Current Research in Environmental Sustainability 2 (2020) 100012

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Current Research in Environmental Sustainability

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/crsust

The impacts of recycled concrete aggregate (RCA) on epifaunal community

structure and eastern oyster recruitment: Implication of using RCA as bottom
conditioning material for oyster restoration and aquaculture
⁎
Chunlei Fan a,b, , Kelton Clark b, Nikelene Mclean a, Mark Bundy b
a
Biology Department, Morgan State University, 1700 E. Cold Spring Lane, Baltimore, MD 21251, USA
b
Patuxent Environmental &Aquatic Research Laboratory, Morgan State University, 10545 Mackall Road, St. Leonard, MD 20685, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: The eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) is a keystone species in the estuaries of the mid-Atlantic of the United States. Its
Received 4 September 2019 population experienced drastic declines in the last century due to overfishing, habitat loss, and disease. Much interest has
Received in revised form 23 September 2020 been focused on restoring this important commercial and ecological species. This research focused on evaluating the suit-
Accepted 23 September 2020
ability of using recycled concrete aggregate (RCA) from road projects as an alternative bottom conditioning material for
oyster restoration and aquaculture in the Chesapeake Bay. Three types of substrate (RCA, natural oyster shell, and RCA
Keywords:
with a veneer of oyster shell) were used as bottom conditioning materials and tested their impacts on benthic epifaunal
Oyster aquaculture community and oyster recruitment at two sites in the Chesapeake Bay over the summer and fall of 2013. The diversity
Eastern oyster and abundance of the epifaunal community, and oyster spat density associated with these bottom conditioning materials
Recycled concrete aggregate were sampled. The results showed there was no significant difference across substrate type (RCA, oyster shell, and RCA
Epifaunal community with oyster shell) in terms of their impacts on benthic community diversity and oyster recruitment, demonstrating that
RCA, as an alternative material, was generally similar to natural oyster shell with regards to ecosystem services provided,
and could be a potential source for much needed bottom substrate for oyster restoration and aquaculture.

1. Introduction bottom conditioning, and historically, old oyster shells were used for condi-
tioning the bottom and the buildup of the reefs. However, these restoration
The eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) is one of the most important efforts with the native eastern oyster in the Chesapeake Bay have been lim-
ecological and commercial fishery species in the Chesapeake Bay. Natural ited by shell availability (Lipcius and Burke, 2006; La Peyre et al., 2014;
oyster reefs provide protection and nursery habitat for many aquatic spe- Burke, 2010). The decline of the Chesapeake Bay's oyster population has
cies (Grabowski and Peterson, 2007; Coen et al., 2007; Bersoza led to the scarcity of available oyster shells. Because one of the important
Hernández et al., 2018). The bivalves attached to the reefs provide filtration obstacles to oyster population restoration and aquaculture is lack of hard
that removes excess phytoplankton, sediments, and pollutants from the substrate for bottom conditioning, many oyster restoration and aquaculture
water column and improves water quality of the Chesapeake Bay (Walles activities have been focused on the investigation of alternative materials as
et al., 2016a). However, In the Chesapeake Bay, the eastern oyster a base for oyster recruitment and faunal community development (Powers
(Crassostrea virginica) populations are at less than 1% of its historic level et al., 2009; Levine et al., 2017).
due to habitat loss, overfishing, two types of protozoan diseases (MSX dis- Alternative substrates such as crushed concrete, limestone, porcelain,
ease caused by Haplosporidium nelsoni and Dermo disease caused by and constructed concrete modulars have been used as bottom conditioning
Perkinsus marinus), shifts in water temperature and salinity, and increased materials for reef construction (Soniat et al., 1991; Haywood III et al.,
pollution (Baggett et al., 2015; Newell et al., 2000). 1999), but their effectiveness and impact on benthic community structure
There has been an increase of interest in the construction of oyster reefs have not been adequately tested against oyster shell (La Peyre et al.,
for both oyster restoration and aquaculture for the ecological and economic 2014). Recycled Concrete Aggregate (RCA) is crushed concrete material
benefits (Nestlerode et al., 2007; Kennedy et al., 2011). Reef construction created by the removal and milling of old concrete pavement and structure
typically requires the bottom to be built up and stabilized by a hard mate- elements (Kang et al., 2011). As roads and bridges are resurfaced, old con-
rial that will support the oyster population and prevent it from sinking crete is removed and is usually discarded in landfills or other disposal sites.
into soft muddy bottoms (Nestlerode et al., 2007). This process is called As the cost, environmental regulations, and land-use policies for landfills

