Next Article in Journal
Invasive Plant Species Demonstrate Enhanced Resource Acquisition Traits Relative to Native Non-Dominant Species but not Compared with Native Dominant Species
Previous Article in Journal
Spatio-Temporal Dynamics of Larval Fish Assemblage in the Nakdong River Estuary, South Korea
Previous Article in Special Issue
Large-Scale Re-Implantation Efforts for Posidonia oceanica Restoration in the Ligurian Sea: Progress and Challenges
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diversity
Volume 16
Issue 6
10.3390/d16060316
diversity-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Habitat Fragmentation Enhances the Difference between Natural and Artificial Reefs in an Urban Marine Coastal Tract

by
Ilaria Mancini
1,*,
Annalisa Azzola
1,2,
Carlo Nike Bianchi
1,3,
Marco Capello
4,
Laura Cutroneo
4,
Carla Morri
1,3,
Alice Oprandi
1 and
Monica Montefalcone
1,2
1
Seascape Ecology Laboratory, DiSTAV (Department of Earth, Environment and Life Sciences), University of Genoa, Corso Europa 26, 16132 Genova, Italy
2
NBFC (National Biodiversity Future Center), Piazza Marina 61, 90133 Palermo, Italy
3
Genoa Marine Centre, EMI (Department of Integrative Marine Ecology), Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn—National Institute of Marine Biology, Ecology and Biotechnology, Villa del Principe, Piazza del Principe 4, 16126 Genova, Italy
4
Physical Oceanography Laboratory, DiSTAV (Department of Earth, Environment and Life Sciences), University of Genoa, 26 Corso Europa, 16132 Genoa, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diversity 2024, 16(6), 316; https://doi.org/10.3390/d16060316
Submission received: 15 March 2024 / Revised: 16 May 2024 / Accepted: 22 May 2024 / Published: 25 May 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Ligurian Sea and the National Biodiversity Future Centre (NBFC): Biodiversity Conservation in a Temperate Marine Environment under Threat)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Coastal urbanization and the consequent proliferation of artificial structures greatly impact rocky reef communities, productive and diverse marine environments that play a crucial role in the functioning of broader coastal ecosystems. This study, conducted along a 7 km stretch of coastline at increasing distance from the port of Genoa (Ligurian Sea), investigated whether the alternating presence of artificial and natural reefs leads to discernible differences in the biota inhabiting these two reef types. The study area is one of the most anthropized areas of the Mediterranean Sea, exhibiting nearly 60% coastal artificialization, which severely impacts coastal ecosystems, favouring the replacement of sensitive species with more tolerant species. Ten reefs (5 natural and 5 artificial) were surveyed by scuba diving at about a 6-m depth, employing quadrats of 50 cm × 50 cm to estimate visually the percent cover of conspicuous sessile organisms. The artificial reefs hosted a similar number of species (18) to their natural counterparts (19) but exhibited a distinct community composition: the former were especially characterized by Jania rubens and filamentous algae, with the latter characterized by Peyssonnelia squamaria and Mesophyllum lichenoides. This difference, however, became negligible where coastal habitat fragmentation (here measured with a purposely devised Fragmentation Index) was minimal. Reducing fragmentation may therefore represent a management strategy to minimize the potential impact of artificial structures on marine biodiversity.

1. Introduction

Many of the world’s largest cities are situated in coastal areas [1,2]. In the United States, more than 50% of the population live in coastal areas [3]; in Asia, large cities are concentrated on the coast [4]; and a similar situation concerns the entire world [5]. The human population of coastal areas worldwide is experiencing faster growth as compared to inland settlings [6]. Coastal cities are thus rapidly expanding due to increasing demand for space, the need to protect coastal infrastructures, buildings, and populations, and to support maritime traffic [7].
Urban infrastructures to support commercial, residential, and tourist activities affect coastal environments, exposing their natural habitats and the associated species and ecological processes to multifarious and profound changes [8,9]. These artificial structures, such as breakwaters, jetties, and seawalls, have become commonplace in intertidal and shallow subtidal areas, where they flank or even replace natural rocky reefs, producing a heterogeneous pattern of habitats [10]. The resulting ecosystem fragmentation may lead to reduced ecological connectivity and diversity loss [11,12,13].
Rocky reefs are among the most productive and diverse marine environments and play a crucial role in the functioning of broader coastal ecosystems [14]. They are essential for the provision of ecosystem services (including fishery and tourism) that the ocean ensures humans [15,16]. The replacement of natural rocky reefs with artificial reefs has been shown to alter species composition, leading to communities being dominated by opportunistic organisms [17], and thus has a negative impact on the environment [18].
Nevertheless, artificial reefs often become a newly available substrate that is colonized by marine organisms [19]. Besides being coastal defence elements [20], they are recognized as a valuable solution to deter illicit trawling, bolster fish populations, and enhance small-scale coastal fisheries [21,22,23,24]. If the primary goal of artificial reef construction is the creation of additional reef habitat for fish, it should be considered that their assemblages will likely differ significantly from those of adjacent natural reefs, also depending on the rock type of the latter compared to the materials used for the former [25]. Artificial reefs have also been employed for marine restoration, although their effectiveness in restoring ecosystems lacks well-defined ecological criteria and empirical evidence [26]. However, there is increasing evidence that the epibiota thriving on artificial reefs is often distinct from that found on natural reefs [2], not only in terms of epibenthic assemblage composition but also in terms of trophic function: suspension feeding typically dominates natural reefs, while within artificial reefs, there may be an ascendency of carnivory [27].
Many studies have demonstrated the negative effects that artificial reefs exert on the native regional biota: for instance, the lower physical complexity of artificial substrates implies reduced availability and spatial distribution of microhabitats, which would create small-scale spatial heterogeneity and hence higher biodiversity [28]. Manipulative field experiments demonstrated that the deployment of artificial reefs produced and effect on marine biodiversity similar to a large disturbance that created free space [29].
In the Mediterranean Sea, the use of artificial reefs dates back 3000 years [30] and has significantly altered the coastline, creating armoured shorelines out of shallow sedimentary habitats [31]. In several regions of Italy, France, and Spain, formerly characterized by rocky reefs [14,32], artificial reefs cover more than 45% of the coastal strip [2]. Concerns about their ecological impacts arose in the 1970s [33,34]; besides fragmenting native species populations, artificial reefs favour the spread of invasive exotic species, either algae or invertebrates, brought in by maritime traffic [35,36].
The Ligurian Sea is one of the most anthropized areas of the Mediterranean Sea [37]; coastal artificialization, estimated to reach 60%, impacts coastal ecosystems by favouring the replacement of species sensitive to human pressures with more ruderal species [38]. The coastal stretch of the city of Genoa (NW Italy), in particular, is highly urbanized [39]. The present study focuses on examining whether the alternating presence of natural and artificial reefs leads to discernible differences in the sessile epibenthic communities inhabiting these two types of substrates, along a gradient of distance from the port.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area and Field Activities

