Chapter 25 Seagrass Conservation Biology
617
of the area have demonstrated a willingness to enter
into constructive negotiations to find an acceptable
network of highly protected or no-take zones, representing about 25% of the total area of the GBR, the
to ensure the long-term conservation of species and
habitats, including seagrasses.
VI. Summary and Outlook
The geographic and temporal scale of these two examples illustrates that science-based strategies can
significantly influence and determine the success of
seagrass conservation programs. It is clear that these
approaches to conservation can be applied to other
locations but with some caution. We say “caution”
because application of a conservation biology perspective in terrestrial ecosystems teaches the importance of recognizing the biological and cultural
uniqueness of each bioregion—what fits one place
may fit another only with alteration. This concept
may run at cross-purposes to traditional ecological
theories (i.e. generalized rules apply generally), but
it is in keeping with the complex dynamic of local and regional blends of biology, ecology, physicochemical properties and culture exposed by a conservation biology perspective. The importance of
this paradigm shift cannot be undervalued because
the goals and objectives of conservation biology, in
addition to protecting biodiversity, are to support
and encourage sustainable programs with respect
to resource extraction and to encourage humans to
recognize that services provided by natural systems
control the quality of life for all species. While this
approach is in conflict with cost benefit analysis
in the short-term—“give me (us) what I (we) want
now”—the long term survival of humans and the
natural systems, which drive the biochemical and
physical forces that shape cultures and societies, depend on our willingness to acknowledge the prudence of long-term thinking.
Having said this, we recognize that evolution is a
dynamic process punctuated by events that cannot be
fully explained or controlled by humans. Evolution
within the seagrass biome and the seagrasses themselves conforms to this process—there was a time
before seagrass and there may be a time in the future
when these plants are ancient ancestors of new floral
assemblages. However, rapid rates of species extinction and destruction of habitat directly linked to human activity are unacceptable. We have pointed out
the vital importance of the seagrass biome not only
for services that nourish and support human cultures
but also the strong link between the health of this
biome and nearshore and estuarine productivity and
biodiversity. Our selective review of the literature
through the lens of a conservation biology perspective convinces us that insights of this discipline are
necessary to arrest the global trend of seagrass loss.
As Duarte (1999) pointed out, deficiencies in our
understanding of seagrass biomes sharply curtails
our ability to predict the consequences of seagrass
loss and this is largely due to the fragmented nature
of the research community. Conservation biology of
seagrasses can serve as a focal point for synthesis
of disciplines and ultimately for the advancement of
understanding and at the same time serve as a tool
for future protection.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the stimulation
provided by our discussions with many colleagues
over the years including but not restricted to T.
Wyllie-Echeverria, P. A. Cox, E. S. Hunn, J. T. Carlton, N. J. Turner, R. D. Guthrie, G. H. Orians, B. K.
Ewing, L. Penny, M. Waycott, M. Fonseca, and J.
P. Reid. SWE is grateful for the assistance received
from museum curators and librarians, in particular
Jan Timbrook, Curator, Santa Barbara Museum of
Natural History. We also thank the editors and three
anonymous reviewers for their comments. Funding
for WJK was provided while working for the Center
for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research, NOS,
NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce.
References
Aioi K (1993) International Workshop on Seagrass Biology.
Ocean Research Institute and their relationship to mangrove
hammocks. Bull Marine Sci 22: 559–574
Aioi K and Nakaoka M (2003) The seagrasses of Japan. In: Green
EP and Short FT (eds) World Atlas of Seagrasses, pp 185–192.
University of California Press, Berkeley, California
Aragones L and Marsh H (2000) Impact of Dugong grazing and
turtle cropping on tropical seagrass communities. Pac Conserv
Biol 5: 277–288
Arber A (1920) Water Plants. A Study of Aquatic Angiosperms.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Bach S, Thayer G and LaCroix M (1986) Export of detritus from
eelgrass (Zostera marina) beds near Beaufort, North Carolina,
USA. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 28: 265–278
617
of the area have demonstrated a willingness to enter
into constructive negotiations to find an acceptable
network of highly protected or no-take zones, representing about 25% of the total area of the GBR, the
to ensure the long-term conservation of species and
habitats, including seagrasses.