⁎ Corresponding author at: Biology Department, Morgan State University, 1700 E. Cold Spring Lane, Baltimore, MD 21251, USA.
E-mail address: [email protected] (C. Fan).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crsust.2020.100012
2666-0490/© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/
4.0/).
C. Fan et al. Current Research in Environmental Sustainability 2 (2020) 100012

become more restrictive, the need to seek alternative uses of these waste Water quality parameters of chlorophyll a concentration, surface water
materials increases. While RCA could be a good alternative material for bot- temperature, salinity and dissolved oxygen concentration were continu-
tom conditioning in oyster restoration, it is necessary to ensure that RCA ously monitored during the study. At the Patuxent River site, water quality
does not have adverse impacts on the aquatic ecosystem and oyster reef de- parameters were measured using a YSI continuous data logger (YSI Inc.,
velopment before it could be used within the aquatic setting of the Chesa- Yellow Springs, Ohio) at the water intake near Morgan State University Pa-
peake Bay. There are a few examples that reef systems are constructed tuxent Environmental and Aquatic Research Laboratory (PEARL). At East-
with recycled concrete from deconstructed bridges or other road projects ern Shore site, there was no available continuous data logger for water
(Theuerkauf et al., 2015). However, no published results are reported as quality monitoring, so the environmental data from a nearby NOAA contin-
few of these restoration efforts were monitored, especially on how the uous monitoring station (38.5563 N, 76.4147 W) located at the mouth of
recycled concrete could impact the benthic community structure when Little Choptank River were used in this study.
compared to natural oyster reefs.
The objective of this study was to evaluate the suitability of using 2.2. Sampling design
recycled concrete aggregate (RCA) as an alternative substrate for oyster res-
toration and aquaculture. This study represents the first field study to deter- The time period of this study (June to October) was chosen to incorpo-
mine how the RCA, as a potential artificial reef construction material, rate peak oyster spawning and recruitment in the Chesapeake Bay. The
compared to natural oyster shell substrate, affects the aquatic ecosystem 6-gal plastic milk crate was used as the experimental unit in this study.
services, specifically the abundance and species diversity of macro- Each crate was measured as 48.3 cm (L) by 33 cm (W) by 28 cm (H),
epifaunal communities, and the oyster recruitment in the Chesapeake Bay. which translates to 0.16 m2 of the reef area, and contains approximately
0.04m3 of reef materials. Each crate was lined with ~0.6 mm Vexar® plas-
2. Methods tic netting to simulate the flow in natural oyster reefs.
Each experimental unit (crate) contained one of the three types of sub-
2.1. Study Sites strates (RCA, oyster natural shell, and RCA with a layer of oyster shell) to
test the impacts of substrate type on benthic community structure and oys-
In order to determine how alternative substrate type can affect epifau- ter recruitment. The natural oyster shell was aged oyster shell stock taken
nal community and oyster recruitment in the early stages of reef develop- from supplies held at the Morgan State University Patuxent Environmental
ment, field experiments were conducted at two sites of the Chesapeake and Aquatic Research Laboratory (PEARL). The RCA was taken from a local
Bay with different salinity regimes (Fig. 1). These two study sites were se- crushing operation with approval from the Maryland Department of Envi-
lected because they are located in the natural oyster reef area, and were al- ronment. The RCA was visually inspected prior to use to ensure no asphalt
ready permitted for deployment of the testing substrates. The high density other bituminous material were contained. The RCA was approximately 2
of adult oysters at these two sites would increase the possibility of testing to 4 in. in size. All material was clean and free of organic material before
oyster settlement and recruitment on the different substrate types. The being placed in the crates.
first site (Patuxent River site) is at the Patuxent River, just north of Broomes At each study site, 12 experimental units (3 treatments with 4 replicates
Island on a natural oyster reef leased by Patuxent Seafood. The Patuxent of each treatment) were deployed in four rows randomly with each unit
River is a major tributary of Chesapeake Bay, with watershed land cover was approximately 10 ft apart. At the Patuxent River site, the crates were
comprised of 49% forest, 10% agriculture, 12% developed, and 28% grass- deployed in early June of 2013, and at the Eastern Shore site, the experi-
land. The second location (Eastern Shore site) is at the Eastern Shore of ment started in late June of 2013.
Maryland in Fishing Bay on a natural oyster reef area leased by Chesapeake The crates at two sites were retrieved after 4 months of deployment. Be-
Oyster Company. This area is within the Choptank River tributary of the fore being lifted from water and carried to a boat, the crates were covered
Chesapeake Bay. The land use in the Choptank River basin is dominated and enveloped by a 3-mm mesh lift net to prevent any loss of macro-
by agriculture (65%) and forest (26%). The urban areas are small (6%). epifaunal organisms. Crates were placed on a tarp and transported to Mor-
Water depths at both sites range from approximately 2.4–3.0 m. gan State University Patuxent Environmental and Aquatic Research Labora-
tory (PEARL) within three hours after retrieval for laboratory processing.
In the laboratory, crates were placed on sorting trays to collect epifaunal
organisms that fell or walked out of the crates. The crates were thoroughly
rinsed in river water to remove epifaunal organisms. The rinse water was
collected and strained through a 500 μm mesh sieve. Epifaunal organisms
were counted, measured, and identified to the lowest practical taxonomic
classification. The RCA and oyster shell were visually inspected for attached
bivalve organisms (oyster spat and mussel). The abundance of bivalves in
each crate was counted, and shell width were measured. The length of
fish and crab species collected in the experiment were also measured to
the nearest millimeter.

