ABSTRACT
More than 60% of the eelgrass has vanished from the Swedish northwest coast since the 1980’s as a result of nutrient pollution and overfishing. Although measures have improved the water quality significantly in recent years, no natural recovery of eelgrass has occurred. Instead the losses of eelgrass continue as a result of e.g. coastal exploitation. Restoration of eelgrass constitutes a potential tool to recreate historic habitats and to mitigate eelgrass meadows that are destroyed during exploitation.
This handbook provides detailed technical guidelines for eelgrass restoration in Scandinavian waters and includes all important steps in the restoration process, from site selection and permit processes to harvest and planting of eelgrass, and monitoring and evaluation of results. The described methods are based on extensive studies carried along the northwest coast of Sweden, from 2010 to 2015, and are mainly applicable for the Skagerrak–Kattegat area including the Sound. Some of the methods may also be appropriate for the southern part of the Baltic Sea, but complementary studies will be needed before they could be recommended also for this area.
Although functional methods for eelgrass restoration now are available for Swedish waters it is important to note the eelgrass restoration is very labor intensive, expensive and the results are many times uncertain. When an eelgrass meadow is lost, the physical and biological environment may change so much that it no longer allows eelgrass to grow in the area. It is therefore not always possible to restore a lost eelgrass bed. Hence, it is imperative that environmental managers prioritize the protection and conservation of remaining eelgrass habitats, and only as a last option use compensatory restoration as a measure to mitigate losses caused by coastal exploitation.
A critical first step, before large-scale restoration is initiated, is to evaluate if the existing environmental conditions at potential restoration sites allow eelgrass to grow. Monitoring of physical and biological conditions and test-planting of eelgrass should therefore be carried out for at least 12 months prior to selecting a restoration site. The dominant causes to why eelgrass plantings fail along the Swedish northwest coast are poor water quality resulting from local sediment resuspension, disturbance from bottom-drifting perennial algal mats and shore crabs, and shading from ephemeral algae. In general it is recommended that eelgrass restoration should only be attempted at sites where the light availability at the planting depth is at least 25% of the surface irradiance, and where test-planted shoots show positive growth after one year.
Before any restoration work is started it is important to contact relevant local authorities to obtain information regarding necessary permits and required communication with stakeholders. For the methods recommended in this handbook, only a consultation with the County Administrative Board is normally required.
For eelgrass restoration in Sweden, the single-shoot method is recommended where single, adult shoots are harvested and planted by hand, without sediment from the donor meadow, using diving. To decrease winter mortality resulting from ice-scouring or insufficient light, it is generally recommended that shoots are planted in the beginning of June, between 1.5 and 2.5 m depth. It is also recommended that shoots are planted 0.25 to 0.50 m apart (equivalent to a planting density of 4 to 16 shoots per m2) and that the size of the planted area is at least 1000 m2 to increase the chances of positive feedback mechanisms from the restored meadow. The recommended methods for harvest do not result in any measurable impact on the donor meadows, and the planting methods are relatively fast. Studies suggest that 4 divers could harvest and plant 40,000 shoot covering one hectare in 10 working days. During optimal conditions the shoot density can increase 10 times before the winter. Since the harvest and planting is done by hand, the method will likely limit the size of possible restoration projects to less than 10 hectares per year, which is a very small amount in comparison with the 1000’s of hectars that has been lost along the Swedish west coast since the 1980’s. Thus, the available restoration methods can likely not alone recreate the historic distribution of eelgrass. However, in combination with large-scale measures that improves the conditions for eelgrass growth along the Swedish west coast, restoration at strategically chosen locations may constitute an important complement that could enable and accelerate natural recovery of Swedish eelgrass habitats.
Monitoring of the restored eelgrass bed is critical to evaluate if the goals of the restoration are met, and must be part of every restoration project. This is particularly important in mitigation projects to ensure that no net-loss of eelgrass occur. This handbook recommend that the result of the restoration is primarily evaluated by comparing eelgrass shoot density, biomass and areal extent of the planted bed with the same variables in a natural, reference bed over a period of 10 years.
The total cost of restoring one hectare of eelgrass using the recommended methods is estimated to vary between 1.2 and 2.5 million SEK. These values include the cost of site selection for one year and monitoring for 10 years (0.38 and 0.39 million SEK, respectively), which are independent of the size of the restoration project. The cost of harvesting and planting, on the other hand, is directly proportional to the size of the planted meadow, and the shoot density used, and varies between 0.44 and 1.73 million SEK per hectare for the recommended methods. If anchoring techniques need to be used the planting cost could double. Thus, it is important to identify optimal planting methods during evaluation of restoration sites to keep the costs down.
Methods for eelgrass restoration using seeds have also been developed for Swedish conditions. However, seed methods cannot presently be recommended due to very high and variable losses of seeds, and high costs. In comparison with the single-shoot method, seed methods have higher risks of failure, take two additional years to obtain a functional eelgrass meadow, and are estimated to cost two to three times more with available methods.
Download Appendix 1. Restoration using eelgrass seeds in Sweden- A guideline (pdf)
Download Appendix 2. Modifying the environment for eelgrass restoration (pdf)
Download Appendix 3. Estimates of costs for eelgrass restoration in western Sweden (pdf)
