Search

Questions: Ants and rodents are recognized as ecosystem engineers worldwide creating soil‐modified nests and adjacent edges with superior resources. The influence of Dipodomys spectabilis (rat) and Pogonomyrmex rugosus (ant) on nests and edges would be similar in burned and unburned habitat on functional groups' cover, density, number of inflorescences and species number. We hypothesize that annual and perennial dicots would recover faster on rat patches than on burned grassland, dicots and grasses would recover faster on ant patches than on burned grassland, and annual dicots would recover faster on rat than on ant patches, whereas grasses would recover faster on ant than on rat patches. Location: Semiarid grassland, Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge, New Mexico, USA. Methods: We analyzed annual and perennial dicots, grasses and subshrubs in burned and unburned plots at 80 nests during cool‐ and warm‐seasons two years post‐fire. Data were collected at nest top (mound), edge, and 20 m (control) from the edge. Results: Cover, density and species richness of different functional groups were low on animal mounds in unburned and burned plots. Ant edges had greater perennial dicot cover, grass cover and richness while rat edges had lower grass density and richness than control sites at unburned and burned plots. Perennial dicot density and richness recovered faster at rat mounds and edges than control. Ant edges yielded faster recovery of grass inflorescences than control. Dicots recovered faster on rat than ant mounds whereas grasses grew faster on ant edges. Conclusions: Rats create nests enhancing density of recovering dicots and ant edges facilitate reproduction of recovering grasses. Equal regeneration between animal nests and grassland occurred commonly when fire reduced grass competition. Dysochory, granivory and fire intensity may influence recovery. Nests may be sources of reestablishment and seed dispersal. Recovery of grassland may be amplified as plants infill from engineered nests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Oyster reef living shorelines have been proposed as an effective alternative to traditional coastal defence structures (e.g. bulkheads, breakwaters), with the benefit that they may keep pace with sea‐level rise and provide co‐benefits, such as habitat provision. However, there remains uncertainty about the effectiveness of shoreline protection provided by oyster reefs, which limits their broader application.We draw evidence from studies along the east and gulf coasts of the United States, where much research and implementation of oyster reef restoration has occurred, to better define the existing gaps in our understanding of the use of restored oyster reefs for shoreline protection.We find potential disconnects between ecological and engineering functions of reefs. In response, we outline how engineering and ecological principles are used in the design of oyster reef living shorelines and highlight knowledge gaps where an integration of these disciplines will lead to their more effective application.Synthesis and applications. This work highlights the necessary steps to advance the application of oyster reef living shorelines. Importantly, future research should focus on appropriate designs and conditions needed for these structures to effectively protect our coasts from erosion, while supporting a sustainable oyster population, thereby providing actionable nature‐based alternatives for coastal defence to diverse end‐users. This work highlights the necessary steps to advance the application of oyster reef living shorelines. Importantly, future research should focus on appropriate designs and conditions needed for these structures to effectively protect our coasts from erosion, while supporting a sustainable oyster population, thereby providing actionable nature‐based alternatives for coastal defence to diverse end‐users. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]