2.3. Data analysis

Epifaunal community diversity is analyzed with a Shannon index for

diversity (Shannon and Weaver, 1949)

X
s
H¼− pi ln pi
i¼1

Fig. 1. Locations of the two sample sites in the Chesapeake Bay. The Patuxent River
site is at the Patuxent River, north of Broomes Island on a natural oyster reef. The where:
landuse Patuxent River basin is dominated by forest and grass land (77%). The H = the Shannon diversity index
Eastern Shore site is at the Eastern Shore of Maryland in the main steam of the Pi = fraction of the entire population made up of species i
Chesapeake Bay on a natural oyster reef area. S = total number of species in the community (richness)

2
C. Fan et al. Current Research in Environmental Sustainability 2 (2020) 100012

Fig. 2. The environmental parameters of chlorophyll a concentration (μg/ L), water temperature (°C), Salinity (psu), and dissolved oxygen concentration (mg/ L) at the
Patuxent river testing site and Eastern Shore site from June to October 2013.

Epifaunal species abundance for each species with sufficient abundance summer months then decreased toward to the fall. On the other hand, the
was examined using a one-way ANOVA with substrate type as fixed factor salinity increased from the summer months toward to the end of the
to determine differences among substrate types. A two-way ANOVA using study, with the average of 11.75 ppt. The dissolved oxygen concentration
the GLM model (R statistical package) with study site and substrate types did not exhibit any seasonal variation. At Eastern Shore site, no significant
as fixed factors to examine the effects of substrate type and study site on seasonal pattern was observed for all environmental parameters monitored.
benthic epifaunal community structure and the oyster recruitment. The temperature and dissolved oxygen concentration were not significantly
different with Patuxent River site (ANOVA, P = 0.98, and P = 0.99, respec-
3. Results tively). However, the salinity and chlorophyll a concentration at Eastern
Shore site were significantly higher than the Patuxent River site (ANOVA,
3.1. Environmental parameters P < 0.05). The continuous environmental monitoring data are shown in
Fig. 2 and are summarized in Table 1.
At Patuxent River site, because of the maintenance of YSI instrument,
the data of chlorophyll a concentration, salinity and dissolved oxygen con-
centration were only available from middle of July 2013 toward to the end 3.2. Epifaunal community structure
of study period. Chlorophyll a concentration was relatively high during the
A total of 15 epifaunal taxa were collected in the study (Table 2). The
density for epifaunal species was normalized by the surface size of the
Table 1 crate, as each crate represents 0.16 m2 of the reef area.
Summary of the Environmental parameters (mean ± 1SD) at the two study sties At the Patuxent River site, mud crab Rhithropanopeus harrisii and naked
during the summer and fall of 2013. gobies Gobiosoma bosc were the dominant mobile species, with density of
Parameters Patuxent river site Eastern shore site 162.5 m−2 and 80.5 m−2, respectively. Bay barnacle Balanus improvisus
Summer was the most abundant sessile species found at this site with the density
Temperature (°C) 25.88 ± 2.61 26.12 ± 1.65 of 106.7 m−2, followed by hooked mussels Ischadium recurvum and sea
Salinity (ppt) 11.19 ± 0.52 14.62 ± 2.31 squirt Molgula manhattensis. At the Eastern shore site, mud crab and grass
Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 7.07 ± 0.94 8.23 ± 1.10
shrimp Palaemonetes spp. were the most abundant mobile species with the
Chlorophyll a (μg/L) 2.95 ± 1.15 6.81 ± 2.31
Fall density of 108.7 m−2 and 71.5 m−2, respectively. However, the sea squirt
Temperature (°C) 22.49 ± 3.79 23.03 ± 2.21 was the dominant sessile species at the Eastern Shore site, with the signifi-
Salinity (ppt) 12.92 ± 0.69 16.81 ± 3.23 cantly higher density of 1162 m−2 than any other species found in this site.
Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 6.87 ± 0.61 7.96 ± 0.58 The abundance of sea squirt species consisted of 63% of total abundance of
Chlorophyll a (μg/L) 0.93 ± 0.27 4.65 ± 1.93
epifaunal organisms found at Eastern Shore site.

