Biogenic reefs and sandy, muddy and rocky shore substrates

Writing team: Ronaldo Christofoletti (coordinating author), Corrine Almeida, Moisés Andrés Aguilera Moya, Omar Defeo, Stuart Jenkins, Juliet Furaha Karisa, Kira Krumhansl, Dahai Liu, Felicia Mogo (co- lead member), Rebecca Morris, Maria Gabriela Palomo, Barbara Ramos Pinheiro, Roberto de Pinho (lead member) and Gray Williams.

Key points

• Sandy, muddy and rocky shores, biogenic reefs and other coastal habitats are crucial for biodiversity and ecosystem services, supporting economic activities and protecting coastlines.
• Coastal habitats are interconnected by ocean currents that form part of a meta-ecosystem, in which energy and organisms can move across boundaries, enhancing ecosystem resilience. As such, integrated management approaches are needed.
• These habitats face intense pressures from climate change and human activity, with warming temperatures and heatwaves, rising sea levels, coastal hardening and pollution affecting biodiversity and ecosystem functions.
• The loss and degradation of coastal habitats pose a range of threats to human well-being, from increased flooding risks to loss of livelihoods in tourism and fisheries.
• Addressing these challenges demands robust governance, scientific innovation, strong partnerships and enhanced ocean literacy to promote and conserve resilient, sustainable coastal ecosystems.

1. Introduction and context

The present subchapter is focused on four critical coastal habitats (sandy, muddy and rocky shores and biogenic reefs), highlighting their ecological and economic importance. These environmental systems support diverse species that contribute to water filtration and nutrient cycling and play an important role in the coastal food chain. In addition, biogenic reefs, formed by such organisms as corals, oysters and mussels, provide natural barriers against coastal erosion. Home to invaluable natural resources, these coastal habitats are essential for tourism, fisheries and recreation, underscoring their economic, social, cultural and ecological significance.

Understanding these habitats requires recognizing the fact that they are interconnected through a "meta- ecosystem", in which energy, materials and organisms move across habitats, shaping their resilience and health. This spatial connectivity necessitates collective management rather than isolated approaches in order to ensure the persistence and functionality of these habitats (Vozzo and others, 2023).

These coastal habitats face a multitude of stressors, however, driven primarily by local human activity and climate change. Urban expansion, pollution and climate-induced impacts, such as rising sea levels and heatwaves, are degrading biodiversity and ecosystem functions (Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (IOC-UNESCO, 2024). These cumulative stressors pose significant challenges to the resilience, conservation and sustainability of these ecosystems.

The present subchapter provides an updated assessment of biogenic reefs and sandy, muddy and rocky shores, with a focus on the changes observed since the second World Ocean Assessment. Emphasis is placed on the need for integrated coastal management to support biodiversity functions and the sustainable use of marine resources, which includes guaranteeing equitable access to coastal resources.

2. Changes in the state of biogenic reefs and sandy, muddy and rocky shore substrates

In the past decade, biogenic reefs and sandy, muddy and rocky shores have undergone increased landscape transformations due to a mix of environmental and anthropogenic pressures. Climate change and local anthropogenic impacts are driving transformations that threaten the stability and functionality of natural habitats Ref 34. Bivalve-based biogenic reefs illustrate this point; oyster reefs faced centuries of extraction, and estimates suggest that 85% have been lost globally, with impacts on socioecological systems Ref 6 Ref 75. Mussel reefs have faced similar historical declines due to overharvesting, replacement by invasive species and, more recently, climate change, leading to scientific mussel reef restoration efforts Ref 57 Ref 64 Ref 11. These reefs play a vital role in coastal ecosystems by filtering water, attenuating waves, stabilizing sediments and providing habitats for a variety of species. Rising sea levels, increasing air and water temperatures, increased pollution and nutrient run-off, however, are leading to hypoxic conditions that weaken reef structures and reduce biodiversity. The harvesting of oysters and mussels, if unmanaged, further diminishes reef resilience, leading to long-term declines in water quality and biodiversity Ref 59 Ref 29.

Urbanization stressors, including population density, tourism, nocturnal light, urban infrastructure, vegetation changes and certain beach nourishment practices, significantly reduce species richness and biomass on sandy and muddy shores Ref 53 Ref 14 Ref 17 and can also have impacts on the nesting areas of migratory animals, such as marine turtles. Artificial light at night disrupts key ecological processes, including circadian rhythms, feeding, reproduction and migration, affecting biodiversity, increasing the vulnerability of species and altering predator-prey dynamics Ref 45. In addition, recent studies have shown that coastal squeeze and human infrastructure already affect 33% of global beaches, with up to 26% at risk of severe sand loss by the end of the century, compromising resilience to sea level rise Ref 77 Ref 51. Combined pressures from sea level rise and urbanization are shrinking intertidal zones, affecting dependent species and reducing vital ecosystem services, such as coastal protection, recreation and habitats for shorebirds Ref 18 Ref 40. Conserving natural areas and applying nature-based solutions can reduce infrastructure impacts by up to sevenfold Ref 40 Ref 51.