This study is part of an environmental impact assessment planned in view of the construction of a new breakwater in Genoa Harbour, one of the largest ports of the Mediterranean Sea and a major hub of maritime traffic. The activities were conducted along 7 km of the eastern coast of Genoa, in five areas situated at increasing distance from the port and named according to the locales of Genoa that they front. From west to east, they are (Figure 1a) Foce (F), Sturla (S), Quarto (Q), Quinto (U), and Nervi (N). In each locale, both natural and artificial reefs were sampled to investigate differences in their quali–quantitative composition and species richness of their communities. Artificial reefs were represented by groynes and coastal defences made of quarry rocks.
The coastline in the study area is fragmented, with alternation between pocket beaches, natural reefs, and artificial reefs; moving eastward from the port, coastal urbanization diminishes [40,41], correlating with an increasing prevalence of natural reefs (Figure 1a).
In each of the 10 reefs surveyed (5 natural and 5 artificial, both bordering the shore), three visual replicates were taken, employing quadrats of 50 cm × 50 cm (i.e., 0.25 m2) divided into 25 smaller quadrats (Figure 1b). Quadrats of this size have been shown to represent a good compromise between underwater handling control and sampling representativeness [42]. Although a sample size that could be recommended universally does not exist [43], early experiences in the Mediterranean indicated that quadrats of 20 cm × 20 cm, distinctly smaller than the ones used in the present study, are adequate for the analysis of shallow algal-dominated rocky reef communities [44,45]. Obviously, the problem of the minimal area is of a practical nature and concerns a cost–benefit analysis between the information retrieved and the sampling effort [46].
Specifically, in the Genoa reef survey, a square frame made of plastic material was placed on (sub)vertical rocks at about a 6-m depth, and two diving scientists estimated visually the percent cover of conspicuous sessile organisms, writing data on a diving slate. A depth of 6 m was considered the best option according to the observed bathymetric zonation of the algal communities in the area. As typical for Mediterranean infralittoral rocky reefs [47,48], strong zonation occurs in the study area: preliminary surveys showed the dominance, in the first few meters of depth, of the brown alga Dictyota spiralis in sheltered situations and of the red algae Jania virgata and Laurencia sp. in exposed or semi-exposed situations. It has been observed that the effect of wave exposure may eclipse the difference between natural and artificial reefs [49]. On the other hand, at about 8 m both natural and artificial reefs end on a sandy bottom. Previous studies on algal-dominated rocky reefs in the Mediterranean were also carried out at comparable depths [50,51,52,53], among others.
The field work was carried out in March 2023 to avoid the proliferation of ephemeral summer species, whose blooms might blur the difference between natural and artificial reefs. As typical for the whole Ligurian Sea, in March strong counterclockwise circulation causes the upwelling of deep waters, which supports high primary production in spring, leading to mesotrophic conditions that contrast with the oligotrophic conditions of the summer and winter months [37]. The seawater temperature of the Ligurian Sea in March is still close to winter temperatures: in 2023, in particular, the sea surface temperature averaged 12.9 °C [54].

2.2. Data Management

The proportion of natural reefs, artificial reefs, and pocket beaches along the coastline of each locale was calculated from aerial photographs taken in June 2023 available on Google Earth [55]. To measure the habitat fragmentation of each locale’s coastal tract, a Fragmentation Index (FI) was devised based on Simpson’s Dominance Index [56] and applied to the three coastline features (pocket beaches, natural reefs, and artificial reefs):
FI = Σ (ni/N)2
where FI is the Fragmentation Index, Σ is the summation from 1 to 3 (number of coastline features), and ni is the total linear length of the ith feature in the locale. The FI ranges from 0 to 1, where 0 is the maximum fragmentation (the three features being equally abundant) and 1 is the absolute dominance of one feature.
Differences in species richness, expressed as the plain number of species [56] in natural and artificial reefs, were tested using two-way ANOVA. Percent cover data of conspicuous sessile organisms were organized into a matrix [(locale × reef type) × species], which was subjected to non-metric multidimensional scaling (nMDS) based on the Bray–Curtis index after arcsine transformation [57]. A two-way permutational multivariate analysis of variance (PERMANOVA) was applied to highlight potential compositional differences in the rocky reef communities among the locales and between reef types (natural vs. artificial). A SIMPER analysis, always based on the Bray–Curtis index [57], was applied to identify the taxa that contributed most to the difference (whose significance was tested using Student’s t) between natural and artificial reefs. The difference in the qualitative (species occurrence) and quantitative (cover) composition of the communities in the two reef types (natural vs. artificial) in each locale was measured using Euclidean distances [57]; the Euclidean distances between the two reef types were then compared to the FI to see whether habitat fragmentation within locales may affect the distinction between natural and artificial reefs. All the analyses were performed using the free software PaSt 4.03 [58].

3. Results

The coastline of Genoa exhibited a noteworthy difference in the proportion of coastline features within the individual locales: the westernmost locales, close to Genoa port (e.g., Foce and Sturla), had a greater proportion of artificial reefs (43% and 31% of the coastline) and pocket beaches (both 27% of the coastline) than the easternmost locales, such as Quinto and Nervi, where rocky reefs occupied 69% and 73% of the coastline, respectively (Figure 2a). Consistently, the FI showed a nearly continuous trend of decrease from west to east; in particular, the FI of Nervi was distinctly lower than that of all the remaining locales (Figure 2b). The average difference between assemblage composition and cover in natural and artificial reefs within each locale, expressed as Euclidean distance, similarly decreased the further away from Genoa one moved, to reach a minimum in Nervi (Figure 2c).
A total of 22 taxa were found, of which 19 were identified to the species level and two to higher levels only (class or family); filamentous algae not identifiable visually underwater were collectively named turf, a morphological group without taxonomic connotation (Table 1). Red algae were the most represented taxon, with 8 species: among them, Ellisolandia elongata exhibited the highest percent cover, followed by Peyssonnelia squamaria. Brown algae were represented by 4 species, with Halopteris scoparia reaching comparatively high cover. The cover by sessile invertebrates was almost negligible, although sponges were speciose. Turf reached high cover, especially on artificial reefs.
There was little difference in species occurrence between the natural and artificial reefs: four taxa (Aiptasia mutabilis, Amphiroa rigida, Padina pavonica, and Sphaerococcus coronopifolius) were exclusive to natural reefs and three (Asparagopsis armata, Cliona celata, and Serpulidae) to artificial reefs, while the vast majority of taxa (15) were common to both reef types. The species richness, in terms of the total number of taxa, was similar in both reef types, with 19 in natural reefs and 18 in artificial reefs. The species richness within locales was also similar (Figure 3a), with the exception of Quarto, where natural reefs were significantly richer than artificial reefs (t = 3.274, p = 0.031). The two-way ANOVA indicated that the number of taxa was not different between reef types (19 species on natural reefs, 18 on artificial ones), while the difference among locales was very significant (Table 2); the interaction between reef type and locale was significant due to the results of Quarto.
Multivariate analysis (nMDS) ordered the observation points in two groups corresponding to the two reef types, with the points representing the natural reefs clustering on the left side of the graph, while those belonging to artificial reefs clustered on the right; the artificial reef points for Nervi, however, were an exception, being closer to the natural reef points than to the artificial reef points of the other locales (Figure 3b).
PERMANOVA evidenced highly significant differences in the quali–quantitative composition of the sessile assemblages between natural and artificial reefs; differences among locales were significant, and so were the interactions among reef types and locales (Table 3). Significant interactions were attributable to the artificial reefs of Nervi being more similar to natural reefs. Comparing the Euclidean distances between reef types with the FI for each locale clearly showed that natural and artificial reefs were more similar to each other in the presence of low habitat fragmentation (Figure 4a); in the case of Nervi, in particular, the coastline is almost completely represented by natural reefs (Figure 1a).
The SIMPER analysis identified 10 taxa that contributed to community differences between natural and artificial reefs; the contribution of the remaining 12 species was nil (Table 4). The species Peyssonnelia squamaria, Ellisolandia elongata, Mesophyllum lichenoides, and Cystoseira compressa reached higher cover in the natural reefs, while turf, Halopteris scoparia, Lithophyllum incrustans, Jania rubens, Dictyota dichotoma, and Crambe crambe had higher cover in the artificial reefs (Figure 4b). However, the difference was significant only for P. squamaria, turf, J. rubens, and M. lichenoides, but the latter was rather scarce in both reef types (percent cover = 2.7 ± 1.14 in natural reefs and 0.3 ± 0.21 in artificial reefs).

