Journal of Environmental Management 331 (2023) 117310

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

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

Research article

The coastal protection and blue carbon benefits of hybrid mangrove

living shorelines
Rebecca L. Morris a, *, Benedikt Fest a, 1, Debra Stokes b, Charlotte Jenkins c, Stephen E. Swearer a
a
National Centre for Coasts and Climate, School of BioSciences, The University of Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Australia
b
Marine Ecology Research Centre, School of Environment, Science and Engineering, Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW, 2480, Australia
c
NSW Department of Primary Industries (Fisheries), Nelson Bay, NSW, 2315, Australia

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

Handling editor: Jason Michael Evans Hybrid living shorelines use a combination of engineered structures with natural ecosystems to achieve coastal
protection and habitat restoration outcomes, with added co-benefits such as carbon sequestration. Rock fillets
Keywords: constructed along eroding estuarine banks are designed to accumulate sediment, establish mangroves, and
Avicennia marina stabilise the shoreline. There is, however, a lack of data to support whether rock fillets are achieving these goals.
Bank erosion
We used a chronosequence of rock fillets to determine their effect on mangrove development, bank stabilisation
Estuary
and carbon sequestration in four estuaries in New South Wales, Australia. Aboveground biomass and adult
Ecological engineering
Chronosequence density increased with age of rock fillets, and mangrove structure was similar to a natural fringing mangrove
Nature-based coastal defence after 15 years. The rock fillets accumulated sediment, which reduced the eroded estuary bank height, however,
little effect of the fillets on bank slope was observed. Sediment carbon stocks were not different between rock
fillets, eroding estuary banks and natural fringing mangroves. Rock fillet design had a significant effect on
mangrove structure and coastal protection function, with greater wave transmission through lower rock fillets,
suggesting design optimisation is needed. As the construction cost of the rock fillets was equal or less than
traditional rock revetments, where suitable they present a more economic and environmentally sustainable so­
lution to estuarine erosion management.

1. Introduction
Nature-based solutions are increasingly viewed as important tools to
tackle socio-environmental challenges that include climate change,
water pollution, food security, biodiversity loss and disaster risk man­
agement (Cohen-Shacham et al. 2016). Along coastlines, the risk of
erosion and flooding could increase by 48% by 2100 due to
climate-induced changes in hazard drivers (e.g., sea level rise and
greater storminess) (Kirezci et al., 2020). Topographically complex
ecosystems created by the habitat-forming species in dunes, saltmarshes,
mangroves, seagrasses, and reefs provide natural protection from
erosion and flooding (Duarte et al., 2013; Narayan et al., 2016). These
same systems are increasingly vulnerable to anthropogenic impacts and
are already degraded in many locations (Beck et al., 2011; Goldberg
et al., 2020). Recovering this ecosystem service through restoration of
coastal habitats is a goal of nature-based solutions for coastal protection
and is often referred to as ‘living shorelines’ or ‘nature-based coastal
defence’ (Bilkovic et al., 2017; Morris et al., 2018). Living shorelines can
restore the habitat alone (‘soft approach’) or in combination with
engineered structures (‘hybrid approach’), with the suitable technique
being determined by a combination of factors related to infrastructure
risk and environmental suitability (Morris et al., 2020).
Hard engineered structures, such as seawalls and breakwaters are a
common approach to hazard risk reduction. Living shorelines provide
benefits over hard structures in that they are a living, growing system
with the potential to adapt to changes in climate (Rodriguez et al., 2014;
Sasmito et al., 2016) and self-repair after storm events (Gittman et al.,
2014). This contrasts with the expensive maintenance and upgrades
required to maintain hard built infrastructure under changing environ­
mental conditions. Further, living shorelines can provide several po­
tential co-benefits, such as habitat provision, water filtration,
recreational value and carbon sequestration (Barbier et al., 2011; Bil­
kovic et al., 2016; Humphries and La Peyre, 2015). Blue carbon is of
particular interest for climate mitigation; mangroves, saltmarshes and

