<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">OJE</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Open Journal of Ecology</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2162-1985</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/oje.2023.1310042</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">OJE-128458</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Earth&amp;Environmental Sciences</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Long-Term Persistence of Propeller and Anchor Damage to Seagrass Canopy and Demersal Biodiversity in Puerto Rico
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Edwin</surname><given-names>A. Hernández-Delgado</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sub>1</sub></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><addr-line>Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico</addr-line></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>17</day><month>10</month><year>2023</year></pub-date><volume>13</volume><issue>10</issue><fpage>671</fpage><lpage>710</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>5,</day>	<month>July</month>	<year>2023</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>21,</day>	<month>October</month>	<year>2023</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>24,</day>	<month>October</month>	<year>2023</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  Seagrass ecosystems support high biodiversity and productivity and constitute critical links to adjacent ecosystems. However, there is a growing concern that increasing recreational navigation may affect its ecological processes and functions, which may affect its recreational and tourism values, compromising local economies and livelihoods. The long-term impacts (1996-2011) of recreational navigation on seagrass benthic community structure were assessed by addressing the question of whether long-term effects of recreational navigation had a significant impact on seagrass community structure and on its benthic faunal assemblages. Findings evidenced: 1) a consistent spatio-temporal gradient in the ecological conditions of seagrasses across the scoured areas, with increased percent seagrass cover, density and canopy height, and seagrass benthic biodiversity with increasing distance from disturbed areas; 2) a decline in percent seagrass cover, and an increased macroalgal and cyanobacterial percent cover through time around the disturbed areas; 3) a significant shift in seagrass assemblage biodiversity as a response to boating that followed the intermediate disturbance hypothesis; 4) an adverse effect on the spatial distribution and survival of multiple benthic invertebrate taxa; and 5) a significant decline in cnidarians, echinoids, ophiuroids, holothurians, and gastropods, and an increase in polychaetes, platyhelminths, and hermit crabs, particularly in areas exposed to boating. Spatio-temporal variation in seagrass community structure explained the observed variation in benthic faunal assemblages. The long-term consequences on ecosystem functions and management needs are discussed to foster the conservation of seagrasses.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Benthic Faunal Communities</kwd><kwd> Community Trajectory</kwd><kwd> Ecological  Disturbance</kwd><kwd> Fish Assemblages</kwd><kwd> Recreational Navigation</kwd><kwd> Seagrass Ecosystems</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>Seagrasses form extensive meadows on unconsolidated sediments over shallow tropical and temperate waters. Tropical seagrass communities provide critical ecological services. They can significantly modify the physical, chemical, and geological properties of coastal areas [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref1">1</xref>] and constitute a fundamental source of nutrients [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref2">2</xref>] , in support of coastal primary productivity [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref3">3</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref4">4</xref>] . Organic matter and decaying seagrass roots initiate sulfate reduction and maintain the sulfur cycle [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref5">5</xref>] . Seagrasses also support a high biodiversity [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref6">6</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref7">7</xref>] , multi-species fishery resources [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref8">8</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref9">9</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref10">10</xref>] , function as nursery habitat for juveniles of a myriad of commercially important species [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref11">11</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref12">12</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref13">13</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref14">14</xref>] , and provide foraging grounds for some threatened and endangered species [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref15">15</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref16">16</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref17">17</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref18">18</xref>] . They constitute a critical steppingstone in the natural connectivity between terrestrial, estuarine, and coastal marine ecosystems [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref19">19</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref20">20</xref>] , fundamental for the conservation of coral reef communities [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref21">21</xref>] and fishery- and tourism-dependent community-based livelihoods.</p><p>Seagrasses also play a critical role in reducing the concentration of suspended particulate matter and land-based pollutants in the water column [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref22">22</xref>] , function as a sink of dissolved nutrients [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref23">23</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref24">24</xref>] , damp wave action [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref25">25</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref26">26</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref27">27</xref>] , contribute to reducing shoreline erosion [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref28">28</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref29">29</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref30">30</xref>] , and minimize the impact of natural disasters such as hurricanes [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref31">31</xref>] . Furthermore, seagrasses play a vital role in filtering the effects of land-based source pollution on adjacent coastal ecosystems [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref32">32</xref>] , and promote climate regulation through carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) sequestration [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref4">4</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref33">33</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref34">34</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref35">35</xref>] . They play an unequivocal role in supporting multiple ecosystem processes and services, contributing to coastal social-ecological resilience in the tropics [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref36">36</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref37">37</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref38">38</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref39">39</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref40">40</xref>] , which is fundamental for the conservation and sustainability of community-based livelihoods and often weak economies of small island development states (SIDS).</p><p>Tropical seagrass meadows are threatened by multiple local-scale, regional- and global-scale anthropogenic factors. Local factors often include a combination of water pollution [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref41">41</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref42">42</xref>] , eutrophication [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref43">43</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref44">44</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref45">45</xref>] , sewage discharges [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref43">43</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref46">46</xref>] , land-based source pollutants [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref47">47</xref>] , catchment disturbance [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref48">48</xref>] , sedimentation [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref49">49</xref>] , dredging [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref50">50</xref>] , turbidity [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref51">51</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref52">52</xref>] , unsustainable coastal development practices [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref53">53</xref>] , trawling [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref54">54</xref>] , gillnetting [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref55">55</xref>] , scallop harvesting [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref56">56</xref>] , and recreational navigation impacts [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref57">57</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref58">58</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref59">59</xref>] . Regional- and global-scale factors are often associated with climate change-related sea surface warming trends [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref60">60</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref61">61</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref62">62</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref63">63</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref64">64</xref>] , ocean acidification [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref65">65</xref>] and extreme weather events, such as hurricanes [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref66">66</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref67">67</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref68">68</xref>] . Also, invasive species [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref67">67</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref69">69</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref70">70</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref71">71</xref>] and other ecological surprises have also become a recent concern across Caribbean SIDS [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref72">72</xref>] . In combination, these factors may jeopardize seagrass ecological benefits [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref37">37</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref40">40</xref>] , their socio-economic value [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref73">73</xref>] , ecological resilience and persistence, as well as the socio-economic resilience of adjacent coastal human communities.</p><p>The usually calmer oceanographic conditions of shallow tropical seagrass meadows often attract many recreationists. Aquatic recreational activities may include navigation (i.e. power boating, jet skiing, parasailing, anchoring), sailing, kayaking, snorkeling, SCUBA diving, swimming, and trampling [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref74">74</xref>] - [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref79">79</xref>] . Most of the attention to recreational impacts on coastal communities has been put on SCUBA diving impacts on coral reefs [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref80">80</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref81">81</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref82">82</xref>] . However, there is limited information regarding recreational impacts on seagrass assemblages, particularly in the tropics. Vessel-generated wave action can resuspend sediments, enhance sediment-derived ammonia, and reduce water transparency over seagrasses [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref57">57</xref>] . Major landscape-level fragmentation was documented affecting Posidonia australis by vessel moorings and propeller scouring [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref77">77</xref>] . Widespread, dense seagrass scarring has been documented on shallow depths, near navigational channels, and around areas heavily frequented by boats [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref76">76</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref83">83</xref>] . Physical disturbance on seagrasses can alter demersal faunal assemblages and can foster the blooming growth of cyanobacteria [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref84">84</xref>] . Even moderate seagrass trampling can create significant disturbances on demersal invertebrate assemblages [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref85">85</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref86">86</xref>] . Also, dock shadows can significantly reduce seagrass biomass, affecting its productivity [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref87">87</xref>] .</p><p>There is a growing concern that increasing recreational navigation impacts may affect the ecological processes and functions of seagrass habitats. In the long term, such effects could magnify potential climate change-related impacts on seagrass communities [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref88">88</xref>] . If the species and the natural environment are not appropriately conserved and protected under projected climate changes, recreational and tourism values might be lost, affecting local economies and livelihoods [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref67">67</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref89">89</xref>] . This study assessed the long-term impacts (1996-2011) of power boat propeller scouring and anchoring on seagrass benthic community structure by addressing the question of whether long-term effects of recreational navigation had a significant impact on seagrass community structure and on its benthic faunal assemblages.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Methods</title><sec id="s2_1"><title>2.1. Study Site</title><p>This study was conducted at Mata de la Gata Island, off the fishing village of La Parguera, at the municipality of Lajas, within La Parguera Natural Reserve in southwestern Puerto Rico (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>). Mata de la Gata is a 320 m-long &#215; 40 m-wide key surrounded by mangrove and formed on top of a backreef coral rubble habitat and is highly frequented by recreational navigators, snorkelers, and beach enthusiasts. No carrying capacity or limits of acceptable change associated with the number of visitors or vessels arriving to the island are strictly enforced. Data were collected during 1996 and 2011 on seagrass communities adjacent to</p><p>the recreational navigation scoured channel approaching Mata de la Gata Island’s pier. Based on aerial imagery photointerpretation, there was a ~34% expansion in the spatial extent of the scoured channel between year 1993 (1783.85 m<sup>2</sup>) and 2010 (2387.77 m<sup>2</sup>). The scoured channel expanded to 2682 m<sup>2</sup> by 2022, which represents a ~50% increase in relation to 1996. There has always been a major concern regarding the magnitude of recreational navigation impacts on Mata de la Gata’s seagrass ecosystems as recreational navigation has represented a major governance challenge within La Parguera Natural Reserve (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>).</p><p>Sampling was conducted across five fixed sampling zones located within the soured channel (SC), the eastern scoured edge of the seagrass stand within 5 m off the scoured channel (ES), the western scoured edge of the seagrass within 5 m off the scoured channel (WS), the eastern healthy seagrass at 15 m off the scoured channel (EH), and the western healthy seagrass at 15 m off the scoured channel (WH).</p></sec><sec id="s2_2"><title>2.2. Sampling Design</title><p>Triplicate 10 &#215; 1 m belt transects were sampled using a 1 m<sup>2</sup> quadrat subdivided in 100 replicate 10 &#215; 10 cm sub-quadrats. Ten replicate quadrats were sampled per transect. Data were collected in 1996 and in 2011 on each zone to address seagrass benthic community structure. Data included seagrass species richness and percent coverage, as well as percent coverage of other components, including macroalgae, cyanobacteria, and open sandy substrate. Thalassia testudinum shoot density (#/m<sup>2</sup>) and canopy height (cm) were obtained from ten replicate haphazard counts determined from each transect using a 15 &#215; 15 cm sub-quadrat. Seagrass community data were also used to calculate species richness (S), the</p><p>Shannon-Weaver diversity index ( H ′ n ), the Simpson’s diversity index (1 − λ), and the Pielou’s evenness index ( J ′ n ).</p><p>Drop traps (0.5 &#215; 0.5 m) were used in triplicates along each transect to sample benthic invertebrates using a 0.5 &#215; 0.5 scooping net, with a maximum of ten replicate scoops per sample. Organisms were counted and identified to the lowest taxon possible, at least to the level of class. Fish counts were conducted in triplicate 10 &#215; 10 m plots per zone and analyzed at the species level.