3
C. Fan et al. Current Research in Environmental Sustainability 2 (2020) 100012

Table 2
List of the taxa of the epifaunal organisms collected during the study period, the mean density (n m−2) and standard deviation and mean size (length or carapace width) at two
study sites.
Scientific name Common name Mean density (n m−2) Mean size (mm)

Patuxent river Eastern shore

Rhithropanopeus harrisii Mud crabs 162.5 ± 60.3 108.7 ± 29.4 7.8

Chasmodes bosquianus Striped blenny 4.1 ± 2.7 1.2 ± 1.5 39.1
Anguilla rostrata American eels 2.7 ± 2.9 – 60.3
Molgula manhattensis Sea squirt, sea grape 42.5 ± 49.6 1162 ± 355.1 –
Ischadium recurvum Hooked mussel 51.5 ± 24.0 6.8 ± 5.4 8.7
Diadumene leucolena Ghost Anemone 11.0 ± 12.7 296.2 ± 118.9 –
Balanus improvisus Bay barnacle 106.7 ± 39.4 156 ± 57.9 –
Gobiosoma bosc Naked gobies 80.5 ± 39.2 26.5 ± 6.6 33.5
Crassostrea virginica Eastern oyster 16.4 ± 10.2 252.9 ± 91.9 10.1
Palaemonetes spp. Grass shrimp 41.6 ± 18.3 71.5 ± 21.4 –
Neanthes succinea Clam worm – 7.0 ± 7.38 –
Callinectes sapidus Blue crab 2.0 ± 2.3 1.5 ± 2.0 97.2
Stylochus ellipticus Oyster flatworm 6.5 ± 7.2 – –
Anchoa mitchilli Bay anchovy 2.7 ± 2.9 – 42.7
Cliona celata Boring sponge – 6.3 ± 5.8 –

At the Patuxent River site, the abundance of gobies on oyster shell sub- 3.3. Oyster recruitment on different substrates
strate was significantly (ANOVA, P < 0.05) higher than on RCA substrate,
while the abundance of mud crabs did not exhibit any significant difference At the Patuxent River site, mean (mean ± 1SE) spat recruitment densi-
across the three different substrate types (ANOVA, P = 0.26). In contrast, at ties on the three substrate types ranged from 12.5 ± 8.9 m−2 on oyster
the Eastern Shore site, the mean abundance of mud crabs on the shell sub- shell, 18.1 ± 14.7 m−2 on RCA, and 18.7 ± 7.2 m−2 on RCA with oyster
strate was significantly higher (ANOVA, P < 0.05) than on RCA substrate. shell veneer, respectively (Fig. 5). ANOVA suggests oyster spat density did
However, there was no significant difference in the mean abundance of not differ across the substrate type. At the Eastern Shore site, mean spat re-
grass shrimp among substrate types. cruitment densities ranged from 305 ± 69.6 m−2 on oyster shell, 180 ±
ANOVA results suggest benthic epifaunal community diversity dif- 32.8 m−2 on RCA, and 273 ± 89.8 m−2 on RCA with oyster shell veneer.
fered significantly between two study sites (p < 0.001) with the Patuxent The oyster spat density on shell substrate is significantly higher than that
River site having greater diversity as compared to Eastern shore site on RCA substrate (p < 0.01). The mean spat shell heights ranged from
(Fig. 4). However, substrate type had no effect on community diversity 9.1 mm at the Patuxent River site to 10.8 mm at the Eastern shore site
(p = 0.35) nor was there an interaction between substrate and site with no significant difference.
(p = 0.29). In contrast, for the community species richness, there is no Even at the Eastern Shore site, the mean spat recruitment densities on
significant difference (p = 0.63) observed among substrate types shell substrate is significantly higher than that on RCA substrate, a two-
(Fig. 3). Species richness also did not differ significantly between two way ANOVA with substrate type and sites as the fixed factors suggested
study sites (p = 0.57). that there were no significant differences in spat densities across the

Fig. 3. Mean species richness (± 1SE, n = 4) of epifaunal community for each Fig. 4. Mean species diversity (± 1SE, n = 4) of epifaunal community for each
substrate type at two study sites. substrate type at two study sites.