4. Discussion

All the epibenthic sessile assemblages studied along a gradient of urbanization from the port of Genoa towards the east belong to a community type known in the Mediterranean Sea as ESEPA, or “Exposed or Semi-Exposed water Photophilic Algae” [59], typically considered as part of a wider Photophilic Algae biocoenosis [60]. In all five locales of Genoa surveyed, ESEPA was exemplified by the dominance of the coralline alga Ellisolandia elongata on both the natural and artificial reefs. The mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis, once abundant in these reefs [40], was not observed during the 2023 survey. Between 2003 and 2013, M. galloprovincialis virtually disappeared from the shallow infralittoral reefs of the Ligurian Sea [53]. A similar decline in recent decades has been observed in other Italian seas, and a possible reason for this has been identified in sea water warming [61,62]. Reduced recruitment of this species on urban shores has been observed elsewhere [63].
Table 4. Contribution of the 22 taxa to the similarity between natural and artificial reefs according to SIMPER analysis (based on Bray–Curtis index). For the 10 taxa that provided a non-nil contribution, the significance of the difference is provided (Student’s test). NAT = natural reefs, ART = artificial reefs, dissim = dissimilarity, contrib % = percent contribution, m = mean, se = standard error, n = number of cases, t = Student’s t, P = probability, ns = not significant, *** = highly significant, ** = very significant, * = significant.
Table 4. Contribution of the 22 taxa to the similarity between natural and artificial reefs according to SIMPER analysis (based on Bray–Curtis index). For the 10 taxa that provided a non-nil contribution, the significance of the difference is provided (Student’s test). NAT = natural reefs, ART = artificial reefs, dissim = dissimilarity, contrib % = percent contribution, m = mean, se = standard error, n = number of cases, t = Student’s t, P = probability, ns = not significant, *** = highly significant, ** = very significant, * = significant.
NATART
DissimContrib %msemsentP
1Peyssonnelia squamaria13.4125.4126.04.273.61.23155.0410.000 ***
2Ellisolandia elongata11.5221.8439.95.3232.54.79151.0340.310 ns
3Turf9.6318.2511.82.4027.73.7515−3.5710.001 **
4Halopteris scoparia6.7112.717.32.1813.54.0515−1.3480.188 ns
5Lithophyllum incrustans4.268.086.91.519.12.5415−0.7450.463 ns
6Jania rubens4.187.920.40.288.63.4015−2.4040.023 *
7Dictyota dichotoma1.052.001.50.362.61.1715−0.8990.377 ns
8Mesophyllum lichenoides1.031.942.71.140.30.21152.0360.048 *
9Cystoseira compressa0.641.211.00.480.60.55150.5480.588 ns
10Crambe crambe0.340.650.40.700.60.3215−0.2600.797 ns
11Protula tubularia000.50.200.20.1215
12Ircinia oros000.40.160.20.1515
13Chondrosia reniformis000.40.220.10.0715
14Sphaerococcus coronopifolius000.40.240.00.0015
15Amphiroa rigida000.20.210.00.0015
16Hydrozoa000.10.060.10.0715
17Padina pavonica000.10.100.00.0015
18Ircinia variabilis000.10.070.10.0515
19Asparagopsis armata000.00.000.10.0715
20Serpulidae 000.00.000.10.1015
21Aiptasia mutabilis000.10.070.00.0015
22Cliona celata000.00.000.10.0715
Apart from the overall dominance by E. elongata, a species widespread in all Mediterranean shallow-water rocky reefs [64], there were important differences in the species composition between the natural and artificial reefs. The former were especially characterized by Peyssonnelia squamaria and Mesophyllum lichenoides, two important basal species typical of well-structured algal communities [65,66]. In the latter, the main taxa were turf, an ensemble of opportunistic filamentous algae [67], and Jania rubens, an epiphytic or epilithic species widespread in many shallow-water rocky habitats [68,69]. Such a contrast suggests that the community settled on artificial reefs tends to remain in a pioneer state as compared to the more mature ones found on natural reefs [70,71]. Early studies on the colonization of artificial structures in the NW Mediterranean indicated that it takes approximately 3 years for the community to reach a mature stage in terms of both biomass [72] and species composition [73,74]. Similar experiences in other seas, however, have shown that climax communities were reached in 5 to 20 years [75,76,77], but the differences between natural and artificial reefs have been observed to persist even for much longer times [71,78,79]. At St. Eustatius (eastern Caribbean), no significant difference in the density of coral-associated fauna was found between a centuries-old manmade structure and the nearest natural reef [49], notwithstanding differences in relief rugosity and surface structure, which are also known to exert an important influence on the entire epibenthic community [52,80]. In the Genoa area, groynes and seawalls have been deployed for a long time (>20 years) but are regularly renovated with new boulders (Figure 5), so they are likely to host a mosaic of communities in different successional stages. The epibenthic assemblage structure and recruitment differed according to rock type (sandstone vs. basalt) in Sydney Harbour [81]. The natural rock of the Genoa area is marly limestone [82], while the artificial reefs are made of serpentinite quarry rock [83]. Field experiments in the Ligurian Sea demonstrated that shallow-water epibenthic communities on serpentinites are prevented from reaching a mature condition, with red and brown algae remaining less developed: this rock, therefore, has been considered an inhibiting substratum [52].
Nervi, however, represented an outstanding exception, as the artificial reefs there exhibited a greater degree of similarity to their natural counterparts than to all the remaining artificial reefs in the other Genoa locales. Nervi is the only locale where both natural and artificial reefs exhibited some cover of Cystoseira compressa, a canopy-forming species functioning as an ecosystem engineer which plays a fundamental role in the maintenance of the understory assemblage [84,85,86]. The loss of Cystoseira canopy in urban marine coastal habitats is known to lead to assemblages dominated by the more stress-tolerant Ellisolandia elongata [87]. The occurrence of Cystoseira in Nervi may have been favoured by the high predominance (73%) of natural reefs there. Greater habitat fragmentation in the other Genoa locales may, on the contrary, hamper ecological connectivity, thus favouring the settlement of more ubiquitous and generalist species on artificial reefs [14,88]. Thus, habitat fragmentation is likely to enhance the difference between natural and artificial reefs, with the colonization of the latter being influenced by the regional species pool from surrounding habitats.
Notwithstanding the expectation that artificial reefs host a reduced species richness [89], no significant difference in species number was observed between the two reef types in Genoa. Only at Quarto were natural reefs richer than artificial reefs, due to the occurrence in the former of a number of otherwise rare species with negligible cover.
Artificial reefs are said to represent stepping stones for the proliferation of alien species [90,91], but our study revealed the presence of just one non-native species in the artificial reefs of Quarto and Nervi: Asparagopsis armata (Falkenbergia rufolanosa stadium), naturalized for several decades in the Mediterranean Sea [92]. This dearth of alien species may be due to the fact that the artificial reefs were made of natural rock, not concrete or other man-made materials, but also to the season when the survey was conducted: most alien species proliferate especially in summer; this is the case, for instance, for Caulerpa cylindracea [93], whose resting stolonal stages, however, may persist within turf [94], thus escaping attention during visual surveys.