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: rebecca.morris@unimelb.edu.au (R.L. Morris).
1
Current address: Centre for eResearch and Digital Innovation, Federation University Australia, Mt Helen, Victoria 3350, Australia.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117310
Received 6 June 2022; Received in revised form 9 January 2023; Accepted 14 January 2023
Available online 20 January 2023
0301-4797/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc/4.0/).
R.L. Morris et al.
seagrasses are internationally recognised for their ability to sequester
carbon in their above and below ground biomass and to trap, bury, and
store carbon in their sediments (McLeod et al., 2011). Hard engineered
coastal defence structures can cause degradation of these habitats,
which might be associated with a reduction of their carbon stocks and
carbon sequestration capacity (Dugan et al., 2018). Living shorelines
that integrate one or more blue carbon ecosystems into their design
could sustain and/or increase carbon stocks and carbon sequestration
capacity.
Mangroves are increasingly targeted in restoration efforts for their
ability to provide coastal protection. As adults, the pneumatophores,
trunks and canopies of multiple trees in a forest provide large-scale
ecosystem roughness that dissipates wave energy, as the roughness
creates drag forces as it interacts with the hydrodynamic flow (Duarte
et al., 2013; Sánchez-Núñez et al., 2020). The reduction in near bed
flows results in the accumulation of sediment, which is further stabilised
through the mangrove root system (Duarte et al., 2013). Although adult
mangroves have a significant effect on the hydrological and geomor­
phological processes that influence erosion and flooding, these processes
can also enhance or hamper the initial establishment of mangrove
seedlings (Hurst et al., 2015). This is especially true for pioneer vege­
tation where mangroves are colonising bare mudflats, for example at
many restoration sites. Successful seedling establishment requires a
‘window of opportunity’ relative to the magnitude of disturbance at a
site (Balke et al., 2011). The propagule must first have a sufficient
inundation-free period to develop roots, which then must grow quickly
enough to resist subsequent forces by wave and currents (Balke et al.,
2011). Following that developmental stage, the root length must be
greater than any mixing or erosion that occurs in the upper layer of the
sediment for the seedling to remain in place (Balke et al., 2011). In areas
where mangroves have been lost, unfavourable hydrodynamic and
geomorphological conditions can make mangrove establishment chal­
lenging (Hurst et al., 2015).
Hybrid mangrove restoration uses engineered structures to manip­
ulate the environmental conditions to reduce hydrodynamic stress and
increase the success of seedling establishment. Previous hybrid methods
for establishing mangroves have included planting within structures
such as rubber tyres (Gilman and Ellison, 2007) or concrete pots
(Krumholz and Jadot, 2009), or using permanent or temporary offshore
breakwaters. These breakwater structures have been assembled from
plastic piles (Hurst, 2013), rubble mounds (Hashim et al., 2010) and
timber (Van Cuong et al., 2015). In New South Wales, Australia, ‘rock
fillets’ are constructed adjacent to eroding estuary banks for stabilisa­
tion (Jenkins and Russell, 2017). Rock fillets are energy dissipating
structures, which are typically built to mean high water level from virgin
excavated natural material (VENM) – usually locally quarried rock,
although fillets may also contain other habitat enhancement structures
such as timber snags, or prefabricated reef balls (Jenkins and Russell,
2017). The fillets are a bank parallel structure, keyed into the bank at
one end and open at the other, creating an area of low hydrodynamic
energy in the intertidal zone between the fillet and the bank (Fig. S1).
This area of still water encourages sediment accumulation, and the
regeneration of mangroves and other estuarine vegetation, where the
mangrove propagules, fish, and other estuarine fauna can pass through
the fillet opening (Jenkins and Russell, 2017).
Despite wide use of the hybrid rock fillet technique within several
estuaries of the New South Wales coast, there is a lack of quantitative
data supporting their success for mangrove regeneration and bank sta­
bilisation. Monitoring of mangrove rock fillet sites has commonly been
done through photo diaries by the local land manager (Jenkins and
Russell, 2017; except see Vincent et al., 2018). Some sites have report­
edly failed in recruiting mangroves or halting erosion (Taylor, 2013).
Without consistent monitoring of key indicators for success across pro­
jects, and quantitative data to support the success or failure of mangrove
rock fillets, it is a challenge for these existing projects to become a
precedent for broader implementation of this technique, both nationally
2
Journal of Environmental Management 331 (2023) 117310
and globally. Further, the potential co-benefits provided by mangrove
hybrid rock fillets can greatly increase their cost-benefit relative to
traditional structures. Blue carbon is one co-benefit that could make
mangrove rock fillets an important climate mitigation, as well as
adaptation, technique.
We used existing rock fillets of known construction ages to establish
a space-for-time trajectory of mangrove development, bank stabilisation
and carbon sequestration in four estuaries in New South Wales,
Australia. Specifically, we hypothesised that mangrove aboveground
biomass, density of adults, saplings, seedlings and pneumatophores, and
soil organic carbon content would increase with age of rock fillets, while
estuary bank height and slope would decrease with age. Further we
hypothesised that these variables would become more similar to a nat­
ural fringing mangrove, and less similar to an eroding bank with age. In
addition to age, the effect of rock fillet height on mangrove structure,
bank stabilisation, wave attenuation, and carbon sequestration was
tested at a site in the Hunter River.
2. Methods
Rock fillets were sampled in four estuaries in New South Wales,
Australia: Hunter River; Wallamba River; Manning River; and Richmond
River in October 2019 (Fig. 1). In each estuary, fillets that were three
different ages were chosen (Fig. 1): (1) one year (H3; W3; M3; R3); (2)
6–8 years (H2; W2; M2; R2); and (3) > 9–10 years post-construction
(H1; W1; M1; R1). All fillets were made of locally quarried rocks
(mean ± S.E. size = 567 ± 18 mm), with the exception of the one-year
old fillets in Hunter River, which were made of timber logs. Felled trees
(‘snags’) with root balls in place were also incorporated into the one-
year old rock fillets in the Richmond River for fish habitat enhance­
ment. Data collected from the fillets were compared to adjacent, un­
protected estuary banks. These banks were either natural fringing
mangroves, or eroding banks with no mangroves; at each site only one of
these two reference habitats was present (Table 1).
Data were collected on the mangrove structure, soil organic carbon
content, and bank and rock fillet profile at each of the aged fillet
treatments and reference habitats. Three replicate transects were run
from low tide to 5 m landward of the estuary bank edge. For mangroves,
all adults (defined as > 1.4 m height or 5 cm trunk diameter) 0.5 m
either side of the transect were counted and the trunk diameter prior to
the first branching of the trunk was measured. Within a 1 m2 quadrat,
saplings (defined as 0.5–1.4 m height or < 5 cm trunk diameter),
seedlings (defined as < 0.5 m tall), and pneumatophores were counted,
and the height of ten of each were randomly selected and measured. The
species of mangrove in the Hunter, Wallamba and Manning River was
Avicennia marina, at Richmond River the mangrove stand was domi­
nated by A. marina but was mixed with the river mangrove, Aegiceras
corniculatum. For this study, mangroves were not differentiated by
species.
The profile of the bank and fillet was measured along the three
replicate transects at each of the aged fillet treatments and reference
habitats at 1 m intervals using a laser level. Additional measurements
were made around the estuary bank to calculate the height and slope of
the bank. This provided information on surface height at these intervals
relative to the starting point, but not in relation to a chart datum. To
determine the elevation of the site and treatments, aerial surveys were
performed by a trained pilot using a DJI Phantom 4 RTK drone. The
drone performed fully automated flight routes at approximately 30 m
altitude, which were programmed on site, and produced fine spatial
resolution images with 80% overlap. Two smart ground control points
(Propeller AeroPoints™) were placed within the flight area. The length,
height, width, distance from bank, and average rock size (measured
from five randomly selected rocks) of each fillet was also recorded.
Three sediment cores were collected at low tide within each rock
fillet at each site, and the corresponding eroding reference site, at 1.5 m
distance from the estuary bank. The undisturbed, volumetric cores down
R.L. Morris et al. Journal of Environmental Management 331 (2023) 117310

Fig. 1. Map of estuaries and sites in New South Wales, Australia.

Table 1
Elevation (in m relative to Australian Height Datum) of the estuary bank behind the treatments (rock fillets aged 1 [H3; W3; M3; R3], 6–8 [H2; W2; M2; R2] and >9–10
years [H1; W1; M1; R1]), the sediment elevation within the treatments, and the crest of the rock fillets. Also presented are the bank and sediment elevations for the
eroding bank [EB] or natural mangrove [NM] reference sites. Values are the mean ± S.E. from three point measurements from the digital terrain model. – Missing data
due to adverse drone flying conditions or high vegetation coverage.
Estuary Site Bank elevation Sediment elevation Fillet elevation Ref. Bank elevation Sediment elevation

Hunter H1 1.60 ± 0.12 0.50 ± 0.02 0.95 ± 0.11 NM 1.83 ± 0.16 0.02 ± 0.02
H2H 1.23 ± 0.03 0.48 ± 0.07 0.72 ± 0.08 NM 1.26 ± 0.09 0.09 ± 0.03
H2L 1.27 ± 0.05 0.41 ± 0.03 0.19 ± 0.05 NM
H3 - - - EB - -
Wallamba W1 1.03 ± 0.19 0.03 ± 0.03 0.35 ± 0.01 EB 0.65 ± 0.13 –
W2 0.91 ± 0.05 0.26 ± 0.02 0.74 ± 0.03 EB 0.69 ± 0.15 − 0.03 ± 0.05
W3 0.96 ± 0.25 − 0.06 ± 0.04 0.49 ± 0.04 NM 0.89 ± 0.02 –
Manning M1 2.51 ± 0.08 – – NM – –
M2 3.15 ± 0.14 0.80 1.11 ± 0.11 NM – –
M3 – – – NM – –
Richmond R1 1.36 ± 0.24 – 0.74 ± 0.25 EB 0.56 ± 0.03 − 0.34 ± 0.03
R2 0.70 ± 0.07 – 0.18 ± 0.03 EB
R3 0.83 ± 0.01 − 0.03 ± 0.04 0.25 ± 0.09 EB

to 100 cm were collected with a Russian Peat Corer (chamber length 50
cm, chamber diameter 5 cm) (Kauffman and Donato, 2012) via two
consecutive cores extractions (0–50 cm and 50–100 cm) in proximity.
The sediment cores for the sediment carbon analysis were segmented in
the field into 10 segments of 10 cm thickness each (0–10 cm, 10–20 cm,
20–30 cm, 30–40 cm, 40–50 cm, etc.). The segments of corresponding
depth of the three cores per sampling location were bulked in the field to
form one composite sample for further analysis (Fest et al., 2022). All
sediment samples were immediately stored on ice and stored at 4 ◦ C
until further sample processing.
At Scott’s Point (Site H2), Hunter River, two types of rock fillets had
been applied: (1) full rock fillets constructed within 300 mm of the high
water mark; and (2) low rock fillets that consisted of a single line of rocks
at low tide level (Jenkins and Russell, 2017). To determine if there was
any difference in effectiveness of high versus low rock fillets, in addition
to the collection of the mangrove, bank profile and sediment core data

