DOI: 10.5061/dryad.nk98sf838
title: Data from: Patterns of oyster recruitment and habitat provision across tidal elevation gradients are dependent on predator mitigation methods

description: For restoration projects conducted in environments with strong predation,
 effective predator mitigation can be key to the successful recruitment of
 habitat-forming species, and the development of associated ecological
 communities. Predator mitigation may involve exclusion through caging, or
 the provision of protective spaces through complex habitat mimics. The
 relative efficacy of the two approaches may vary across environmental
 gradients, according to predation and environmental stress. To inform the
 most effective predator mitigation methods for oyster reef restoration, we
 compared oyster recruitment and associated community development between
 uncaged concrete blocks, caged concrete blocks and biodegradable complex
 habitat mimics (BESE), across 3 tidal elevations and 3 sites in eastern
 Australia. After one year, oyster and associated invertebrate recruitment
 to uncaged concrete was low at all sites and tidal elevations. Whereas
 BESE supported greater invertebrate abundance and richness than caged
 concrete blocks at all elevations, the relative performance of the two
 predator mitigation methods in facilitating oyster recruitment was
 spatially variable.  In the subtidal, BESE were less effective at
 excluding small-bodied mesopredatory fishes than caged concrete units and
 supported less oyster recruitment. In the intertidal, where exposure to
 mesopredatory fish is less due to emersion at low tide, there was greater
 recruitment to BESE than to caged concrete. Synthesis and applications:
 The effectiveness of predator mitigation methods used in oyster reef
 restoration can vary across small-scale gradients. Understanding the
 strength of predator-prey interactions at local scales, and the identity
 of key predators, is crucial for designing restoration methods that allow
 colonisation of target species and exclude key predators.
description: # Data from: Patterns of oyster recruitment and habitat provision across
 tidal elevation gradients are dependent on predator mitigation methods
 [https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.nk98sf838](https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.nk98sf838) ## Description of the data and file structure This repository contains the data from the article: Esquivel-Muelbert et al. (2024). Patterns of oyster recruitment and habitat provision across tidal elevation gradients are dependent on predator mitigation methods Data description: To inform the most effective predator mitigation methods for oyster reef restoration, we compared oyster recruitment and associated community development between uncaged concrete blocks, caged concrete blocks and biodegradable complex habitat mimics (BESE), across 3 tidal elevations (mid and low intertidal and subtidal) and 3 sites within 2 estuaries in eastern Australia. Additionally, to compare substrate use by cryptic fish, we quantified fish occupation of each subtidally placed experimental unit. Intertidal units were not censused, as their periodic emersion did not allow for persistence of fish. ### Files and variables **1 - Oyster recruitment data (oyster_data.csv)** *Variables:* estuary: Estuary name (Port Hacking or Bermagui) site: Site name within each estuary elevation: MID (mid intertidal), LOW (low intertidal) or SUB (subtidal) treatment: Caged, Uncaged, Bese or Control (for caging artifacts - see methods in research article) sample_code: Unique identifier for each experimental unit (estuary-site-elevation-treatment-replicate). oyster_count: Number of oyster recruits per 176.7cm2 core **2 - Invertebrate community data (invert_com.csv)** *Variables:* estuary: Estuary name (Port Hacking or Bermagui) site: Site name within each estuary elevation: MID (mid intertidal), LOW (low intertidal) or SUB (subtidal) treatment: Caged, Uncaged, Bese or Control (for caging artifacts - see methods in research article) sample_code: Unique identifier for each experimental unit (estuary-site-elevation-replicate). columns E to CK: Abundance of invertebrate species per 176.7cm2 core sample. **3 - Fish occupation of subtidal units (fish_mesopredators_sub.csv)** *Variables:* estuary: Estuary name (Port Hacking or Bermagui) site: Site name within each estuary elevation: Sub (subtidal) treatment: Caged, Uncaged, Bese sample_code: Unique identifier for each experimental unit (estuary-site-elevation-replicate). count: Number of cryptic fish per experimental unit count_m3: To account for differences in the volume of the uncaged substrate (0.006859 m3), caged substrate (0.015625 m3) and BESE (0.05 m3), the number of individuals of each fish species found in each experimental unit was standardized per cubic metre (m3)