5. Conclusions

The present study examined the difference between the sessile epibenthic communities colonizing natural and artificial reefs along an urbanization gradient. The main results were twofold. First, contrary to previous experiences in other areas [95,96], the artificial reefs of Genoa were not characterized by a lower species richness than the natural ones and did not represent an elective substrate for the settlement and propagation of alien species. Second, the persistent difference in community composition between natural and artificial reefs pointed out in many papers [97,98,99] was reduced where the artificial reefs were located in a mostly natural context: the proximity of the regional species pool appeared therefore more important than the age of the artificial reefs [77].
If confirmed by further studies, this result may be of interest for marine spatial planning. Considering the ever-growing need for coastal defences in urban areas, it is imperative to mitigate the potential impact of artificial structures on biodiversity [100]. Avoiding excess habitat fragmentation, the artificial structures may naturalize more quickly, thus providing a virtuous example of nature-friendly coastal management.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.M., C.N.B. and C.M.; methodology, I.M., A.O. and M.M.; software, I.M., A.A. and C.N.B.; validation, M.C., L.C. and M.M.; formal analysis, I.M., A.A. and C.N.B.; investigation, I.M. and A.O.; resources, M.C. and M.M.; data curation, I.M., C.M. and A.O.; writing—original draft preparation, I.M., C.N.B. and C.M.; writing—review and editing, M.C., L.C. and C.M.; visualization, I.M. and M.M.; supervision, M.C. and M.M.; project administration, I.M., M.C. and M.M; funding acquisition, M.C. and M.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP), Mission 171 4 Component 2 Investment 1.4—Call for tender No. 3138 of 16 December 2021, rectified by Decree 172 n. 3175 of 18 December 2021 of the Italian Ministry of University and Research funded by the 173 European Union—Next Generation EU; Award Number: Project code CN 00000033, Concession 174 Decree No. 1034 of 17 June 2022 adopted by the Italian Ministry of University and Research, CUP 175 D33C22000960007, Project title “National Biodiversity Future Center—NBFC”; and by the Port System Authority of Genoa in the framework of the research agreement between PSA and DiSTAV for the study and monitoring of the construction activity impact of the new breakwater of the port on the marine–maritime environment of the Genoese coast (CUP DiSTAV D33C2200098—CUP PSA C39B1800060006).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available from the first author upon request.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Marco Vaccari, Engineer at the Port System Authority of Genoa (PSA), for granting the use of the data acquired in the framework of the research agreement between PSA and DiSTAV for the study and monitoring of the construction activity impact of the new breakwater of the port on the marine–maritime environment of the Genoese coast. Thanks are due to Eleonora Zanon, Stefano Zachopulos, Elena Castelli, and Stefano Aicardi (Sub Tribe, Genova) for their logistic support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Timmerman, P.; White, R. Megahydropolis: Coastal cities in the context of global environmental change. Global Environ. Chang. 1997, 7, 205–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Bulleri, F.; Chapman, M.G. The introduction of coastal infrastructure as a driver of change in marine environments. J. Appl. Ecol. 2010, 47, 26–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Crossett, K.M.; Culliton, T.J.; Wiley, P.C.; Goodspeed, T.R. Population Trends along the Coastal United States: 1980–2008; NOAA: Silver Spring, MD, USA, 2004; pp. 1–54. [Google Scholar]
  4. Hugo, G. Future demographic change and its interactions with migration and climate change. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2011, 21, S21–S33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Barragán, J.M.; De Andrés, M. Analysis and trends of the world’s coastal cities and agglomerations. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2015, 114, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. McGranahan, G.; Balk, D.; Aderson, B. The rising tide: Assessing the risks of climate change and human settlements in low elevation coastal zones. Environ. Urban. 2007, 19, 17–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Espinosa, F.; Bazairi, H. Impacts, evolution, and changes of pressure on marine ecosystems in recent times. Toward new emerging and unforeseen impacts within a changing world. In Coastal Habitat Conservation. New Perspectives and Sustainable Development of Biodiversity in the Anthropocene; Espinosa, F., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherland, 2023; pp. 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  8. Glasby, T.M.; Gibson, P.T.; Cruz-Motta, J.J. Differences in rocky reef habitats related to human disturbances across a latitudinal gradient. Mar. Environ. Res. 2017, 129, 291–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Firth, L.B.; Airoldi, L.; Bulleri, F.; Challinor, S.; Chee, S.; Evans, A.J.; Hanley, M.E.; Knights, A.M.; O’Shaughnessy, K.; Thompson, R.C.; et al. Greening of grey infrastructure should not be used as a Trojan horse to facilitate coastal development. J. Appl. Ecol. 2020, 57, 1762–1768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Dafforn, K.A.; Glasby, T.M.; Airoldi, L.; Rivero, N.K.; Mayer-Pinto, M.; Johnston, E.L. Marine urbanization: An ecological framework for designing multifunctional artificial structures. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2015, 13, 82–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Fahrig, L. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2003, 34, 487–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Marrone, A.; Mangano, M.C.; Deidun, A.; Berlino, M.; Sarà, G. Effects of habitat fragmentation of a Mediterranean marine reef on the associated fish community: Insights from biological traits analysis. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ostalé-Valriberas, E.; Martín-Zorrilla, A.; Sempere-Valverde, J.; García-Gómez, J.C.; Espinosa, F. Ecological succession within microhabitats (tidepools) created in riprap structures hosting climax communities: An economical strategy for mitigating the negative effects of coastal defence structure on marine biodiversity. Ecol. Eng. 2024, 200, 107187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bevilacqua, S.; Airoldi, L.; Ballesteros, E.; Benedetti-Cecchi, L.; Boero, F.; Bulleri, F.; Cebrian, E.; Cerrano, C.; Claudet, J.; Colloca, F.; et al. Mediterranean rocky reefs in the Anthropocene: Present status and future concerns. Adv. Mar. Bio. 2021, 89, 1–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Sánchez-Rodríguez, A.; Aburto-Oropeza, O.; Erisman, B.; Jiménez-Esquivel, V.M.; Hinojosa-Arango, G. Rocky reefs: Preserving biodiversity for the benefit of the communities in the aquarium of the world. In Ethnobiology of Corals and Coral Reefs; Narchi, N., Leimar Price, L., Eds.; Springer International: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 177–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Giglio, V.J.; Aued, A.W.; Cordeiro, C.A.; Eggertsen, L.; Ferrari, D.S.; Gonçalves, L.R.; Hanazaki, N.; Luiz, O.J.; Luza, A.L.; Mendes, T.C.; et al. A Global Systematic Literature Review of Ecosystem Services in Reef Environments. Environ. Manag. 2023, 73, 634–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Rilov, G.; Benayahu, Y. Vertical artificial structures as an alternative habitat for coral reef fishes in disturbed environments. Mar. Environ. Res. 1998, 45, 431–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sempere-Valverde, J.; Guerra-García, J.M.; García-Gómez, J.C.; Espinosa, F. Coastal urbanization, an issue for marine conservation. In Coastal Habitat Conservation. New Perspectives and Sustainable Development of Biodiversity in the Anthropocene; Espinosa, F., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherland, 2023; pp. 41–79. [Google Scholar]
