@article{caretti_eggleston_puckett_bohnenstiehl_2024, title={Location and reef size drive oyster reef restoration success}, volume={5}, ISSN={["1526-100X"]}, DOI={10.1111/rec.14168}, abstractNote={Optimizing habitat restoration success requires understanding how restoration location and design enhance the persistence and function of a restored habitat. Particular attention to the configuration of structure and its interaction with landscape‐scale processes is critical for enhancing the habitat value of restored areas. We monitored six subtidal restored oyster reefs in Pamlico Sound, North Carolina, United States, to identify how oyster demographics responded to initial habitat characteristics (e.g. reef area, volume, vertical relief, and perimeter‐to‐area ratio) and how changes in habitat characteristics over time altered suitability for oysters. Changes in reef habitat were measured by repeated mapping using bathymetric and side‐scanning sonar systems. A 2‐year time series of oyster demographic data quantified oyster response to habitat changes over time. All reefs provided habitat for the settlement and growth of oysters. Within 2 years of restoration, relative differences in oyster recruitment and survival emerged and were related to variations in reef location and two‐dimensional habitat characteristics among reefs, namely reef area and perimeter‐to‐area ratio. Larger reefs that were less fragmented resisted burial from sedimentation and enhanced oyster densities and biomass relative to smaller, more fragmented reefs that became heavily sedimented and failed to support oyster recruitment and survival. Positive feedback mechanisms between habitat characteristics and oyster recruitment success were established within 1 year of restoration and were likely driven by landscape‐scale processes such as sediment dynamics and larval supply. To improve restoration success, we recommend creating larger reef surfaces with low perimeter‐to‐area ratios in areas that promote habitat persistence.}, journal={RESTORATION ECOLOGY}, author={Caretti, Olivia N. and Eggleston, David B. and Puckett, Brandon J. and Bohnenstiehl, DelWayne R.}, year={2024}, month={May} }
 @article{caretti_bohnenstiehl_eggleston_2021, title={Spatiotemporal Variability in Sedimentation Drives Habitat Loss on Restored Subtidal Oyster Reefs}, volume={44}, ISSN={["1559-2731"]}, DOI={10.1007/s12237-021-00921-6}, number={8}, journal={ESTUARIES AND COASTS}, author={Caretti, Olivia N. and Bohnenstiehl, DelWayne R. and Eggleston, David B.}, year={2021}, month={Dec}, pages={2100–2117} }
 @article{carr_abas_boutahar_caretti_chan_chapman_mendonca_engleman_ferrario_simmons_et al._2020, title={The Aichi Biodiversity Targets: achievements for marine conservation and priorities beyond 2020}, volume={8}, ISSN={["2167-8359"]}, DOI={10.7717/peerj.9743}, abstractNote={In 2010 the Conference of the Parties (COP) for the Convention on Biological Diversity revised and updated a Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020, which included the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Here a group of early career researchers mentored by senior scientists, convened as part of the 4th World Conference on Marine Biodiversity, reflects on the accomplishments and shortfalls under four of the Aichi Targets considered highly relevant to marine conservation: target 6 (sustainable fisheries), 11 (protection measures), 15 (ecosystem restoration and resilience) and 19 (knowledge, science and technology). We conclude that although progress has been made towards the targets, these have not been fully achieved for the marine environment by the 2020 deadline. The progress made, however, lays the foundations for further work beyond 2020 to work towards the 2050 Vision for Biodiversity. We identify key priorities that must be addressed to better enable marine biodiversity conservation efforts moving forward.}, journal={PEERJ}, author={Carr, Hannah and Abas, Marina and Boutahar, Loubna and Caretti, Olivia N. and Chan, Wing Yan and Chapman, Abbie S. A. and Mendonca, Sarah N. and Engleman, Abigail and Ferrario, Filippo and Simmons, Kayelyn R. and et al.}, year={2020}, month={Dec} }
 @article{johnston_caretti_2017, title={Mangrove expansion into temperate marshes alters habitat quality for recruiting Callinectes spp.}, volume={573}, ISSN={["1616-1599"]}, DOI={10.3354/meps12176}, abstractNote={Beyond direct habitat loss, climate change can alter habitat quality and availability by stimulating shifts in foundation species ranges. Tropical mangroves are proliferating at the intersection with temperate saltmarshes and continue moving poleward with unknown consequences for inhabitant marine fauna. We expected that mangrove and marsh foundation species differ in habitat quality, due at least in part to differences in their structural attributes, such that shifts from marsh to mangrove wetlands alter habitat availability for wetland inhabi tants. We coupled recruitment surveys and laboratory experiments to assess the influences of foundation species’ structural and non-structural attributes on Callinectes spp. recruitment, preference, and survival among mangrove and marsh habitats. Re cruitment was evident in Spartina alterniflora and Rhizophora mangle intertidal habitats but not in Avicennia germinans. In laboratory trials, S. alterniflora was preferred in the presence of predation risk and provided the highest probabilities of survival, indi cating that settlers can distinguish among ecotone vegetation types and that their choices correspond to habitat quality. Survival probability and recruit persistence were comparatively low in mangrove habitats. The differences in habitat use, preference, and survival identified in this study suggest that mangrove expansion is diminishing wetland habitat for Callinectes spp. It also reveals that changes between habitat-forming species, and not just the loss of structure per se, can affect habitat quality, such that foundation species may not replace one another functionally where they displace each other spatially.}, journal={MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES}, author={Johnston, Cora A. and Caretti, Olivia N.}, year={2017}, month={Jun}, pages={1–14} }
 @article{hill_caretti_heck_2017, title={Recently established Asian tiger shrimp Penaeus monodon Fabricius, 1798 consume juvenile blue crabs Callinectes sapidus Rathbun, 1896 and polychaetes in a laboratory diet-choice experiment}, volume={6}, ISSN={["2242-1300"]}, DOI={10.3391/bir.2017.6.3.08}, abstractNote={Asian tiger shrimp, Penaeus monodon Fabricius, 1798 are a newly established exotic species on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States (US). Their size, estuarine distribution, and diet preference for crustaceans and mollusks in their native range suggest that these shrimp may have significant impacts on a variety of species native to the northern Gulf of Mexico and Southeastern US. However, to date no studies have investigated this possibility. We examined tiger shrimp prey choice in mesocosm predation experiments. In these experiments, blue crabs and polychaetes exhibited the lowest survival rates (<25%) while small flat fish, grass shrimp, and juvenile penaeid shrimp exhibited the highest survival (>60%). In separate video observations tiger shrimp searched for prey by probing the sediment; consequently, juvenile blue crabs Callinectes sapidus Rathbun, 1896 that were buried were easily located and consumed. This suggests that demersal or buried prey are more likely to be consumed than species occurring on the sediment surface or in the water column. It is currently unknown how often tiger shrimp may encounter juvenile blue crabs, as tiger shrimp are still rare and adult tiger shrimp are typically caught on commercial shrimping grounds. These preliminary results warrant further examination of tiger shrimp diets and distributions to more fully determine their potential impact on populations of commercially important species.}, number={3}, journal={BIOINVASIONS RECORDS}, author={Hill, Jennifer M. and Caretti, Olivia N. and Heck, Kenneth L., Jr.}, year={2017}, month={Sep}, pages={233–238} }