip) of the left concave valve of each oyster was identified to species level. After this underwater inspection, the oysters were carefully placed back into its original pos-ition. For each quadrat the dominant sediment type was noted; hard substrate (rock, stones), coarse sandy substrate and fine mud and clay substrate. Quadrats were sampled between August and October 2017. Additional observations on fish and epibenthic species presence were collected between 2015 and 2017 using (video-) monitoring.
Prior to statistical analysis, data were checked for normality using Shapiro–Wilk tests (P = 0.05) and further confirmation by graphical validation. We have averaged the quadrat data within transects to include the spatial structure of the transect data. No transform-ations were needed. The differences in O. edulis number of species per habitat were analysed with one-way ANOVA. The data on substrate settlement were not normally distributed. A non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis test for paired samples (P < 0.05) was used to test for differences in O. edulis settling sub-strates with post-hoc pairwise comparisons using Wil-coxon rank tests with Bonferroni adjustment for multiple testing. Average values are presented with standard errors (SE).
Results
In October 2015, during afield survey of sites suitable for oyster reintroduction, we discovered a mixed shellfish reef consisting of a substantial population of native oysters (O. edulis), mixed with Pacific oysters (invasive oyster, C. gigas), blue mussels (M. edulis), but also bare substrate patches. The total area of the O. edulis reef measured at least 39.6 hectare, with the northern boundary still not determined (Figure 1). Figure 2.(A) Size-frequency diagram of O. edulis (n = 122), (B)
settlement substrate preferences (n = 75) of O. edulis, P < 0.001. Inset: native oyster (‘NO’) settled on invasive Pacific oyster (‘PO’). (C) Comparison of the average species richness of epibenthic species on the shellfish reef (>5 oysters m−2) per quadrat compared with adjacent bare soft sediment areas in the North Sea Voordelta area, P < 0.001.
The reef was found at water depths between 2 and 5 metres below Amsterdam Ordinance Datum (NAP). Three bivalve species dominated the reef. Ostrea edulis density was 6.8 ± 0.6 oysters m−2 in shellfish patches within this reef, C. gigas density was 19.4 ± 1.8 oysters m−2 and M. edulis density was 8.8 ± 1.9% cover. Although a relatively low density of living native oysters was observed on this reef, large quan-tities of dead shell of mixed species provided a sub-stantial reef structure. Ostrea edulis were located in areas with (but not attached to) hard substrate (rock, stones in 65.7 ± 3.4% of quadrats), but also on coarse sandy sediment (14.5 ± 2.4%) and on fine mud and clay sediment (27.8 ± 3.9%). The size-frequency distri-bution of native O. edulis showed that the native oysters on this reef consisted of individuals from different size classes (Figure 2a). Ostrea edulis shell width ranged from 1.0 cm to 11.2 cm and averaged 6.6 ± 0.2 cm. Oysters were often found to grow on hard substrate together with invasive Pacific oysters and blue mussels. Native oysters were predominantly attached to the shell (fragments) of invasive oyster (81.3 ± 5.7%) and were significantly less often attached to shell fragments of other bivalves (12.7 ± 4.7%) such as the blue mussels, common cockle and native oyster (Figure 2b, P < 0.001; Figure 3). For a small number of native oysters (5.8 ± 3.0%) no (shell) frag-ment could be found attached. The epibenthic com-munity field assessment of the shellfish reef with O. edulis yielded 74 species (Appendix 1), endobenthos was not sampled. As invasive Pacific oysters were mixed with native oysters in most quadrats their indi-vidual impact on species richness could not be deter-mined. The species list included some species of conservation interest that all used the native oyster as a habitat (Table I). The number of epibenthic
species was significantly increased by 60% in quadrats with native and invasive oysters (14.9 ± 1.8 species m−2) when compared with adjacent sand patches (9.3 ± 0.7 species m−2) (Figure 2c, P < 0.001).
Discussion
The reef that was found in the coastal zone of the North Sea near Zeeland is thefirst shellfish reef with native European flat oysters that has returned in the Dutch part of the North Sea to our knowledge. At this reef, O. edulis oysters of multiple size classes were found. Together with observed gonad development in caged oysters (Sas et al.2016) this shows that environ-mental conditions for these native oysters were suit-able to allow their survival, growth, reproduction and recruitment (‘SGRR’). This discovery shows that con-ditions for native oyster restoration can be suitable at a local scale and suggests that the return of native oysters is possible in the coastal North Sea area. Recentfindings in a national shellfish survey suggests that success is not limited to this single oyster bed as a small number of native oysters were also found in an area more than 6 km north-west of the first bank (Sas et al.2018).