3
R.L. Morris et al.
previously described, we deployed six high frequency pressure sensors
(RBR®solo D wave; hereafter RBRs) to measure the attenuation of waves
through the rock fillet and reference fringing mangrove from 7th –
October 15, 2019. At each treatment (high fillet; low fillet; natural
mangrove) two RBRs were deployed, one each placed offshore of the
fillet and onshore of the mangrove fringe. The RBRs were attached with
cable ties to a metal fence picket that was hammered into the sediment.
The RBRs were programmed using the software Ruskin (v1.13.12) and
recorded wave data at a frequency of 8 Hz for a burst duration of 8.5 min
within a 20 min interval.
2.1. Sample processing
Digital terrain models were generated from the images collected
during the drone surveys. The survey images exchangeable image file
data were corrected/georeferenced via post-process kinematic methods
utilising the smart ground control points and the survey data recorded
by the drone platform (Propeller Aero cloud processing platform). The
resulting corrected images were processed in Pix4Dmapper Pro for 3D
point cloud, digital surface model, digital terrain model and orthomo­
saic generation.
The core segments for sediment carbon analysis were oven dried at
80 ◦ C to constant weight and dry bulk density for each sample was
calculated by dividing sample dry mass by sample volume. Following
bulk density determination, samples were passed through a 2 mm sieve
to remove coarse roots and gravel and then homogenised to a fine power
with a mortar and pestle (Fest et al., 2022). Organic carbon content
(concentration) on a subsample of each sediment bulk sample was
determined via elemental analysis (Dumas Combustions – LECO Tru­
mac) after removal of any present inorganic carbon with HCL (1 M,
Howard et al., 2014). The carbon density of each sample was calculated
by multiplying the sample’s bulk density with the sample’s carbon
concentration.
Wave heights were generated from the obtained pressure data from
the RBRs using the method described in Morris et al. (2021). Meteoro­
logical data (wind speed, wind direction and sea level pressure) were
obtained from the Australian Government’s Bureau of Meteorology
station, Williamtown RAAF base (061,078). The measurements at this
station during RBR deployment were used to correct the pressure data
for atmospheric pressure, after which these corrected pressure values
were converted to water depth. The water levels were linearly detrended
to remove low-frequency signal. A Fast Fourier Transform based algo­
rithm was used to correct the wave energy spectrum for depth and sig­
nificant wave heights were determined from this spectrum (Moeller
et al., 1996). Linear wave theory was used to calculate wave length,
celerity and group velocity, based on wave conditions at the offshore
RBR and assuming wave period did not change as the wave approached
shore. The wave group celerity was used to calculate a shoaling coeffi­
cient, which multiplied by the offshore wave height generated a pre­
dicted onshore wave height that accounted for the change in depth
between the offshore and onshore RBRs. The wave transmission coeffi­
cient was defined as the ratio of measured to predicted wave height. All
processing was done in MATLAB (MathWorks, 1996) and resulted in
hourly data for water depth, significant wave height at each RBR, wave
period and the wave transmission coefficient during the period the RBRs
were underwater (i.e., at high tide).
2.2. Data analysis
The effect of the age of the rock fillet on the aboveground biomass,
density of adult mangroves, saplings, seedlings and pneumatophores
and soil organic carbon was tested using general linear models (GLMs).
Age was included as a continuous variable, and estuary (Hunter River,
Manning River, Richmond River, and Wallamba River) as a categorical
variable in the model (for the mangrove measurements only). For each
transect area, the aboveground biomass was calculated using the
4
Journal of Environmental Management 331 (2023) 117310
following allometric relationship developed by Bulmer et al. (2016):
Tree aboveground biomass (g) = 1.24 × exp(0.194 + 2.766
× ln(circumference, cm))
Similarly, GLMs were used to test the magnitude of difference (i.e.,
reference minus fillet) in the aboveground biomass, density of mangrove
stages, and soil organic carbon between different aged fillets and their
reference sites (either eroding bank or natural fringing mangrove).
Likelihood ratio tests were used to test the significance of adding estuary
or treatment to the model and the interaction of estuary or treatment
and age of fillet. Prior to analysis, plots of the residuals were visually
inspected for non-linearity and heteroscedasticity.
Point measurements extracted from the digital terrain model or the
laser level surveys were used to calculate the height and slope of the
estuary bank. The height of the bank was calculated by subtracting the
elevation in metres at the top of the bank from that at the toe of the bank.
The percent slope of the bank was calculated by multiplying by 100 the
ratio of the bank height and transect distance between the height and
slope measurements. GLMs were again used to determine the influence
of rock fillet age on the bank profile (i.e., height and slope) and in
comparison to reference sites.
To determine the effect of rock fillet height on the aboveground
biomass and density of different mangrove stages, a one-way analysis of
variance with treatment (3 levels: low fillet; high fillet; and natural
mangrove) as a fixed factor was used. Box-Cox (R package MASS) were
used to suggest the appropriate data transformation (Venables and
Ripley, 2002), and where appropriate post hoc comparisons were un­
dertaken using the package lsmeans to identify sources of treatment
effects (Lenth, 2016). The bank profiles for low and high rock fillets and
natural mangroves were compared as previously described; the soil
organic carbon content was unable to be analysed due to the lack of
replication of low versus high fillets across estuaries. Regression slopes
between onshore measured and predicted significant wave heights were
compared (based on 95% CIs) among low and high fillets and the natural
mangrove reference.
2.3. The cost of rock fillets
Data on the cost of each project studied were provided by the local
land manager. Costs were either provided as per linear metre, or were
standardised to this based on the total project cost and the length of bank
where fillets had been deployed. The original cost was adjusted from the
year of completion to 2020 AU$ using the online inflation converter
from the Reserve Bank of Australia (https://www.rba.gov.au/calculat
or/annualDecimal.html; e.g., Ferrario et al. 2014).
3. Results
3.1. Fillet specifications
The fillets sampled varied in their size. At Hunter River, the average
length of an individual rock fillet at H1 and H2H was 18.2 ± 1.3 m, with
a width of 2.6 ± 0.2 m and an elevation relative to the Australian Height
Datum (AHD) of 0.8 ± 0.1 m (Table 1). The timber fillets at H3 were two
largely continuous lengths of ~100 and 200 m, with a width of 1.9 ±
0.2 m. The mean distance between the internal edge of the rock fillet and
the estuary bank at the sites in Hunter River was 3.7 ± 0.4 m. At Wal­
lamba River, the average length and width of the fillets were 32.4 ± 7.8
m and 1.8 ± 0.1 m, respectively. The distance of the fillets from the
estuary bank was 3.2 ± 0.4 m, with a fillet elevation of 0.5 ± 0.1 m. At
Manning River, the average length of the fillets at M1 and M3 was 38.5
± 2.2 m, while M2 was a largely continuous length of ~120 m. The
width, distance of fillet from the estuary bank and fillet elevation (M2
only, Table 1) was 1.7 ± 0.1 m, 3.9 ± 0.4 m and 1.11 ± 0.11 m,
respectively. At Richmond River, the average length, width, distance of
R.L. Morris et al. Journal of Environmental Management 331 (2023) 117310