Muddy shores, which are found in estuaries, bays and other sheltered areas, are vital as nursery habitats for fishes, feeding grounds for migratory birds and sites of high nutrient cycling. They are, however, highly vulnerable to sedimentation changes caused by natural events, such as storms, and human activities, such as dredging and coastal construction. Increased sedimentation can smother benthic communities, disrupt nutrient dynamics and degrade habitat quality. Large-scale infrastructure, such as hydropower stations and reservoirs, reduces sediment and water flow, leading to seawater backflow, salinization and declines in marine biodiversity Ref 85. Pollution from agricultural run-off and urban waste introduces nutrients and toxins, creating hypoxic zones that further harm biodiversity Ref 16 Ref 60. In addition, urban infrastructure, such as seawalls and breakwaters, replaces natural habitats with hard substrates, which can facilitate biological invasions and species range expansions Ref 3 Ref 20 Ref 82.

Sea level rise has a significant impact on rocky shores and biogenic reefs by submerging intertidal areas, resulting in less biodiverse submerged communities and diminished ecosystem services, such as net production and biodiversity Ref 63. Changes in wave energy further affect these ecosystems; for example, high-energy environments reduce oyster density and surface area, decreasing species diversity Ref 78. Climate change is also altering community composition on rocky shores, with warming waters affecting the range of intertidal and subtidal species Ref 67 Ref 68 Ref 39. Heatwaves and other extreme events cause mortality in temperature-sensitive species, such as forest-forming kelps, transitioning communities to low-lying macroalgal turfs or filter feeders, and increasing the abundance of warm-tolerant species Ref 24 Ref 69 Ref 83. Seasonal species loss can also occur in tropical monsoonal areas. These shifts reduce ecological resilience, increasing vulnerability to disturbances and facilitating the establishment of invasive species under heat stress Ref 19 Ref 63 Ref 83.

These soft- and hard-bottom interconnected habitats are influenced by the exchange of energy, nutrients and organisms across their boundaries, forming what is known as a meta-ecosystem Ref 42. It is still uncertain, however, how changes in one habitat type, such as a decline in biogenic reefs, can have cascading effects on adjacent habitats, such as sandy and muddy shores, altering nutrient flows and larval supply. This interdependence emphasizes the need for integrated management approaches in which the connectivity of natural habitats and the cumulative anthropogenic impacts on coastal ecosystems are taken into account, especially in the face of increasing global warming, since record air and ocean temperatures were reached in 2023 and 2024 Ref 37.

3. Consequences of the changes for human populations, economies and well-being

The degradation of biogenic reefs and sandy, muddy and rocky shores has direct and indirect implications for human well-being. Natural habitats are crucial in providing multiple ecosystem services (such as coastal protection), supporting commercial fisheries and coastal livelihoods and offering opportunities to enhance local ecological knowledge and cultural values. As natural buffers, biogenic reefs protect coastal areas from wave action and storm surges, mitigate eutrophication through nitrogen removal and sequester significant amounts of carbon Ref 38 Ref 21. The ecosystem services provided by kelp forests have been valued at $500 billion globally Ref 21. With the weakening of these reefs due to human impacts and habitat fragmentation, communities face increased vulnerability to coastal hazards, resulting in higher costs for flood defence infrastructure and disaster recovery Ref 59 Ref 30. Moreover, losses of kelp forests are associated with significant declines in fisheries revenues Ref 65. Losses of macrophytes in soft-sediment and rocky habitats reduce their capacity to sequester carbon, and sediment disturbance causes carbon emissions.

Sandy beaches attract millions of visitors annually, generating substantial revenue for local economies. The uncontrolled development of tourism and urbanization, however, is having an increasing impact on habitats. For example, the impacts of artificial light on coastal habitats require immediate attention, as artificial light reduces biodiversity and associated ecosystem services, such as sustainable fisheries and coastal protection. Indirect economic impacts include decreased fishery productivity and the degradation of tourism habitats Ref 45. The loss of beach areas due to coastal squeeze and erosion also reduces their appeal, leading to declines in tourism revenue and job losses in the service sector, such that total revenue loss could reach €140,400 per m² per year Ref 4. Moreover, increased litter, pollution and habitat degradation on popular beaches lowers their recreational value, affecting both quality of life for residents and the appeal to tourists Ref 33 Ref 9.