4
C. Fan et al. Current Research in Environmental Sustainability 2 (2020) 100012

nekton and benthic assemblages as the natural oyster reefs. In the current
study, preference to the substrate type by dominant epifaunal species var-
ied with study site. Such as goby fish, had higher abundance on oyster sub-
strate than RCA substrate at Patuxent River site, while mud crab showed
the similar preference across the substrate types. At the Eastern Shore
site, the mean abundance of mud crab on the shell substrate was signifi-
cantly higher than that on RCA substrate. This difference in substrate
preference is likely caused by the different environmental factors at the
study sites, such as salinity, water temperature, food availability, and
habitat variation.
While the abundance and biomass could be the indictors of community
production, the species richness and diversity are better measurements to
compare the substrate impact on community structure and ecological ser-
vices. In our study, the abundance of total epifaunal organisms at Eastern
Shore site was significantly higher (p < 0.01) than the abundance at the Pa-
tuxent River site, mainly because of the abundant sea squirts presented at
the Eastern shore site. However, the Shannon index of diversity at Patuxent
River site is significantly higher than the Eastern shore site (Fig. 5), and
community species richness was not significantly different between these
two sites. Nevertheless, these community structure parameters (species
richness and diversity) showed no significant difference across the reef sub-
strate types in this study, suggesting the RCA, as alternative reef bottom
conditioning material, could provide the similar ecological service to
aquatic ecosystem as natural oyster shell material. Several previous studies
also showed that artificial reefs provided similar support of nekton and ben-
Fig. 5. Mean oyster spat density (± 1SE, n = 4) for each substrate type at two study thic assemblages as historic reefs (Brown et al., 2014). The results from the
sites.
current study also support previous work showing that the presence of reef
structure, rather than the type of the substrate material, may be the most
substrate types (p = 0. 35) for the whole dataset collected at two sites. In important factor influencing benthic community structure (Humphries
contrast, the mean spat density (252.9 m−2) at Eastern shore site was sig- et al., 2011).
nificantly higher than that (16.1 m−2) at Patuxent River (P < 0.01)
(Fig. 5), indicating that the environmental conditions, rather than the sub- 4.2. Eastern oyster recruitment
strate type, would impacts the oyster recruitment.
The success of the oyster restoration and aquaculture depends on the
4. Discussion oyster recruitment, growth, and survival (Brumbaugh and Coen, 2009). In
the current study, results suggested there were no effects of substrate type
4.1. Community structure on oyster recruitment (spat density) after 4 months of the deployment. Sim-
ilar results were also found at in St. Charles Bay, TX (George et al., 2015). In
Oyster reef restorations are traditionally constructed by placing natural their study, the oyster spat recruitment density was similar across substrate
oyster shell on the bottom. A limited supply of oyster shells for oyster aqua- types (concrete, porcelain, limestone, river rock, and oyster shell), and sim-
culture and restoration has prompted investigations of alternative sub- ilar to those on natural reefs in a 4-month deployment.
strates to be used in construction of artificial reefs (George et al., 2015). However, in their study, the spat density ranged from 617 to 1556 m−2,
Before the large-scale application of alternative materials in reef restora- is higher than the spat density in our study (ranged from 16 to 256 m−2).
tion, its impact on oyster recruitment and benthic community structure This difference could be contributed to the different environmental factors
should be carefully evaluated to prevent any adverse ecological impacts. Al- in the study area (one in Gulf of Mexico, and another in the Chesapeake
though early development of benthic communities on artificial reefs has Bay). The salinity, reef height, and dissolved oxygen could all have signifi-
been intensively investigated over the past few decades (Perkol-Finkel cant effects on the recruitment and survival of oyster reefs (Lenihan, 1999;
et al., 2006; Liu et al., 2017), this study represents the first field study on Luckenbach et al., 2005). The importance of environmental factors on oys-
the impacts of the recycled concrete aggregate (RCA) on epifaunal commu- ter recruitment is also demonstrated in the current study. Eastern shore site
nity structure and oyster recruitment in the Chesapeake Bay. had higher salinity and chlorophyll a concentration than the Patuxent River
Many previous studies suggested that artificial reefs could increase the site, which provided a more suitable habitat value for oyster recruitment
macro-benthic biomass and abundance (Perkol-Finkel et al., 2006; Xu and resulted in a higher spat density. However, within the study site, the
et al., 2014; Chen et al., 2019), and fish population abundance (Paxton oyster spat density showed no significant difference across the substrate
et al., 2018) when compared to no reef structure bottoms. However, type at Patuxent River site, but at the Eastern shore site, spat density on oys-
fewer studies have focused on the effects of different alternative reef mate- ter shell substrate was significantly higher than that on RCA. So, the im-
rials on benthic community structures, especially the species diversity. A pacts of reef substrates on oyster recruitment could also vary with
study in Gulf of Mexico (Graham et al., 2017) compared the community environmental factors. As the previous study suggested, the differences in
structure and oyster recruitment with mounds of concrete, limestone, oyster spat recruitment may be related to substrate type or the environmen-
river rock, and oyster shell substrates. Results from this study showed con- tal factors (Lipcius and Burke, 2018), and it is difficult to determine without
crete and limestone supported the highest number of oysters, while oyster intensive sampling over a longer period of time (Burke, 2010).
shell and concrete substrates supported the highest densities of associated
motile fauna. Another study compared nekton and benthic macro- 4.3. Application of RCA in oyster restoration and aquaculture
invertebrate community at newly created, old shell and rock substrate
reefs in northern Gulf of Mexico (Brown et al., 2014). With the exception Oyster shell is the preferred substrate for oyster reef restoration, but as a
of benthic macroinvertebrate, whose abundance was significantly higher consequence of its limited supply, a variety of alternative substrates are
on rock reefs, all artificial reefs provided similar ecological services to being used, such as concrete, river rocks, and limestone for reef

