|
Post by phishead on Dec 8, 2022 12:22:53 GMT -5
Just notice about 100 fish habitats stacked at skyway. Anyone know where they are going to be sunk.
|
|
|
Post by kingmackerelman on Dec 8, 2022 13:21:30 GMT -5
no i dont
|
|
|
Post by carlf on Dec 9, 2022 7:33:41 GMT -5
in the water??
|
|
|
Post by fishsci on Dec 10, 2022 21:25:29 GMT -5
Where? Which pier? N or S? What did they look like (size, shape, material) Pic?
|
|
|
Post by phishead on Dec 11, 2022 9:34:01 GMT -5
South. Before the entrance behind a fence where they are/were doing sea wall work. About a hundred of them. Don’t remember how to post pics using iPhone. Will try later with PC.
|
|
|
Post by tears143 on Dec 11, 2022 15:32:47 GMT -5
South. Before the entrance behind a fence where they are/were doing sea wall work. About a hundred of them. Don’t remember how to post pics using iPhone. Will try later with PC. been there for a long while. no idea where they are going to drop it.
|
|
|
Post by carlf on Dec 11, 2022 20:26:59 GMT -5
If they are under 6’ tall they’re probably for a shoreline restoration breakwater project.
|
|
|
Post by fishsci on Dec 11, 2022 21:01:15 GMT -5
I am guessing that they are reef balls. If so, they are hemispherical (half of a ball) made out of concrete with a few holes in them. Those modules are not really all that great as fish habitat -- marginal at best, but the owners of the company that makes them -- Reef Balls in Sarasota -- have promoted them and get them used as supposed mitigation/replacement for fish habitat that has been destroyed by dredging, filling, seawalling, etc. You can see some of them along the seawall at Bayboro Harbor along the seawall behind the USF-St. Pete library. There are not many fish that use them as habitat. The rip-rap along the shore on the approach to the S. pier are better habitat than the reef balls, so I hope that they are not going to replace the rip-rap there with vertical seawalls and a few reef balls.
Let us know if they look like reef balls....
|
|
|
Post by carlf on Dec 12, 2022 7:31:28 GMT -5
Data actually indicates that reed balls are excellent habitat, especially as the reefs "mature" and grow more and more encrusting organisms, like oysters, mussels, etc. You may not see recreational fish around them, but they are normally full of life, greatly increasing primary and secondary productivity in areas lacking mangrove, marsh or hardbottom habitats. They are definately better than seawalls & bulkheads without riprap toe protection, which is the worse than plain mud bottom.
|
|
|
Post by fishsci on Dec 12, 2022 11:09:31 GMT -5
Where is that data? Please provide it -- and not just what the company promotors put out. There are several data=based facts that make Reef Balls, suboptimal, compared to other designs of artificial fish habitat modules. The first one, and most basic, is that the amount of surface area (on which those oysters, mussels, etc. grow) is the very least possible. That is because out of any shape, a sphere provides the minimum surface area per volume. Second, Reef Balls have only a few openings, into one cavernous interior. Very few fish species will enter and utilize that space, and those that do utilize it only at certain sizes and at low numbers). Small, and juvenile fishes, for which artificial habitat is most needed because of destruction of natural shorelines and shallows, do not utilize those interiors, because the are too big to provide refuge from the few larger fish that utilize them. Conversely, that smooth half-ball shape provides absolutely no small-space habitat to serve as refuge from predation of small juveniles by large predators. Finally, as I said above, Reef Ball deployment is often falsely used to justify destruction of natural habitat that occurs when natural shorelines are dredged and vertical seawalls are put in. The bottom line is that Reef Balls may provide a little bit of fish habitat, but in most cases not as much as was lost or as much as their promotors claim.
|
|
|
Post by carlf on Dec 12, 2022 14:18:32 GMT -5
I was speaking of these types of reefs in general. And in regards to primary and secondary productivity, not just fish. I’d have to see if the data from my projects over in Alabama are available, DISL’s website may have publications. I know for certain there are studies out there that look at primary and secondary productivity, necton and fish assemblage at sites with bulkheads, bulkheads with riprap, breakwater, breakwaters with marshes and natural marsh / sea grass shorelines. Bottom line is bulkheads alone are at the bottom. Reef balls do provide habitat but yes there are other options that provide better fish habitat. Breakwaters plus marsh are way better. Which breakwater or reef products you use depends on your project objectives and location. If I was doing an inshore shallow water shoreline restoration project, reef balls might be best. If a deepwater reef fish habitat project, another product like the ones Reefmaker out of Orange Beach makes may be better.
|
|
|
Post by phishead on Dec 12, 2022 16:10:43 GMT -5
These are triangular and well over 6’ tall.
|
|
|
Post by fishsci on Dec 12, 2022 16:16:07 GMT -5
I generally do not disagree with what you say, but the point, that is important to make, is that Reef Balls, are not the best and ultimate solution as artificial habitat -- as the owners and promotors of the company and 501-3(c) try to make everyone believe. In most cases there are better options, and better options could still be developed, so we should not just stop with reef balls.
You referred to publications from DISL, and here is one: Environmental Management (2015) 55:383–391 "Breakwaters comprised of bagged oyster shell or Reef BallTM concrete domes were built by a community-based restoration effort. Post-deployment monitoring found that: bagged oyster breakwaters supported much higher densities of live ribbed mussels than Reef Ball breakwaters; both breakwater configurations supported increased species richness of juvenile and smaller fishes compared to controls; and that larger fishes did not appear to be affected by breakwater presence. Our study demonstrates that ecologically degraded shorelines can be augmented with small-scale breakwaters at reasonable cost and that these complex structures can serve as habitat for filter-feeding bivalves, mobile invertebrates, and young fishes.
This is the only item I could find on the DISL web site. The fact of the matter is that there are almost no data to specifically and quantitatively evaluate Reef Balls, in terms of their fishery habitat value relative to other artificial and natural habitats. The above reference is to construction of a breakwater, and not construction for the purpose of fishery enhancement.
Again, the point is that Reef Balls should not be considered or accepted as the best or most valuable type of artificial enhancement.
|
|
|
Post by carlf on Dec 12, 2022 19:44:50 GMT -5
I was involved with the project you cite. Helped secure the funding and helped build it.
All the reef unit manufacturers advertise their product as the best. They are in business after all!
|
|
|
Post by blacktip on Dec 18, 2022 9:38:00 GMT -5
I went out for a few hours on the 14th (pre front) took some pics of the structures. looks like they are pouring them on site. Tight lines
|
|