For traditional and Indigenous communities, muddy and rocky shores provide critical resources, such as shellfish and seaweed, and hold cultural and spiritual significance. The degradation of these habitats threatens not only food security, but also cultural and natural heritage. Threats to the recreational gathering of intertidal resources can also have an impact on well-being Ref 48. In many coastal regions, these communities are at the front line of climate change impacts, experiencing increased flooding, loss of land and displacement. This loss of traditional livelihoods and connection to natural landscapes can lead to psychosocial stress and the loss of cultural identity, affecting overall community well-being Ref 8 Ref 7.

Human health may also be affected, with coastal degradation leading to increased exposure to pollutants and pathogens, particularly in urbanized areas where urban infrastructure increases the presence of anthropogenic litter and synanthropic species (e.g. rats), which are vectors of various pathogens Ref 1. For instance, the decline in oyster reefs reduces water filtration capacity, increasing the concentration of harmful bacteria and pollutants in coastal waters. This compromises water quality, which is essential for such activities as swimming, fishing and shellfish harvesting, posing health risks to local populations Ref 23 Ref 77.

4. Key region-specific changes and consequences

Climate change and anthropogenic impacts are influencing habitats worldwide through both global and local drivers. This part of the subchapter provides examples of such impacts with reference to their geographic, climatic and socioeconomic context and highlights recent updates for the period 2018-2024.

Increased wave energy and extreme weather in the North-West Atlantic and North Sea are intensifying erosion and sediment transport, reducing biodiversity and habitat resilience on sandy and rocky shores. Coastal urban expansion is worsening these impacts by increasing pollution and weakening natural defences. In the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, marine heatwaves have significantly reduced cold-water species, while winter storms have resulted in damage to habitats, including mussel and algae loss. Despite some recovery, climate change has driven shifts towards warm- affinity species Ref 47. In the Gulf of Maine and eastern Canada, warming temperatures and heatwaves, overfishing and interactions with invasive species are causing declines in kelp abundance and shifts from cold- to warm-tolerant species Ref 73 Ref 39. Similarly, the heatwave in the Gulf of Alaska between 2014 and 2017 transitioned rocky intertidal habitats from macroalgae to barnacle- and mussel-dominated communities, reducing diversity and ecosystem complexity with lasting effects on productivity and trophic interactions Ref 83.

Knowledge of the western region of the South Atlantic, in particular in Argentina and Brazil, has increased, but the east coast remains less studied. The western region faces significant coastal erosion, habitat alteration and ecological imbalances due to storms, cold fronts and disasters, such as oil spills and mine tailing discharges Ref 32 Ref 22 Ref 70. These disturbances have an impact on tourism, fisheries and biogenic reefs with long-term socioeconomic effects. Key environmental drivers, such as ocean temperature, wave exposure and freshwater inputs, shape intertidal communities, altering species abundance and marine trophic chains - trends increasingly influenced by climate change Ref 54 Ref 13. Excessive fishing of herbivores, such as fish and sea urchins, has caused biodiversity loss and macroalgal overgrowth, while urban pollution and eutrophication promote opportunistic species, further degrading benthic ecosystems Ref 46.

In the Indian Ocean region, rapid coastal development, including the construction of artificial islands, is disrupting natural sediment flows, harming coastal habitats. In such regions as Maldives, these modifications have altered fish migration routes and reduced access to traditional fishing grounds, affecting food security and local economies. Plastic pollution and illegal waste dumping from these developments are further degrading water quality, affecting biodiversity and human health Ref 44. Marine heatwaves, in addition to regional warming, are causing widespread tropicalization of kelp forests Ref 80. The Eastern and South-Eastern Pacific coasts are strongly influenced by climate-driven upwelling systems critical for nutrient supply to sandy and rocky shores Ref 74. Shifts in wind patterns affecting upwelling intensity are disrupting ecosystem productivity, affecting fisheries and biodiversity. The region is also vulnerable to oceanographic events, such as El Niño, which exacerbate coastal erosion, flooding, seawater encroachment and ecosystem changes, leading to long-term socioeconomic challenges Ref 84 Ref 28. During the El Niño event of 2015-2017, species turnover was significant, with some migrating southward due to temperature anomalies (i.e. changes in temperature relative to expected temperatures in the region), although latitudinal community structure remained largely stable Ref 76.

Arctic coastal erosion, driven by permafrost thaw and increased wave action from sea ice loss, is expected to accelerate significantly by the 22nd century, especially under high-emission scenarios Ref 52. This process threatens sandy and muddy shores by displacing sediments, altering nutrient dynamics and degrading habitat quality. It also releases significant amounts of organic carbon, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions, while jeopardizing infrastructure, biodiversity and ecosystem services, with erosion rates doubling in some warming scenarios. The productivity of macroalgae on rocky shores in the Arctic may increase as the climate warms due to reduced ice cover and greater climate suitability for some species Ref 25, though declines in some cold-adapted macroalgal species are expected at the southern extent of their range Ref 41 or where turbidity increases due to ice melt Ref 25.