</p></sec><sec id="s2_3"><title>2.3. Statistical Analysis</title><p>All statistical tests were done through the Plymouth Routines in Multivariate Ecological Research (PRIMER) software v7.021 + PERMANOVA 1.0 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref90">90</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref91">91</xref>] . A lack of a significant difference in the spatio-temporal variation in seagrass benthic community structure among sampling sites in 1996 and 2011 was tested using a two-way crossed permutational analysis of variance (PERMANOVA), with time and zone (arranged by distance from the scoured navigational channel) as main factors for 9999 random permutations. A balanced experimental design and the data’s lack of normality suit the strengths and limitations of this test. PERMANOVAs yielded the traditional Fisher’s F-value, yet without assuming normal distributions [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref92">92</xref>] . Two-way tests were carried out in Bray Curtis dissimilarity space, a widely applied for biological assemblages [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref93">93</xref>] to understand the interacting factors that most explained variances in the community structure. A similar procedure was used to test spatio-temporal variation in T. testudinum shoot density and canopy height, and in benthic habitat’s S, H ′ n , 1 − λ, and J ′ n . Permutational distance-based tests for homogeneity of multivariate dispersions (PERMDISP) were done to measure spatio-temporal variation in benthic invertebrates and fish √-transformed β-diversity [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref94">94</xref>] . Principal component ordination (PCO) was used to identify which benthic community components influenced spatio-temporal patterns based on √-transformed species abundances.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results</title><sec id="s3_1"><title>3.1. Spatio-Temporal Patterns in Benthic Community Structure</title><p>There were significant spatio-temporal fluctuations in seagrass benthic community structure in time (p = 0.0421), among zones (p &lt; 0.0001), and a significant time &#215; zone interaction (p &lt; 0.0001) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>). Pairwaise tests indicated significant spatio-temporal differences among all time &#215; zone combinations. Thallassia testudinum cover declined at EH zone from 90% in 1996 to 75% in 2011, and at WH zone from 80% to 67% (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>(a)). Similarly, T. testudinum declined in ES from 15% to 12%, and from 29% to 17% in WS. No detectable percent cover of T. testudinum was documented at the scoured channel, but sporadic juvenile shoots were observed. Temporal variation in T. testudinum was significant (p = 0.0097). Spatial patterns were also highly significant (p &lt; 0.0001), but there were no time &#215; zone interaction effects (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>).</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Two-way crossed permutational analysis of variance (PERMANOVA) of seagrass benthic community components</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Variable</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >2-way crossed PERMANOVA summary</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Time</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Zone</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Time &#215; Zone</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Community structure</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 3.99 p = 0.0421 (ECV = 8.74)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 50.29 p &lt; 0.0001 (ECV = 25.79)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 37.06 p &lt; 0.0001 (ECV = 25.33)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Thallasia testudinum</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 7.24 p = 0.0097 (ECV = 0.75)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 774.8 p &lt; 0.0001 (ECV = 13.24)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 1.01 p = 0.4219 (ECV = 0.05)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Syringodium filiforme</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 0.17 p = 0.6982 (ECV = −0.75)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 52.12 p &lt; 0.0001 (ECV = 9.24)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 0.44 p = 0.7844 (ECV = −1.37)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Halodule wrightii</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 0.23 p = 0.6325 (ECV = −1.05)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 7.31 p = 0.0002 (ECV = 4.76)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 2.11 p = 0.0916 (ECV = 2.83)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Macroalgae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 50.72 p &lt; 0.0001 (ECV = 4.76)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 7.02 p = 0.0002 (ECV = 2.62)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 1.89 p = 0.1031 (ECV = 1.43)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cyanobacteria</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 14.92 p = 0.0004 (ECV = 4.50)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 6.17 p = 0.0003 (ECV = 4.33)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 0.97 p = 0.4373 (ECV = −0.50)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sand</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 7.84 p = 0.0071 (ECV = 2.99)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 33.82 p = 0.0002 (ECV = 10.37)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 2.04 p = 0.1103 (ECV = 2.61)</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Note: ECV = √-transformed estimates of components of variation; Degrees of freedom: Time (1, 48), Zone (4, 45), Time &#215; Zone (4, 45).</p><p>Syringodium filiforme cover increased at EH zone from 5% in 1996 to 8% in 2011, but slightly declined at WH zone from 8.8% to 6.8% (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>(b)). Similarly, S. filiforme slightly declined in ES from 0.8% to 0.6% but increased from 6% to 7.2% in WS. No S. filiforme was documented on the scoured channel. Spatial variation among zones was highly significant (p &lt; 0.0001), but there was no significant temporal variation, neither time &#215; zone interaction effects (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>). Halodule wrightii cover slightly declined at EH zone from 0.2% in 1996 to 0% in 2011, and at WH zone from 1.5% to 0.4% (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>(c)). There was no temporal variation in ES, with 1% during both sampling events, but a slight loss from 2% to 1.6% was observed in WS. No H. wrightii was documented on the scoured channel. Spatial variation among zones was highly significant (p = 0.0002), but there was no significant temporal variation, neither time &#215; zone interaction effects (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>).</p><p>Macroalgal cover, mostly brown algae Dictyota spp., increased at EH zone from 2.8% in 1996 to 14.8% in 2011, a 4.3-fold increase, and from 2.5% to 23% at WH, an 8.2-fold increase (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>(d)). Macroalgae also increased in ES from 10.6% to 23%, a 1.2-fold increase, and from 7% to 26% in WS, a 2.7-fold increase. Macroalgae increased from 14% to 40% at the scoured channel, a 1.9-fold increase. Temporal increase in macroalgae was highly significant (p &lt; 0.0001). Spatial patterns were also highly significant (p = 0.0002), but there were no time &#215; zone interaction effects (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>). Cyanobacteria were absent at EH and WH during 1996 but cover increased in 2011 to 0.2% at EH and to 0.17% in WH (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>(e)). Cyanobacteria also increased in ES from 0.4% to 4.2%, a 9.5-fold increase. It was absent at WS during 1996, and cover was 1% in 2011. Cyanobacteria increased from 0.8% to 2.4% at the scoured channel, a 2-fold increase. Temporal increase in cyanobacteria was highly significant (p = 0.0004). Spatial patterns were also highly significant (p = 0.0002), but there were no time &#215; zone interaction effects (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>).</p><p>Open sand substrate cover slightly declined at EH from 2% in 1996 to 1.6% in 2011, and from 7.3% to 3.3% at WH (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>(f)). Sand declined in ES from 72.2% to 58.2%, and from 57% to 47.2% in WS. Sand also declined from 85.2 to 57.6% at the scoured channel, mostly as a result from macroalgal colonization of open substrate. Temporal decline in open sand substrate was highly significant (p = 0.0071). Spatial patterns were also highly significant (p = 0.0002), but there were no time &#215; zone interaction effects (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>).</p><p>There was a significant modification in the trajectory of benthic seagrass community structure across all the surveyed zones, but particularly at WH, followed by EH, WS, and then ES, and SC (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4</xref>). Zones EH and WH clustered</p><p>apart in 1996 from EH and WH in 2011. Most of this variation was explained by the higher percent cover of T. testudinum, S. filiforme, and H. wrightii during 1996, and the combination of declining seagrass cover and increased macroalgal cover (mostly Dictyota spp.) during 2011. Zone WS constituted an independent cluster in 1996, largely dominated by low seagrass cover and a high cover of open sand bottom. However, in 2011 WS clustered with ES due to increased cover by macroalgae and cyanobacteria. SC zone in 1996 and 2011 clustered together due to dominance by open sand substrate. However, there was also a trend of increased macroalgae and cyanobacteria. The combination of long-term seagrass cover loss and the colonization of open sand substrates by macroalgae and cyanobacteria were the predominant trajectory and were spatially correlated to the proximity of surveyed areas to the shallow scoured navigation channel to Mata de la Gata Island.</p><p>SIMPER test showed that T. testudinum was the dominant component at EH (48% contribution) and WH (47% contribution), while sand was the dominant component at ES (37%), WS (31%), and SC (54%). Thalassia testudinum explained the observed difference in seagrass assemblage dominance in 50% of the potential comparisons of surveyed zones, mostly due to its dominance on healthy zones. Sand explained 40% of the spatial variation among zones, particularly, due to its dominance at SC, ES, and WS. Syringodium filiforme explained most of the observed differences between ES and WS. Sand (34%), followed by T. testudinum (27%), explained most of the benthic assemblages across all zones combined in 1996, while increasing macroalgae (mostly Dictyota spp.) (29%) and declining T. testudinum (28%) explained most of the benthic assemblages in 2011. Increased macroalgae (27%) and cyanobacteria (21%), and declining sand (21%) explained most of the observed temporal variation in seagrass assemblages between 1996 and 2011.</p></sec><sec id="s3_2"><title>3.2. Thallasia testudinum Shoot Density and Canopy Height</title><p>Thallasia testudinum shoot density slightly declined at EH from 951 shoots/m<sup>2</sup> in 1996 to 693 shoots/m<sup>2</sup> in 2011, and from 822 to 759 shoots/m<sup>2</sup> at WH (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5</xref>(a)). Shoot density also showed a slight decline at ES from 507 to 453 shoots/m<sup>2</sup>, and from 613 to 547 shoots/m<sup>2</sup> in WS. Sporadic juvenile shoots were observed at the SC and declined from 62 to 13 shoots/m<sup>2</sup>. Spatial variation in T. testudinum shoot density were highly significant (p &lt; 0.0001), but there was no significant temporal variation, neither time &#215; zone interaction effects (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>).</p><p>Thallasia testudinum canopy height at EH averaged 21 cm in 1996 and 23 cm in 2011, and shifted from 21.4 cm in 1996 to 20 cm in 2011 at WH (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5</xref>(b)). Canopy height showed a slight decline at ES from 17.8 to 15.2 cm, and from 16.8 to 16.3 cm in WS. Canopy height on sporadic shoots on the vessel disturbed channel at SC averaged 2.9 cm in 1996 and 3.9 cm in 2011, showing high consistency. Spatial variation in T. testudinum canopy height were highly significant (p &lt; 0.0001), but there was no significant temporal variation, neither time &#215; zone interaction effects (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>).</p><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Two-way crossed permutational analysis of variance (PERMANOVA) of Thallasia testudinum shoot density and canopy height</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Variable</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >2-way crossed PERMANOVA summary</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Time</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Zone</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Time &#215; Zone</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T. testudinum shoot density (#/m<sup>2</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 0.56 p = 0.4876 (ECV = −2.66)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 22.71 p &lt; 0.0001 (ECV = 29.68)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 0.25 p = 0.9548 (ECV = −7.81)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T. testudinum canopy height (cm)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 0.005 p = 0.9750 (ECV = −2.94)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 19.38 p &lt; 0.0001 (ECV = 19.95)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 0.06 p = 0.9977 (ECV = −6.38)</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Note: ECV = √-transformed estimates of components of variation; Degrees of freedom: Time (1, 48), Zone (4, 45), Time &#215; Zone (4, 45).</p></sec><sec id="s3_3"><title>3.3. Spatio-Temporal Patterns in Seagrass Benthic Assemblage Diversity</title><p>Seagrass benthic assemblages showed significant spatio-temporal fluctuations because of chronic stress associated with recreational navigation and with the widespread colonization of macroalgae on open bottom gaps. Seagrass species richness at EH increased from 3.2 in 1996 to 3.6 in 2011, but slightly declined at WH from 3.25 to 3.17 (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig6">Figure 6</xref>(a)). Species richness increased from 3.6 to 4.2 at ES, from 3.6 to 4.4 at WS, and from 1.4 to 2.0 at SC. Temporal increase in species richness was significant (p = 0.0126) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>). The spatial variation was highly significant (p &lt; 0.0001), with a pattern showing higher species richness on areas of moderate navigational disturbance (ES, WS), in comparison to areas of lower disturbance and seagrass dominance (EH, WH), and areas of chronic severe navigation disturbance (SC). There were no significant time &#215; zone interaction effects.</p><p>Shannon’s species diversity index ( H ′ c ) at EH increased from 0.3377 in 1996 to 0.7109 in 2011, and from 0.4784 to 0.7139 at WH (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig6">Figure 6</xref>(b)). H ′ c increased from 0.8980 to 1.0346 at ES, from 0.9138 to 1.1010 at WS, and from 0.1626 to</p><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Two-way crossed permutational analysis of variance (PERMANOVA) of seagrass benthic assemblage diversity</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Variable</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >2-way crossed PERMANOVA summary</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Time</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Zone</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Time &#215; Zone</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Species richness (S)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 7.01 p = 0.0126 (ECV = 0.30)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 22.47 p &lt; 0.0001 (ECV = 0.90)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 0.73 p = 0.5777 (ECV = −0.14)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >H ′ c – Shannon’s species diversity index</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 22.13 p &lt; 0.0001 (ECV = 0.14)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 53.14 p &lt; 0.0001 (ECV = 0.34)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 1.67 p = 0.1830 (ECV = 0.05)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1 − λ – Simpson’s species diversity index</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 21.34 p = 0.0002 (ECV = 0.08)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 48.03 p &lt; 0.0001 (ECV = 0.19)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 2.65 p = 0.0494 (ECV = 0.05)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >J ′ c – Pielou’s species evenness index</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 2.73 p = 0.1168 (ECV = 0.03)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 18.70 p &lt; 0.0001 (ECV = 0.14)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 7.36 p = 0.0005 (ECV = 0.12)</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Note: ECV = √-transformed estimates of components of variation; Degrees of freedom: Time (1, 48), Zone (4, 45), Time &#215; Zone (4, 45).</p><p>0.2127 at SC. Both, the temporal increase in H ′ c and the observed spatial variation were highly significant (p &lt; 0.0001) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>). There were no significant time &#215; zone interaction effects. Observed patterns suggest increased H ′ c with moderate navigation disturbance, and lower values under severe, chronic navigation disturbance.</p><p>Simpson’s species diversity index (1 − λ) at EH increased from 0.1524 in 1996 to 0.3849 in 2011, and from 0.2403 to 0.4209 at WH (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig6">Figure 6</xref>(c)). 1 − λ increased from 0.5276 to 0.5760 at ES, from 0.5018 to 0.6109 at WS, and from 0.0971 to 0.1077 at SC. Both, the temporal increase in 1 − λ (p = 0.0002) and the observed spatial variation (p &lt; 0.0001) were highly significant (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>). There was also a significant time &#215; zone interaction effect (p = 0.0494). Observed patterns also suggest increased 1 − λ with moderate navigation disturbance, and lower values under severe, chronic navigation disturbance.