5
C. Fan et al. Current Research in Environmental Sustainability 2 (2020) 100012

construction (Burke, 2010; Lipcius and Burke, 2018). The recycled concrete are less than the EPA drinking water standard, with the exception that the
aggregate (RCA) represents another potential source of bottom condition- concentration of Al and Cr exceeded the primary EPA drinking water stan-
ing material for oyster restoration and aquaculture. There are only a few ex- dard. Another study showed that using RCA as a base material for oyster
amples that the recycled concrete was used in reef restoration, such as the reefs did not adversely affect oyster spat growth and survival (Clark et al.,
Alabama “Roads to Reefs” program which has built a number of reefs 2013). However, these results are all from short-term studies, and need to
with recycled concrete from road construction. Also, the State of Virginia be validated by long-term monitoring effects.
also constructed a reef system from a mixture of oyster shell reefs, recycled
concrete from a deconstructed bridge, and fabricated concrete forms
(Burke, 2010). Unfortunately, no systematic research has been conducted Declaration of Competing Interest
to evaluate the impacts of these recycled materials on benthic community
structure and oyster recruitment (Burke, 2010). The current study repre- The authors declare that they have no known competing financial inter-
sents the first field study to access the impacts of RCA on aquatic ecosystem ests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the
and oyster recruitment. Our results suggested RCA were suitable for work reported in this paper.
attracting oysters and establishing reef community, which could be a poten-
tial source for much needed bottom substrate for oyster restoration and Acknowledgments
aquaculture.
However, the current study only represents a short-term study This research was funded by a grant from the Mid-Atlantic Transporta-
(~ 4 month). Longer deployment and study of RCA reefs might be needed tion Sustainability University Transportation Centers of Morgan State Uni-
to fully understand its ecological impacts on reef community and oyster res- versity. Additional funding was provided by NSF CREST grant of 1547821,
toration. Early development of benthic communities on artificial reefs has and USDA grants of 2017-38821-26404 and 2017-38821-26439. This pa-
been intensively investigated over the past few decades, but the knowledge per is dedicated to the memory of our wonderful colleague, Dr. Mark Bundy
of the late developmental stages of artificial reef communities is still lacking who passed away on June 1st, 2016. Dr. Bundy was an Associate Research
(George et al., 2015). Some studies show that after relatively short submer- Professor at PEARL, Mark was a lover of the outdoors. He had a passion for
sion periods, the artificial reefs in general have a low community diversity sport fishing and photography. Mark lived his life unapologetically and we
that is dominated by fouling organisms such as sponges and tunicates loved him for it. He will be truly missed.
(George et al., 2015; Perkol-Finkel et al., 2006; Xu et al., 2014; Chen
et al., 2019). Only a few studies to date have presented the data from References
long-term monitoring effects (George et al., 2015; Quan et al., 2017;
Baggett, L.P., Powers, S.P., Brumbaugh, R.D., Coen, L.D., DeAngelis, B.M., Greene, J.K.,
Goelz et al., 2020), and suggest that given sufficient time, an artificial
Bushek, D., 2015. Guidelines for evaluating performance of oyster habitat restoration.
reef and its adjacent natural reefs can have similar community structures. Restor. Ecol. 23 (6), 737–745.
Furthermore, these long-term studies conclude that the structural feature Bersoza Hernández, A., Brumbaugh, R.D., Frederick, P., Grizzle, R., Luckenbach, M.W.,
(spatial orientation, complexity and facing of the substratum) of the artifi- Peterson, C.H., Angelini, C., 2018. Restoring the eastern oyster: how much progress has
been made in 53 years? Front. Ecol. Environ. 16 (8), 463–471.
cial reef play a greater role than age (time in submersion) in determining Brown, L.A., Furlong, J.N., Brown, K.M., La Peyre, M.K., 2014. Oyster reef restoration in the
its community structure. Thus, even the current study is a short-term northern Gulf of Mexico: effect of artificial substrate and age on nekton and benthic mac-
study, its results also support that the presence of reef structure, rather roinvertebrate assemblage use. Restor. Ecol. 22 (2), 214–222.
Brumbaugh, R.D., Coen, L.D., 2009. Contemporary approaches for small-scale oyster reef res-
than the type of the substrate materials, could be the most important factor toration to address substrate versus recruitment limitation: a review and comments rele-
determining benthic community structure and the success of oyster vant for the Olympia oyster, Ostrea lurida Carpenter 1864. J. Shellfish Res. 28 (1),
