Oyster and shoreline restoration is occurring around the globe to recover lost ecosystem services. In the state of Florida, USA, dozens of estuarine habitat restoration projects are underway. These projects have traditionally relied on both natural and man-made materials, including plastics. As the impacts of plastics on marine ecosystems are better understood, practitioners are increasingly focused on plastic-free restoration. To better understand this transition, we surveyed Florida restoration practitioners in April 2021 to capture current non-plastic restoration project trends and their status. Our descriptive survey goals were to understand: (1) what non-plastic materials have been tested, (2) trade-offs between plastic and non-plastic materials (e.g., cost, sourcing, volunteer engagement), and (3) the performance of non-plastic materials. Responses indicated that a variety of non-plastic materials are currently being used, including rock, cement-infused jute structures, cement Reef Balls™ (Reef Ball Foundation, USA), BESE-elements^®, and metal gabions. Overall, these materials are more expensive and equally or more difficult to install than previously popular plastic-based materials. No “best” non-plastic material emerged from our survey in part because many novel materials have been deployed for under three years. Long-term performance under a variety of abiotic and biotic conditions is thus a future research priority.

Herbivory can significantly limit seagrass restoration success, leading practitioners to explore the use of exclusion devices to reduce grazing pressure during transplant establishment. To evaluate the performance and practical application of these devices, we combined a quantitative meta-analysis of published studies across the wider Caribbean and tropical Atlantic with a survey of restoration practitioners implementing herbivore exclusion in Florida. Although the use of exclusion devices has gained traction in recent years, often driven by small-scale pilot projects and anecdotal observations, peer-reviewed evidence evaluating their effectiveness remains limited. The synthesis revealed no significant difference in seagrass performance or survival between caged and control treatments, largely due to low sample size. In contrast, practitioner responses underscored support for the effectiveness of exclusion devices, while also identifying recurring challenges. Collectively, our findings highlight the need for large-scale, hypothesis-driven studies employing standardized methodologies to rigorously evaluate the role of herbivory exclusion in seagrass restoration. By linking empirical analysis with practitioner perspectives, this current work provides a foundation for designing, evaluating, and reporting on herbivore exclusion approaches that may improve the standardization and success of future seagrass restoration efforts.

The goal of this publication is to provide a roadmap of UF/IFAS and internet-accessible resources to living shorelines that will help coastal property owners or natural resource practitioners focused on coastal management. This information applies to the implementation of living shorelines on both private and managed lands. Across Florida, living shorelines are becoming a frequently used management tool for shoreline protection. Coastal armoring, in the form of seawalls, bulkheads, and concrete riprap, create an unnatural barrier to natural processes and can exacerbate sediment loss. As an alternative, living shorelines are shoreline stabilization methods that use planted vegetation and/or oyster reefs, sometimes in combination with other structures, to protect coastal properties. To most effectively plan a living shoreline, knowing when and where to start can be difficult. This publication maps out the broad steps for developing a living shoreline from start to finish.