</p><p>Pielou’s evenness index ( J ′ c ) at EH increased from 0.2924 in 1996 to 0.5847 in 2011, and from 0.4223 to 0.6257 at WH (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig6">Figure 6</xref>(d)). J ′ c increased from 0.7081 to 0.7240 at ES, and from 0.7126 to 0.7678 at WS, but declined from 0.5863 to 0.3069 at SC due to high macroalgal colonization during 2011. However, temporal variation in J ′ c was not significant, though spatial variation (p &lt; 0.0001) was highly significant (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>). There were no significant time &#215; zone interaction effects.</p></sec><sec id="s3_4"><title>3.4. Spatio-Temporal Patterns in Seagrass Demersal Faunal Assemblages</title><p>Seagrass demersal faunal community structure showed a highly significant temporal variation between years 1996 and 2011 (p = 0.0133), spatial variation among zones (p &lt; 0.0001), and a highly significant time &#215; zone interaction effect (p &lt; 0.0001) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>). This interaction was the most significant factor explaining observed variation in benthic invertebrate community structure. Scleractinian coral density showed a significant spatial decline with increasing proximity to SC (p = 0.0030), but no temporal or interaction effects (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig7">Figure 7</xref>, <xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>). Other cnidarians showed significant temporal (p = 0.0073) and spatial decline (p &lt; 0.0001) with increasing boating disturbance, but no significant interactions. Echinoids showed a highly significant temporal (p &lt; 0.0001) and spatial decline (p &lt; 0.0001), and a significant time &#215; zone interaction (p = 0.0032). There was also a significant temporal (p = 0.0031) and spatial decline (p &lt; 0.0001) in ophiuroids, and a marginally significant time &#215; zone interaction (p = 0.0569). Holothuroids exhibited a highly significant temporal (p &lt; 0.0001) and spatial decline (p &lt; 0.0001), and a significant time &#215; zone interaction (p &lt; 0.0001).</p><p>Gastropods displayed a significant temporal increase (p = 0.0133) and significantly higher densities with increasing proximity to SC (p &lt; 0.0001), and a significant time &#215; zone interaction (p = 0.0002) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig7">Figure 7</xref>, <xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>). Bivalves showed a significant spatial increase in density with increasing proximity to SC (p &lt; 0.0001), but no temporal or interaction effects. Polyplacophorans showed a significant spatial increase in density with increasing proximity to SC (p &lt; 0.0001), but no temporal effects. Time &#215; zone interaction was also significant (p = 0.0010). Polychaetes presented a significant temporal increase (p = 0.0423) and</p><table-wrap id="table4" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> Two-way crossed permutational analysis of variance (PERMANOVA) of seagrass demersal faunal assemblages</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Variable</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >2-way crossed PERMANOVA summary</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Time</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Zone</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Time &#215; Zone</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Community structure</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 4.61 p = 0.0133 (ECV = 9.56)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 24.61 p &lt; 0.0001 (ECV = 23.42)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 18.09 p &lt; 0.0001 (ECV = 23.69)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Scleractinians (Scl)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 1.75 p = 0.1879 (ECV = 2.37)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 5.31 p = 0.0030 (ECV = 8.99)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 0.81 p = 0.5265 (ECV = −2.65)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Other cnidarians (OCn)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 7.84 p = 0.0073 (ECV = 7.37)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 15.17 p &lt; 0.0001 (ECV = 16.77)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 1.40 p = 0.2524 (ECV = 3.99)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Echinoids (ECH)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 22.87 p &lt; 0.0001 (ECV = 11.74)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 34.79 p &lt; 0.0001 (ECV = 23.07)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 4.56 p = 0.0032 (ECV = 10.59)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ophiuroids (Oph)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 9.69 p = 0.0031 (ECV = 10.05)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 8.86 p &lt; 0.0001 (ECV = 15.12)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 2.50 p = 0.0569 (ECV = 9.35)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Holothurians (Hol)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 36.02 p &lt; 0.0001 (ECV = 16.05)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 10.84 p &lt; 0.0001 (ECV = 13.25)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 6.88 p &lt; 0.0001 (ECV = 14.71)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Gastropods (Gst)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 4.74 p = 0.0133 (ECV = 3.93)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 21.74 p &lt; 0.0001 (ECV = 14.62)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 4.55 p = 0.0002 (ECV = 8.56)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bivalves (Blv)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 2.31 p = 0.1247 (ECV = 3.07)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 42.86 p &lt; 0.0001 (ECV = 27.45)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 0.95 p = 0.4518 (ECV = −1.39)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Polyplacophorans (Plp)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 1.32 p = 0.2610 (ECV = 1.27)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 27.19 p &lt; 0.0001 (ECV = 18.18)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 4.53 p = 0.0010 (ECV = 9.44)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Polychaetes (Plc)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 3.76 p = 0.0423 (ECV = 2.95)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 98.94 p &lt; 0.0001 (ECV = 27.79)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 4.31 p = 0.0014 (ECV = 7.23)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Platyhelminthes (Plt)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 11.65 p = 0.0017 (ECV = 7.40)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 4.37 p = 0.0049 (ECV = 6.58)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 4.37 p = 0.0045 (ECV = 9.30)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Shrimps (Shr)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 2.51 p = 0.1099 (ECV = 1.54)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 23.54 p &lt; 0.0001 (ECV = 9.40)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 7.29 p &lt; 0.0001 (ECV = 7.02)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Hermit crabs (HCr)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 34.56 p &lt; 0.0001 (ECV = 11.20)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 99.04 p &lt; 0.0001 (ECV = 30.27)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 15.21 p &lt; 0.0001 (ECV = 16.30)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Other crabs (OCr)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 0.70 p = 0.4608 (ECV = −1.14)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 10.98 p &lt; 0.0001 (ECV = 10.37)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 1.02 p = 0.4049 (ECV = 0.61)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Demersal fish (Fish)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 0.20 p = 0.6707 (ECV = −3.43)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 5.49 p = 0.0015 (ECV = 12.83)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 1.03 p = 0.4063 (ECV = 1.55)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Other taxa (Oth)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 7.70 p = 0.0081 (ECV = 9.51)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 2.92 p = 0.0296 (ECV = 8.05)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 0.99 p = 0.4249 (ECV = −0.76)</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Note: ECV = √-transformed estimates of components of variation; Degrees of freedom: Time (1, 48), Zone (4, 45), Time &#215; Zone (4, 45).</p><p>significantly higher densities with increasing proximity to SC (p &lt; 0.0001), and a significant time &#215; zone interaction (p = 0.0014). Platyhelminthes exhibited a significant temporal decline (p = 0.0017) and significantly higher densities with increasing distance from SC (p = 0.0049), and a significant time &#215; zone interaction (p = 0.0045).</p><p>Shrimps showed significantly higher densities at SC and WS (p &lt; 0.0001), but no significant temporal effects (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig7">Figure 7</xref>, <xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>). There was a significant time &#215; zone interaction (p &lt; 0.0001). Hermit crabs displayed a highly significant temporal increase (p &lt; 0.0001) and significantly higher densities with increasing proximity to SC (p &lt; 0.0001), and a significant time &#215; zone interaction (p &lt; 0.0001). Other crabs showed a significant increase in density with increased proximity to disturbed zones by recreational boating (p &lt; 0.0001). There were non-significant temporal and interaction effects. Demersal fish also showed a significant increase in density with increased proximity to disturbed zones by recreational boating (p = 0.0020). Non-significant temporal and interaction effects were documented. Other taxa showed a significant temporal decline (p = 0.0081) and a significant increase in zones exposed to recreational boating disturbance (p = 0.0296). However, there were non-significant interaction effects.</p><p>PCO analysis of benthic faunal assemblage trajectories reflect a consistent spatio-temporal trend of change, with particularly significant temporal fluctuations in ES, EH and WH. Observed benthic faunal assemblage trajectory change in ES and EH was largely explained by declining sleractinian coral and echinoid density from 1996 to 2011, and by increasing density of ophiuroids and platyhelminthes in 2011 (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig8">Figure 8</xref>). Also, the decline in holuthurians and in other taxa explained most of the observed variation at WH. Temporal variation at SC was mostly explained by increased density of gastropods, bivalves, polyplacophorans, and of other crabs. Interestingly, boating disturbance at the SC explained</p><p>most of the observed spatial patterns of benthic faunal assemblages, with some taxa such as gastropods, bivalves, polyplacophorans, shrimps, hermit crabs, other crabs, polychaetes, and demersal fish being more abundant in comparison to healthy seagrasses with denser canopies.</p><p>Spatio-temporal fluctuation in seagrass benthic community structure was also a significant driver of spatio-temporal variation in benthic faunal assemblages. A PCO test showed that increased macroalgae, cyanobacteria and open sand substrate explained most of the observed spatio-temporal variation in faunal assemblages (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig9">Figure 9</xref>). Also, spatial variation in T. testudinum and S. filiforme explained observed clustering in EH and WH faunal assemblages, in comparison to other zones.</p></sec><sec id="s3_5"><title>3.5. Spatio-Temporal Patterns in Seagrass Demersal Faunal Assemblage Biodiversity</title><p>A benthic invertebrates β-diversity test following a PERMDISP analysis showed highly significant spatio-temporal variation (F = 8.32; d.f. = 9.40; p(perm) &lt; 0.0001). There were significant differences during 1996 in benthic invertebrates β-diversity between SC and EH (t = 5.01, p = 0.0091), WS (t = 5.10, p = 0.0082), and WH (t = 2.06, p = 0.0071). There was no significant difference between SC and ES during 1996 (t = 0.60, p = 0.6466). Differences between EH and ES were only marginally significant (t = 2.74, p = 0.0569), and non-significant between EH and WS (t = 0.39, p = 0.6175), and between EH and WH (t = 0.35, p = 0.6975). Differences were also significant between ES and WS (t = 2.98, p = 0.0447), but non-significant between ES and WH (t = 1.46, p = 0.1902), and between WS and WH (t = 0.59, p = 0.5535).</p><p>There were significant differences during 2011 in benthic invertebrates β-diversity between SC and EH (t = 5.06, p = 0.0090), ES (t = 2.63, p = 0.0310), WS (t</p><p>= 4.00, p = 0.0142), and WH (t = 3.30, p = 0.0095). Differences between EH and ES were also significant (t = 3.28, p = 0.0166), and WS (t = 3.24, p = 0.0243), and non-significant between EH and WH (t = 1.75, p = 0.1620). Differences were non-significant between ES and WS (t = 0.42, p = 0.7048), between ES and WH (t = 1.40, p = 0.1799), and between WS and WH (t = 1.23, p = 0.2644).</p><p>Within-zone temporal variation in benthic invertebrates β-diversity was significant within SC (t = 2.29, p = 0.0080), within EH (t = 3.52, p = 0.0166), only marginal within ES (t = 2.66, p = 0.0556), and non-significant within WS (t = 0.25, p = 0.7556), and within WH (t = 1.51, p = 0.1435). Observed patterns showed significant spatio-temporal variation in benthic invertebrates’ β-diversity with increased impacts through time in recreational navigation.</p><p>Taxa richness at EH averaged 7.6 taxa per count in 1996 and 6.8 in 2011, and 8.6 and 9.2, respectively at WH. It averaged 9.2 taxa per count in 1996 and 11.4 in 2011 at ES, and 10.2 and 7.8, respectively at WS. Taxa richness averaged 9.8 per count in 1996 and 7.8 in 2011 at SC. H ′ n at EH averaged 2.0048 in 1996 and 1.8612 in 2011, and 2.1190 and 2.1932, respectively at WH. Taxa richness showed a significant decline between 1996 and 2011 (p = 0.0027), as well as a significant spatial increase in areas subjected to recreational boating disturbance in relation to denser seagrass canopies (p = 0.0009) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref>). There was also a highly significant time &#215; zone interaction (p &lt; 0.0001).</p><p>The 1996 mean H ′ n at ES was 2.4010 and 2.1768 in 2011, and 2.2828 and 2.0092, respectively at WS. H ′ n averaged 2.2532 in 1996 and 1.9904 in 2011 at SC. J ′ n at EH averaged 0.9828 in 1996 and 0.9824 in 2011, and 0.9879 and 0.9917, respectively at WH. H ′ n presented also significant decline between 1996 and 2011 (p = 0.0021), as well as a significant spatial increase in areas subjected to recreational boating disturbance (p = 0.0014) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref>). There was also a highly significant time &#215; zone interaction (p &lt; 0.0001). The 1996 mean J ′ n at ES was 0.9883 and 0.9885 in 2011, and 0.9832 and 0.9804, respectively at WS.</p><table-wrap id="table5" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref></label><caption><title> Two-way crossed permutational analysis of variance (PERMANOVA) of seagrass benthic faunal assemblage sdiversity</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Variable</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >2-way crossed PERMANOVA summary</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Time</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Zone</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Time &#215; Zone</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Species/taxa richness (S)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 9.46 p = 0.0027 (ECV = 1.84)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 5.60 P = 0.0009 (ECV = 1.44)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 6.50 p &lt; 0.0001 (ECV = 1.85)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >H ′ c – Shannon’s species diversity index</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 10.10 p = 0.0021 (ECV = 0.67)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 5.37 p = 0.0014 (ECV = 0.69)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 6.53 p &lt; 0.0001 (ECV = 0.90)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >J ′ c – Pielou’s species evenness index</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 5.91 p = 0.0227 (ECV = 0.03)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 6.24 p = 0.0010 (ECV = 0.04)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudo-F = 10.83 p &lt; 0.0001 (ECV = 0.06)</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Note: ECV = √√-transformed estimates of components of variation; Degrees of freedom: Time (1, 48), Zone (4, 45), Time &#215; Zone (4, 45).</p><p>J ′ n averaged 0.9877 in 1996 and 0.9748 in 2011 at SC. J ′ n demonstrated a significant temporal decline (p = 0.0227), as well as a significant spatial increase in areas subjected to recreational boating disturbance (p = 0.0010) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref>). There was also a highly significant time &#215; zone interaction (p = 0.0001).</p><p>Observed temporal trajectories in demersal fish community structure across the EH, ES, WH, and WS zones between 1996 and 2011 were mostly explained by declining numbers in Sparisoma radians, Scarus iseri, and Halichoeres bivittatus, and in a lesser degree by the declining abundance of Hemiramphus brasiliensis, Acanthurus coeruleus, and A. tractus (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>0). Changing trajectories within the SC was mostly explained by the increasing abundance of Calamus calamus, Gerres cinereus, and Trachinotus goodei. This solution explains 80% of the observed spatio-temporal variation in demersal fish assemblages.