ORCID Profile
0000-0003-2165-9544
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
In Research Link Australia (RLA), "Research Topics" refer to ANZSRC FOR and SEO codes. These topics are either sourced from ANZSRC FOR and SEO codes listed in researchers' related grants or generated by a large language model (LLM) based on their publications.
Conservation and biodiversity | Marine and estuarine ecology (incl. marine ichthyology) | Environmental management | Environmental assessment and monitoring
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 06-09-2021
DOI: 10.1111/REC.13536
Abstract: Kelp beds are a defining feature of temperate reefs worldwide, playing a fundamental role as ecosystem engineers and primary producers. Overgrazing by the native sea urchin Heliocidaris erythrogramma has driven a phase shift from kelp beds of Ecklonia radiata to barrens across much of Port Phillip Bay, Victoria. Here, we present the results of a transplant experiment, which took juvenile E. radiata sporophytes from a source reef and attached them with silicon tubing to basalt tiles. Following an initial localized cull, we monitored the development and survival of in idual E. radiata to investigate the drivers of loss during transplantation, including disturbance (control vs. procedural control), receiving environment (kelp canopy vs. no canopy), and translocation site (within vs. between reefs). We also investigated the role of holdfast reattachment and developmental stage on kelp survival. Sixty‐nine percent of the kelp transplants survived over the 17 weeks, with no increased loss resulting from transplantation to a reef 41 km away. We observed high survival of transplants in the absence of ongoing urchin exclusion. Furthermore, the provision of a canopy is not necessary and may result in adverse impacts on survival and development of juvenile sporophyte transplants presumably through competition for light. In iduals at the collection location (controls) were unlikely to survive to maturity suggesting their removal for transplanting is likely to have minimal impact on the kelp population of the donor reef. The methods used could be feasibly upscaled for rehabilitating or restoring kelp beds both in Port Phillip Bay and elsewhere.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 03-07-2019
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 08-07-2020
Abstract: There is increasing interest in mitigating the loss of kelp forests through restoration, but this has received scant attention relative to other coastal habitats. We evaluate current knowledge centered on key restoration principles to provide guidelines for best practice in kelp restoration. The cause and scale of degradation is fundamental in determining if kelp can be restored and the methods required to promote reestablishment. Removal of stressors may be adequate to achieve restoration goals where degradation is not too widespread or acute. Extensive losses of kelp forests will often require active reseeding of areas because of the low dispersal ability of many kelp species. Restoration efforts have generally taken a trial-and-error approach at experimental scales to develop techniques for establishing in iduals. Furthermore, studies that inform cost–benefit analysis and the appropriate spatial scales for restoration of sustainable kelp forests are urgently needed for prioritizing and scaling up restoration efforts globally.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 03-2019
DOI: 10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2018.12.285
Abstract: Marine harbours are the focus of a erse range of activities and subject to multiple anthropogenically induced pressures. Support for environmental management options aimed at improving degraded harbours depends on understanding the factors which influence people's perceptions of harbour environments. We used an online survey, across 12 harbours, to assess sources of variation people's perceptions of harbour health and ecological engineering. We tested the hypotheses: 1) people living near impacted harbours would consider their environment to be more unhealthy and degraded, be more concerned about the environment and supportive of and willing to pay for ecological engineering relative to those living by less impacted harbours, and 2) people with greater connectedness to the harbour would be more concerned about and have greater perceived knowledge of the environment, and be more supportive of, knowledgeable about and willing to pay for ecological engineering, than those with less connectedness. Across twelve locations, the levels of degradation and modification by artificial structures were lower and the concern and knowledge about the environment and ecological engineering were greater in the six Australasian and American than the six European and Asian harbours surveyed. We found that people's perception of harbours as healthy or degraded, but not their concern for the environment, reflected the degree to which harbours were impacted. There was a positive relationship between the percentage of shoreline modified and the extent of support for and people's willingness to pay indirect costs for ecological engineering. At the in idual level, measures of connectedness to the harbour environment were good predictors of concern for and perceived knowledge about the environment but not support for and perceived knowledge about ecological engineering. To make informed decisions, it is important that people are empowered with sufficient knowledge of the environmental issues facing their harbour and ecological engineering options.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 06-2022
Publisher: Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Date: 16-07-2020
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 09-2018
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2015
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 20-10-2020
DOI: 10.1111/GEB.13202
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 27-07-2017
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 06-2018
DOI: 10.1016/J.ENVPOL.2018.02.061
Abstract: Macroalgal beds provide important habitat structure and support primary production for rocky reef communities, but are increasingly degraded as a result of human pressures. Various sources of pollution can have both direct and interactive effects on stressed ecosystems. In particular, interactions involving invertebrate grazers could potentially weaken or strengthen the overall impact of pollution on macroalgal beds. Using a paired impact-control experimental design, we tested the effects of multiple pollution sources (fish farms, marinas, sewerage, and stormwater) on translocated and locally established algal assemblages, while also considering the influence of invertebrate grazers. Marinas directly affected algal assemblages and also reduced densities of hipods and other invertebrate mesograzers. Fish farms and sewerage outfalls tended to directly increase local establishment of foliose and leathery algae without any indication of changes in herbivory. Overall, pollution impacts on algae did not appear to be strongly mediated by changes in grazer abundance. Instead, mesograzer abundance was closely linked to availability of more complex algal forms, with populations likely to decline concurrently with loss of complex algal habitats. Macrograzers, such as sea urchins, showed no signs of a negative impact from any pollution source hence, the influence of this group on algal dynamics is probably persistent and independent of moderate pollution levels, potentially adding to the direct impacts of pollution on algal beds in urbanised environments.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 03-2018
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 31-08-2020
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 26-09-2019
DOI: 10.1111/DDI.12838
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2019
DOI: 10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2018.09.047
Abstract: Ecological engineering principles are increasingly being applied to develop multifunctional artificial structures or rehabilitated habitats in coastal areas. Ecological engineering initiatives are primarily driven by marine scientists and coastal managers, but often the views of key user groups, which can strongly influence the success of projects, are not considered. We used an online survey and participatory mapping exercise to investigate differences in priority goals, sites and attitudes towards ecological engineering between marine scientists and coastal managers as compared to other stakeholders. The surveys were conducted across three Australian cities that varied in their level of urbanisation and environmental pressures. We tested the hypotheses that, relative to other stakeholders, marine scientists and coastal managers will: 1) be more supportive of ecological engineering 2) be more likely to agree that enhancement of bio ersity and remediation of pollution are key priorities for ecological engineering and 3) identify different priority areas and infrastructure or degraded habitats for ecological engineering. We also tested the hypothesis that 4) perceptions of ecological engineering would vary among locations, due to environmental and socio-economic differences. In all three harbours, marine scientists and coastal managers were more supportive of ecological engineering than other users. There was also greater support for ecological engineering in Sydney and Melbourne than Hobart. Most people identified transport infrastructure, in busy transport hubs (i.e. Circular Quay in Sydney, the Port in Melbourne and the Waterfront in Hobart) as priorities for ecological engineering, irrespective of their stakeholder group or location. There were, however, significant differences among locations in what people perceive as the key priorities for ecological engineering (i.e. bio ersity in Sydney and Melbourne vs. pollution in Hobart). Greater consideration of these location-specific differences is essential for effective management of artificial structures and rehabilitated habitats in urban embayments.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 25-06-2019
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 08-2018
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 08-2021
No related organisations have been discovered for Elisabeth Strain.
Start Date: 08-2023
End Date: 08-2026
Amount: $625,764.00
Funder: Australian Research Council
View Funded Activity