IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0226631.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Coral restoration – A systematic review of current methods, successes, failures and future directions

Author

Listed:
  • Lisa Boström-Einarsson
  • Russell C Babcock
  • Elisa Bayraktarov
  • Daniela Ceccarelli
  • Nathan Cook
  • Sebastian C A Ferse
  • Boze Hancock
  • Peter Harrison
  • Margaux Hein
  • Elizabeth Shaver
  • Adam Smith
  • David Suggett
  • Phoebe J Stewart-Sinclair
  • Tali Vardi
  • Ian M McLeod

Abstract

Coral reef ecosystems have suffered an unprecedented loss of habitat-forming hard corals in recent decades. While marine conservation has historically focused on passive habitat protection, demand for and interest in active restoration has been growing in recent decades. However, a disconnect between coral restoration practitioners, coral reef managers and scientists has resulted in a disjointed field where it is difficult to gain an overview of existing knowledge. To address this, we aimed to synthesise the available knowledge in a comprehensive global review of coral restoration methods, incorporating data from the peer-reviewed scientific literature, complemented with grey literature and through a survey of coral restoration practitioners. We found that coral restoration case studies are dominated by short-term projects, with 60% of all projects reporting less than 18 months of monitoring of the restored sites. Similarly, most projects are relatively small in spatial scale, with a median size of restored area of 100 m2. A diverse range of species are represented in the dataset, with 229 different species from 72 coral genera. Overall, coral restoration projects focused primarily on fast-growing branching corals (59% of studies), and report survival between 60 and 70%. To date, the relatively young field of coral restoration has been plagued by similar ‘growing pains’ as ecological restoration in other ecosystems. These include 1) a lack of clear and achievable objectives, 2) a lack of appropriate and standardised monitoring and reporting and, 3) poorly designed projects in relation to stated objectives. Mitigating these will be crucial to successfully scale up projects, and to retain public trust in restoration as a tool for resilience based management. Finally, while it is clear that practitioners have developed effective methods to successfully grow corals at small scales, it is critical not to view restoration as a replacement for meaningful action on climate change.

Suggested Citation

  • Lisa Boström-Einarsson & Russell C Babcock & Elisa Bayraktarov & Daniela Ceccarelli & Nathan Cook & Sebastian C A Ferse & Boze Hancock & Peter Harrison & Margaux Hein & Elizabeth Shaver & Adam Smith &, 2020. "Coral restoration – A systematic review of current methods, successes, failures and future directions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-24, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0226631
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226631
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0226631
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0226631&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0226631?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Siti Rosnita Sakarji & Abdul Kadir Othman & Bagus Shandy Narmaditya & Raja Mayang Delima Mohd Beta & Azuati Mahmud, 2024. "Determinants of Academicians’ Mental Health in Higher Education Institutions: A Systematic Literature Review," Information Management and Business Review, AMH International, vol. 16(1), pages 1-12.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0226631. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.