Paucity of mobile species on constructed seawalls: effects of urbanization on biodiversity
By M. Chapman. 2003
314 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Ecology, Oceanography
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4f15898562874e7930ab6d28d82251a86ea3a838
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Ecology
In Oceanography
- B. Pister
- Pippa J. Moore
- S. Hawkins
- A. Underwood
- Dan A. Smale
- J. Moreira
- Richard C. Thompson
- M. Chapman
Citations in the corpus
- Seawalls do not sustain viable populations of limpets (2006, background): “…for rocky shores (Thompson et al. 2002), recent studies have shown important differences between intertidal seawalls and natural rocky shores in terms of composition of biological assemblages and relative abundance of common species (Chapman 2003, Chapman & Bulleri 2003, Bulleri & Chapman 2004).”
- The role of kelp species as biogenic habitat formers in coastal marine ecosystems (2017, background): “709 Along urbanised coastlines globally, replacement of natural substrate with artificial structures 710 relating to human activities is common and widespread (e.g. >50% of shores in Sydney Harbour are 711 artificial seawalls; Chapman, 2003).”
- Urban marine ecology in southern California: the ability of riprap structures to serve as rocky intertidal habitat (2009, background): “ Chapman (2003) found a similar pattern on seawalls, although she did not quantify abundance, so only richness could be evaluated.”
- Effects of Shoreline Modifications on Supratidal Macroinvertebrate Fauna on Puget Sound, Washington Beaches (2010, background): “ed with them compared to natural rocky shores (Chapman 2003; Chapman and Bulleri 2003).”
- Conservation challenges in urban seascapes: promoting the growth of threatened species on coastal infrastructures (2012, background): “…a strong influence on settlement, recruitment and survival of ben- thic fauna and flora in both natural (Harlin & Lindbergh 1977; Wells, Moll & Bolton 1989; Johnson & Brawley 1998; Guarnieri et al. 2009) and artificial substrata (Spie- ler, Gilliam & Sherman 2001; Chapman 2003; Burt et al. 2009).”
- Predation contributes to invasion resistance of benthic communities against the non-indigenous tunicate Ciona intestinalis (2011, background): “predators that are naturally abundant in benthic communities can be rare in fouling communities that colonize artificial structures (Chapman 2003; Chapman and Blockley 2009; Dumont et al. 2011).”
- Sydney Harbour: a review of anthropogenic impacts on the biodiversity and ecosystem function of one of the world’s largest natural harbours (2015, background): “In Sydney Harbour, intertidal seawalls support fewer organisms than adjacent natural rocky shores (e.g. Chapman 2003; Bulleri 2005; Bulleri et al. 2005).”
- Anthropogenic structures and the infiltration of natural benthos by invasive ascidians (2012, background): “These anthropogenic habitats, such as floating docks, pier pilings, breakwaters, and seawalls, provide novel substrata known to harbor marine communities that differ from surrounding natural substrata (Bulter & Connolly 1996; Glasby 1999a; Connell 2000; Chapman 2003; Bulleri & Chapman 2004).”
- Intertidal seawalls as habitats for molluscs (2006, background): “A variety of mobile animals, including starfish, sea urchins, molluscs and sea anemones, were, however, found less frequently on seawalls (Chapman, 2003).”
- Bioprotection and disturbance: Seaweed, microclimatic stability and conditions for mechanical weathering in the intertidal zone (2013, background): “Habitat conditions and near-surface conditions relevant to rock decay may therefore be very different between natural rocks and artificial structures, probably contributing to the typically impoverished ecological communities found on engineered surfaces (Chapman, 2003; Bulleri and Chapman, 2010).”
- Creating complex habitats for restoration and reconciliation (2015, background): “One of the main reasons for this reduced biodiversity is the lack of various important microhabitats, such as pits, rock-pools, crevices and overhangs, which results in reduced habitat complexity (Chapman, 2003).”