fillets from the bank and fillet elevation was 32.6 ± 4.7 m, 1.7 ± 0.1 m, the Hunter (− 0.23 ind. m− 2yr− 1), Wallamba (− 0.18 ind. m− 2yr− 1) and
2.8 ± 0.1 m and 0.4 ± 0.1 m, respectively (Table 1). Manning Rivers (1.9 ind. m− 2yr− 1). The density of pneumatophores also
increased with age of fillet, at an average annual density of 24 ± 4
pneumatophores per m2 for the Hunter, Wallamba and Richmond
3.2. Mangrove structure
Rivers, which was significantly less in the Manning River (4 pneumat­
ophores m− 2yr− 1; Fig. 2e).
There was a significant effect of fillet age on the aboveground
There was a significant effect of age and reference type on the dif­
biomass (F7,28 = 8.12, P˂0.001), and density of adult mangroves (F7,28
ference between fillets and either the eroding bank or natural mangrove
= 10.79, P˂0.001), saplings (F7,28 = 7.72, P˂0.001), seedlings (F7,28 =
reference site for the aboveground biomass (F2,33 = 14.19, P˂0.001).
7.37, P˂0.001) and pneumatophores (F7,28 = 2.87, P˂0.05; Fig. 2). The
The difference between the aboveground biomass in fillets compared to
aboveground biomass and adult density increased with age, however,
natural mangroves became less with time, tending to no difference after
the slope of this increase differed among estuaries (Fig. 2 a,b). For every
approximately 15 years (Fig. 3a). In contrast, the difference in above­
year of age, the aboveground biomass increased by 187, 652, 968 and
ground biomass between fillets and the eroding bank became greater
2324 g per m2 in the Hunter, Wallamba, Manning and Richmond Rivers,
over time, with an annual biomass addition of 1603 g m− 2 in the fillets
respectively (Fig. 2a). The adult density (individuals per m2) increased
compared to the eroding bank. The density of adult mangroves was
by 0.11 in Hunter River, 0.10 in Wallamba River, 0.27 in Manning River,
significantly greater in fillets compared to the eroding bank and natural
and 0.85 in Richmond River per year (Fig. 2b). The effect of age on
mangrove references and this increased with age (F3,32 = 8.03, P˂0.001;
sapling density was positive for the Hunter, Wallamba and Richmond
Fig. 3b). The difference, however, was greater for eroding banks (0.58
Rivers, however, this relationship was negative for Manning River
individuals m− 2 yr− 1) compared to natural mangroves (0.15 individuals
(Fig. 2c). Sapling density increased annually by 0.42, 0.09 and 2.24
m− 2 yr− 1; Fig. 3b). A similar pattern was also observed for the saplings.
individuals per m2 at the Hunter, Wallamba and Richmond Rivers,
The density of saplings was greater in the fillets compared to the eroding
respectively, however the density of saplings decreased by 0.14 in the
bank references and this increased with age, with an annual addition of
Manning River. The greatest effect of age on seedling density occurred at
1.4 saplings per m2 within the fillets compared to the eroding bank
Richmond River, where annual seedling density decreased by 22 per m2
(F3,32 = 4.19, P˂0.05; Fig. 3c). The slope of the difference between fillets
(Fig. 2d). There was minimal difference in seedling density with age at

Fig. 2. Linear relationships between the age of fillets and (a) aboveground biomass (AGB), (b) adult density, (c) sapling density, (d) seedling density and (e)
pneumatophore density for four estuaries in New South Wales, Australia: Richmond River (squares; dashed line); Hunter River (circles; solid line); Manning River
(triangles; dashed line); and Wallamba River (diamonds; solid line). The error bars are standard error.

5
R.L. Morris et al. Journal of Environmental Management 331 (2023) 117310

Fig. 3. Linear relationships between the age of fillets and the difference (Δ) between the reference sites (either eroding bank [black squares] or natural fringing
mangrove [grey circles]) and rock fillets for (a) aboveground biomass (AGB), (b) adult density, (c) sapling density, (d) seedling density and (e) pneumatophore
density. The error bars are standard error. A positive Δ means that the variable measured was greater at the reference than the rock fillet, while a negative Δ means
that the variable measured was greater at the rock fillet compared to the reference.

and natural mangroves was significantly less than the eroding banks
(− 0.07 individuals m− 2 yr− 1; Fig. 3c). Age had a significant effect on the
density of seedlings (F3,32 = 4.03, P˂0.05), which differed between
eroding banks and natural mangroves as the reference. There was no
difference in the density of seedlings in the natural mangrove and fillets
with age (Fig. 3d). In contrast, seedling density was initially greater in
the fillets compared to the eroding banks, but this pattern reversed after
~7 years (Fig. 3d). The pneumatophore density difference between fil­
lets and eroding banks became greater with age, with the addition of 26
pneumatophores per m2 per year in the fillets compared to eroding
banks. The pneumatophore density was greater in natural mangroves
compared to fillets, and this relationship changed little with age of fillet
(F3,32 = 9.25, P˂0.001; Fig. 3e).
4.92, P˂0.05; Fig. 4c). There was no significant effect of age or reference
type on the difference in the bank slope between fillets and natural
mangroves or eroding banks (F1,34 = 2.29, P˃0.05; Fig. 4d).
3.4. Carbon storage
There was no significant effect of the rock fillet age on soil organic
carbon content for 20 cm (F1,10 = 0.09, P˃0.05) or 50 cm (F1,10 = 0.42,
P˃0.05) core depth (Fig. 5a and b), or the difference between reference
and fillet soil organic carbon content for 20 cm (F1,10 = 0.22, P˃0.05) or
50 cm (F1,10 = 0.04, P˃0.05) core depth (Fig. 5c and d).
3.5. Rock fillet height

3.3. Erosion control
The estuary bank height significantly decreased with age of the fillet
(F4,31 = 19.91, P˂0.001; Fig. 4a, e). There was, however, no significant
effect of rock fillet age on the slope of the estuary bank, except at Hunter
River where the slope of the bank had an annual decrease of 617% (F7,28
= 1.91, P˃0.05; Fig. 4b). There was no effect of age on the difference
between fillets and either the eroding bank or natural mangroves for
bank height, however, the magnitude of this difference was greater for
natural mangroves (0.29 m) compared to controls (0.03 m) (F2,33 =
The average rock fillet crest elevation (m AHD) was 0.73 ± 0.07 at
the high fillets compared to 0.19 ± 0.05 at the low rock fillets. The width
of the high fillets (2.5 ± 0.3 m) was greater than the low fillets (0.8 ±
0.2 m), whereas the distance from the bank was greater for the low fillets
(4.3 ± 1.0 m) compared to the high fillets (2.7 ± 0.3 m). The soil organic
carbon content was greater in high fillets compared to low fillets for both
the 20 cm (3.13 versus 1.96 kg m− 2) and 50 cm (7.01 versus 2.82 kg
m− 2) core depth.
There was a significant effect of treatment on the aboveground
biomass (F3,6 = 376.86, P˂0.001), and density of adult mangroves (F3,6