VI. Summary and Outlook
The geographic and temporal scale of these two examples illustrates that science-based strategies can
significantly influence and determine the success of
seagrass conservation programs. It is clear that these
approaches to conservation can be applied to other
locations but with some caution. We say “caution”
because application of a conservation biology perspective in terrestrial ecosystems teaches the importance of recognizing the biological and cultural
uniqueness of each bioregion—what fits one place
may fit another only with alteration. This concept
may run at cross-purposes to traditional ecological
theories (i.e. generalized rules apply generally), but
it is in keeping with the complex dynamic of local and regional blends of biology, ecology, physicochemical properties and culture exposed by a conservation biology perspective. The importance of
this paradigm shift cannot be undervalued because
the goals and objectives of conservation biology, in
addition to protecting biodiversity, are to support
and encourage sustainable programs with respect
to resource extraction and to encourage humans to
recognize that services provided by natural systems
control the quality of life for all species. While this
approach is in conflict with cost benefit analysis
in the short-term—“give me (us) what I (we) want
now”—the long term survival of humans and the
natural systems, which drive the biochemical and
physical forces that shape cultures and societies, depend on our willingness to acknowledge the prudence of long-term thinking.
Having said this, we recognize that evolution is a
dynamic process punctuated by events that cannot be
fully explained or controlled by humans. Evolution
within the seagrass biome and the seagrasses themselves conforms to this process—there was a time
before seagrass and there may be a time in the future
when these plants are ancient ancestors of new floral
assemblages. However, rapid rates of species extinction and destruction of habitat directly linked to human activity are unacceptable. We have pointed out
the vital importance of the seagrass biome not only
for services that nourish and support human cultures
but also the strong link between the health of this
biome and nearshore and estuarine productivity and
biodiversity. Our selective review of the literature
through the lens of a conservation biology perspective convinces us that insights of this discipline are
necessary to arrest the global trend of seagrass loss.
As Duarte (1999) pointed out, deficiencies in our
understanding of seagrass biomes sharply curtails
our ability to predict the consequences of seagrass
loss and this is largely due to the fragmented nature
of the research community. Conservation biology of
seagrasses can serve as a focal point for synthesis
of disciplines and ultimately for the advancement of
understanding and at the same time serve as a tool
for future protection.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the stimulation
provided by our discussions with many colleagues
over the years including but not restricted to T.
Wyllie-Echeverria, P. A. Cox, E. S. Hunn, J. T. Carlton, N. J. Turner, R. D. Guthrie, G. H. Orians, B. K.
Ewing, L. Penny, M. Waycott, M. Fonseca, and J.
P. Reid. SWE is grateful for the assistance received
from museum curators and librarians, in particular
Jan Timbrook, Curator, Santa Barbara Museum of
Natural History. We also thank the editors and three
anonymous reviewers for their comments. Funding
for WJK was provided while working for the Center
for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research, NOS,
NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce.
References
Aioi K (1993) International Workshop on Seagrass Biology.
Ocean Research Institute and their relationship to mangrove
hammocks. Bull Marine Sci 22: 559–574
Aioi K and Nakaoka M (2003) The seagrasses of Japan. In: Green
EP and Short FT (eds) World Atlas of Seagrasses, pp 185–192.
University of California Press, Berkeley, California
Aragones L and Marsh H (2000) Impact of Dugong grazing and
turtle cropping on tropical seagrass communities. Pac Conserv
Biol 5: 277–288
Arber A (1920) Water Plants. A Study of Aquatic Angiosperms.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Bach S, Thayer G and LaCroix M (1986) Export of detritus from
eelgrass (Zostera marina) beds near Beaufort, North Carolina,
USA. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 28: 265–278