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Discussion</title><sec id="s4_1"><title>4.1. Spatio-Temporal Variation in Seagrass Benthic and Faunal Assemblages</title><p>Significant changes in the trajectory of seagrass community structure and in benthic faunal assemblages were documented between 1996 and 2011 at Mata de la Gata Island in La Parguera, Puerto Rico. Changes are presumed to be the long-term consequences of uncontrolled recreational navigation over shallow seagrass ecosystems. The most important findings evidenced: 1) a consistent spatial gradient, both in 1996 and in 2011, in the ecological conditions of seagrasses across the chronically disturbed SC zone, with generally increased percent seagrass cover, density and canopy height, and seagrass benthic assemblage biodiversity with increasing distance from the SC zone; 2) a temporal increase in recreational boating disturbance impacts on seagrass benthic community structure in the form of an expanded width of the SC zone, a decline in percent seagrass cover and density, and an increased macroalgal and cyanobacterial percent cover around the ES and WS channel edge zones, which led to a general phase shift in the overall seagrass benthic community structure; 3) an important shift in seagrass assemblage biodiversity evidenced by a significant temporal increase in S, H ′ c , and 1 − λ, which may suggest a response to the long-term increase in recreational boating disturbance that followed the intermediate disturbance hypothesis; 4) a consistent spatial shift in benthic faunal community structure suggesting the long-term, chronic effect of recreational navigation disturbances on benthic seagrass communities, in turn adversely affecting the spatial distribution and survival of multiple benthic invertebrate taxa in relation to the SC zone; 5) an important temporal shift in benthic faunal assemblages, with a significant decline in cnidarians, echinoids, ophiuroids, holothurians, and gastropods, and an increase in polychaetes, platyhelminths, and hermit crabs, particularly in areas more exposed to boating disturbance and drifting macroalgal accumulation (e.g. SC, ES, WS); and 6) spatio-temporal variation in seagrass community structure that explained the observed spatio-temporal variation in benthic faunal community structure and its overall fish and invertebrate biodiversity.</p><p>This study evidenced the temporal consistency in seagrass community structure spatial gradients. Areas directly subjected to chronic, long-term impacts of recreational boating showed total or nearly total extirpation of seagrasses across a widened scoured channel (SC zone). During 1996, the SC was mostly dominated by open sand bottom, but dominance during 2011 shifted to drifting macroalgae, mostly brown weedy macroalga Dictyota spp., and cyanobacteria, which might have followed nutrient pulse events. Areas adjacent to SC were characterized by very low seagrass percent cover, shoot density, and lower canopies, while habitats farthest from the navigation disturbed areas (e.g. EH, WH) were characterized by higher percent seagrass cover, shoot density, canopy height, and dominance by T. testudinum. The observed pattern of disturbance showed a persistent, long-lasting major landscape-level fragmentation like that documented in previous studies [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref76">76</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref77">77</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref83">83</xref>] . These observations were also consistent with studies that documented increased cyanobacterial and macroalgal abundance over propeller-scoured bottoms [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref57">57</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref84">84</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref86">86</xref>] .</p><p>There was also a persistent spatio-temporal variation pattern in seagrass benthic community biodiversity that suggested a classical intermediate disturbance hypothesis effect [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref95">95</xref>] . Observed diversity indices showed overall significantly higher values across areas subjected to moderate boating disturbance across the scoured channel edges (e.g. ES, WS). But diversity declined both in areas exposed to chronic, persistent navigation disturbance (SC), and in areas farthest from disturbance (e.g. EH, WH). This was explained by the higher frequency and/or severity of boating disturbances that resulted in the total or nearly total extirpation of shallow seagrasses, and the dominance of sandy open substrates, drifting macroalgae and cyanobacteria in the SC bottom. On the opposite, EH and WH locations were dominated by seagrasses, mostly T. testudinum. Both conditions resulted in reduced diversity, but due to contrasting vessel disturbance conditions. Surveyed locations subjected to moderate disturbances were characterized by the coexistence of all benthic categories, which resulted in higher biodiversity. This study evidenced a significant temporal increase in biodiversity across all surveyed locations subjected to moderate and low boating disturbance, except that of the SC subjected to frequent and/or severe boating disturbance. This may suggest the persistence and possible increase in recreational navigation disturbances between 1996 and 2011 at Mata de la Gata Island.</p><p>Consistent with changes observed in seagrass benthic communities, benthic faunal community structure and β-diversity also showed significant spatio-temporal fluctuations. A major spatial gradient in faunal taxa abundance was observed both in 1996 and 2011 that followed a gradient of increasing distance from the highly disturbed SC. However, the increased expansion of the SC and the observed habitat homogenization trend across the SC edges (e.g. ES, WS) during 2011 reflected enhanced gradients in abundance and in β-diversity, both for benthic invertebrates and demersal fish assemblages. A significant temporal decline in the abundance of cnidarians, echinoids, ophiuroids, holothurians, and gastropods was documented, while an increase in polychaetes, platyhelminths, and hermit crabs, particularly in areas more exposed to boating disturbance (e.g. SC, ES, WS) was observed. Species with reduced abundances were typically those directly associated with healthy seagrass ecosystems, while those that showed increased abundance were those often associated with disturbed seagrass bottoms and open sandy substrate, which often feed upon accumulated decaying organic matter. Caribbean seagrass ecosystems support highly diverse benthic invertebrate communities [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref96">96</xref>] , which are subjected to some levels of seasonal variability in abundance [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref97">97</xref>] but remain highly productive and supportive of multiple other ecosystems [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref98">98</xref>] . However, it is argued that observed spatio-temporal changes in seagrass benthic community structure in this study fostered an increased abundance in detrivore fauna.</p><p>Detritus in seagrass meadows can be an important food source for multiple species and is a critical pathway of nutrient and energy flow in interconnected tropical coastal ecosystems [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref98">98</xref>] . Some of the common detrivores found in seagrass habitats include certain species of crustaceans, mollusks, and polychaetes, which feed on decaying seagrass and macroalgae found in the sediment. Also, numerous species of crabs, snails, and shrimps feed on accumulated detrital material in seagrass meadows. These organisms play an important role in the ecosystem by contributing to breaking down decaying organic material and recycling nutrients back into the food web [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref7">7</xref>] , contributing to the energetic connectivity with other adjacent ecosystems, such as coral reefs, mangroves, and estuaries. However, under moderate to severe, long-term disturbance regimes, such as chronic recreational boating and anchoring, shallow seagrass habitats are exposed to severe mechanical impacts that can result in enhanced seagrass dislodgment and mortality, generating an increase in the production of decaying organic material, that in combination with factors such as natural seasonal variation in rainfall and runoff patterns, human-altered water quality, and climate change-related stress, may lead to enhanced macroalgal and cyanobacterial overgrowth. These combined factors may lead to enhanced local production of detritus, which may in turn foster enhanced conditions for the recruitment and survival of detrivore taxa as it was observed to occur between 1996 and 2011 in this study.</p><p>The implications of habitat alterations are critical for the long-term sustainability of seagrass fish assemblages. There is still poor knowledge of the impacts of habitat changes on seagrass fish communities due to human-driven factors, particularly recreational navigation. Observed alterations in benthic seagrass community structure were also reflected in fish assemblage spatio-temporal variation patterns. There was an overall decline in the abundance of juvenile scrapper herbivores such as S. radians, and S. iseri, in the generalist benthic invertivore H. bivittatus, in planktivore H. brasiliensis, and in browser herbivores A. coeruleus, and A. tractus. Observed changes in these groups may have resulted from altered habitat characteristics, which might have reduced their essential fish habitat and juvenile nursery role. There could have also been a possible water quality decline due to chronic sediment resuspension and possible pollution from vessels, though that was not addressed in this study.</p><p>The increased abundance of generalist invertivores such as Calamus calamus, Gerres cinereus, and Trachinotus goodei at the SC zone might be explained by the indirect effect exerted by the increased abundance of detritus feeder invertebrates. Fish biodiversity showed higher richness in areas farthest from boating disturbance, suggesting a persistent essential fish habitat and juvenile fish nursery role of healthy seagrasses, but an increased alteration of such ecological functions in locations chronically disturbed by recreational navigation might have led to the elimination of many species from disturbed zones. This finding supports the findings of previous studies across multiple biogeographic regions. Boating and navigation adversely affected fish recruitment in the Baltic Sea [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref99">99</xref>] . Habitat degradation resulted in losing the most attractive habitat physiotopes for fish, which failed to support basic fish ecological features [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref100">100</xref>] , favoring an increase in less attractive ones, which can lead to potential changes in the nursery carrying capacity of disturbed habitats and in the functioning of the fish assemblages. Fish also showed lower abundance, diversity, and altered feeding behavior near recreational boat moorings [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref101">101</xref>] . Even harmful blooms of microalgae Karenia brevis have led to declines in fish diversity and abundance in seagrass habitats as a potential combined effect of water quality decline and habitat alteration [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref102">102</xref>] . The combined impact of long-term alterations in benthic habitat conditions and water quality might have played a key role in the observed changes in demersal fish fauna in this study.</p></sec><sec id="s4_2"><title>4.2. Long-Term Consequences of Uncontrolled Recreational Navigation on Seagrass Ecosystem Functions and Services</title><p>Recreational navigation can have several long-term adverse impacts on seagrass ecosystems, including physical damage to the seagrass stands by propeller scouring, turbine scarring or anchoring, including breakage of seagrass canopy or rhizome and root dislodgment [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref76">76</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref83">83</xref>] . There could also be increased sediment resuspension and deposition rates over adjacent seagrasses, and water turbidity, which can reduce light penetration and affect seagrass growth [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref103">103</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref104">104</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref105">105</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref106">106</xref>] . In this study, vessels reaching Mata de la Gata Island created a major scoured channel due to the chronic mechanical disturbance to shallow seagrass habitats along the main waterway that can damage the plants by breaking, uprooting, or displacing them. Furthermore, seagrass gaps can trap drifting macroalgae and cyanobacteria, which can also affect seagrass recolonization ability through interference outcompetition mechanisms. Over a period of 15 years, this damage had long-term effects on the seagrass ecosystem that resulted in an increased width of the scoured channel and in a significant decline in seagrass percent cover, shoot density, and canopy height on adjacent bottoms. It also resulted in a significant alteration of benthic faunal assemblages, which may contribute to an overall reduction in ecosystem productivity.</p><p>Recurrent recreational boating can also result in increased anoxic sediment resuspension and in the subsequent sedimentation of adjacent remnant seagrasses. Sedimentation can cover the seagrass leaves, blocking sunlight, and reducing the photosynthesis process, which can lead to a long-term decline in seagrass growth and productivity [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref106">106</xref>] . An enhanced resuspension of anoxic sediments may also lead to increased concentrations of toxic H<sub>2</sub>S, potentially affecting its associated benthic faunal assemblages [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref107">107</xref>] . Previous studies in Australia have shown that heavy recreational boating activities resulted in declining Posidonia stands due to significant sediment resuspension by propeller scarring, impacting the composition of faunal assemblages [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref108">108</xref>] . Resuspended sediment can also lead to increased water turbidity. Turbid water can result from the movement of boats and jet skis through shallow seagrass ecosystems, and from anchoring activities. Chronic turbidity can reduce light penetration, which can impact the growth and survival of seagrasses [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref49">49</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref51">51</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref52">52</xref>] . In the long term, such a combination of impacts can result in the physical fragmentation and disruption of seagrass meadows.</p><p>The scoured channel at Mata de la Gata Island is an example of how the chronic movement of boats through shallow seagrass meadows can create permanent channels of disrupted seagrass growth. Chronic mechanical disturbances can reduce seagrass’ overall size and connectivity and can also affect the natural distribution and connectivity of its benthic faunal and fish assemblages. Such physical disruption can be further enhanced by recurrent anchor damage and trampling. Anchoring in seagrass meadows can cause physical damage to the plants and their surrounding habitat [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref74">74</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref78">78</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref108">108</xref>] , and has long been a major concern for the conservation of seagrasses and coral reefs [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref109">109</xref>] . Anchoring impacts, in combination with other forms of mechanical disturbances and pollution, have been deemed to promote the rapid loss of Halodule wrightii in Brazil, affecting benthic faunal assemblages [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref110">110</xref>] .</p><p>Mechanical disturbances also promoted the rapid colonization by invasive sea vine Halophila stipulacea on Caribbean shallow coastal habitats [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref67">67</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref71">71</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref111">111</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref112">112</xref>] . At the time of sampling, H. stipulacea was absent from the study location. There is no information available at present regarding this species’ presence within La Parguera Natural Reserve. However, the species is largely distributed across other locations in Puerto Rico [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref67">67</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref71">71</xref>] .</p><p>It is argued that observed spatio-temporal alterations in benthic invertebrate and demersal fish assemblages in this study responded to physical changes and habitat homogenization trends documented on shallow seagrass meadows from chronic recreational navigation. Recreational navigation impacts can range from physical damage to individuals of certain species to habitat modification or destruction, and changes in water quality that affect the overall health of the ecosystem and may lead to the subsequent loss of biodiversity. Significant resuspension of hydrogen sulfide caused by recurrent anchoring over Posidonia oceanica was observed in France, altering the seascape of submerged aquatic vegetation stands and its associated faunal assemblages [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref113">113</xref>] .