6
R.L. Morris et al.
= 20.43, P˂0.01), seedlings (F3,6 = 21.11, P˂0.001) and pneumato­
phores (F3,6 = 491.57, P˂0.001), however, there was no effect on the
sapling density (F3,6 = 0.35, P˃0.05; Fig. 6a–e). Although the post-hoc
tests were not powerful enough to detect what treatments were signifi­
cantly different from each other for the aboveground biomass, adult and
pneumatophore density, Fig. 6a suggests that aboveground biomass was
greater at natural mangroves than high or low fillets, but the adult
density was greater in the high fillet treatment (Fig. 6b). Pneumatophore
density was smallest in the low fillet treatment (Fig. 6e). The high fillets
had a significantly greater number of seedlings than the low fillets
(Fig. 6d).
The fillet crest elevation had a significant effect on the height (F3,6 =
175.54, P˂0.001) and slope (F3,6 = 295.08, P˂0.001) of the bank. Again,
while post-hoc tests could not detect where these differences were,
Fig. 7a suggests that the bank behind the low fillets is greater than that
for the high fillets. Similarly the slope of the estuary bank behind the low
fillets was significantly greater than the high fillets (Fig. 7b).
The winds speeds recorded at the weather station during RBR
deployment were a maximum of 10 m s− 1 predominantly from a south
and south-easterly direction (Fig. S2). The fetch is greatest at site H2
from the north-west, and this was the predominant wind direction
observed over the last five years, with greater wind speeds recorded
7
Journal of Environmental Management 331 (2023) 117310
Fig. 4. Linear relationships between the age of fillets
and (a) the height and (b) slope of the estuary bank
behind the fillets for four estuaries in New South
Wales, Australia: Richmond River (squares; dashed
line); Hunter River (circles; solid line); Manning River
(triangles; dashed line); and Wallamba River (di­
amonds; solid line); and the difference (Δ) between the
reference sites (either eroding bank [black squares] or
natural fringing mangrove [grey circles]) and rock fil­
lets for the (c) height and (d) slope of the estuary bank;
(e) example profiles generated from the digital terrain
model comparing one year old fillets and the eroding
bank for Richmond River (site R3), note that the in­
crease in elevation for the 1 year old rock fillets (light
grey line) at ~4 m is the rock fillet. (e) Also shows the
approximate location cores were taken for sediment
analysis. A positive Δ means that the variable
measured was greater at the reference than the rock
fillet, while a negative Δ means that the variable
measured was greater at the rock fillet compared to the
reference.
from this direction (a mean ± S.E. of 15 ± 1.2 m s− 1; Fig. S2). The
conditions recorded during the study period were therefore considered
calm, with wave heights reaching only a maximum of 0.05 m (Fig. 8).
During these conditions, wave attenuation was greatest at the high fillet,
with very low wave heights recorded behind the high fillet, in com­
parison to a 31% and 17% wave attenuation at the low fillet and natural
mangrove treatments, respectively (Fig. 8).
3.6. Cost of rock fillets
The cost of the fillets ranged from $140–948 m− 1, and had an
average cost of $376 m− 1 (Table 2).
4. Discussion
The purpose of rock fillets is to provide estuary bank erosion control
and habitat enhancement of fringing mangrove ecosystems. Here, the
aboveground biomass of mangroves within rock fillets increased with
fillet age and became similar to a natural fringing mangrove within 15
years, with adult densities that exceeded natural mangroves over this
time. Larger rock fillets had greater wave attenuation in low energy
conditions, however, this greater wave attenuation did not translate into
R.L. Morris et al.
more aboveground biomass in high compared to low fillets, although
adult mangrove and seedling densities were higher. The resulting effect
of mangrove establishment on estuary bank stabilisation was less clear,
with a reduced bank height with rock fillet age, but non-significant ef­
fects for bank slope. Further, the soil organic carbon content of
mangrove rock fillets did not increase with age of the fillet, contrary to
what was expected. This is the first large-scale evaluation of mangrove
rock fillets for coastal protection and carbon sequestration, which has
provided a baseline for gaining a more predictive understanding of the
benefits and co-benefits of this nature-based method.
The rock fillets provided conditions for mangroves to establish, the
structure of which became similar to natural fringing mangrove refer­
ence sites over time. Chronosequences of naturally regenerated
mangrove forests have shown that younger mangrove stands are domi­
nated by a greater density of smaller trees, while older stands have
fewer, larger trees (Azman et al., 2021). Natural mangrove forests show
a decrease in density of trees with age due to self-thinning (Deshar et al.,
2012). Our results support these findings, the density of adult man­
groves increased with rock fillet age, but was greater than natural
fringing mangroves, which suggests that mangroves within fillets may
go through a self-thinning process with time. The greater maturity of
mangroves in natural fringes was further supported by the number of
pneumatophores, which were higher for mangroves in natural compared
to rock fillet settings. In contrast to Azman et al. (2021), the above­
ground biomass of rock fillet mangroves was not significantly different
to natural fringing mangroves after 15 years, albeit this was achieved
here through a greater adult density in rock fillets compared to fewer,
older trees in natural mangrove fringes. This result is a similar time­
frame to that found in planted mangroves in the Philippines, where the
aboveground biomass took 18 years to approach that of the natural
mangrove reference (Salmo et al., 2013). The slope of increase in adult
8
Journal of Environmental Management 331 (2023) 117310
Fig. 5. Linear relationships between the age of fillets
and soil organic carbon content for (a) 20 cm core
depth, and (b) 50 cm core depth. Linear relationships
between the age of fillets and the difference (Δ) be­
tween the soil organic carbon content at reference
sites (either eroding bank [black squares] or natural
fringing mangrove [grey circles]) and rock fillets for
(c) 20 cm core depth, and (d) 50 cm core depth. A
positive Δ means that the variable measured was
greater at the reference than the rock fillet, while a
negative Δ means that the variable measured was
greater at the rock fillet compared to the reference.
density and aboveground biomass with rock fillet age differed between
estuaries. This followed the expected latitudinal pattern (Morrisey et al.,
2010), where the rate of increase in adult density and aboveground
biomass was greater at the subtropical (Richmond River) compared to
temperate sites (Hunter, Manning, and Wallamba Rivers).
In contrast to Salmo et al. (2013), where seedlings and saplings were
absent from planted mangroves, here we found that sapling density
increased with rock fillet age in three out of the four estuaries. Seedlings
were also found in rock fillets, but these were in similar numbers
regardless of the fillet age in three out of the four estuaries. Further,
there was no difference between the seedling density in rock fillets
compared to natural fringing mangroves. In the Richmond River, seed­
ling numbers were very high in the one year old rock fillets, and this
number declined with age. Similarly, seedlings were recruiting to the
eroding bank references, however, these were not surviving past the
seedling stage into saplings and adults. The amount of recruitment to
rock fillets will depend on propagule supply, which can be provided by
mature mangroves within the fillets, or nearby intact forests. Thus, rock
fillet establishment would be expected to be variable depending on the
extent of mangroves present, particularly within a kilometre of the rock
fillets based on previous observations of A. marina seed dispersal
(Clarke, 1993). The presence of seedlings and saplings in the rock fillets
indicated that the conditions were favourable for recruitment, and that
there was a propagule supply, which is important for resilience against
disturbance. The evidence suggests that the rock fillets provide a win­
dow of opportunity for mangroves to establish (Balke et al., 2011) and
create a self-sustaining fringe along the estuarine banks.
The primary objective of rock fillets, to accrete sediment, appeared
to be achieved at all study sites. Fillets are designed to protect the toe of
the eroding estuary bank and accrete sediment between the fillet and the
bank to provide favourable conditions for mangrove establishment, with
R.L. Morris et al. Journal of Environmental Management 331 (2023) 117310

Fig. 6. Mean (±S.E.) (a) aboveground biomass, (b) adult density, (c) sapling density, (d) seedling density, and (e) pneumatophore density for high fillets (dark grey
bars), low fillets (light grey bars), and natural mangroves (white bars) at site H2, Hunter River.