Our results may help in deriving guiding principles for restoration and conservation of native European flat oyster reefs elsewhere in the Voordelta and in the North Sea. Native oyster used shell fragments of bivalves, predominantly invasive oyster, but also blue mussels, American razor clams (Ensis leei), and common cockle (Cardium edule) as a settlement sub-strate (Figure 3). These observations not only indicate the importance of substrate availability to restore oyster stocks, but also indicate the biocoenosis of mul-tiple bivalves that were living in the same habitat.
Table I.Species with special conservation status, which were found on the shellfish reef with native oysters (O. edulis) between 2015–2017, in the Dutch Voordelta area of the North Sea. Conservation status ‘H1110A’; typical species of Sundseth and Creed (2008) habitat type subtidal sandbanks. German Red List scores; ‘2’ highly endangered; ‘3’ endangered; ‘R’ extremely rare; ‘G’ unknown. EU Red List of habitats‘A3’; critically endangered habitat for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.
Phylum English name Scientific name Conservation status
Annelida Sand mason worm Lanice conchilega Natura 2000– H1110A
Cnidaria Dahlia sea anemone Urticina felina Red List Germany– score G Arthropoda Velvet swimming crab Necora puber Red List Germany– score R
Arthropoda Hairy crab Pilumnus hirtellus Red List Germany– score 3
Arthropoda European lobster Homarus gammarus Red List Germany– score 2 Mollusca Grey chiton Lepidochitona cinerea Red List Germany– score 3
Mollusca Steamer clam Mya arenaria Natura 2000– H1110A
Mollusca Blue mussel Mytilus edulis Natura 2000– H1110A
Mollusca Europeanflat oyster Ostrea edulis OSPAR, EU Red List of habitats A3
Mollusca Sap-sucking slug Elysia viridis Red List Germany– score R
Chordata Botrylloid Botrylloides leachii Red List Germany– score R
Chordata Five-bearded rockling Ciliata mustela Natura 2000– H1110A
Chordata Rock gunnel Pholis gunnellus Natura 2000– H1110A
Chordata Short-spined sea scorpion Myoxocephalus scorpius Natura 2000– H1110A 594 M. J. A. CHRISTIANEN ET AL.
Visual observations of subfossils of O. edulis brought up by trawlers supported this observation for the North Sea. These fossil oysters were attached to shells of other molluscs including Buccinum undatum, Neptunea antiqua and O. edulis (personal communication G. Beuker). Hence, to better pinpoint areas for oyster restoration, the ‘shelliness’, the availability of shell material in an area, should be taken into account. Areas with high availability of shell material are most suitable when selecting sites for oyster (larvae) intro-duction. Furthermore, shells (e.g. of invasive oysters) can be introduced as settlement substrate. Addition-ally, as a copious novel source of substrate Pacific oysters can facilitate native oysters wherever their species distributions overlap or shells are introduced; these Pacific oyster reefs can form important focal areas for restoration projects.
Invasive alien Pacific oysters were found to co-occur with native bivalves in other locations. For example, co-existence between native and invasive oysters is reported in Ireland (Zwerschke et al. 2017) in the North Sea (this study) and the Wadden Sea (per-sonal observation authors). Also, in Lake Grevelingen co-existence of both species is well documented on the basis of landing data of both species that are cul-tivated on bottom plots in the area. In both the Dutch as well as the German part of the Wadden Sea, mussel beds were invaded by alien Pacific oysters, changing
the reef from a mono-species (M. edulis) bed into a two-species multi-layered mixed reef of oysters and mussels (around 1990; Reise et al. 2017b; Nieuwhof 2018). This co-existence of native and invasive bivalves provided refuge against predation for a higher abun-dance of the native mussel, and possibly also for the native oyster. Furthermore, these reefs with invasive oysters may improve structural stability and a natural no-fishing zone that protect native oysters (Reise et al. 2017a). Therefore, it is hypothesized that the facilitation of native oysters by invasive oysters may also increase survival of native oyster not only during the settlement phase but also during their adult lives.
The potential positive impact of invasive oysters is in line with recent discussions that highlight the role of non-native species in marine ecosystems and how their effect is not always negative (threatening biodi-versity, ecosystem function, human well-being) but can sometimes be positive, especially when non-native foundation species establish in areas where the native ecosystem is very degraded (Thomsen et al.2011; Byers et al. 2012; Ramus et al. 2017). The bottom of the North Sea is an example of such a degraded system. Although we did not experimentally identify preferences for substrate settlement for native Europeanflat oysters, our results suggest that, by pro-viding a critical novel source of substrate, Pacific Figure 3.Native oysters (O. edulis) were found attached to multiple bivalve species that provided settling substrate for the native oyster. (A) Detail of a large O. edulis with several smaller native oysters of different sizes attached on top, showing that the reef includes native oysters of different size classes. All oysters have the flat right valve facing upwards (photo by Wouter Lengkeek). (B) O. edulis in between and attached to blue mussels. The oyster is positioned both standing straight up as well as C) positionedflat on the ground. Smaller native oysters (recruits) were found attached to larger native Europeanflat oysters (C, E, G), to (D) Pacific oysters (C. gigas) and to (F) American razor clams (Ensis leei).
oysters may facilitate the return of native oysters wher-ever their shells are available or provided.
Our results also underpin the importance of the oyster reefs with native oysters as key habitat species to increase biodiversity in the Voordelta and elsewhere in the North Sea. This study demonstrates that these reefs not only enhance the available hard substrate in soft sediment ecosystems but also increase the species richness of associated assemblages, including several species of conservation interest (Table I). These results support the value of restoring O. edulis reefs for biodiversity in general and specific conservation goals in the North Sea. Although benthic assemblages associ-ated with native and non-native oysters can be similar (Zwerschke et al.2016), their net biomass and biodiver-sity is expected to increase when restoring native oysters due to the different spatial distribution of both oysters. In contrast to native oysters, invasive oysters are restricted to a coastal (shallow) habitat (personal observation authors), and therefore only native oysters are available for restoration of oyster reefs in deeper offshore habitats. When native oyster reefs return to offshore habitats in the North Sea, the biodiversity and biomass of associated assemblages is expected to increase at a seascape scale, as epibenthic biogenic reefs are currently rare.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This study was carried out as part of shellfish reef restoration pilots and biodiversity monitoring funded by WWF and Ark Nature via National Postcode Lottery Droomfonds Haringvliet (www.haringvliet.nu). This project is co-funded by the Dutch Ministry for Economic Affairs, the Ministry for Infrastructure and Environment, the Province of South Holland, Port of Rot-terdam and EU LIFE funding.
Underlying research materials
The underlying research materials for this article can be accessed at < https://doi.org/10.4121/uuid:62dcccd6-6dc4-47c4-9ef8-09afa163cf76>/ 4TU Centre for Research Data.
ORCID
M. J. A. Christianen http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5839-2981
References
Bayne BL, Ahrens M, Allen SK., D’auriac MA, Backeljau T, Beninger P, Bohn R, Boudry P, Davis J, Green T, et al.
2017. The proposed dropping of the genus Crassostrea for all Pacific cupped oysters and its replacement by a new genus Magallana: a dissenting view. Journal of Shellfish Research. 36:545–547.doi:10.2983/035.036.0301
Beck MW, Brumbaugh RD, Airoldi L, Carranza A, Coen LD, Crawford C, Defeo O, Edgar GJ., Hancock B, Kay MC, et al.
2011. Oyster reefs at risk and recommendations for conser-vation, restoration, and management. Bioscience. 61:107– 116.doi:10.1525/bio.2011.61.2.5
Berghahn R, Ruth M.2005. The disappearance of oysters from the Wadden Sea: a cautionary tale for no-take zones. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 15:91–104.doi:10.1002/aqc.635
Brett CE, Parsons-Hubbard KM, Walker SE, Ferguson C, Powell EN, Staff G, Ashton-Alcox KA, Raymond A.2011. Gradients and patterns of sclerobionts on experimentally deployed bivalve shells: synopsis of bathymetric and temporal trends on a decadal time scale. Palaeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. 312:278–304. doi:10. 1016/j.palaeo.2011.05.019
Brumbaugh RD, Sorabella LA, Garcia CO, Goldsborough WJ, Wesson JA. 2000. Making a case for community-based oyster restoration: an example from Hampton Roads, Virginia, USA. Journal of Shellfish Research. 19:467–472. Byers JE, Gribben PE, Yeager C, Sotka EE.2012. Impacts of an
abundant introduced ecosystem engineer within mudflats of the southeastern US coast. Biological Invasions. 14: 2587–2600.doi:10.1007/s10530-012-0254-5
Dolmer P, Hoffmann E.2004. Østersfiskeri i Limfjorden-sam-menligning af redskaber. Danmarks Fiskeriundersøgelser. 43 pages.
Fariñas-Franco JM, Pearce B, Mair JM, Harries DB, MacPherson RC, Porter JS, Reimer PJ, Sanderson WG. 2018. Missing native oyster (Ostrea edulis L.) beds in a European marine protected area: should there be widespread restorative management? Biological Conservation. 221:293–311.
doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2018.03.010
Gercken JS, Schmidt A.2014. Current status of the European Oyster (Ostrea edulis) and Possibilities for Restoration in the German North Sea. 96 pages.
Grabowski JH, Brumbaugh RD, Conrad RF, Keeler AG, Opaluch JJ, Peterson CH, Piehler MF, Powers SP, Smyth AR.2012. Economic valuation of ecosystem services provided by oyster reefs. Bioscience. 62:900–909. doi:10.1525/bio. 2012.62.10.10
Gubbay S, Sanders N, Haynes T, Janssen JAM, Rodwell JR, Nieto A, García Criado M, Beal S, Borg J, Kennedy M, et al. 2016. European red list of habitats. Part 1. Marine habitats. Brussels: European Commission.
Günther RT. 1897. The oyster culture of the ancient Romans. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. 4:360–365. doi:10.1017/ S0025315400005488
Haelters J, Kerckhof F.2009. Background document for Ostrea edulis and Ostrea edulis beds. 22 pages.
Kennedy RJ, Roberts D.2006. Commercial oyster stocks as a potential source of larvae in the regeneration of Ostrea edulis in Strangford Lough, Northern Ireland. Journal of 596 M. J. A. CHRISTIANEN ET AL.
the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. 86:153–159.doi:10.1017/s0025315406012963
Lemasson, A.J, Fletcher, S, Hall-Spencer, JM, Knights, AM.
2017. Linking the biological impacts of ocean acidification on oysters to changes in ecosystem services: a review. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 492:49–62.doi:10.1016/j.jembe.2017.01.019
Lotze HK, Lenihan HS, Bourque BJ, Bradbury RH, Cooke RG, Kay MC, Kidwell SM, Kirby MX, Peterson CH, Jackson JBC.
2006. Depletion, degradation, and recovery potential of estuaries and coastal seas. Science. 312:1806–1809.
doi:10.1126/science.1128035
Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment. 2015. Mariene Strategie voor het Nederlandse deel van de Noordzee 2012–2020. Deel 3 KRM-programma van maatregelen, Bijlage 5 bij het Nationaal Waterplan 2016–2021. Den Haag: Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu. 152 pages. Nieuwhof S.2018. The use of remote sensing to reveal
land-scape-scale ecosystem engineering by shellfish reefs [PhD thesis]. University of Twente. 150 pages.
Olsen OT.1883. The Piscatorial Atlas of the North Sea, English and St. George’s Channels: Illustrating the Fishing Ports, Boats, Gear, Species of Fish (How, Where, and when Caught), and Other Information Concerning Fish and Fisheries. Olsen. 50 pages.
OSPAR Commission.2009. Background document for Ostrea edulis and Ostrea edulis beds. 22 pages.
Ramus AP, Silliman BR, Thomsen MS, Long ZT.2017. An inva-sive foundation species enhances multifunctionality in a coastal ecosystem. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 114:8580–8585.doi:10.1073/pnas.1700353114
Reise K, Buschbaum C, Buttger H, Rick J, Wegner KM.2017a. Invasion trajectory of Pacific oysters in the northern Wadden Sea. Marine Biology. 164:68. doi:10.1007/s00227-017-3104-2
Reise K, Buschbaum C, Büttger H, Wegner MK. 2017b. Invading oysters and native mussels: from hostile takeover to compatible bedfellows. Ecosphere. 8:e01949. doi:10. 1002/ecs2.1949
Sas H, Kamermans P, van der Have T, Lengkeek W, Smaal A.
2016. Shellfish reef restoration pilots: Voordelta, The Netherlands. Annual report. Pacific Oyster Consortion. Commissioned by ARK Natuurontwikkeling and WWF Netherlands. 45 pages.
Sas H, van der Have T, Kamermans P.2018. Shellfish reef res-toration pilots 2017, Voordelta, The Netherlands. Annual report. Pacific Oyster Consortion. Commissioned by ARK Natuurontwikkeling and WWF Netherlands. 45 pages. Smaal AC, Kamermans P, van der Have T, Engelsma MY, Sas H.
2015. Feasibility of Flat Oyster (Ostrea edulis L.) restoration in the Dutch part of the North Sea. IMARES. c028–15. 48 pages.
Sundseth K, Creed P.2008. Natura 2000: protecting Europe's biodiversity. European Commission. Directorate-General for the Environment. 292 pages.doi:10.2779/45963
Thomsen MS, Wernberg T, Olden JD, Griffin JN, Silliman BR.
2011. A framework to study the context-dependent impacts of marine invasions. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 400:322–327. doi:10.3354/ meps10566
Zwerschke N, Emmerson MC, Roberts D, O’Connor NE.2016. Benthic assemblages associated with native and non-native oysters are similar. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 111:305–310.doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.06.094
Zwerschke N, Kochmann J, Ashton EC, Crowe TP, Roberts D, O’Connor NE.2017. Co-occurrence of native Ostrea edulis and non-native Crassostrea gigas revealed by monitoring of intertidal oyster populations. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. 1–10.
doi:10.1017/S0025315417001448