</p><p>Physical damage caused by propellers, turbines and hulls of vessels can damage seagrass stands, causing loss of vegetation, changing the physical structure of the seafloor, and resulting in a significant habitat homogenization and in a reduced function as nursery ground and essential fish habitat. Anchoring is another critical form of direct mechanical disruption of submerged aquatic vegetation [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref59">59</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref114">114</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref115">115</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref116">116</xref>] . The frequency of boat use has been directly correlated to the extent of physical damage to seagrasses [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref117">117</xref>] . This can impact the growth and reproduction of important ecosystem engineer taxa (seagrasses), its ecological functions and ecosystem services, including sustaining many of its associated benthic fauna that depend on seagrass spatial heterogeneity and health for survival. Such impacts have also resulted in the loss of Posidonia oceanica spatial extent in France, with a 9% decline in its carbon sequestration ability and a net loss of $4.72 million euros y<sup>−1</sup> [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref116">116</xref>] .</p><p>Boating may also have a combination of direct and indirect impacts on demersal fish assemblages. Altered wave climate in shallow wave-protected areas due to high-speed boating and water turbidity due to sediment resuspension may influence fishes and their habitats, especially in submerged aquatic vegetation [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref114">114</xref>] . Finally, the role of recreational boats as vectors of aquatic invasive organisms is also a significant concern and has created major problems for the ecology of aquatic systems [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref114">114</xref>] .</p><p>Another chronic impact of recreational navigation is the release of pollutants from boat exhaust, fuel leaks, liquid and solid wastes, and other sources, including heavy metals [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref118">118</xref>] , that combined with anoxic sediment mechanical resuspension [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref119">119</xref>] , increased turbidity, and with the potential resuspension of pollutants trapped in sediments, can negatively affect water quality on local scales and create conditions that are unsuitable for seagrass and its associated benthic fauna. Pollution risks arising from fuel spillage, exhaust emissions and antifouling paints all have detrimental effects on fish [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref114">114</xref>] and in other demersal fauna [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref119">119</xref>] . This aspect was not addressed in the present study but might be a potentially important factor affecting the observed changes in seagrass and benthic faunal assemblages.</p><p>Noise is another form of disturbance caused by boats that can also have impacts on benthic fauna. The sound generated by engines can influence the communication and behavior of certain species [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref114">114</xref>] , particularly during larval stages, which may interfere with recruitment processes. The vibrations and noise caused by boats can disrupt the feeding and mating behaviors of marine life, which can impact the overall health and survival of populations of multiple species. Boat noise can have significant impacts on the behavior of coral reef- and seagrass-associated fish assemblages, which can ultimately impact the entire food web of the ecosystem [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref120">120</xref>] . Noise pollution can also have a detrimental impact on the behavior and survival of fish larvae on coral reefs and seagrasses by disrupting their natural acoustic environment. Noise can interfere with fish larvae’s ability to detect and locate suitable habitats [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref121">121</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref122">122</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref123">123</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref124">124</xref>] , food sources, and potential mates. It can affect fish larval settlement success by as much as nearly 50% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref125">125</xref>] . It can also disrupt their ability to communicate with each other, which can affect social behavior and survival, and can cause stress and physiological changes, which can impair their growth and development [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref121">121</xref>] - [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref126">126</xref>] . Although this study did not measure the impact of recreational navigation noise pollution, it cannot be ruled out as an important long-term driver of change in demersal fish assemblages at Mata de la Gata Island shallow seagrass habitats and measures should be taken to reduce the impact of noise pollution on this fragile habitat by regulating vessel numbers and traffic speed.</p><p>This study evidenced that although nature-based tourism activities involving recreational boating and anchoring operations on shallow tropical seagrass ecosystems might be deemed as having low environmental impacts, and to be within safe levels of acceptable change, over the long term, such disturbances can be locally significant, long-lasting, and may result in permanent alteration of benthic seagrass community structure and of demersal faunal assemblages. The case study of Mata de la Gata Island showcases that even the designation of a Natural Reserve is not enough to prevent such damage and that chronic lack of governance, commitment, enforcement, and political will by government institutions are instrumental for the conservation of paramount coastal resources.</p><p>The potential long-term implications of recreational navigation on seagrass habitats can have far-reaching ecological and socio-economic effects, making these habitats more vulnerable to other sources of anthropogenic stress, including climate change and sea level rise. Some of the long-term ecological and socio-economic consequences include:</p><p>1) Habitat fragmentation and loss. Seagrasses are fundamental ecosystem engineer species and provide critical habitat for a diverse range of marine taxa. Their decline will lead to habitat fragmentation and loss, reducing the availability of shelter, nursery habitats, and foraging grounds of numerous species, as well as reducing its role as a soft bottom stabilizer, wave energy buffer, and as a CO<sub>2</sub> sinkhole.</p><p>2) Biodiversity loss. Seagrass habitats support high biodiversity, providing refuge for numerous species, including invertebrates, fish, and marine reptiles and mammals. Long-term seagrass decline may result in disrupting ecological interactions and functions, leading to a net loss in ecosystem resilience.</p><p>3) Water quality degradation. Seagrasses play a principal role in maintaining coastal water quality by dampening wave action, trapping sediments, and filtering sediments, nutrients and pollutants from the water column. Their decline can lead to a long-term increase in sediment resuspension, turbidity, nutrient enrichment, and pollution.</p><p>4) Carbon sequestration. Seagrasses are highly efficient carbon sinks, storing CO<sub>2</sub> and contributing to climate regulation. Under projected climate change, their decline can reduce this capacity, potentially exacerbating long-term climate change effects, in addition to losing other ecological functions.</p><p>5) Coastal erosion. Seagrass habitats stabilize coastlines by reducing wave energy and shoreline erosion. As seagrass loss weakens this protective function, coastlines will become more vulnerable to long-term erosion under projected sea level rise (SLR) and under projected increases in the recurrence of extreme weather events associated with climate change.</p><p>6) Fisheries, livelihoods, and food security. Seagrass habitats are vital nursery grounds for a myriad of commercially important fish and invertebrate species. Their long-term decline can lead to reduced fishery yields, impacting local economies, livelihoods, and food security for coastal communities.</p><p>7) Tourism and recreation. Seagrasses are usually wave-protected habitats that attract ecotourism and recreational activities like snorkeling, diving, kayaking, and swimming. Their degradation can negatively impact local tourism revenues, employment opportunities, and coastal community livelihoods.</p><p>8) Storm protection. Healthy seagrass meadows mitigate the impacts of storm surges by acting as natural buffers of wave energy. Their decline can increase risk to life, vulnerability to property damage and economic losses during storms. This risk may increase under projected storm frequency and/or severity associated with climate change.</p><p>9) Cultural importance. Seagrass ecosystems hold important cultural significance for many indigenous communities and local cultures. Their long-term loss can impact traditional practices and values.</p><p>10) Climate change synergies. Degraded seagrass ecosystems are less resilient to the impacts of climate change, such as SLR, ocean acidification and sea surface temperature increase. The loss of ecosystem services provided by seagrasses can further compound the long-term negative effects of these stressors.</p><p>11) Increased disease susceptibility. Weakened and chronically degraded seagrass ecosystems are more susceptible to diseases, pathogens, and opportunist species, making them less able to resist and recover from potential outbreaks, which can be exacerbated by local anthropogenic stressors in combination with changing climate.</p><p>12) Altered community dynamics. The chronic loss of seagrasses can disrupt predator-prey relationships and can alter trophic interactions, potentially leading to biodiversity and functional imbalances, and to cascading effects on the entire ecosystems. In the long term, these can lead to a major loss in ecosystem persistence, functional redundancy, and resilience.</p><p>13) Feedback loops. The long-term degradation of seagrass meadows can also lead to positive feedback loops where reduced carbon sequestration, habitat loss, and altered nutrient dynamics may contribute to more severe climate impacts, by leading to further biodiversity loss, a net erosion in ecosystem functions, and to altered trophic states, exacerbating the degradation of these ecosystems.</p><p>These impacts can weaken seagrass habitats and make them less resilient to climate change-related stressors such as SLR, sea surface warming, and ocean acidification. Conservation and restoration efforts to promote seagrass recovery and resilience, sustainable boating practices, proper land use management practices, and marine spatial planning are essential to mitigate and/or prevent these impacts, and improve the seagrass ecosystem to withstand future challenges. Integrating seagrass protection into climate adaptation strategies is also critical for maintaining its ecological and socio-economic benefits.</p><p>Variations in seagrass benthic community structure, shoot density, and canopy height can have substantial effects on the overall ecological functioning of seagrass ecosystems, associated biodiversity and in net primary productivity. Any adverse impact to seagrass ecosystems that might affect any of these characteristics may impair its ecological benefits including:</p><p>1) Canopy height. Seagrasses canopy height directly affects primary production and carbon cycling. Tall canopies provide more photosynthetic surface area, leading to higher productivity. This, in turn, contributes to increased carbon sequestration and enhanced provision of organic matter to the food web, enhanced energy flows and ecological connectivity to adjacent ecosystems, and enhanced shelter for associated fauna.</p><p>2) Shoot density. High shoot density enhances primary production by increasing the total abundance of seagrass shoots available for photosynthesis. Dense seagrass stands are more efficient at capturing and storing carbon and can support a more extensive range of species due to increased habitat complexity. High shoot density also provides more habitat structure and refuge for a diverse array of species, including enhanced protection for juvenile fish and invertebrates from predators.</p><p>3) Benthic community structure. The composition of seagrass benthic-associated communities can vary under different ecological and environmental regimes. Different seagrass species host distinct benthic communities, with some species attracting more epiphytic algae, encrusting invertebrates, invertebrate egg masses, etc.</p><p>4) Biodiversity and species composition. Some seagrass species enhance microhabitat complexity, and niche diversity to support more diverse fish and invertebrate assemblages.</p><p>5) Erosion control and sediment stabilization. Higher shoot density results in enhanced wave dampening, sediment trapping ability and improved water quality. Tall seagrass canopies also help prevent erosion along coastlines, which is vital for protecting coastal ecosystems, infrastructure, and life.</p><p>6) Nutrient cycling. Variations in benthic communities can affect nutrient cycling within seagrass ecosystems. Different seagrass species and associated species may have varying functional roles in nutrient uptake and cycling, influencing nutrient dynamics across coastal systems.</p><p>7) Water quality and filtration. Besides seagrasses, some filter-feeding invertebrates can help improve water quality by removing suspended particles, and filtering out excess nutrients and contaminants.</p><p>8) Fisheries support. Higher shoot density can support more abundant and diverse fish populations by providing shelter and foraging opportunities for a wide range of species, including commercially valuable ones.</p><p>9) Carbon storage and climate regulation. Seagrass habitats with tall canopies store more carbon in their biomass and sediments, contributing to CO<sub>2</sub> sequestration.</p><p>In summary, variations in seagrass benthic community structure, shoot density, and canopy height directly affect important ecological functions and services. In the long term, these variations influence primary production, habitat provision, biodiversity, erosion control, nutrient cycling, water quality, fisheries support, and carbon storage. Understanding, managing, mitigating and/or restoring these variations are crucial for the conservation and sustainable use of seagrass ecosystems and the services they provide to other coastal ecosystems and human communities.</p><p>To prevent direct boating and anchoring disturbances on shallow seagrass habitats, the following critical best management practices (BMPs) should be considered:</p><p>1) Designate navigation channels and waterways. Boaters should always use designated channels and approaches to designated disembarking areas, which should be appropriately identified with illuminated and numbered buoys, and properly identified in nautical charts, when entering or leaving a waterway, or when accessing shallow-water piers in areas adjacent to seagrasses, coral reefs, and small keys. This can significantly minimize damage to seagrasses and other sensitive habitats.</p><p>2) Avoid anchoring in seagrass meadows. Anchoring can cause significant mechanical damage to seagrasses, particularly by larger yachts, sailboats, and cruise ships. Instead, the use of mooring buoys or designated anchoring areas over open sandy bottoms must be emphasized. Mooring systems have been shown to significantly reduce mechanical anchoring damage on seagrasses [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref127">127</xref>] . Similarly, mooring in adjacent mangrove trees should be strictly prohibited as a measure to protect critical essential fish habitats interconnected with seagrasses and coral reefs.</p><p>3) Slow down in shallow seagrass habitats. When boating in shallow seagrass areas, reducing vessel speed is critical to minimize the impact of boat wakes on seagrass stands and to adjacent mangrove areas. This will reduce sediment resuspension and turbidity, as well as minimize physical disturbance to benthic faunal assemblages adapted to low-wave energy.</p><p>4) Establish recreational vessel carrying capacity. It is important to establish the carrying capacity or the limits of acceptable change of recreational use on shallow seagrass habitats to reduce any significant impact on submerged aquatic ecosystems [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref128">128</xref>] .</p><p>5) Avoid the construction of docking facilities over seagrass habitats. Dock construction over seagrass habitats results in a significant loss of seagrass cover and biomass [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref87">87</xref>] . Docking facilities should be avoided on seagrasses, but under some circumstances, such facilities are necessary to concentrate recreational uses in some specific locations with appropriate management and regulations to avoid widespread uncontrolled impacts.</p><p>6) Educate recreational navigators and tourism operators. Education has been deemed critical to raising awareness and minimizing impacts [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref129">129</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128458-ref130">130</xref>] and is key to preventing damage to shallow seagrasses and associated habitats. Boaters, anglers, tourism operators, and other resource users should be educated about the importance of shallow seagrasses, coral reefs, and mangroves, and the impact of their activities on these fragile ecosystems.