Fig. 7. Mean (±S.E.) (a) height and (b) slope of the estuary bank behind high fillets (dark grey bars), low fillets (light grey bars), and natural mangroves (white bars)
at site H2, Hunter River.

a resulting stabilisation of the bank. Sediment accumulation resulted in vertical erosion scarps or undercutting. Previous observations of the
decreased bank heights adjacent to the rock fillets over time. In contrast, evolution of rock filleted estuary banks stated that continued bank
nearby eroding estuary banks were generally characterised by near- erosion following fillet installation resulted in a naturally graded slope

9
R.L. Morris et al. Journal of Environmental Management 331 (2023) 117310

this study is somewhat counterintuitive given that our results clearly

Fig. 8. Comparison of measured (y-axis) and predicted (x-axis) significant
wave height (m) for high fillets (R2 = 0.02), low fillets (R2 = 0.95), and natural
mangroves (R2 = 0.92). Values below the dotted line indicate a decrease in
wave height. The decrease in wave height is given as a percentage on the graph.
The shaded areas are the 95% confidence intervals.
that allowed for a shoreward transition from mangroves to saltmarsh
and/or coastal forest such as Casuarina spp (Taylor, 2017). Here, how­
ever, we observed no effect of age on bank slope adjacent to rock fillets.
Indeed, Vincent et al. (2018) reported no evidence of active erosion in
the short-term using presence of dirt clods as an indicator following the
installation of timber and rock fillets in the Kalang Estuary, NSW. The
discrepancies between different observations of how estuary banks
respond to rock fillets warrants further research, with many factors such
as rock fillet design, bank sediment profile, sediment supply and hy­
drodynamic conditions likely affecting the outcome. Bank height and
slope were used as proxies to understand the potential efficacy of rock
fillets for bank stabilisation. Direct measurements of bank retreat before
and after the installation of rock fillets is, however, required to get a full
understanding of whether the fillets are successful at achieving this goal.
In lieu of any on ground measurements on bank position before and after
the installation of rock fillets in New South Wales, the analysis of his­
torical aerial imagery has proven a useful tool in evaluating the effec­
tiveness of other living shoreline methods, such as oyster reefs
(McClenachan et al., 2020).
The absence of an effect of rock fillets on sediment carbon stock in
show that the rock fillets are effective at collecting sediment and pro­
mote mangrove establishment. However, given that at each site the
sediment that accumulates in the rock fillets via deposition is a mix of
the sediment that is eroding from the estuary bank behind the rock fillet
itself and the sediment that is transported within the river system
(Saintilan et al., 2013; Drexler et al., 2020), it is possible that it has a
very similar carbon density when compared to the eroding bank at the
same site. In cases where an eroding bank has a relatively high carbon
density and the sediment transported within the estuary has a low car­
bon content, it is quite possible that the accumulating sediment in the
rock fillet will have a lower carbon content compared to the sediment of
the eroding bank. Therefore, a low carbon signal of the sediment that
predominantly settled in the rock fillets after establishment might mask
the newly sequestered carbon from the establishing mangroves. Given
our experimental design and coring method did not allow us to trace
sediment sources or carbon age we cannot exclude this as an explanation
of our findings. Regardless, this possibility highlights the problem of
separating allochthonous and autochthonous carbon contributions to
sediments in blue carbon ecosystems.
Despite this limitation, the rock fillets did accumulate and sequester
a considerable amount of carbon in their sediment when compared to
the eroding banks, because the tidal elevation of the core taken in the
eroding bank was always lower compared to the core taken in the rock
fillet (Fig. 4E). Therefore, a proportion of the sediment profile sampled
in the rock fillet had accumulated on top of the sediment profile of the
eroding bank and this gain in tidal elevation will have resulted in
accumulation of both autochthonous carbon, from the establishing
mangroves, and allochthonous carbon that entered the rock fillets in the
form of eroding sediment. Unfortunately, our coring strategy was not at
a high enough spatial resolution to allow us to calculate the accumulated
sediment volumes and carbon density in the rock fillet with any confi­
dence and we also have no information on how fast the sediment
accumulation occurred. In future, it would be ideal to generate a digital
terrain model of the rock fillets shortly after installation together with
sediment cores and to use sediment traps and surface elevation tables to
track the sediment accumulation pattern within the rock fillet over time.
Lower rock fillets were trialled at Scott’s Point, Hunter River to
protect the exposed roots of existing juvenile mangroves that had
established along the bank (Jenkins and Russell, 2017; Taylor, 2017).
Previous observations of the lower rock fillets deemed them successful in
protecting established juvenile mangroves, and at a significantly lower
cost than the high rock fillets (Jenkins and Russell, 2017). Our results
provide further information about the functioning of low versus high
rock fillets for consideration when designing these structures. The rock
fillet structure is important for maintaining the accumulation of sedi­
ment behind it, which also opens discussion on the resilience of man­
groves within rock fillets as the rock structure degrades, or if it were to
fail (Taylor, 2017). There was evidence that the high rock fillet

Table 2
Costs of the fillet projects studied. The year denotes the year of construction, the length is the total shoreline protected by fillets per project.
Estuary Site Year Length (m) Original cost (AU$) Clarke, 1993 (AU$) Cost (AU$ m− 1)
− 1 − 1 1
Hunter River H1 2010 140 785 m 948 m 948 m−
H2 2011 300 500 m− 1 604 m− 1 604 m− 1

H3 2018 200 800 m− 1 820 m− 1 820 m− 1

1
Wallamba River W1 2009 565 80,000 99,470 176 m−
W2 2012 ? 500,000 574,610 ?
1
W3 2018 573 120,000 122,966 214 m−
Manning River M1 2000a ? 141 m− 1 154 m− 1 154 m− 1

M2 2012a ? 141 m− 1 154 m− 1 154 m− 1

M3 2018 290 131 m− 1 140 m− 1 140 m− 1

Richmond River R1 2007 700 133 m− 1 176 m− 1 176 m− 1

R2 2013
R3 2018
a
Costs were calculated using a 2014 project at the same site.

