A global meta-analysis of ecological effects from offshore marine artificial structures

Anaëlle J. Lemasson (), Paul J. Somerfield, Michaela Schratzberger, Murray S. A. Thompson, Louise B. Firth, Elena Couce, C. Louise McNeill, Joana Nunes, Christine Pascoe, Stephen C. L. Watson and Antony M. Knights
Additional contact information
Anaëlle J. Lemasson: University of Plymouth
Paul J. Somerfield: PML – Plymouth Marine Laboratory
Michaela Schratzberger: Cefas - Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, Lowestoft Laboratory
Murray S. A. Thompson: Cefas - Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, Lowestoft Laboratory
Louise B. Firth: University of Plymouth
Elena Couce: Cefas - Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, Lowestoft Laboratory
C. Louise McNeill: PML – Plymouth Marine Laboratory
Joana Nunes: PML – Plymouth Marine Laboratory
Christine Pascoe: PML – Plymouth Marine Laboratory
Stephen C. L. Watson: PML – Plymouth Marine Laboratory
Antony M. Knights: University of Plymouth

Nature Sustainability, 2024, vol. 7, issue 4, 485-495

Abstract: Abstract Marine artificial structures (MAS), including oil and gas installations (O&G) and offshore wind farms (OWFs), have a finite operational period. Selecting the most suitable decommissioning options when reaching end-of-life remains a challenge, in part because their effects are still largely undetermined. Whether decommissioned structures could act (sensu ‘function’) as artificial reefs (ARs) and provide desired ecological benefits is of particular interest. Here we use a meta-analysis approach of 531 effect sizes from 109 articles to assess the ecological effects of MAS, comparing O&G and OWFs to shipwrecks and ARs, with a view to inform their decommissioning. This synthesis demonstrates that while MAS can bring ecological benefits, important idiosyncrasies exist, with differences emerging between MAS types, habitat types, taxa and ecological metrics. Notably, we find limited conclusive evidence that O&G and OWFs would provide significant ecological benefits if decommissioned as ARs. We conclude that decommissioning options aimed at repurposing MAS into ARs may not provide the intended benefits.

Date: 2024
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-024-01311-z Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:nat:natsus:v:7:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1038_s41893-024-01311-z

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://www.nature.com/natsustain/

DOI: 10.1038/s41893-024-01311-z

Access Statistics for this article

Nature Sustainability is currently edited by Monica Contestabile

More articles in Nature Sustainability from Nature
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().