  19. Ostalé-Valriberas, E.; Sempere-Valverde, J.; Coppa, S.; García-Gómez, J.C.; Espinosa, F. Creation of microhabitats (tidepools) in ripraps with climax communities as a way to mitigate negative effects of artificial substrate on marine biodiversity. Ecol. Eng. 2018, 120, 522–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. López, I.; Tinoco, H.; Aragonés, L.; Garcia-Barba, J. The multifunctional artificial reef and its role in the defence of the Mediterranean coast. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 550, 910–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Bombace, G. Artificial reefs in the Mediterranean Sea. Bull. Mar. Sci. 1989, 44, 1023–1032. [Google Scholar]
  22. Grossman, G.D.; Jones, G.P.; Seaman, W.J., Jr. Do artificial reefs increase regional fish production? A review of existing data. Fisheries 1997, 22, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Lima, J.S.; Sanchez-Jerez, P.; dos Santos, L.N.; Zalmon, I.R. Could artificial reefs increase access to estuarine fishery resources? Insights from a long-term assessment. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2020, 242, 106858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Han, C.; Liu, K.; Kinoshita, T.; Guo, B.; Zhao, Y.; Ye, Y.; Liu, Y.; Yamashita, O.; Zheng, D.; Wang, W.; et al. Assessing the attractive effects of floating artificial reefs and combination reefs on six local marine species. Fishes 2023, 8, 248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Folpp, H.; Lowry, M.; Gregson, M.; Suthers, I.M. Fish assemblages on estuarine artificial reefs: Natural rocky-reef mimics or discrete assemblages? PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e63505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Bracho-Villavicencio, C.; Matthews-Cascon, H.; Rossi, S. Artificial reefs around the world: A review of the state of the art and a meta-analysis of its effectiveness for the restoration of marine ecosystems. Environments 2023, 10, 121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Carvalho, S.; Moura, A.; Cúrdia, J.; da Fonseca, L.C.; Santos, M.N. How complementary are epibenthic assemblages in artificial and nearby natural rocky reefs? Mar. Environ. Res. 2013, 92, 170–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Aguilera, M.A.; Broitman, B.R.; Thiel, M. Spatial variability in community composition on a granite breakwater versus natural rocky shores: Lack of microhabitats suppresses intertidal biodiversity. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2014, 87, 257–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Schroeter, S.C.; Reed, D.C.; Raimondi, P.T. Effects of reef physical structure on development of benthic reef community: A large-scale artificial reef experiment. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2015, 540, 43–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Fabi, G.; Spagnolo, A. Artificial Reefs in the Management of Mediterranean Sea Fisheries; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2011; pp. 167–181. [Google Scholar]
  31. Airoldi, L.; Beck, W.M. Loss, status and trends for coastal marine habitats of Europe. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Annu. Rev. 2007, 45, 345–405. [Google Scholar]
  32. Furlani, S.; Pappalardo, M.; Gómez-Pujol, L.; Chelli, A. The rock coast of the Mediterranean and Black seas. Geol. Soc. Lond. Mem. 2014, 40, 89–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Meinesz, A.; Lefèvre, J.R. Destruction de l’étage infralittoral des Alpes-Maritimes (France) et de Monaco par les restructurations du rivage. Bull. Ecol. 1978, 9, 259–276. [Google Scholar]
  34. Meinesz, A.; Astier, J.M.; Lefèvre, J.R. Impact de l’aménagement du domaine maritime sur l’étage infralittoral du Var, France (Méditerranée occidentale). Ann. Inst. Océanogr. 1981, 57, 65–77. [Google Scholar]
  35. Mineur, F.; Cook, E.J.; Minchin, D.; Bohn, K.; MacLeod, A.; Maggs, C.A. Changing coasts: Marine aliens and artificial structures. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Annu. Rev. 2012, 50, 189–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sedano, F.; Florido, M.; Rallis, I.; Espinosa, F.; Gerovasileiou, V. Comparing sessile benthos on shallow artificial versus natural hard substrates in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. Mediterr. Mar. Sci. 2019, 20, 688–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Cattaneo Vietti, R.; Albertelli, G.; Aliani, S.; Bava, S.; Bavestrello, G.; Benedetti Cecchi, L.; Bianchi, C.N.; Bozzo, E.; Capello, M.; Castellano, M.; et al. The Ligurian Sea: Present status, problems and perspectives. Chem. Ecol. 2010, 26, 319–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Burgos, E.; Montefalcone, M.; Ferrari, M.; Paoli, C.; Vassallo, P.; Morri, C.; Bianchi, C.N. Ecosystem functions and economic wealth: Trajectories of change in seagrass meadows. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 168, 1108–1119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mangialajo, L.; Ruggieri, N.; Asnaghi, V.; Chiantore, M.; Povero, P.; Cattaneo-Vietti, R. Ecological status in the Ligurian Sea: The effect of coastline urbanisation and the importance of proper reference sites. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2007, 55, 30–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Albertelli, G.; Balduzzi, A.; Cattaneo, R. Analisi strutturale su alcuni popolamenti bentonici lungo il litorale genovese. Atti Assoc. Ital. Oceanogr. Limnol. 1985, 6, 187–193. [Google Scholar]
  41. Montefalcone, M.; Albertelli, G.; Morri, C.; Bianchi, C.N. Urban seagrass: Status of Posidonia oceanica facing the Genoa city waterfront (Italy) and implications for management. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2007, 54, 206–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Bianchi, C.N.; Pronzato, R.; Cattaneo-Vietti, R.; Benedetti Cecchi, L.; Morri, C.; Pansini, M.; Chemello, R.; Milazzo, M.; Fraschetti, S.; Terlizzi, A.; et al. Hard bottoms. Biol. Mar. Med. 2004, 11, 185–215. [Google Scholar]