</p><p>7) Support seagrass conservation and restoration efforts. Supporting conservation efforts to protect and restore seagrass habitats can help ensure their long-term health, the sustainability of their ecological functions and services, and their socio-economic and ecological resilience. This may include participating in citizen’s science monitoring programs, restoration projects, supporting the creation of marine protected areas, and participating in continuous education programs and outreach activities. Fostering the integration of base communities, and critical stakeholders, such as fishers, tourism operators and non-governmental organizations should lead to enhanced stewardship and participatory co-management.</p><p>Research on the impacts of recreational navigation on seagrasses is ongoing and has become increasingly important in the context of increasing numbers of recreational vessels and of an enhanced widespread demand for coastal recreational opportunities and activities. However, there are still several important knowledge gaps and research needs that warrant further interdisciplinary investigation. Some of the most important gaps and needs include:</p><p>1) Cumulative impacts assessment. There is a need for comprehensive interdisciplinary studies that characterize and quantify cumulative impacts of recreational navigation, particularly on Western Atlantic/Caribbean seagrass ecosystems, in conjunction with other stressors, including pollution, coastal development, and climate change. Understanding how multiple stressors interact and compound their effects is paramount for effective conservation- and restoration-oriented management.</p><p>2) Long-term monitoring. Long-term ecological monitoring programs are essential to characterize and quantify the recovery potential of seagrass habitats following recreational navigation disturbances and the impacts of other stressors. Such studies can provide insights into the persistence of impacts, cascading effects over time, and the effectiveness of conservation and restoration efforts. It can also be an important opportunity for the development of citizens’ science programs and the integration of community-based actors, non-governmental organizations, academia, etc. into management-oriented efforts.</p><p>3) Ecosystem services valuation. Research is needed to quantify the socio-economic and ecological value of seagrass ecosystems, including the diverse services they provide, particularly in the context of determining and mitigating potential losses associated with uncontrolled recreational abuse, and with impacts from other stressors. This information can help resource managers, policymakers and stakeholders understand the significance of seagrasses and the consequences of their long-term loss to prioritize future resource allocation, and conservation and restoration efforts.</p><p>4) Boat-related BMPs. More research is required to identify and promote BMPs for recreational boating to minimize impacts on seagrass habitats. This includes assessing the effectiveness of different mooring systems, management-driven anchoring practices, and navigational regulations aimed at reducing damage to seagrass meadows. Also, the effectiveness of marine protected area designation can be quantified in the context of boating/anchoring BMPs.</p><p>5) Erosion mitigation. Understanding the role of seagrasses in coastal erosion prevention and the potential for recreational navigation to exacerbate shoreline erosion and benthic habitat destabilization is vital. Research on how seagrass habitats can be strategically conserved and/or restored to protect vulnerable coastlines is also needed, with particular emphasis on urban coastal scenarios.</p><p>6) Community dynamics. Investigating the impacts of recreational navigation on the diversity and abundance of seagrass demersal invertebrate and fish assemblages is essential. This includes assessing how alterations in seagrass meadows’ structural integrity, species composition, habitat fragmentation, and even how nuisance macroalgal blooms and invasive seagrasses, as well as altered soundscapes, affect the composition of associated demersal faunal assemblages and the cascading effects on ecosystem dynamics, ecological functions and services, and on ecosystem resilience to disturbance.</p><p>7) Sustainable tourism practices. Given the importance of seagrass habitats for ecotourism, recreational activities and community-based livelihoods, there is a need for research on sustainable tourism BMPs that can minimize disturbances, while allowing for responsible enjoyment of these ecosystems. The impacts of the implementation of such BMPs should be quantified in the context of changes in ecosystem indicators.</p><p>8) Climate change interactions. Research should also focus on understanding how recreational navigation impacts interact with climate change stressors, such as sea surface warming, ocean acidification and SLR, to affect seagrass persistence and resilience. This should include studying the potential for navigation-related stressors to exacerbate or ameliorate climate-induced impacts.</p><p>9) Policy and management. Research on the effectiveness of policies and management strategies aimed at reducing and mitigating the impacts of recreational navigation on seagrasses is also key. This should include assessing the enforcement and compliance with regulations, as well as the socio-economic implications of management decisions.</p><p>10) Public awareness and education. Quantifying the effectiveness of public awareness and education campaigns in reducing the ecological footprint of recreational navigation and anchoring and promoting responsible behavior around seagrass habitats is an important interdisciplinary research area and one of the most critical challenges for resource managers.</p><p>The interdisciplinary collaboration among multiple societal actors (e.g. natural, and social scientists, economists, conservation organizations, community-based leaders, fishers, the tourism industry, recreational boaters, resource managers, policymakers) is essential to address numerous knowledge gaps, community-based concerns, and to develop science-based strategies for the sustainable coexistence of recreational navigation and seagrass ecosystem conservation. Additionally, interdisciplinary research that integrates ecological, socio-economic, and cultural perspectives is valuable for holistic conservation efforts. Such integrated efforts are particularly important for SIDS, many of which significantly lack human, economic and technological resources, and many of which still suffer from critical colonial legacies, neo-colonial policies, environmental injustice, lack of equity, and suffer from increased vulnerability to climate change, SLR, and extreme weather events.</p><p>Damage to seagrass habitats described in this study is significant but can be slowed down or even reverted if recreational navigation and tourism activities at Mata de la Gata Island are appropriately managed through stronger governance and strict enforcement of a limit of acceptable change and by regulating the number of daily visitors to the island. This case study presents an excellent lesson-learning opportunity to promote the implementation of ecosystem-based management strategies to support the conservation and restoration of this impacted Natural Reserve. It can also become an important model for other small tropical islands to manage their coastal resources. But it would be paramount to follow these recommendations to prevent boating and anchoring disturbances on seagrass habitats and ensure their long-term health and sustainability in the face of projected threats by SLR, ocean acidification and climate change.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s5"><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>This project was possible thanks to the support of the Center for Applied Tropical Ecology and Conservation (CATEC) of the University of Puerto Rico (UPR), R&#237;o Piedras Campus during the 2011 sampling effort, and by the support of Sociedad Ambiente Marino (SAM). Guidance provided by Dr. Jeff Holmquist and by the Department of Marine Sciences, UPR, Mayag&#252;ez Campus, and by Dr. T. Mitchell Aide and by the Department of Biology of UPR, R&#237;o Piedras, was also important during the 1996 sampling effort. This publication is a contribution to the collaboration between CATEC and SAM.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Conflicts of Interest</title><p>The author declares no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.</p></sec><sec id="s7"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Hern&#225;ndez-Delgado, E.A. (2023) Long-Term Persistence of Propeller and Anchor Damage to Seagrass Canopy and Demersal Biodiversity in Puerto Rico. Open Journal of Ecology, 13, 671-710. https://doi.org/10.4236/oje.2023.1310042</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.128458-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Vicente, V.P. (1992) A Summary of Ecological Information on the Seagrass Beds of Puerto Rico. In: Seeliger, U., Ed., Coastal Plant Communities of Latin America, Academic Press, San Diego, 123-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-092567-7.50014-3</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">De Boer, W.F. (2000) Biomass Dynamics of Seagrasses and the Role of Mangrove and Seagrass Vegetation as Different Nutrient Sources for an Intertidal Ecosystem. Aquatic Botany, 66, 225-239. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3770(99)00072-8</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Welsh, D.T. (2000) Nitrogen Fixation in Seagrass Meadows: Regulation, Plant-Bacteria Interactions and Significance to Primary Productivity. Ecology Letters, 3, 58-71. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2000.00111.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Fourqurean, J.W., Duarte, C.M., Kennedy, H., Marbà, N., Holmer, M., Mateo, M.A. and Serrano, O. (2012) Seagrass Ecosystems as a Globally Significant Carbon Stock. Nature Geoscience, 5, 505-509. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1477</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Thayer, G.W., Wolfe, D.A. and Williams, R.B. (1975) The Impact of Man on Seagrass Systems. American Scientist, 63, 288-296.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Holmquist, J.G. (1989) Decapod and Stomatopod Assemblages on a System of Seagrass-Covered Mud Banks in Florida Bay. Marine Biology, 100, 473-483. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00394824</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Duffy, J.E. (2006) Biodiversity and the Functioning of Seagrass Ecosystems. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 311, 233-250. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps311233</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lewis III, G.F. and Stoner, A.W. (1983) Distribution of Macrofauna within Seagrass Beds: An Explanation for Patterns of Abundance. Bulletin of Marine Science, 33, 296-304.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Nordlund, L.M., Unsworth, R.K., Gullstr&amp;#246;m, M. and Cullen-Unsworth, L.C. (2018) Global Significance of Seagrass Fishery Activity. Fish and Fisheries, 19, 399-412. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12259</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Unsworth, R.K., Nordlund, L.M. and Cullen-Unsworth, L.C. (2019) Seagrass Meadows Support Global Fisheries Production. Conservation Letters, 12, e12566. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12566</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Hettler Jr.</surname><given-names> W.F. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>1989</year>)<article-title>Food Habits of Juveniles of Spotted Seatrout and Gray Snapper in Western Florida Bay</article-title><source> Bulletin of Marine Science</source><volume> 44</volume>,<fpage> 155</fpage>-<lpage>162</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Nagelkerken, I., Van der Velde, G., Gorissen, M.W., Meijer, G.J., Van’t Hof, T. and Den Hartog, C. (2000) Importance of Mangroves, Seagrass Beds and the Shallow Coral Reef as a Nursery for Important Coral Reef Fishes, Using a Visual Census Technique. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 51, 31-44. https://doi.org/10.1006/ecss.2000.0617</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Nagelkerken, I. and Van der Velde, G. (2004) Relative Importance of Interlinked Mangroves and Seagrass Beds as Feeding Habitats for Juvenile Reef Fish on a Caribbean Island. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 274, 153-159. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps274153</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Verweij, M.C., Nagelkerken, I., Hans, I., Ruseler, S.M. and Mason, P.R. (2008) Seagrass Nurseries Contribute to Coral Reef Fish Populations. Limnology and Oceanography, 53, 1540-1547. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2008.53.4.1540</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kochman, H.I., Rathbun, G.B. and Powell, J.A. (1985) Temporal and Spatial Distribution of Manatees in Kings Bay, Crystal River, Florida. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 49, 921-924.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Alves-Stanley, C.D., Worthy, G.A. and Bonde, R.K. (2010) Feeding Preferences of West Indian Manatees in Florida, Belize, and Puerto Rico as Indicated by Stable Isotope Analysis. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 402, 255-267. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps08450</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bjorndal, K.A. and Bolten, A.B. (2010) Hawksbill Sea Turtles in Seagrass Pastures: Success in a Peripheral Habitat. Marine Biology, 157, 135-145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-009-1304-0</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lal, A., Arthur, R., Marbà, N., Lill, A.W. and Alcoverro, T. (2010) Implications of Conserving an Ecosystem Modifier: Increasing Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas) Densities Substantially Alters Seagrass Meadows. Biological Conservation, 143, 2730-2738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.07.020</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mumby, P.J. (2006) Connectivity of Reef Fish between Mangroves and Coral Reefs: Algorithms for the Design of Marine Reserves at Seascape Scales. Biological Conservation, 128, 215-222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.09.042</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Nagelkerken, I. (2009) Ecological Connectivity among Tropical Coastal Ecosystems. Springer, Dordrecht.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Guannel, G., Arkema, K., Ruggiero, P. and Verutes, G. (2016) The Power of Three: Coral Reefs, Seagrasses and Mangroves Protect Coastal Regions and Increase Their Resilience. PLOS ONE, 11, e0158094. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158094</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Serrano, O., Lavery, P.S., Bongiovanni, J. and Duarte, C.M. (2020) Impact of Seagrass Establishment, Industrialization and Coastal Infrastructure on Seagrass Biogeochemical Sinks. Marine Environmental Research, 160, Article ID: 104990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2020.104990</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Russell, B.D., Connell, S.D., Uthicke, S., Muehllehner, N., Fabricius, K.E. and Hall-Spencer, J.M. (2013) Future Seagrass Beds: Can Increased Productivity Lead to Increased Carbon Storage? Marine Pollution Bulletin, 73, 463-469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.01.031</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Marbà, N., Arias-Ortiz, A., Masqué, P., Kendrick, G.A., Mazarrasa, I., Bastyan, G.R. and Duarte, C.M. (2015) Impact of Seagrass Loss and Subsequent Revegetation on Carbon Sequestration and Stocks. Journal of Ecology, 103, 296-302. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12370</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Fonseca, M.S. and Callahan, J.A. (1992) A Preliminary Evaluation of Wave Attenuation for Four Species of Seagrasses. Estuarine Coastal Shelf Science, 35, 565-576. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7714(05)80039-3</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Manca, E., Cáceres, I.J.V.I., Alsina, J.M., Stratigaki, V., Townend, I. and Amos, C.L. (2012) Wave Energy and Wave-Induced Flow Reduction by Full-Scale Model Posidonia oceanica Seagrass. Continental Shelf Research, 50, 100-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2012.10.008</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Donatelli, C., Ganju, N.K., Kalra, T.S., Fagherazzi, S. and Leonardi, N. (2019) Changes in Hydrodynamics and Wave Energy as a Result of Seagrass Decline along the Shoreline of a Microtidal Back-Barrier Estuary. Advances in Water Resources, 128, 183-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2019.04.017</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Christianen, M.J., van Belzen, J., Herman, P.M., van Katwijk, M.M., Lamers, L.P., van Leent, P.J. and Bouma, T.J. (2013) Low-Canopy Seagrass Beds Still Provide Important Coastal Protection Services. PLOS ONE, 8, e62413. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062413</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ondiviela, B., Losada, I.J., Lara, J.L., Maza, M., Galván, C., Bouma, T.J. and van Belzen, J. (2014) The Role of Seagrasses in Coastal Protection in a Changing Climate. Coastal Engineering, 87, 158-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2013.11.005</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Paul, M. (2018) The Protection of Sandy Shores—Can We Afford to Ignore the Contribution of Seagrass? Marine Pollution Bulletin, 134, 152-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.08.012</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Adger, W.N., Hughes, T.P., Folke, C., Carpenter, S.R. and Rockstrom, J. (2005) Social-Ecological Resilience to Coastal Disasters. Science, 309, 1036-1039. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1112122</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Navarrete-Fernández, T., Bermejo, R., Hernández, I., Deidun, A., Andreu-Cazenave, M. and Cózar, A. (2022) The Role of Seagrass Meadows in the Coastal Trapping of Litter. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 174, Article ID: 113299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.113299</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Duarte, C.M., Kennedy, H., Marbà, N. and Hendriks, I. (2013) Assessing the Capacity of Seagrass Meadows for Carbon Burial: Current Limitations and Future Strategies. Ocean and Coastal Management, 83, 32-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2011.09.001</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Duarte, C.M. and Krause-Jensen, D. (2017) Export from Seagrass Meadows Contributes to Marine Carbon Sequestration. Frontiers in Marine Science, 4, Article 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2017.00013</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Stankovic, M., Hayashizaki, K.I., Tuntiprapas, P., Rattanachot, E. and Prathep, A. (2021) Two Decades of Seagrass Area Change: Organic Carbon Sources and Stock. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 163, Article ID: 111913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111913</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Duarte, C.M. (2002) The Future of Seagrass Meadows. Environmental Conservation, 29, 192-206. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892902000127</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Unsworth, R.K., Collier, C.J., Waycott, M., Mckenzie, L.J. and Cullen-Unsworth, L.C. (2015) A Framework for the Resilience of Seagrass Ecosystems. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 100, 34-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.08.016</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Cullen-Unsworth, L.C. and Unsworth, R. (2018) A Call for Seagrass Protection. Science, 361, 446-448. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat7318</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Unsworth, R.K., McKenzie, L.J., Nordlund, L.M. and Cullen-Unsworth, L.C. (2018) A Changing Climate for Seagrass Conservation? Current Biology, 28, R1229-R1232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.09.027</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Unsworth, R.K., McKenzie, L.J., Collier, C.J., Cullen-Unsworth, L.C., Duarte, C.M., Ekl&amp;#246;f, J.S. and Nordlund, L.M. (2019) Global Challenges for Seagrass Conservation. Ambio, 48, 801-815. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-018-1115-y</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Dahl, M., Bergman, S., Bj&amp;#246;rk, M., Diaz-Almela, E., Granberg, M., Gullstr&amp;#246;m, M. and Mateo, M.á. (2021) A Temporal Record of Microplastic Pollution in Mediterranean Seagrass Soils. Environmental Pollution, 273, Article ID: 116451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.116451</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Jeong, H., Choi, J.Y., Choi, D.H., Noh, J.H. and Ra, K. (2021) Heavy Metal Pollution Assessment in Coastal Sediments and Bioaccumulation on Seagrass (Enhalus acoroides) of Palau. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 163, Article ID: 111912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111912</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lapointe, B.E., Barile, P.J. and Matzie, W.R. (2004) Anthropogenic Nutrient Enrichment of Seagrass and Coral Reef Communities in the Lower Florida Keys: Discrimination of Local versus Regional Nitrogen Sources. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 308, 23-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2004.01.019</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Jones, B.L., Cullen-Unsworth, L.C. and Unsworth, R.K. (2018) Tracking Nitrogen Source Using δ15N Reveals Human and Agricultural Drivers of Seagrass Degradation across the British Isles. Frontiers in Plant Science, 9, Article 133. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.00133</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Qin, L.Z., Suonan, Z., Kim, S.H. and Lee, K.S. (2021) Growth and Reproductive Responses of the Seagrass Zostera Marina to Sediment Nutrient Enrichment. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 78, 1160-1173. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsab031</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Jones, A.B., O’donohue, M.J., Udy, J. and Dennison, W.C. (2001) Assessing Ecological Impacts of Shrimp and Sewage Effluent: Biological Indicators with Standard Water Quality Analyses. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 52, 91-109. https://doi.org/10.1006/ecss.2000.0729</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Thorhaug, A. (1985) Large-Scale Seagrass Restoration in a Damaged Estuary. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 16, 55-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/0025-326X(85)90124-9</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Duke, N.C. and Wolanski, E. (2000) Muddy Coastal Waters and Depleted Mangrove Coastlines—Depleted Seagrass and Coral Reefs. In: Oceanographic Processes of Coral Reefs, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 97-112.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Vermaat, J.E., Agawin, N.S.R., Fortes, M.D., Uri, J., Duarte, C.M., Marba, N. and Van Vierssen, W. (1997) The Capacity of Seagrasses to Survive Increased Turbidity and Siltation: The Significance of Growth Form and Light Use. Ambio, 26, 499-504.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Erftemeijer, P.L. and Lewis III, R.R.R. (2006) Environmental Impacts of Dredging on Seagrasses: A Review. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 52, 1553-1572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2006.09.006</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Longstaff, B.J. and Dennison, W.C. (1999) Seagrass Survival during Pulsed Turbidity Events: The Effects of Light Deprivation on the Seagrasses Halodule pinifolia and Halophila ovalis. Aquatic Botany, 65, 105-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3770(99)00035-2</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bulmer, R.H., Townsend, M., Drylie, T. and Lohrer, A.M. (2018) Elevated Turbidity and the Nutrient Removal Capacity of Seagrass. Frontiers in Marine Science, 5, Article 462.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Yaakub, S.M., McKenzie, L.J., Erftemeijer, P.L., Bouma, T. and Todd, P.A. (2014) Courage under Fire: Seagrass Persistence Adjacent to a Highly Urbanised City-State. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 83, 417-424. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00462</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Meyer, D.L., Fonseca, M.S., Murphey, P.L., McMichael Jr., R.H., LaCroix, M.W., Whitfield, P.E. and Thayer, G.W. (1999) Effects of Live-Bait Shrimp Trawling on Seagrass Beds and Fish Bycatch in Tampa Bay, Florida. Fishery Bulletin, 97, 193-199. http://hdl.handle.net/1834/18338</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Grabowski, J.H., Bachman, M., Demarest, C., Eayrs, S., Harris, B.P., Malkoski, V. and Stevenson, D. (2014) Assessing the Vulnerability of Marine Benthos to Fishing Gear Impacts. Reviews in Fisheries Science and Aquaculture, 22, 142-155. https://doi.org/10.1080/10641262.2013.846292</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Fonseca, M.S., Thayer, G.W., Chester, A.J. and Foltz, C. (1984) Impact of Scallop Harvesting on Eelgrass (Zostera marina) Meadows: Implications for Management. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 4, 286-293. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(1984)4 &lt; 286:IOSHOE&gt;2.0.CO;2</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Koch, E.W. (2002) Impact of Boat-Generated Waves on a Seagrass Habitat. Journal of Coastal Research, No. 37, 66-74. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25736343</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Milazzo, M., Chemello, R., Badalamenti, F., Camarda, R. and Riggio, S. (2002) The Impact of Human Recreational Activities in Marine Protected Areas: What Lessons Should Be Learnt in the Mediterranean Sea? Marine Ecology, 23, 280-290. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0485.2002.tb00026.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Milazzo, M., Badalamenti, F., Ceccherelli, G. and Chemello, R. (2004) Boat Anchoring on Posidonia oceanica Beds in a Marine Protected Area (Italy, Western Mediterranean): Effect of Anchor Types in Different Anchoring Stages. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 299, 51-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2003.09.003</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Short, F.T. and Neckles, H.A. (1999) The Effects of Global Climate Change on Seagrasses. Aquatic Botany, 63, 169-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3770(98)00117-X</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bj&amp;#246;rk, M., Short, F., Mcleod, E. and Beer, S. (2008) Managing Seagrasses for Resilience to Climate Change. IUCN Resilience Science Group Working Paper Series No 3, International Union for the Conservation of Nature. https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1474&amp;context=jel</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Sunny, A.R. (2017) A Review on Effect of Global Climate Change on Seaweed and Seagrass. International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies, 5, 19-22. https://www.fisheriesjournal.com/archives/2017/vol5issue6/PartA/5-5-49-118.pdf</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Chefaoui, R.M., Duarte, C.M. and Serr&amp;#227;o, E.A. (2018) Dramatic Loss of Seagrass Habitat under Projected Climate Change in the Mediterranean Sea. Global Change Biology, 24, 4919-4928. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14401</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Duarte, B., Martins, I., Rosa, R., Matos, A.R., Roleda, M.Y., Reusch, T.B. and Jueterbock, A. (2018) Climate Change Impacts on Seagrass Meadows and Macroalgal Forests: An Integrative Perspective on Acclimation and Adaptation Potential. Frontiers in Marine Science, 5, Article 190. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00190</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Zunino, S., Canu, D.M., Zupo, V. and Solidoro, C. (2019) Direct and Indirect Impacts of Marine Acidification on the Ecosystem Services Provided by Coralligenous Reefs and Seagrass Systems. Global Ecology and Conservation, 18, e00625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00625</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref66"><label>66</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Fourqurean, J.W. and Rutten, L.M. (2004) The Impact of Hurricane Georges on Soft-Bottom, Back Reef Communities: Site-and Species-Specific Effects in South Florida Seagrass Beds. Bulletin of Marine Science, 75, 239-257. https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/umrsmas/bullmar/2004/00000075/00000002/art00007#</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref67"><label>67</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hernández-Delgado, E.A., Toledo-Hernández, C., Ruíz-Díaz, C.P., Gómez-Andújar, N., Medina-Mu&amp;#241;iz, J.L., Canals-Silander, M.F. and Suleimán-Ramos, S.E. (2020) Hurricane Impacts and the Resilience of the Invasive Sea Vine, Halophila stipulacea: A Case Study from Puerto Rico. Estuaries and Coasts, 43, 1263-1283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-019-00673-4</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref68"><label>68</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Wilson, S.S., Furman, B.T., Hall, M.O. and Fourqurean, J.W. (2020) Assessment of Hurricane Irma Impacts on South Florida Seagrass Communities Using Long-Term Monitoring Programs. Estuaries and Coasts, 43, 1119-1132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-019-00623-0</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref69"><label>69</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Willette, D.A. and Ambrose, R.F. (2012) Effects of the Invasive Seagrass Halophila stipulacea on the Native Seagrass, Syringodium filiforme, and Associated Fish and Epibiota Communities in the Eastern Caribbean. Aquatic Botany, 103, 74-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquabot.2012.06.007</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref70"><label>70</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Maréchal, J.P., Meesters, E.H., Vedie, F. and Hellio, C. (2013) Occurrence of the Alien Seagrass Halophila stipulacea in Martinique (French West Indies). Marine Biodiversity Records, 6, e127. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755267213000961</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref71"><label>71</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ruiz, H., Ballantine, D.L. and Sabater, J. (2017) Continued Spread of the Seagrass Halophila stipulacea in the Caribbean: Documentation in Puerto Rico and the British Virgin Islands. Gulf and Caribbean Research, 28, SC5-SC7. https://doi.org/10.18785/gcr.2801.05</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref72"><label>72</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Birchenough, S.N. (2017) Impacts of Climate Change on Biodiversity in the Coastal and Marine Environments of Caribbean Small Island Developing States (SIDS). Caribbean Marine Climate Change Report Card: Science Review, 2017, 40-51.https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Silvana-Birchenough/publication/320834156_Climate_change_impacts_on_biodiversity_in_coastal_and_marine_environments_of_Caribbean_Small_Island_Developing_States_SIDs/links/59fc928f0f7e9b9968bdfa39/Climate-change-impacts-on-biodiversity-in-coastal-and-marine-environments-of-Caribbean-Small-Island-Developing-States-SIDs.pdf</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref73"><label>73</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B. and Van Den Belt, M. (1997) The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital. Nature, 387, 253-260. https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref74"><label>74</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Montefalcone, M., Chiantore, M., Lanzone, A., Morri, C., Albertelli, G. and Bianchi, C.N. (2008) BACI Design Reveals the Decline of the Seagrass Posidonia oceanica Induced by Anchoring. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 56, 1637-1645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2008.05.013</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref75"><label>75</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Collins, K.J., Suonp&amp;#228;&amp;#228;, A.M. and Mallinson, J.J. (2010) The Impacts of Anchoring and Mooring in Seagrass, Studland Bay, Dorset, UK. Underwater Technology, 29, 117-123. https://doi.org/10.3723/ut.29.117</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref76"><label>76</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hallac, D.E., Sadle, J., Pearlstine, L., Herling, F. and Shinde, D. (2012) Boating Impacts to Seagrass in Florida Bay, Everglades National Park, Florida, USA: Links with Physical and Visitor-Use Factors and Implications for Management. Marine and Freshwater Research, 63, 1117-1128. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF12025</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref77"><label>77</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>West</surname><given-names> R. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2012</year>)<article-title>Impacts of Recreational Boating Activities on the Seagrass Posidonia in SE Australia</article-title><source> Wetlands Australia Journal</source><volume> 26</volume>,<fpage> 3</fpage>-<lpage>13</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref78"><label>78</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">La Manna, G., Donno, Y., Sarà, G. and Ceccherelli, G. (2015) The Detrimental Consequences for Seagrass of Ineffective Marine Park Management Related to Boat Anchoring. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 90, 160-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.11.001</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref79"><label>79</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Nurdin, N., La Nafie, Y., Umar, M.T., Jamal, M. and Moore, A. (2019) Preliminary Study: Human Trampling Effects on Seagrass Density. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 370, Article ID: 012050. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/370/1/012050</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref80"><label>80</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hawkins, J.P. and Roberts, C.M. (1992) Effects of Recreational SCUBA Diving on Fore-Reef Slope Communities of Coral Reefs. Biological Conservation, 62, 171-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(92)91045-T</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref81"><label>81</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hawkins, J.P. and Roberts, C.M. (1993) Effects of Recreational Scuba Diving on Coral Reefs: Trampling on Reef-Flat Communities. Journal of Applied Ecology, 30, 25-30. https://doi.org/10.2307/2404267</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref82"><label>82</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hawkins, J.P., Roberts, C.M., Van’T Hof, T., De Meyer, K., Tratalos, J. and Aldam, C. (1999) Effects of Recreational Scuba Diving on Caribbean Coral and Fish Communities. Conservation Biology, 13, 888-897. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.97447.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref83"><label>83</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Dunton, K.H. and Schonberg, S.V. (2002) Assessment of Propeller Scarring in Seagrass Beds of the South Texas Coast. Journal of Coastal Research, No. 37, 100-110. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25736346</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref84"><label>84</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Skilleter, G.A., Cameron, B., Zharikov, Y., Boland, D. and McPhee, D.P. (2006) Effects of Physical Disturbance on Infaunal and Epifaunal Assemblages in Subtropical, Intertidal Seagrass Beds. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 308, 61-78. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps308061</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref85"><label>85</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Eckrich, C.E. and Holmquist, J.G. (2000) Trampling in a Seagrass Assemblage: Direct Effects, Response of Associated Fauna, and the Role of Substrate Characteristics. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 201, 199-209. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps201199</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref86"><label>86</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bishop, M.J. (2008) Displacement of Epifauna from Seagrass Blades by Boat Wake. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 354, 111-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2007.10.013</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref87"><label>87</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Gladstone, W. and Courtenay, G. (2014) Impacts of Docks on Seagrass and Effects of Management Practices to Ameliorate These Impacts. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 136, 53-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2013.10.023</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref88"><label>88</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hernández-Delgado, E.A. (2023) Climate Change Impacts on Caribbean Coastal Ecosystems: Emergent Ecological and Environmental Geography Challenges. In: Routledge Handbook of Latin America and the Environment, Routledge, London, 36-50.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref89"><label>89</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Caparrós-Martínez, J.L., Martínez-Vázquez, R.M. and de Pablo Valenciano, J. (2022) Analysis and Global Research Trends on Nautical Tourism and Green Coastal Infrastructures: The Case of Coral Reefs and Seagrass Meadows. Environmental Sciences Europe, 34, Article No. 33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-022-00614-2</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref90"><label>90</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Anderson, M.J., Gorley, R.N. and Clarke, K.R. (2008) PERMANOVA+ for PRIMER: Guide to Software and Statistical Methods. Massey University, Auckland and PRIMER-e Ltd., Plymouth.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref91"><label>91</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Clarke, K.R., Gorley, R.N., Somerfield, P.J. and Warwick, R.M. (2014) Change in Marine Communities: An Approach to Statistical Analysis and Interpretation. 3rd Edition, PRIMER-E, Plymouth.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref92"><label>92</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Anderson, M.J. (2005) Permutational Multivariate Analysis of Variance. Vol. 26, Department of Statistics, University of Auckland, Auckland, 32-46.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref93"><label>93</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bray, J.R. and Curtis, J.T. (1957) An Ordination of the Upland Forest Communities of Southern Wisconsin. Ecological Monographs, 27, 325-349. https://doi.org/10.2307/1942268</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref94"><label>94</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Anderson, M.J., Ellingsen, K.E. and McArdle, B.H. (2006) Multivariate Dispersion as a Measure of Beta Diversity. Ecology Letters, 9, 683-693. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00926.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref95"><label>95</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Connell, J.H. (1978) Diversity in Tropical Rain Forests and Coral Reefs: High Diversity of Trees and Corals Is Maintained Only in a Nonequilibrium State. Science, 199, 1302-1310. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.199.4335.1302</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref96"><label>96</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Miloslavich, P., Díaz, J.M., Klein, E., Alvarado, J.J., Díaz, C., Gobin, J. and Ortiz, M. (2010) Marine Biodiversity in the Caribbean: Regional Estimates and Distribution Patterns. PLOS ONE, 5, e11916. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0011916</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref97"><label>97</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Heck Jr, K.L. and Wetstone, G.S. (1977) Habitat Complexity and Invertebrate Species Richness and Abundance in Tropical Seagrass Meadows. Journal of Biogeography, 4, 135-142. https://doi.org/10.2307/3038158</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref98"><label>98</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Heck, K.L., Carruthers, T.J., Duarte, C.M., Hughes, A.R., Kendrick, G., Orth, R.J. and Williams, S.W. (2008) Trophic Transfers from Seagrass Meadows Subsidize Diverse Marine and Terrestrial Consumers. Ecosystems, 11, 1198-1210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-008-9155-y</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref99"><label>99</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Sandstr&amp;#246;m, O., Larsson, &amp;#197;., Andersson, J., Appelberg, M., Bignert, A., Ek, H. and Olsson, M. (2005) Three Decades of Swedish Experience Demonstrates the Need for Integrated Long-Term Monitoring of Fish in Marine Coastal Areas. Water Quality Research Journal, 40, 233-250. https://doi.org/10.2166/wqrj.2005.030</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref100"><label>100</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Amorim, E., Ramos, S., Elliott, M., Franco, A. and Bordalo, A.A. (2017) Habitat Loss and Gain: Influence on Habitat Attractiveness for Estuarine Fish Communities. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 197, 244-257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2017.08.043</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref101"><label>101</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lanham, B.S., Vergés, A., Hedge, L.H., Johnston, E.L. and Poore, A.G. (2018) Altered Fish Community and Feeding Behaviour in Close Proximity to Boat Moorings in an Urban Estuary. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 129, 43-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.02.010</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref102"><label>102</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Gannon, D.P., McCabe, E.J.B., Camilleri, S.A., Gannon, J.G., Brueggen, M.K., Barleycorn, A.A. and Wells, R.S. (2009) Effects of Karenia brevis Harmful Algal Blooms on Nearshore Fish Communities in Southwest Florida. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 378, 171-186. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps07853</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref103"><label>103</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Koch, E.W. (1999) Preliminary Evidence on the Interdependent Effect of Currents and Porewater Geochemistry on Thalassia testudinum Banks ex K&amp;#246;nig Seedlings. Aquatic Botany, 63, 95-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3770(98)00116-8</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref104"><label>104</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Widdows, J., Pope, N.D., Brinsley, M.D., Asmus, H. and Asmus, R.M. (2008) Effects of Seagrass Beds (Zostera noltii and Z. marina) on Near-Bed Hydrodynamics and Sediment Resuspension. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 358, 125-136. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps07338</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref105"><label>105</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Carr, J., D’odorico, P., McGlathery, K. and Wiberg, P.L. (2010) Stability and Bistability of Seagrass Ecosystems in Shallow Coastal Lagoons: Role of Feedbacks with Sediment Resuspension and Light Attenuation. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 115, G030111. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JG001103</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref106"><label>106</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Adams, M.P., Hovey, R.K., Hipsey, M.R., Bruce, L.C., Ghisalberti, M., Lowe, R.J. and O’Brien, K.R. (2016) Feedback between Sediment and Light for Seagrass: Where Is It Important? Limnology and Oceanography, 61, 1937-1955. https://doi.org/10.1002/lno.10319</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref107"><label>107</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Brodersen, K.E., Hammer, K.J., Schrameyer, V., Floytrup, A., Rasheed, M.A., Ralph, P.J. and Pedersen, O. (2017) Sediment Resuspension and Deposition on Seagrass Leaves Impedes Internal Plant Aeration and Promotes Phytotoxic H2S Intrusion. Frontiers in Plant Science, 8, Article 657. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.00657</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref108"><label>108</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Okudan, E.S., Demir, V., Kalkan, E. and Karhan, S.ü. (2011) Anchoring Damage on Seagrass Meadows (Posidonia oceanica (L.) Delile) in Fethiye-G&amp;#246;cek Specially Protected Area (Eastern Mediterranean Sea, Turkey). Journal of Coastal Research, 61, 417-420. https://doi.org/10.2112/S161-001.51</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref109"><label>109</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Allen, W.H. (1992) Increased Dangers to Caribbean Marine Ecosystems. Bioscience, 42, 330-335. https://doi.org/10.2307/1311778</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref110"><label>110</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Pitanga, M.E., Montes, M.J., Magalh&amp;#227;es, K.M. and Reis, T.N. (2012) Quantification and Classification of the Main Environmental Impacts on a Halodule wrightii Seagrass Meadow on a Tropical Island in Northeastern Brazil. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências, 84, 35-42. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0001-37652012000100005</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref111"><label>111</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Vera, B., Collado-Vides, L., Moreno, C. and van Tussenbroek, B.I. (2014) Halophila stipulacea (Hydrocharitaceae): A Recent Introduction to the Continental Waters of Venezuela. Caribbean Journal of Science, 48, 66-70.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref112"><label>112</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Viana, I.G., Siriwardane-de Zoysa, R., Willette, D.A. and Gillis, L.G. (2019) Exploring How Non-Native Seagrass Species Could Provide Essential Ecosystems Services: A Perspective on the Highly Invasive Seagrass Halophila stipulacea in the Caribbean Sea. Biological Invasions, 21, 1461-1472. https://doi.org/10.18475/cjos.v48i1.a11</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref113"><label>113</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Abadie, A., Lejeune, P., Pergent, G. and Gobert, S. (2016) From Mechanical to Chemical Impact of Anchoring in Seagrasses: The Premises of Anthropogenic Patch Generation in Posidonia oceanica Meadows. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 109, 61-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.06.022</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref114"><label>114</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Whitfield, A.K. and Becker, A. (2014) Impacts of Recreational Motorboats on Fishes: A Review. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 83, 24-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.03.055</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref115"><label>115</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Venturini, S., Massa, F., Castellano, M., Fanciulli, G. and Povero, P. (2021) Recreational Boating in the Portofino Marine Protected Area (MPA), Italy: Characterization and Analysis in the Last Decade (2006-2016) and Some Considerations on Management. Marine Policy, 127, Article ID: 103178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.06.006</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref116"><label>116</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Pergent-Martini, C., Monnier, B., Lehmann, L., Barralon, E. and Pergent, G. (2022) Major Regression of Posidonia oceanica Meadows in Relation with Recreational Boat Anchoring: A Case Study from Sant’Amanza Bay. Journal of Sea Research, 188, Article ID: 102258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seares.2022.102258</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref117"><label>117</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Waycott, M., Longstaff, B.J. and Mellors, J. (2005) Seagrass Population Dynamics and Water Quality in the Great Barrier Reef Region: A Review and Future Research Directions. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 51, 343-350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2005.01.017</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref118"><label>118</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Schlacher-Hoenlinger, A. and Schlacher, T.A. (1998) Differential Accumulation Patterns of Heavy Metals among the Dominant Macrophytes of a Mediterranean Seagrass Meadow. Chemosphere, 37, 1511-1519. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-6535(98)00146-5</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref119"><label>119</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Carre&amp;#241;o, A. and Lloret, J. (2021) Environmental Impacts of Increasing Leisure Boating Activity in Mediterranean Coastal Waters. Ocean and Coastal Management, 209, Article ID: 105693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2021.105693</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref120"><label>120</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lefcheck, J.S., Orth, R.J., Dennison, W.C., Wilcox, D.J., Murphy, R.R., Keisman, J. and Batiuk, R.A. (2018) Long-Term Nutrient Reductions Lead to the Unprecedented Recovery of a Temperate Coastal Region. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115, 3658-3662. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1715798115</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref121"><label>121</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kunc, H.P., McLaughlin, K.E. and Schmidt, R. (2016) Aquatic Noise Pollution: Implications for Individuals, Populations, and Ecosystems. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 283, Article ID: 20160839. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2016.0839</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref122"><label>122</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Weilgart, L.I. (2018) The Impact of Ocean Noise Pollution on Fish and Invertebrates. Report for OceanCare. https://thegreentimes.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/impact-of-ocean-noise-pollution-on-fish-and-invertebrates.pdf</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref123"><label>123</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ferrier-Pagès, C., Leal, M.C., Calado, R., Schmid, D.W., Bertucci, F., Lecchini, D. and Allemand, D. (2021) Noise Pollution on Coral Reefs?—A Yet Underestimated Threat to Coral Reef Communities. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 165, Article ID: 112129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112129</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref124"><label>124</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Chahouri, A., Elouahmani, N. and Ouchene, H. (2022) Recent Progress in Marine Noise Pollution: A Thorough Review. Chemosphere, 291, Article ID: 132983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.132983</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref125"><label>125</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Simpson, S.D., Radford, A.N., Nedelec, S.L., Ferrari, M.C., Chivers, D.P., McCormick, M.I. and Meekan, M.G. (2016) Anthropogenic Noise Increases Fish Mortality by Predation. Nature Communications, 7, Article ID: 10544. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms10544</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref126"><label>126</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Weilgart, L.S. (2008) The Impact of Ocean Noise Pollution on Marine Biodiversity. International Ocean Noise Coalition. http://www.protectedspeciesobserver.com/uploads/4/8/3/6/48362305/weilgart_biodiversity_2008-1238105851-10133.pdf</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref127"><label>127</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Demers, M.C.A., Davis, A.R. and Knott, N.A. (2013) A Comparison of the Impact of “Seagrass-Friendly” Boat Mooring Systems on Posidonia australis. Marine Environmental Research, 83, 54-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2012.10.010</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref128"><label>128</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Venturini, S., Massa, F., Castellano, M., Costa, S., Lavarello, I., Olivari, E. and Povero, P. (2016) Recreational Boating in Ligurian Marine Protected Areas (Italy): A Quantitative Evaluation for a Sustainable Management. Environmental Management, 57, 163-175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0593-y</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref129"><label>129</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hughes, A.R., Williams, S.L., Duarte, C.M., Heck Jr., K.L. and Waycott, M. (2009) Associations of Concern: Declining Seagrasses and Threatened Dependent Species. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7, 242-246. https://doi.org/10.1890/080041</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128458-ref130"><label>130</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Orth, R.J., Carruthers, T.J., Dennison, W.C., Duarte, C.M., Fourqurean, J.W., Heck, K.L. and Williams, S.L. (2006) A Global Crisis for Seagrass Ecosystems. Bioscience, 56, 987-996. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2006)56[987:AGCFSE]2.0.CO;2</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>