Using the Precautionary Principle to Measure Recovery of Coastal Habitats: The Case of a Seagrass Bed

The development of sound protocols to measure recovery of coastal habitats is an important contribution that science can deliver to decision-makers. Much scientific evidence is often, however, 'uncertain'. In order to interprete this uncertainty, the precautionary principle has been develo...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of coastal research 2006-12, p.962-965
Main Author: Widmer, W. M.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Biomass
Coastal ecology
Habitat conservation
Harbors
Marine ecology
Precautionary principle
Propellers
Scars
Sediments
Therapeutic equivalency
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The development of sound protocols to measure recovery of coastal habitats is an important contribution that science can deliver to decision-makers. Much scientific evidence is often, however, 'uncertain'. In order to interprete this uncertainty, the precautionary principle has been developed. Bioequivalence tests are appropriate to measure recovery, due to their incorporation of the precautionary principle. The aim of this study is, therefore, to investigate the recovery of the seagrass Halophila ovalis in Sydney Harbour, Australia, following the experimental clearing of small patches of seagrass beds. It is hypothesised that H. ovalis would recover within the first two months after the initial disturbance. At each of two sites, 14 clearings were created with a corer. Sampling was done at intervals of two months after the initial clearing for each site. In the laboratory, H. ovalis was sorted into above-ground and below-ground material and their ash-free dry weight was calculated. Two, four and six months after the scars were made, biomass values from disturbed areas at Site 1 were not significantly larger than 85% of the mean values from reference areas. At Site 2, however, recovery was achieved after four months for above-ground biomass. Contrary to the hypothesis proposed, bioequivalence tests used in this study suggested that H. ovalis may take more than 6 months to recover. For this reason, regulatory agencies should carefully define, in advance, statistical protocols to assess ecological recovery.
ISSN:0749-0208
1551-5036