restoration. 147–162.
Burke, R.P., 2010. Alternative Substrates as a Native Oyster (Crassostrea virginica) Reef Resto-
The long-term success of oyster restoration assumes that oysters will set- ration Strategy in Chesapeake Bay. PhD dissertation. The College of William & Mary,
tle, grow, and recruit more oysters, essentially maintain a viable population Gloucester Point, VA.
and thus sustain the reef and ecosystem services (Walles et al., 2016b; Chen, Q., Yuan, H., Chen, P., 2019. Short-term effects of artificial reef construction on the tax-
onomic diversity and eco-exergy of the macrobenthic faunal community in the Pearl
Williamson et al., 2015). The successful and sustainable oyster restoration
River Estuary, China. Ecol. Indic. 98, 772–782.
relies on suitable substrates that are both readily available and promotes re- Clark, K., Hunter, J., Bundy, M., Kang, D., 2013. State Highway Administration Research Re-
cruitment and growth of oysters. Although oyster shells are the best sub- port Evaluation of Waste concrete road materials for use in oyster aquaculture Project
Number SP109B4E, Final Report.
strates for enhancing oyster populations, it might not be the best choice if
Coen, L.D., Brumbaugh, R.D., Bushek, D., Grizzle, R., Luckenbach, M.W., Posey, M.H., Tolley,
restoration goals include long-term sustainability of reefs because of its lim- S.G., 2007. Ecosystem services related to oyster restoration. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 341,
ited supplies (Goelz et al., 2020). It is important for managers and practi- 303–307.
tioners to better understand the limitations of alternative substrate Galvín, A.P., Ayuso, J., García, I., Jiménez, J.R., Gutiérrez, F., 2014. The effect of compaction
on the leaching and pollutant emission time of recycled aggregates from construction and
materials used for sustainable restoration of oyster habitat and ecosystem demolition waste. J. Clean. Prod. 83, 294–304.
services (Quan et al., 2017; Goelz et al., 2020). The current study indicates George, L.M., De Santiago, K., Palmer, T.A., Pollack, J.B., 2015. Oyster reef restoration: effect
that substrate type had no effect on benthic community structure and oyster of alternative substrates on oyster recruitment and nekton habitat use. J. Coast. Conserv.
19 (1), 13–22.
recruitment. The similar results were also demonstrated in several long- Goelz, T., Vogt, B., Hartley, T., 2020. Alternative substrates used for oyster reef restoration: a
term artificial reef studies (George et al., 2015; Quan et al., 2017). So, as review. J. Shellfish Res. 39 (1), 1–12.
a new type of alternative substrate, the RCA could be a suitable substrate Grabowski, J.H., Peterson, C.H., 2007. Restoring oyster reefs to recover ecosystem services.
Ecosyst. Eng. Plants Protists 4, 281–298.
for creating oyster reefs that may be sustainable over long-term in the Graham, P.M., Palmer, T.A., Beseres Pollack, J., 2017. Oyster reef restoration: substrate suit-
large-scale restoration efforts. ability may depend on specific restoration goals. Restor. Ecol. 25 (3), 459–470.
Furthermore, before the RCA could be used for artificial reef restoration Haywood III, E.L., Soniat, T.M., Broadhurst III, R.C., 1999. Alternatives to clam and oyster
shell as cultch for eastern oysters. Oyster reef habitat restoration: A synopsis and synthesis
at a large scale, more research is needed to ensure there are no adverse ef-
of approaches. Proceedings from the Symposium, Williamsburg, Virginia, April 1995,
fects on the aquatic ecosystem and oyster population dynamics. Since RCA pp. 295–304.
materials are largely from road projects, more tests should be conducted on Humphries, A.T., La Peyre, M.K., Kimball, M.E., Rozas, L.P., 2011. Testing the effect of habitat
structure and complexity on nekton assemblages using experimental oyster reefs. J. Exp.
RCA to test if there are any potentially toxic chemicals or heavy metals pres-
Mar. Biol. Ecol. 409 (1–2), 172–179.
ent that could leached from RCA and present harmful effects to aquatic eco- Kang, D.H., Gupta, S.C., Bloom, P.R., Ranaivoson, A.Z., Roberson, R., Siekmeier, J., 2011.
system, as well as the growth and survival of oyster population. In a few Recycled materials as substitutes for virgin aggregates in road construction: II. Inorganic
studies (Kang et al., 2011; Clark et al., 2013; Galvín et al., 2014) on the contaminant leaching. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 75 (4), 1276–1284.
Kennedy, V.S., Breitburg, D.L., Christman, M.C., Luckenbach, M.W., Paynter, K., Kramer, J.,
leaching of chemical containments from recycled road construction mate- Mann, R., 2011. Lessons learned from efforts to restore oyster populations in Maryland
rials, the results suggest that concentrations of most inorganic chemicals and Virginia, 1990 to 2007. J. Shellfish Res. 30 (3), 719–732.