  43. Weinberg, S. The minimal area problem in invertebrate communities of Mediterranean rocky substrata. Mar. Biol. 1978, 49, 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bellan-Santini, D. Contribution à l’étude des peuplements infralittoraux sur substrat rocheux (étude qualitative et quantitative de la frange supérieure). Rec. Trav. St. Mar. Endoume 1969, 47, 1–294. [Google Scholar]
  45. Boudouresque, C.F.; Belsher, T. Une méthode de determination de l’aire minimale qualitative. Rapp. Comm. Int. Mer Médit. 1979, 25/26, 273–275. [Google Scholar]
  46. Bianchi, C.N.; Azzola, A.; Cocito, S.; Morri, C.; Oprandi, A.; Peirano, A.; Sgorbini, S.; Montefalcone, M. Biodiversity monitoring in Mediterranean marine protected areas: Scientific and methodological challenges. Diversity 2022, 14, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Bianchi, C.N.; Castelli, A.; Abbiati, M.; Giangrande, A.; Lardicci, C.; Morri, C. Étude bionomique comparatif de la zonation verticale des Polychètes le long d’une falaise littorale en Méditerranée nord-occidentale. Rapp. Comm. Int. Mer Médit. 1988, 31, 18. [Google Scholar]
  48. Morri, C.; Bellan-Santini, D.; Giaccone, G.; Bianchi, C.N. Principles of bionomy: Definition of assemblages and use of taxonomic descriptors (macrobenthos). Biol. Mar. Medit 2004, 11 (Suppl. 1), 573–600. [Google Scholar]
  49. Lymperaki, M.M.; Hill, C.E.; Hoeksema, B.W. The effects of wave exposure and host cover on coral-associated fauna of a centuries-old artificial reef in the Caribbean. Ecol. Eng. 2022, 176, 106536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Fraschetti, S.; Bianchi, C.N.; Terlizzi, A.; Fanelli, G.; Morri, C.; Boero, F. Spatial variability and human disturbance in shallow subtidal hard substrate assemblages: A regional approach. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2001, 212, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Cattaneo-Vietti, R.; Albertelli, G.; Bavestrello, G.; Bianchi, C.N.; Cerrano, C.; Chiantore, M.C.; Gaggero, L.; Morri, C. Can rock composition affect sublittoral epibenthic communities? PSZN Mar. Ecol. 2002, 23 (Suppl. 1), 65–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Guidetti, P.; Bianchi, C.N.; Chiantore, M.C.; Schiaparelli, S.; Morri, C.; Cattaneo-Vietti, R. Living on the rocks: Substrate mineralogy and the structure of subtidal rocky substrate communities in the Mediterranean Sea. Mar. Ecol. Progr. Ser. 2004, 274, 57–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Longobardi, L.; Bavestrello, G.; Betti, F.; Cattaneo-Vietti, R. Long-term changes in a Ligurian infralittoral community (Mediterranean Sea): A warning signal? Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 2017, 14, 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. NOAA Physical Sciences Laboratory. Available online: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl (accessed on 5 January 2024).
  55. Google Earth. Available online: https://earth.google.com (accessed on 17 January 2024).
  56. Magurran, A.E. Measuring Biological Diversity; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013; pp. 1–272. [Google Scholar]
  57. Legendre, P.; Legendre, L. Numerical Ecology, 3rd ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherland, 2012; pp. 1–1006. [Google Scholar]
  58. Hammer, Ø.; Harper, D.A.T.; Ryan, P.D. PaSt: Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol. Electron. 2001, 4, 4. [Google Scholar]
  59. Augier, H. Inventory and classification of the marine benthic biocoenoses of the Mediterranean. Council of Europe, Strasbourg, Nat. Envir. Ser. 1982, 25, 1–57. [Google Scholar]
  60. Pérès, J.M. The Mediterranean benthos. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev. 1967, 5, 449–533. [Google Scholar]
  61. Ardizzone, G.D.; Belluscio, A.; Gravina, M.F.; Somaschini, A. Colonization and disappearance of Mytilus galloprovincialis Lam. on an artificial habitat in the Mediterranean Sea. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 1996, 43, 665–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Bracchetti, L.; Capriotti, M.; Fazzini, M.; Cocci, P.; Palermo, F.A. Mass mortality event of Mediterranean mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis) in the Middle Adriatic: Potential implications of the climate crisis for marine ecosystems. Diversity 2024, 16, 130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Veiga, P.; Ramos-Oliveira, C.; Sampaio, L.; Rubal, M. The role of urbanisation in affecting Mytilus galloprovincialis. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0232797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Cocito, S.; Bianchi, C.N.; Morri, C.; Peirano, A. First survey of sessile communities on subtidal rocks in an area with hydrothermal vents: Milos Island, Aegean Sea. Hydrobiologia 2000, 426, 113–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Pizzuto, F. On the structure, typology and periodism of a Cystoseira brachycarpa J. Agardh emend. Giaccone community and of a Cystoseira crinita Duby community from the eastern coast of Sicily (Mediterranean Sea). Plant Biosyst. 1999, 133, 15–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Muguerza, N.; Bustamante, M.; Díez, I.; Quintano, E.; Tajadura, F.J.; Saiz-Salinas, J.I.; Gorostiaga, J.M. Long-term surveys reveal abrupt canopy loss with immediate changes in diversity and functional traits. Mar. Biol. 2020, 167, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Connell, S.D.; Foster, M.S.; Airoldi, L. What are algal turfs? Towards a better description of turfs. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2014, 495, 299–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Rodríguez-Prieto, C.; Ballesteros, E.; Boisset, F.; Afonso-Carrillo, J. Guía de las Macroalgas y Fanerógamas Marinas del Mediterráneo Occidental; Omega: Barcelona, Spain, 2013; pp. 1–656. [Google Scholar]
  69. Porzio, L.; Buia, M.C.; Lorenti, M.; Vitale, E.; Amitrano, C.; Arena, C. Ecophysiological response of Jania rubens (Corallinaceae) to ocean acidification. Rendi. Lincei. Sci. Fis. Nat. 2018, 29, 543–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Sempere-Valverde, J.; Ostalé-Valriberas, E.; Farfán, G.M.; Espinosa, F. Substratum type affects recruitment and development of marine assemblages over artificial substrata: A case study in the Alboran Sea. Estuar. Coast. Shelf. Sci. 2018, 204, 56–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Hill, C.E.L.; Lymperaki, M.M.; Hoeksema, B.W. A centuries-old manmade reef in the Caribbean does not substitute natural reefs in terms of species assemblages and interspecific competition. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2021, 169, 112576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Pisano, E.; Bianchi, C.N.; Matricardi, G.; Relini, G. Accumulo della biomassa su substrati artificiali immersi lungo la falesia di Portofino (Mar Ligure). In Atti del Convegno delle Unità Operative Afferenti ai Sottoprogetti Risorse Biologiche ed Inquinamento Marino; CNR: Rome, Italy, 1982; pp. 93–105. [Google Scholar]
  73. Huvé, M.P. Recherches sur la Genèse de Quelques Peuplements Algaux Marins de la Roche Littorale dans la Région de Marseille. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Paris, Paris, France, 1970. [Google Scholar]