5. Outlook, key remaining knowledge and capacity gaps and new gaps

Biogenic reefs and sandy, muddy and rocky shores face increasing pressures from climate change, urbanization and human exploitation, threatening their biodiversity and ecosystem services. Coastal population growth, land reclamation and infrastructure development disrupt natural processes, accelerate biodiversity loss and alter sediment dynamics Ref 77 Ref 43. Emergent threats, such as plastic pollution and artificial light at night, place further strain on these environments, requiring targeted research and mitigation strategies Ref 45 Ref 27.

Innovative approaches, such as blue engineering, whereby eco-friendly materials are used in coastal defences, show promise for sustainable urban development that respects ecological integrity Ref 10 Ref 58. Further research is necessary, however, to understand the long- term impacts of these approaches on meta-ecosystems in terms of reducing biotic homogenization and improving the interconnectedness of natural coastal habitats, with consequences for ecosystem resilience and biodiversity Ref 26.

Incorporating traditional and Indigenous ecological knowledge, which offers place-based insights for sustainable management and restoration, into governance frameworks is vital Ref 72 Ref 71 Ref 35. Significant knowledge gaps persist, however, particularly regarding the cumulative impacts of multiple stressors, including terrestrial influences, on marine ecosystems. Improved monitoring systems, capacity-building and interdisciplinary research are crucial, especially in underresearched biodiversity hotspots, such as the South Atlantic, the wider Caribbean and South-East Asia Ref 12 Ref 15 Ref 50. A socio-ecological approach, integrating natural and social sciences, is essential for holistic coastal management and conservation Ref 5.

Promoting ocean literacy and raising public awareness of the socioeconomic importance of these coastal habitats through education, communication and cultural aspects, including all knowledge systems Ref 31, are key steps to enhance stakeholder engagement in conservation. Multilevel governance structures that include all national and community stakeholders can foster collaboration and ensure that policies reflect local realities. This participatory approach requires financial investment in capacity-building and technical training, enabling communities to actively manage and monitor their ecosystems.

For effective conservation and restoration, countries must develop equitable, inclusive and adaptive policies that prioritize the sustainable management of coastal habitats Ref 81 based on an understanding of their structural and functional connectivity. This includes securing long-term funding for the monitoring and restoration of natural habitats, the greening of artificial infrastructures to improve biodiversity and the use of nature-based solutions Ref 49 Ref 2. Empowering communities and fostering resilience in these habitats allow countries to enhance the resilience of their coastal communities against climate change impacts, ensuring the protection of coastlines, the conservation of biodiversity and the sustainability of livelihoods Ref 66.

Safeguarding coastal habitats demands a robust form of governance that integrates diverse knowledge systems and encourages participatory decision-making. Innovative and extensive research is needed in tropical and subtropical regions, where data gaps persist; at the same time, it is important to address disparities in coastal management between high- and middle-income countries Ref 51. Coordinated, well-financed strategies aligned with global initiatives, such as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the United Nations Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development, are essential to ensuring the resilience and sustainability of these ecosystems for future generations. Continued monitoring, research, local management and international cooperation are essential in order to adapt to evolving challenges and safeguard these invaluable natural resources.