10
R.L. Morris et al.
accumulated more sediment than the low rock fillet, as the bank height
was greater in the latter and this resulted in a greater density of adult
mangroves and seedling recruitment. Although the density of adult
mangroves appeared to be similar between low fillet areas and natural
mangroves, there was less recruitment in the low fillets. Further,
aboveground biomass was not different between high and low fillets,
although this could be due to older trees being present in the low rock
fillets as they had already established juveniles at the time of con­
struction. The effect of the rock fillet height on mangrove structure was
therefore not straightforward, and we lacked power to detect differences
between treatments due to the existence of only one low rock fillet site.
Due to the potential of low rock fillets to allow for a more cost-effective
design with possible environmental benefits of less artificial structures,
more trials, which could be supported by physical testing in wave flumes
or numerical modelling (e.g., Gijón Mancheño et al., 2021), are needed
to determine the optimal design. Under the wave conditions observed in
this study, wave transmission through high rock fillets was extremely
low, compared to a 17% and 31% reduction in wave height at low rock
fillets and natural mangroves, respectively. Although this result needs to
be tested under a greater range of hydrodynamic conditions, this begs
the question as to whether high rock fillets are currently
over-engineered.
4.1. Conclusion
This study provided strong evidence that rock fillets as a nature-
based method for coastal protection were in general successful at
accumulating sediment and providing a habitat for mangrove coloni­
sation. In comparison to traditional rock revetments, rock fillets are
expected to provide a more environmentally and economically sus­
tainable solution. A direct construction cost saving is often expected of
nature-based defences (Ferrario et al., 2014). The rock fillets sampled
cost on average (±S.E.) AUD$323 ± 108 m− 1. Comparable rock revet­
ment project costs that were obtained from land managers varied
(Table S1), from short sections that had been applied alongside rock
fillets being similar costs between the two methods ($159 m− 1 in both
Wallamba and Manning River), but these costs increasing for larger
distinct rock revetment projects ($951 m− 1 and $1582 m− 1 in Hunter
River). Even if construction costs are similar between traditional and
nature-based methods, the overall cost-benefit may be greater in the
latter through the provision of additional ecosystem services. Here our
results on blue carbon and previous work using isotopic analysis of
estuarine fauna (Tachas et al., 2021) showed that there may be a
trade-off between coastal protection and other services that needs to be
quantified, which has also been identified in other hybrid systems
(Bilkovic and Mitchell, 2013). Nevertheless, in the estuaries studied rock
fillets have been implemented as a viable coastal protection method that
has habitat enhancement benefits. This method has potential application
to eroding estuarine shorelines that can support mangroves or other
coastal vegetation globally. Technical guidance on rock fillet design, and
the predicted impact on shoreline erosion would support the imple­
mentation of this method at scale.
Credit author statement
Rebecca Morris: Conceptualisation, Methodology, Investigation,
Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Project administration; Bene­
dikt Fest: Conceptualisation, Methodology, Investigation, Formal anal­
ysis, Writing – original draft; Debra Stokes: Resources, Writing – review
and editing; Charlotte Jenkins: Resources, Writing – review and editing;
Stephen Swearer: Conceptualisation, Methodology, Writing – review
and editing, Supervision, Funding acquisition.
Funding
The National Centre for Coasts and Climate was funded through The
11
Journal of Environmental Management 331 (2023) 117310
Earth Systems and Climate Change Hub by the Australian Government’s
National Environmental Science Program.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgements
We thank J. Tachas for her assistance in the field. We also thank T.
Alletson, T. Cross, P. Dwyer, P. Goonan, J. Schmidt, S. Skelton, M.
Taylor, C. Turrell, J. Weingott, and P. Wilson for providing information
on the rock fillet sites in their areas.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117310.
References
Azman, M.S., Sharma, S., Shaharudin, M.A.M., Hamzah, M.L., Adibah, S.N., Zakaria, R.
M., MacKenzie, R.A., 2021. Stand structure, biomass and dynamics of naturally
regenerated and restored mangroves in Malaysia. For. Ecol. Manag. 482, 118852.
Balke, T., Bouma, T.J., Horstman, E.M., Webb, E.L., Erftemeijer, P.L.A., Herman, P.M.J.,
2011. Windows of opportunity: thresholds to mangrove seedling establishment on
tidal flats. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 440, 1–9.
Barbier, E.B., Hacker, S.D., Kennedy, C., Koch, E.W., Stier, A.C., Silliman, B.R., 2011. The
value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecol. Monogr. 81, 169–193.
Beck, M.W., Brumbaugh, R.D., Airoldi, L., Carranza, A., Coen, L.D., Crawford, C.,
Defeo, O., Edgar, G.J., Hancock, B., Kay, M.C., Lenihan, H.S., Luckenbach, M.W.,
Toropova, C.L., Zhang, G.F., Guo, X.M., 2011. Oyster reefs at risk and
recommendations for conservation, restoration, and management. Bioscience 61,
107–116.
Bilkovic, D.M., Mitchell, M.M., 2013. Ecological tradeoffs of stabilized salt marshes as a
shoreline protection strategy: effects of artificial structures on macrobenthic
assemblages. Ecol. Eng. 61, 469–481.
Bilkovic, D.M., Mitchell, M., Mason, P., Duhring, K., 2016. The role of living shorelines as
estuarine habitat conservation strategies. Coast. Manag. 44, 161–174.
Bilkovic, D.M., Mitchell, M.M., Toft, J.D., La Peyre, M.K., 2017. A primer to living
shorelines. In: Bilkovic, D.M., Mitchell, M.M., Toft, J.D., La Peyre, M.K. (Eds.), Living
Shorelines: the Science and Management of Nature-Based Coastal Protection. Taylor
and Francis, Florida, US, pp. 3–9.
Bulmer, R., Schwendenmann, L., Lundquist, C., 2016. Allometric models for estimating
aboveground biomass, carbon and nitrogen stocks in temperate Avicennia marina
forests. Wetlands 36, 841–848.
Clarke, P.J., 1993. Dispersal of gray mangrove (Avicennia marina) propagules in
southeastern Australia. Aquat. Bot. 45, 195–204.
Cohen-Shacham, E., Walters, G., Janzen, C., Maginnis, S. (Eds.), 2016. Nature-based
Solutions to Address Global Societal Challenges. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland xiii +
97pp.
Deshar, R., Sharma, S., Mouctar, K., Wu, M., Hoque, A.T.M.R., Hagihara, A., 2012. Self-
thinning exponents for partial organs in overcrowded mangrove Bruguiera
gymnorrhiza stands on Okinawa Island, Japan. For. Ecol. Manag. 278, 146–154.
Drexler, J.Z., Davis, M.J., Woo, I., De La Cruz, S., 2020. Carbon sources in the sediments
of a restoring vs. historically unaltered saltmarsh. Estuar. Coast 43, 1345–1360.
Duarte, C.M., Losada, I.J., Hendriks, I.E., Mazarrasa, I., Marba, N., 2013. The role of
coastal plant communities for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Nat. Clim.
Change 3, 961–968.
Dugan, J.E., Emery, K.A., Alber, M., Alexander, C.R., Byers, J.E., Gehman, A.M.,
McLenaghan, N., Sojka, S.E., 2018. Generalizing ecological effects of shoreline
armoring across soft sediment environments. Estuar. Coast 41, 180–196.