  74. Bianchi, C.N. Ecologia dei Serpuloidea (Annelida, Polychaeta) del piano infralitorale presso Portofino (Genova). Boll. Mus. Ist. Biol. Univ. Genova 1979, 47, 101–115. [Google Scholar]
  75. Pinn, E.H.; Mitchel, K.; Corkill, J. The assemblages of groynes in relation to substratum age, aspect and microhabitat. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2005, 62, 271–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Gacia, E.; Satta, M.P.; Martin, D. Low crested coastal defence structures on the Catalan coast of the Mediterranean Sea: How they compare with natural rocky shores. Sci. Mar. 2007, 71, 259–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Sempere-Valverde, J.; Chebaane, S.; Bernal-Ibáñez, A.; Silva, R.; Cacabelos, E.; Ramalhosa, P.; Jiménez, J.; Gama Monteiro, J.; Espinosa, F.; Navarro-Barranco, C.; et al. Surface integrity could limit the potential of concrete as a bio-enhanced material in the marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2024, 200, 116096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Firth, L.B.; Knights, A.M.; Bridger, D.; Evans, A.J.; Mieszkowska, N.; Moore, P.J.; O’Connor, N.E.; Sheehan, E.V.; Thompson, R.C.; Hawkins, S.J. Ocean sprawl: Challenges and opportunities for biodiversity management in a changing world. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Annu. Rev. 2016, 54, 193–269. [Google Scholar]
  79. Rallis, I.; Chatzigeorgiou, G.; Florido, M.; Sedano, F.; Procopiou, A.; Chertz-Bynichaki, M.; Vernadou, E.; Plaiti, W.; Koulouri, P.; Dounas, C.; et al. Early succession patterns of benthic assemblages on artificial reefs in the oligotrophic eastern Mediterranean Basin. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Bavestrello, G.; Bianchi, C.N.; Calcinai, B.; Cattaneo-Vietti, R.; Cerrano, C.; Morri, C.; Puce, S.; Sarà, M. Bio-mineralogy as a structuring factor for marine epibenthic communities. Mar. Ecol. Progr. Ser. 2000, 193, 241–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Green, D.S.; Chapman, M.G.; Blockley, D.J. Ecological consequences of the type of rock used in the construction of artificial boulder-fields. Ecol. Eng. 2012, 46, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Corsi, B.; Elter, F.M.; Giammarino, S. Structural fabric of the Antola Unit (Riviera di Levante, Italy) and implications for its alpine versus Apennine origin. Ofioliti 2001, 26, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  83. Cortesogno, L.; Palenzona, A. Le Nostre Rocce. Le Rocce della Liguria: Riconoscerle e Capirne la Storia; Sagep: Genoa, Italy, 1986; pp. 1–176. [Google Scholar]
  84. Bulleri, F.; Benedetti-Cecchi, L.; Acunto, S.; Cinelli, F.; Hawkins, S.J. The influence of canopy algae on vertical patterns of distribution of low-shore assemblages on rocky coasts in the northwest Mediterranean. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 2002, 267, 89–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Asnaghi, V.; Chiantore, M.; Bertolotto, R.M.; Parravicini, V.; Cattaneo-Vietti, R.; Gaino, F.; Moretto, P.; Privitera, D.; Mangialajo, L. Implementation of the European Water Framework Directive: Natural variability associated with the CARLIT method on the rocky shores of the Ligurian Sea (Italy). Mar. Ecol. 2009, 30, 505–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Blanfuné, A.; Boudouresque, C.F.; Verlaque, M.; Thibaut, T. The ups and downs of a canopy-forming seaweed over a span of more than one century. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 5250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Mangialajo, L.; Chiantore, M.; Cattaneo-Vietti, R. Loss of fucoid algae along a gradient of urbanisation, and structure of benthic assemblages. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Series 2008, 358, 63–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Goodsell, P.J.; Chapman, M.G.; Underwood, A.J. Differences between biota in anthropogenically fragmented habitats and in naturally patchy habitats. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2007, 351, 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Sanabria-Fernandez, J.A.; Lazzari, N.; Riera, R.; Becerro, M.A. Building up marine biodiversity loss: Artificial substrates hold lower number and abundance of low occupancy benthic and sessile species. Mar. Environ. Res. 2018, 140, 190–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Tyrrell, M.C.; Byers, J.E. Do artificial substrates favor nonindigenous fouling species over native species? J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 2007, 342, 54–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Sheehy, D.J.; Vik, S.F. The role of constructed reefs in non-indigenous species introductions and range expansions. Ecol. Eng. 2010, 36, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Siguan, M.A.R. Review of non-native marine plants in the Mediterranean Sea. In Invasive Aquatic Species of Europe. Distribution, Impacts and Management; Leppäkoski, E., Gollasch, S., Olenin, S., Eds.; Kluwer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2002; pp. 291–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Mancini, I.; Bianchi, C.N.; Morri, C.; Azzola, A.; Oprandi, A.; Robello, C.; Montefalcone, M. A marine invasion story: Caulerpa cylindracea (Chlorophyta, Ulvophyceae) in the marine protected area of Portofino (Ligurian Sea). Biol. Mar. Medit. 2024, in press.
  94. Piazzi, L.; Ceccherelli, G.; Balata, D.; Cinelli, F. Early patterns of Caulerpa racemosa recovery in the Mediterranean Sea: The influence of algal turfs. J. Mar. Bio. Assoc. UK 2003, 83, 27–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Bulleri, F.; Airoldi, L. Artificial marine structures facilitate the spread of a non-indigenous green alga, Codium fragile ssp. tomentosoides, in the north Adriatic Sea. J. Appl. Ecol. 2005, 42, 1063–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Dong, Y.; Huang, X.; Wang, W.; Li, Y.; Wang, J. The marine ‘great wall’ of China: Local- and broad-scale ecological impacts of coastal infrastructure on intertidal macrobenthic communities. Divers. Distrib. 2016, 22, 731–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Bonnici, L.; Borg, J.A.; Evans, J.; Lanfranco, S.; Schembri, P.J. Of rocks and hard places: Comparing biotic assemblages on concrete jetties versus natural rock along a microtidal Mediterranean shore. J. Coast. Res. 2018, 34, 1136–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Bae, S.; Ubagan, M.D.; Shin, S.; Kim, D.G. Comparison of recruitment patterns of sessile marine invertebrates according to substrate characteristics. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Sánchez-Caballero, C.A.; Borges-Souza, J.M.; Chavez-Hidalgo, A.; Abelson, A. Assessing benthic reef assemblages: A comparison between no-take artificial reefs and partially protected natural reefs. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2023, 287, 108347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Airoldi, L.; Beck, M.W.; Firth, L.B.; Bugnot, A.B.; Steinberg, P.D.; Dafforn, K.A. Emerging solutions to return nature to the urban ocean. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 2021, 13, 445–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Diversity 16 00316 g001