References

1. Aguilera, M.A., Rojas, A., Bulleri, F., and Thiel, M. (2023). Breakwaters as habitats for synanthropes: Spatial associations of vertebrates and vegetation with anthropogenic litter. Science of The Total Environment, vol. 862, art. 160753.
2. Aguilera, M.A., Tapia, J., Gallardo, C., and others (2020). Loss of coastal ecosystem spatial connectivity and services by urbanization: Natural-to-urban integration for bay management. Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 276, art. 111297.
3. Airoldi, Laura, and others (2015). Corridors for aliens but not for natives: Effects of marine urban sprawl at a regional scale. Diversity and Distributions, vol. 21, No. 7, pp. 755-768.
4. Alexandrakis, George, Constantine Manasakis, and Nikolaos A. Kampanis (2015). Valuating the effects of beach erosion to tourism revenue: A management perspective. Ocean & Coastal Management, vol. 111, pp. 1-11.
5. Arbic, Brian K., and others (2024). Skills, knowledge, technology, and participatory decision-making for all. Ocean Decade Vision 2030 White Papers, Challenge 9. Paris: UNESCO-IOC, 2024, 95 pp.
6. Beck, Michael W., Brumbaugh, Robert D., Airoldi, Laura, Carranza, Alvar, Coen, Loren D., Crawford, Christine, and others (2011). Oyster reefs at risk and recommendations for conservation, restoration, and management. BioScience, vol. 61, No. 2, pp. 107-116. DOI: 10.1525/bio.2011.61.2.5.
7. Bennett, Nathan J., Juan José Alava, Caroline E. Ferguson, Jessica Blythe, Elisa Morgera, David Boyd, Isabelle M. Côté (2023). Environmental (in)justice in the Anthropocene ocean, Marine Policy, volume 147, 2023, 105383, ISSN 0308-597X. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105383.
8. Biedenweg, Kelly, and others (2016). A holistic framework for identifying human wellbeing indicators for marine policy. Marine Policy, vol. 64, pp. 31-37.
9. Bozzeda, F., Ortega, L., Costa, L. L., and others (2023). Global patterns in sandy beach erosion: Unraveling the roles of anthropogenic, climatic, and morphodynamic factors. Frontiers in Marine Science, vol. 10, art. 1270490.
10. Bugnot, A.B., Mayer-Pinto, M., Johnston, E.L., Schaefer, N., and Dafforn, K.A. (2018). Learning from nature to enhance blue engineering of marine infrastructure. Ecological Engineering, vol. 120, pp. 611- 621.
11. Buschbaum, C., Shama, L.N.S., Amorim, F.L.L., and others (2024). Climate change impacts on a sedimentary coast - a regional synthesis from genes to ecosystems. Mar. Biodivers., 54, 64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12526-024-01453-5.
12. Coleman, J.L., Ascher, J.S., Bickford, D., Buchori, D., Cabanban, A., Chisholm, R.A., and Carrasco, L.R. (2019). Top 100 research questions for biodiversity conservation in Southeast Asia. Biological Conservation, 234, 211-220.
13. Cordeiro, C.A.A.M., Pardal, A., Giménez, L., Ciotti, A.M., Jenkins, S.R., Burrows, M.T., Williams, G.A., Christofoletti, R.A. (2024). Environmental factors have stronger effects than biotic processes in patterns of intertidal populations along the Southeast coast of Brazil. Marine Environmental Research.
14. Corte, Guilherme N., and others (2022). Evaluation of the effects of urbanization and environmental features on sandy beach macrobenthos highlights the importance of submerged zones. Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 182, art. 113962.
15. Cruz-Motta, J.J., Miloslavich, P., Guerra-Castro, E., Hernández-Agreda, A., Herrera, C., Barros, F., and others (2020). Latitudinal patterns of species diversity on South American rocky shores: Local processes lead to contrasting trends in regional and local species diversity. Journal of Biogeography, vol. 47, No. 9, pp. 1966-1979.
16. Daramola, S., Li, H., Omonigbehin, O., Faruwa, A., Gong, Z. (2022). Recent retreat and flood dominant areas along the muddy Mahin coastline of Ilaje, Nigeria. Regional Studies in Marine Science, vol. 52, art. 102272.
17. De Schipper, Matthieu A., Ludka, Bonnie C., Raubenheimer, Britt, Luijendijk, Arjen P., and Schlacher, Thomas A. (2024). Beach nourishment has complex implications for the future of sandy shores. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, vol. 15, No. 1.
18. Defeo, O., McLachlan, A., Armitage, D., and others (2021). Sandy beach social-ecological systems at risk: Regime shifts, collapses, and governance challenges. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment, vol. 19, pp. 564-573.
19. Diez, J.M., D'Antonio, C.M., Dukes, J.S., Grosholz, E.D., Olden, J.D., Sorte, C.J., and others (2012). Will extreme climatic events facilitate biological invasions? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, vol. 10, No. 5, pp. 249-257. https://doi.org/10.1890/110137.
20. Dong, Yun-Wei, and others (2016). The marine 'Great Wall' of China: Local- and broad-scale ecological impacts of coastal infrastructure on intertidal macrobenthic communities. Diversity and Distributions, vol. 22, No. 7, pp. 731-744.
21. Eger, A. M., Marzinelli, E. M., Beas-Luna, R., Blain, C. O., Blamey, L. K., Byrnes, J. E., and Vergés, A. (2023). The value of ecosystem services in global marine kelp forests. Nature communications, 14(1), 1894.
22. Escobar, Herton (2019). Mystery oil spill threatens marine sanctuary in Brazil. Science, vol. 366, No. 6466, pp. 672-672. DOI: 10.1126/science.366.6466.672.
23. Fanini, Lucia, Defeo, Omar, Elliott, Michael (2020). Advances in sandy beach research - Local and global perspectives. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, vol. 234, art. 106646.
24. Filbee-Dexter, K., and Wernberg, T. (2018). Rise of turfs: a new battlefront for globally declining kelp forests. Bioscience, 68(2), 64-76.
25. Filbee-Dexter, K., Wernberg, T., Fredriksen, S., Norderhaug, K. M., and Pedersen, M. F. (2019). Arctic kelp forests: Diversity, resilience and future. Global and planetary change, 172, 1-14.
26. Firth, L.B., Bone, J., Bartholomew, A., Bishop, M.J., Bugnot, A., Bulleri, F., and others (2024). Coastal greening of grey infrastructure: An update on the state of the art. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Maritime Engineering.
27. Ford, H.V., Jones, N.H., Davies, A.J., Godley, B.J., Jambeck, J.R., Napper, I.E., and Koldewey, H.J. (2022). The fundamental links between climate change and marine plastic pollution. Science of the Total Environment, vol. 806, art. 150392.
28. Gelcich, S., Martínez-Harms, M.J., Tapia-Lewin, S., Vasquez-Lavin, F., and Ruano-Chamorro, C. (2019). Comanagement of small-scale fisheries and ecosystem services. Conservation Letters, vol. 12, No. 2, art. e12637.
29. Gianni, F., Turicchia, E., Abbiati, M., and others (2023). Spatial patterns and drivers of benthic community structure on the northern Adriatic biogenic reefs. Biodiversity and Conservation, vol. 32, pp. 3283-3306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-023-02654-3.
30. Giglio, V.J., Aued, A.W., Cordeiro, C.A.M.M., and others (2024). A global systematic literature review of ecosystem services in reef environments. Environmental Management, vol. 73, pp. 634-645. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-023-01912-y.
31. Glithero, Diz, and others (2024). Restoring society's relationship with the ocean. Ocean Decade Vision 2030 White Papers, Challenge 10. Paris: UNESCO-IOC, 125 pp.
32. Gutierrez, J.L., Bagur, M., Lorenzo, R.A., and Palomo, M.G. (2023). A facultative mutualism between habitat-forming species enhances the resistance of rocky shore communities to heat waves. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, vol. 11, art. 1278762.
33. Harris, Linda R., and Defeo, Omar (2022). Sandy shore ecosystem services, ecological infrastructure, and bundles: New insights and perspectives. Ecosystem Services, vol. 57, art. 101477.
34. Hatje, Vanessa, and others (2024). Understand and beat marine pollution. Ocean Decade Vision 2030 White Papers, Challenge 1. Paris: UNESCO-IOC, 88 pp.
35. Haugan, Peter, and others (2024). Develop a sustainable and equitable ocean economy. Ocean Decade Vision 2030 White Papers, Challenge 4. Paris: UNESCO-IOC, 97 pp.
36. Honorato-Zimmer, D., Weideman, E.A., Ryan, P.G., and Thiel, M. (2022). Amounts, sources, fates and ecological impacts of marine litter and microplastics in the Western Indian Ocean region: a review and recommendations for actions. Oceanography and Marine Biology, 533-589.
37. IOC-UNESCO (2024). State of the Ocean Report 2024. Paris: IOC-UNESCO (IOC Technical Series, 190). https://doi.org/10.25607/4wbg-d349.
38. Krause-Jensen, D. and Duarte, C. M. (2016). Substantial role of macroalgae in marine carbon sequestration. Nature Geoscience, 9(10), 737-742.
39. Krumhansl, K. A., Brooks, C. M., Lowen, J. B., O'Brien, J. M., Wong, M. C. and DiBacco, C. (2024). Loss, resilience and recovery of kelp forests in a region of rapid ocean warming. Annals of botany, 133(1), 73-92.
40. Lansu, E.M., Reijers, V.C., Höfer, S., and others (2024). A global analysis of how human infrastructure squeezes sandy coasts. Nature Communications, vol. 15, No. 1, art. 432.
41. Li, H., Qu, J., Zhang, Z., Kang, E. J., Edwards, M. S. and Kim, J. H. (2024). Shrinking suitable habitat of a sub-Arctic foundation kelp under future climate scenarios. Journal of Phycology, 60(5), 1319-1331.
42. Loreau, M., Mouquet, N., and Holt, R.D. (2003). Meta-ecosystems: a theoretical framework for a spatial ecosystem ecology. Ecology Letters, 6: 673-679. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2003.00483.x.
43. Luijendijk, A., Hagenaars, G., Ranasinghe, R., and others (2018). The state of the world's beaches. Scientific Reports, vol. 8, art. 6641. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-24630-6.
44. McCabe, Robert (2023). Environmental drivers of maritime insecurity: governance, enforcement and resilience in the western Indian Ocean, Conflict, Security & Development, 23:3, 237-265, DOI: 10.1080/14678802.2023.2256251.
45. Marangoni, L.F., Davies, T., Smyth, T., and others (2022). Impacts of artificial light at night in marine ecosystems - A review. Global Change Biology, vol. 28, No. 18, pp. 5346-5367.
46. Martinez, A.S., Altvater, L. (2024). Anthropogenic Stressors on Shallow Coastal Rocky Reefs. In Brazilian Rocky Shores. Brazilian Marine Biodiversity, Coutinho, R., Christofoletti, R.A., eds. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-67206-4_6.
47. Mieszkowska, Nova, and others (2021). Impacts of pervasive climate change and extreme events on rocky intertidal communities: Evidence from long-term data. Frontiers in Marine Science, vol. 8, art. 642764.
48. Morris-Webb (2021). An interdisciplinary understanding of coastal resource collection in Wales. PhD thesis, Bangor University.
49. Morris, R.L., Konlechner, T.M., Ghisalberti, M., and Swearer, S.E. (2018). From grey to green: Efficacy of eco-engineering solutions for nature-based coastal defence. Global Change Biology, vol. 24, No. 5, pp. 1827-1842.
50. Muller-Karger, Frank E., and others (2024). Protect and restore ecosystems and biodiversity. Ocean Decade Vision 2030 White Papers, Challenge 2. Paris: UNESCO-IOC, 112 pp.
51. Nawarat, K., Reyns, J., Vousdoukas, M.I., and others (2024). Coastal hardening and what it means for the world's sandy beaches. Nature Communications, vol. 15, art. 10626. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024- 54952-1.
52. Nielsen, David M., and others (2022). Increase in Arctic coastal erosion and its sensitivity to warming in the twenty-first century. Nature Climate Change, vol. 12, pp. 263-270.
53. Orlando, L., Ortega, L., and Defeo, O. (2020). Urbanization effects on sandy beach macrofauna along an estuarine gradient. Ecological Indicators, vol. 111, art. 106036.
54. Pardal, A., Cordeiro, C.A.A.M., Ciotti, A.M., Jenkins, S.R., Giménez, L., Burrows, M.T., Christofoletti, R.A. (2021). Influence of environmental variables over multiple spatial scales on the population structure of a key marine invertebrate. Marine Environmental Research, vol. 170, art. 105410.
55. Pardal, A., Jenkins, S.R., Christofoletti, R.A. (2022). Local and large-scale spatial variation in a marine predator-prey interaction in the southwestern Atlantic. Oecologia, vol. 199, No. 3, pp. 685-698.
56. Pardal, A., Martinez, A.S., Ciotti, A.M., Christofoletti, R.A., Cordeiro, C.A.A.M. (2023). Macroecology of rocky intertidal benthic communities along the southwestern Atlantic: Patterns of spatial variation and associations with natural and anthropogenic variables. Marine Environmental Research, vol. 190, art. 106099.
57. Petraitis, P.S., Dudgeon, S.R. (2020). Declines over the last two decades of five intertidal invertebrate species in the western North Atlantic. Communications Biology, vol. 3, art. 591. DOI: 10.1038/s42003- 020-01326-0.
58. Pinardi, Nadia, and others (2024). Increase community resilience to ocean hazards. Ocean Decade Vision 2030 White Papers, Challenge 6. Paris: UNESCO-IOC, 120 pp.
59. Ponti, M., Linares, C., Cerrano, C., Rodolfo-Metalpa, R., and Hoeksema, B.W. (2021). Editorial: Biogenic Reefs at Risk: Facing Globally Widespread Local Threats and Their Interaction With Climate Change. Frontiers in Marine Science, vol. 8, art. 793038. DOI: 10.3389/fmars.2021.793038.
60. Popoola, O.O. (2022). Spatio-Temporal Assessment of Shoreline Changes and Management of the Transgressive Mud Coast, Nigeria. European Scientific Journal, vol. 18, No. 20, pp. 99. DOI: 10.19044/esj.2022.v18n20p99.
61. Rahman, Serina (2017a). Johor's Forest City Faces Critical Challenges. Trends in Southeast Asia 3. ISEAS Yusof Ishak Institute.
62. Rahman, Serina (2017b). The Socio-Cultural Impacts of Forest City. ISEAS Yusof Ishak Institute. Disponível em: http://hdl.handle.net/11540/7217.
63. Rilov, Gil, and others (2021). Sea level rise can severely reduce biodiversity and community net production on rocky shores. Science of the Total Environment, vol. 791, art. 148377.
64. Roberts, Sophie M., Simon E. Reeves, Andrew Bossie, Alan Cottingham, Andrew Jeffs, Jenny R. Hillman (2023). Determining mussel restoration success: An Australasian case study, Biological Conservation, volume 285, 110235, ISSN 0006-3207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110235.
65. Rogers-Bennett, L. and Catton, C. A. (2019). Marine heat wave and multiple stressors tip bull kelp forest to sea urchin barrens. Scientific reports, 9(1), 15050.
66. Sabine, Christopher, and others (2024). Unlock ocean-based solutions to climate change. Ocean Decade Vision 2030 White Papers, Challenge 5. Paris: UNESCO-IOC, 77 pp.