Ferrario, F., Beck, M.W., Storlazzi, C.D., Micheli, F., Shepard, C.C., Airoldi, L., 2014. The
effectiveness of coral reefs for coastal hazard risk reduction and adaptation. Nat.
Commun. 5, 3794.
Fest, B.J., Swearer, S.E., Arndt, S.K., 2022. A review of sediment carbon sampling
methods in mangroves and their broader impacts on stock estimates for blue carbon
ecosystems. Sci. Total Environ. 816, 151618.
Gijón Mancheño, A., Jansen, W., Uijttewaal, W.S.J., Reniers, A.J.H.M., van Rooijen, A.A.,
Suzuki, T., Etminan, V., Winterwerp, J.C., 2021. Wave transmission and drag
coefficients through dense cylinder arrays: implications for designing structures for
mangrove restoration. Ecol. Eng. 165, 106231.
R.L. Morris et al.
Gilman, E., Ellison, J., 2007. Efficacy of alternative low-cost approaches to mangrove
restoration. American Samoa. Estuaries and Coasts 30, 641–651.
Gittman, R.K., Popowich, A.M., Bruno, J.F., Peterson, C.H., 2014. Marshes with and
without sills protect estuarine shorelines from erosion better than bulkheads during
a Category 1 hurricane. Ocean Coast Manag. 102, 94–102.
Goldberg, L., Lagomasino, D., Thomas, N., Fatoyinbo, T., 2020. Global declines in
human-driven mangrove loss. Global Change Biol. 26, 5844–5855.
Hashim, R., Kamali, B., Tamin, N.M., Zakaria, R., 2010. An integrated approach to
coastal rehabilitation: mangrove restoration in Sungai Haji Dorani, Malaysia. Estuar.
Coast Shelf Sci. 86, 118–124.
Coastal Blue Carbon: methods for assessing carbon stocks and emissions factors in
mangroves, tidal salt marshes, and seagrasses. In: Howard, J., Hoyt, S., Isensee, K.,
Telszewski, M., Pidgeon, E. (Eds.), 2014. Conservation International.
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO, International Union for
Conservation of Nature, Arlington, Virginia, USA.
Humphries, A.T., La Peyre, M.K., 2015. Oyster reef restoration supports increased nekton
biomass and potential commercial fishery value. PeerJ 3. https://doi.org/10.7717/
peerj.1111 e1111.
Hurst, T., 2013. Enhancing the Ecological Health of Western Port. Mangrove Planting for
Coastal Stabilisation 2010-2013. Final Report. Melbourne Water, Melbourne,
pp. 1–55.
Hurst, T.A., Pope, A.J., Quinn, G.P., 2015. Exposure mediates transitions between bare
and vegetated states in temperate mangrove ecosystems. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 533,
121–134.
Jenkins, C., Russell, K., 2017. Scott’s Point Rock Fillets – Fish Friendly Erosion
Mitigation. NSW Department of Primary Industries, New South Wales, pp. 1–9.
Kauffman, J.B., Donato, D.C., 2012. Protocols for the Measurement, Monitoring and
Reporting of Structure, Biomass and Carbon Stocks in Mangrove Forests. In: Working
Paper, vol. 86. CIFOR, Bogar, Indonesia.
Kirezci, E., Young, I.R., Ranasinghe, R., Muis, S., Nicholls, R.J., Lincke, D., Hinkel, J.,
2020. Projections of global-scale extreme sea levels and resulting episodic coastal
flooding over the 21st Century. Sci. Rep. 10, 11629.
Krumholz, J., Jadot, C., 2009. Demonstration of a New technology for restoration of red
mangrove (Rhizophora mangle) in high-energy environments. Mar. Technol. Soc. J.
43, 64–72.
Lenth, R.V., 2016. Least-squares means: the R package lsmeans. J. Stat. Software 69,
1–33.
MathWorks, 1996. MATLAB : the Language of Technical Computing : Computation,
Visualization, Programming: Installation Guide for UNIX Version 5. Math Works,
Natwick, Massachusetts, USA.
McClenachan, G.M., Donnelly, M.J., Schaffer, M.N., Sacks, P.E., Walters, L.J., 2020. Does
size matter? Quantifying the cumulative impact of small-scale living shoreline and
oyster reef restoration projects on shoreline erosion. Restor. Ecol. 28, 1365–1371.
McLeod, E., Chmura, G.L., Bouillon, S., Salm, R., Bjork, M., Duarte, C.M., Lovelock, C.E.,
Schlesinger, W.H., Silliman, B.R., 2011. A blueprint for blue carbon: toward an
improved understanding of the role of vegetated coastal habitats in sequestering
CO2. Front. Ecol. Environ. 9, 552–560.
Moeller, I., Spencert, T., French, J.R., 1996. Wind wave attenuation over saltmarsh
surfaces: preliminary results from Norfolk, England. J. Coast Res. 12, 1009–1016.
12
Journal of Environmental Management 331 (2023) 117310
Morris, R.L., Konlechner, T.M., Ghisalberti, M., Swearer, Stephen E., 2018. From grey to
green: efficacy of eco-engineering solutions for nature-based coastal defence. Global
Change Biol. 24, 1827–1842.
Morris, R.L., Boxshall, A., Swearer, S.E., 2020. Climate-resilient coasts require diverse
defence solutions. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 485–487.
Morris, R.L., La Peyre, M.K., Webb, B.M., Marshall, D.A., Bilkovic, D.M., Cebrian, J.,
McClenachan, G., Kibler, K.M., Walters, L.J., Bushek, D., Sparks, E.L., Temple, N.A.,
Moody, J., Angstadt, K., Goff, J., Boswell, M., Sacks, P., Swearer, S.E., 2021. Large-
scale variation in wave attenuation of oyster reef living shorelines and the influence
of inundation duration. Ecol. Appl. 31, e02382.
Morrisey, D.J., Swales, A., Dittmann, S., Morrison, M.A., Lovelock, C.E., Beard, C.M.,
2010. The ecology and management of temperate mangroves. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol.
Annu. Rev. 48, 43–160.
Narayan, S., Beck, M.W., Reguero, B.G., Losada, I.J., Van Wesenbeeck, B., Pontee, N.,
Sanchirico, J.N., Ingram, J.C., Lange, G.-M., Burks-Copes, K.A., 2016. The
effectiveness, costs and coastal protection benefits of natural and nature-based
defences. PLoS One 11, e0154735.
Rodriguez, A.B., Fodrie, F.J., Ridge, J.T., Lindquist, N.L., Theuerkauf, E.J., Coleman, S.E.,
Grabowski, J.H., Brodeur, M.C., Gittman, R.K., Keller, D.A., Kenworthy, M.D., 2014.
Oyster reefs can outpace sea-level rise. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 493–497.
Saintilan, N., Rogers, K., Mazumder, D., Woodroffe, C., 2013. Allochthonous and
autochthonous contributions to carbon accumulation and carbon store in
southeastern Australian coastal wetlands. Estuar. Coast Shelf Sci. 128, 84–92.
Salmo, S.G., Lovelock, C., Duke, N.C., 2013. Vegetation and soil characteristics as
indicators of restoration trajectories in restored mangroves. Hydrobiologia 720,
1–18.
Sánchez-Núñez, D.A., Mancera Pineda, J.E., Osorio, A.F., 2020. From local-to global-
scale control factors of wave attenuation in mangrove environments and the role of
indirect mangrove wave attenuation. Estuar. Coast Shelf Sci. 245, 106926.
Sasmito, S.D., Murdiyarso, D., Friess, D.A., Kurnianto, S., 2016. Can mangroves keep
pace with contemporary sea level rise? A global data review. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 24,
263–278.
Tachas, J.N., Raoult, V., Morris, R.L., Swearer, S.E., Gaston, T.F., Strain, E.M.A., 2021.
Investigating the functional equivalence of natural and eco-engineered mangroves
for estuarine species. Ecol. Eng. 170, 106355.
Taylor, M.C., 2013. North Stockton Rock Fillet Review of Effectiveness Report Council of
the City of Newcastle February 2013. Soil Conservation Service, New South Wales,
Australia.
Taylor, M., 2017. Options for Stabilising Riparian Estuarine Zones NSW Coastal
Conference (Port Stephens).
Van Cuong, C., Brown, S., To, H.H., Hockings, M., 2015. Using Melaleuca fences as soft
coastal engineering for mangrove restoration in Kien Giang, Vietnam. Ecol. Eng. 81,
256–265.
Venables, W., Ripley, B., 2002. Modern Applied Statistics with S, fourth ed. Springer,
New York.
Vincent, B., Lewis, S., Mika, S., Schmidt, J., 2018. Measuring Riparian and Instream
Responses to Two Riverbank Stabilisation Methods in the Kalang Estuary, NSW.
Final Technical Report. University of New England, Armidale.