6
C. Fan et al. Current Research in Environmental Sustainability 2 (2020) 100012

La Peyre, M., Furlong, J., Brown, L.A., Piazza, B.P., Brown, K., 2014. Oyster reef restoration in Perkol-Finkel, S., Shashar, N., Benayahu, Y., 2006. Can artificial reefs mimic natural reef com-
the northern Gulf of Mexico: extent, methods and outcomes. Ocean Coast. Manag. 89, munities? The roles of structural features and age. Mar. Environ. Res. 61 (2), 121–135.
20–28. Powers, S.P., Peterson, C.H., Grabowski, J.H., Lenihan, H.S., 2009. Success of constructed oys-
Lenihan, H.S., 1999. Physical–biological coupling on oyster reefs: how habitat structure influ- ter reefs in no-harvest sanctuaries: implications for restoration. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 389,
ences individual performance. Ecol. Monogr. 69 (3), 251–275. 159–170.
Levine, E.A., Gosnell, J.S., Goetz, E.M., Malinowski, C.R., 2017. Natural cultch type influences Quan, W., Fan, R., Wang, Y., Humphries, A.T., 2017. Long-term oyster recruitment and
habitat preference and predation, but not survival, in reef-associated species. Restor. Ecol. growth are not influenced by substrate type in China: implications for sustainable oyster
25 (1), 101–111. reef restoration. J. Shellfish Res. 36 (1), 79–86.
Lipcius, R.N., Burke, R.P., 2006. Abundance, biomass and size structure of eastern oyster and Shannon, C.E., Weaver, W., 1949. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. The Univer-
hooked mussel on a modular artificial reef in the Rappahannock River, Chesapeake Bay. sity of Illinois Press, Urbana 117pp.
Special Report in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering, 390. Soniat, T.M., Broadhurst, R.C., Haywood III, E.L., 1991. Alternatives to clam shell as cultch for
Lipcius, R.N., Burke, R.P., 2018. Successful recruitment, survival and long-term persistence of oysters and the use of gypsum for the production of cultchless oysters. J. Shellfish Res. 10,
eastern oyster and hooked mussel on a subtidal, artificial restoration reef system in Ches- 405–410.
apeake Bay. PLoS One 13 (10), e0204329. Theuerkauf, S.J., Burke, R.P., Lipcius, R.N., 2015. Settlement, growth, and survival of eastern
Liu, G., Li, W.T., Zhang, X., 2017. Assessment of the benthic macrofauna in an artificial shell oysters on alternative reef substrates. J. Shellfish Res. 34 (2), 241–251.
reef zone in Shuangdao Bay, Yellow Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 114 (2), 778–785. Walles, B., Fodrie, F.J., Nieuwhof, S., Jewell, O.J., Herman, P.M., Ysebaert, T., 2016a. Guide-
Luckenbach, M.W., Coen, L.D., Ross Jr., P.G., Stephen, J.A., 2005. Oyster reef habitat restora- lines for evaluating performance of oyster habitat restoration should include tidal emer-
tion: relationships between oyster abundance and community development based on two sion: reply to Baggett et al. Restor. Ecol. 24 (1), 4–7.
studies in Virginia and South Carolina. J. Coast. Res. 64–78. Walles, B., Troost, K., van den Ende, D., Nieuwhof, S., Smaal, A.C., Ysebaert, T., 2016b. From
Nestlerode, J.A., Luckenbach, M.W., O’Beirn, F.X., 2007. Settlement and survival of the oyster artificial structures to self-sustaining oyster reefs. J. Sea Res. 108, 1–9. https://doi.org/
Crassostrea virginica on created oyster reef habitats in Chesapeake Bay. Restor. Ecol. 15 10.1016/j.seares.2015.11.007.
(2), 273–283. Williamson, T.R., Tilley, D.R., Campbell, E., 2015. Emergy analysis to evaluate the sustainabil-
Newell, R.I.E., Alspach, G.S., Kennedy, V.S., Jacobs, D., 2000. Mortality of newly metamor- ity of two oyster aquaculture systems in the Chesapeake Bay. Ecol. Eng. 85, 103–120.
phosed eastern oysters (Crassostrea virginica) in mesohaline Chesapeake Bay. Mar. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2015.09.052.
136 (4), 665–676. Xu, Q., Zhang, L., Zhang, T., Zhou, Y., Xia, S., Liu, H., Yang, H., 2014. Effects of an artificial
Paxton, A.B., Revels, L.W., Rosemond, R.C., Van Hoeck, R.V., Lemoine, H.R., Taylor, J.C., oyster shell reef on macrobenthic communities in Rongcheng Bay, East China. Chin.
Peterson, C.H., 2018. Convergence of fish community structure between a newly de- J. Oceanol. Limnol. 32 (1), 99–110.
ployed and an established artificial reef along a five-month trajectory. Ecol. Eng. 123,
185–192.