67. Sanford, E., Sones, J.L., García-Reyes, M., Goddard, J.H., and Largier, J.L. (2019). Widespread shifts in the coastal biota of northern California during the 2014-2016 marine heatwaves. Scientific Reports, vol. 9, No. 1, art. 4216.
68. Smale, D.A., Wernberg, T., Oliver, E.C., Thomsen, M., Harvey, B.P., Straub, S. C., and Moore, P.J. (2019). Marine heatwaves threaten global biodiversity and the provision of ecosystem services. Nature Climate Change, vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 306-312.
69. Smith, K. E., Burrows, M. T., Hobday, A. J., Sen Gupta, A., Moore, P. J., Thomsen, M., and Smale, D. A. (2021). Socioeconomic impacts of marine heatwaves: Global issues and opportunities. Science, 374(6566), eabj3593.
70. Soares, Marcelo de Oliveira, and others (2020). Oil spill in South Atlantic (Brazil): Environmental and governmental disaster. Marine Policy, vol. 115, art. 103879.
71. Stori, Fernanda Terra, and others (2019). Traditional ecological knowledge supports ecosystem-based management in disturbed coastal marine social-ecological systems. Frontiers in Marine Science, vol. 6, art. 571. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00571.
72. Strain, Elisabeth M.A., and others (2018). Eco-engineering urban infrastructure for marine and coastal biodiversity: Which interventions have the greatest ecological benefit? Journal of Applied Ecology, vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 426-441. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12961.
73. Suskiewicz, T. S., Byrnes, J. E., Steneck, R. S., Russell, R., Wilson, C. J., and Rasher, D. B. (2024). Ocean warming undermines the recovery resilience of New England kelp forests following a fishery- induced trophic cascade. Ecology, 105(7), e4334.
74. Thiel, M., Macaya, E.C., Acuña, E., Arntz, W.E., Bastias, H., Brokordt, K., and Vega, J.M. (2007). The Humboldt Current System of Northern and Central Chile: oceanographic processes, ecological interactions and socioeconomic feedback. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review. 195- 344.
75. Thurstan, Ruth H., Ben K. Diggles, Chris L. Gillies, Michael K. Strong, Ray Kerkhove, Sarah M. Buckley, Robert A. King, Vince Smythe, Gideon Heller-Wagner, Rebecca Weeks, Fred Palin, Ian McLeod (2020). Charting two centuries of transformation in a coastal social-ecological system: A mixed methods approach, Global Environmental Change, volume 61, 102058, ISSN 0959-3780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102058.
76. Valqui, Juan, and others (2021). Changes in rocky intertidal communities after the 2015 and 2017 El Niño events along the Peruvian coast. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, vol. 250, art. 107142.
77. Vousdoukas, M.I., Ranasinghe, R., Mentaschi, L., Plomaritis, T.A., Athanasiou, P., Luijendijk, A., Feyen, L. (2020). Sandy coastlines under threat of erosion. Nature Climate Change, vol. 10, pp. 260-263. DOI: 10.1038/s41558-020-0697-0.
78. Vozzo, M.L., Cumbo, V.R., Crosswell, J.R. and Bishop, M.J. (2021). Wave energy alters biodiversity by shaping intraspecific traits of a habitat-forming species. Oikos, 130: 52-65. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.07590.
79. M.L. Vozzo, C. Doropoulos, B.R. Silliman, A. Steven, S.E. Reeves, R. ter Hofstede, M. van Koningsveld, J. van de Koppel, T. McPherson, M. Ronan, and M.I. Saunders (2023). To restore coastal marine areas, we need to work across multiple habitats simultaneously, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 120 (26) e2300546120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2300546120.
80. Zarco-Perello, S., Wernberg, T., Langlois, T.J., and Vanderklift, M.A. (2017). Tropicalization strengthens consumer pressure on habitat-forming seaweeds. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 820.
81. Waltham, N.J., Elliott, M., Lee, S. Y., Lovelock, C., Duarte, C.M., Buelow, C., and Sheaves, M. (2020). UN decade on ecosystem restoration 2021-2030 - what chance for success in restoring coastal ecosystems? Frontiers in Marine Science, 7, 71.
82. Wang, Wei, and others (2020). Global warming and artificial shorelines reshape seashore biogeography. Global Ecology and Biogeography, vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 220-231.
83. Weitzman, Benjamin, and others (2021). Changes in rocky intertidal community structure during a marine heatwave in the Northern Gulf of Alaska. Frontiers in Marine Science, vol. 8, art. 556820.
84. Xiu, Peng, and others (2018). Future changes in coastal upwelling ecosystems with global warming: The case of the California Current System. Scientific Reports, vol. 8, No. 1, art. 2866.
85. Yi, Y.J., Gao, Y.N., Wu, X.F., and others (2023). Modeling the effect of artificial flow and sediment flux on the environment and plankton of an estuary. International Journal of Sediment Research, vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 335-348.