Figure 1. Study area along the eastern coastline of Genoa (NW Italy); the five locales studied (Foce, Sturla, Quarto, Quinto, Nervi), with the three different types of coastline (natural reefs, artificial reefs, pocket beaches), are indicated (a). Two diving scientists surveying a 50 cm × 50 cm quadrat on a (sub)vertical rock (b).
Figure 1. Study area along the eastern coastline of Genoa (NW Italy); the five locales studied (Foce, Sturla, Quarto, Quinto, Nervi), with the three different types of coastline (natural reefs, artificial reefs, pocket beaches), are indicated (a). Two diving scientists surveying a 50 cm × 50 cm quadrat on a (sub)vertical rock (b).
Diversity 16 00316 g001
Diversity 16 00316 g002
Figure 2. Pie charts of the proportion of the three coastline features (natural reef, artificial reef, and pocket beach) in each Genoa locale (a); the resulting Fragmentation Index (b); and the mean (+standard error) Euclidean distance between natural and artificial reefs in each locale (c).
Figure 2. Pie charts of the proportion of the three coastline features (natural reef, artificial reef, and pocket beach) in each Genoa locale (a); the resulting Fragmentation Index (b); and the mean (+standard error) Euclidean distance between natural and artificial reefs in each locale (c).
Diversity 16 00316 g002
Diversity 16 00316 g003
Figure 3. Species richness (expressed as mean number of taxa + standard error) on natural and artificial reefs in each Genoa locale (a). Ordination model from nMDS of observation points corresponding to natural or artificial reefs in the Genoa locales (b).
Figure 3. Species richness (expressed as mean number of taxa + standard error) on natural and artificial reefs in each Genoa locale (a). Ordination model from nMDS of observation points corresponding to natural or artificial reefs in the Genoa locales (b).
Diversity 16 00316 g003
Diversity 16 00316 g004
Figure 4. Correlation of the difference (expressed as Euclidean distance) between natural and artificial reefs with the Fragmentation Index for each Genoa locale (a). Percent cover of the 10 taxa with non-nil contribution to the difference between natural and artificial reef communities, according to SIMPER analysis; species names are written in black or grey according to their reef type (natural vs. artificial) preference (b).
Figure 4. Correlation of the difference (expressed as Euclidean distance) between natural and artificial reefs with the Fragmentation Index for each Genoa locale (a). Percent cover of the 10 taxa with non-nil contribution to the difference between natural and artificial reef communities, according to SIMPER analysis; species names are written in black or grey according to their reef type (natural vs. artificial) preference (b).
Diversity 16 00316 g004
Diversity 16 00316 g005
Figure 5. A pontoon adding new boulders to an already existing artificial reef at Quarto. The outer port of Genoa is visible in the background.
Figure 5. A pontoon adding new boulders to an already existing artificial reef at Quarto. The outer port of Genoa is visible in the background.
Diversity 16 00316 g005
Table 1. List of the 22 taxa recorded in the quadrats, ordered alphabetically within phyla or morphological groups.
Table 1. List of the 22 taxa recorded in the quadrats, ordered alphabetically within phyla or morphological groups.
  Ochrophyta
Cystoseira compressa (Esper) Gerloff and Nizamuddin, 1975
Dictyota dichotoma (Hudson) J.V.Lamouroux, 1809
Halopteris scoparia (Linnaeus) Sauvageau, 1904
Padina pavonica (Linnaeus) Thivy, 1960
  Rhodophyta
Amphiroa rigida J.V.Lamouroux, 1816
Ellisolandia elongata (J.Ellis and Solander) K.R.Hind and G.W.Saunders, 2013
Asparagopsis armata Harvey, 1855 (Falkenbergia rufolanosa stadium)
Jania rubens (Linnaeus) J.V.Lamouroux, 1816
Lithophyllum incrustans Philippi, 1837
Mesophyllum lichenoides (J.Ellis) Me.Lemoine, 1928
Peyssonnelia squamaria (S.G.Gmelin) Decaisne ex J.Agardh, 1842
Sphaerococcus coronopifolius Stackhouse, 1797
  Turf
Filamentous algae indet.
  Porifera
Chondrosia reniformis Nardo, 1847
Cliona celata Grant, 1826
Crambe crambe (Schmidt, 1862)
Ircinia oros (Schmidt, 1864)
Ircinia variabilis (Schmidt, 1862)
  Cnidaria
Aiptasia mutabilis (Gravenhorst, 1831)
Hydrozoa indet.
  Annelida
Protula tubularia (Montagu, 1803)
Serpulidae indet.
Table 2. Results of two-way ANOVA on conspicuous sessile species richness according to reef type (natural vs. artificial) and Genoa locale. SS = sum of squares, Df = degrees of freedom, R2 = determination coefficient, F = Fisher’s F, P = probability, ns = not significant, ** = very significant; * = significant.
Table 2. Results of two-way ANOVA on conspicuous sessile species richness according to reef type (natural vs. artificial) and Genoa locale. SS = sum of squares, Df = degrees of freedom, R2 = determination coefficient, F = Fisher’s F, P = probability, ns = not significant, ** = very significant; * = significant.
SourceSSDfR2FP
Reef type10.8110.840.05927 ns
Locale48.5333412.13334.4940.009412 **
Interaction32.533348.133333.0120.04263 *
Within54202.7
Total145.86729
Table 3. Results of PERMANOVA on rocky reef communities according to reef type (natural vs. artificial) and Genoa locale. SS = sum of squares, Df = degrees of freedom, R2 = determination coefficient, F = Fisher’s F, P = probability, *** = highly significant, * = significant.
Table 3. Results of PERMANOVA on rocky reef communities according to reef type (natural vs. artificial) and Genoa locale. SS = sum of squares, Df = degrees of freedom, R2 = determination coefficient, F = Fisher’s F, P = probability, *** = highly significant, * = significant.
SourceSSDfR2FP
Reef type0.73466710.734678.71150.0001 ***
Locale0.6440.161.89720.0312 *
Interaction0.69240.1732.05140.0199 *
Residual1.68667200.084333
Total3.753329
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mancini, I.; Azzola, A.; Bianchi, C.N.; Capello, M.; Cutroneo, L.; Morri, C.; Oprandi, A.; Montefalcone, M. Habitat Fragmentation Enhances the Difference between Natural and Artificial Reefs in an Urban Marine Coastal Tract. Diversity 2024, 16, 316. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16060316

AMA Style

Mancini I, Azzola A, Bianchi CN, Capello M, Cutroneo L, Morri C, Oprandi A, Montefalcone M. Habitat Fragmentation Enhances the Difference between Natural and Artificial Reefs in an Urban Marine Coastal Tract. Diversity. 2024; 16(6):316. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16060316

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mancini, Ilaria, Annalisa Azzola, Carlo Nike Bianchi, Marco Capello, Laura Cutroneo, Carla Morri, Alice Oprandi, and Monica Montefalcone. 2024. "Habitat Fragmentation Enhances the Difference between Natural and Artificial Reefs in an Urban Marine Coastal Tract" Diversity 16, no. 6: 316. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16060316

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop