Review of ecological valuation and equivalency analysis methods for assessing temperate nearshore submerged aquatic vegetation
© 2024 The Author(s). Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology.
| Publié dans: | Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology. - 1989. - 39(2025), 1 vom: 17. Feb., Seite e14380 |
|---|---|
| Auteur principal: | |
| Autres auteurs: | , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Article en ligne |
| Langue: | English |
| Publié: |
2025
|
| Accès à la collection: | Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology |
| Sujets: | Journal Article Review compensatory mitigation cuantificación del hábitat habitat quantification kelp medidas metrics mitigación compensatoria pastos marinos plus... |
| Résumé: | © 2024 The Author(s). Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology. Nearshore seagrass, kelp, and other macroalgae beds (submerged aquatic vegetation [SAV]) are productive and important ecosystems. Mitigating anthropogenic impacts on these habitats requires tools to quantify their ecological value and the debits and credits of impact and mitigation. To summarize and clarify the state of SAV habitat quantification and available tools, we searched peer-reviewed literature and other agency documents for methods that either assigned ecological value to or calculated equivalencies between impact and mitigation in SAV. Out of 47 tools, there were 11 equivalency methods, 7 of which included a valuation component. The remaining valuation methods were most commonly designed for seagrasses and rocky intertidal macroalgae rather than canopy-forming kelps. Tools were often designed to address specific resource policies and associated habitat evaluation. Frequent categories of tools and methods included those associated with habitat equivalency analyses and those that scored habitats relative to reference or ideal conditions, including models designed for habitat suitability indices and the European Union's Water and Marine Framework Directives. Over 29 tool input metrics spanned 3 spatial scales of SAV: individual shoots or stipes, bed or site, and landscape or region. The most common metric used for both seagrasses and macroalgae was cover. Seagrass tools also often employed density measures, and some categories used measures of tissue content (e.g., carbon, nitrogen). Macroalgal tools for rocky intertidal habitats frequently included species richness or incorporated indicator species to assess habitat. We provide a flowchart for decision-makers to identify representative tools that may apply to their specific management needs |
|---|---|
| Description: | Date Completed 24.04.2025 Date Revised 24.04.2025 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
| ISSN: | 1523-1739 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/cobi.14380 |