, Volume 43, Issue 8, pp 1020–1028 | Cite as

Shoreline development and degradation of coastal fish reproduction habitats

  • Göran SundbladEmail author
  • Ulf Bergström


Coastal development has severely affected habitats and biodiversity during the last century, but quantitative estimates of the impacts are usually lacking. We utilize predictive habitat modeling and mapping of human pressures to estimate the cumulative long-term effects of coastal development in relation to fish habitats. Based on aerial photographs since the 1960s, shoreline development rates were estimated in the Stockholm archipelago in the Baltic Sea. By combining shoreline development rates with spatial predictions of fish reproduction habitats, we estimated annual habitat degradation rates for three of the most common coastal fish species, northern pike (Esox lucius), Eurasian perch (Perca fluviatilis) and roach (Rutilus rutilus). The results showed that shoreline constructions were concentrated to the reproduction habitats of these species. The estimated degradation rates, where a degraded habitat was defined as having ≥3 constructions per 100 m shoreline, were on average 0.5 % of available habitats per year and about 1 % in areas close to larger population centers. Approximately 40 % of available habitats were already degraded in 2005. These results provide an example of how many small construction projects over time may have a vast impact on coastal fish populations.


Coastal zone management Essential fish habitat Habitat loss Human impact Species distribution modeling 



We are grateful to the Stockholm County Administrative Board for mapping shoreline constructions and making the data available and to J. Hansen and L. Kautsky for comments on the manuscript. The study was initiated under the BSR INTERREG IIIB funded Neighbourhood Programme BALANCE, and performed within the project PREHAB (Spatial prediction of benthic habitats in the Baltic Sea), financially supported from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007-2013) under Grant Agreement No. 217246 made with the joint Baltic Sea research and development programme. The writing of this manuscript was in part funded by the Stockholm University Baltic Sea Centre, through the Granholm foundation, by the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management through the project PLAN FISH and by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency through the project VALUES. The constructive comments of two anonymous reviewers are acknowledged.

Supplementary material

13280_2014_522_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (223 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 223 kb)


  1. Al-Hamdani, Z., and J. Reker. ed. 2007. Towards marine landscapes in the Baltic Sea. BALANCE Interim Report no. 10, Copenhagen, Denmark, 118 pp. Retrieved 10 December, 2008, from
  2. Anonymous. 2004. Strandexploatering i Stockholms län (Physical exploitation of coastal areas in the County of Stockholm—an analysis of the shorelines of Lake Mälaren and the Baltic Sea). Stockholm County Administrative Board, Report 2004:05, Stockholm, Sweden, 32 pp (in Swedish, English summary).Google Scholar
  3. Airoldi, L., and M.W. Beck. 2007. Loss, status and trends for coastal marine habitats of Europe. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review 45: 345–405.Google Scholar
  4. Auld, A.H., and J.R. Schubel. 1978. Effects of suspended sediment on fish eggs and larvae: A laboratory assessment. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science 6: 153–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bergström, U., G. Sundblad, A.-L. Downie, M. Snickars, C. Boström, and M. Lindegarth. 2013. Evaluating eutrophication management scenarios in the Baltic Sea using species distribution modelling. Journal of Applied Ecology 50: 680–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biggs, R., S.R. Carpenter, and W.A. Brock. 2009. Turning back from the brink: Detecting an impending regime shift in time to avert it. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 106: 826–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bilkovic, D.M., and M.M. Roggero. 2008. Effects of coastal development on nearshore estuarine nekton communities. Marine Ecology Progress Series 358: 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bučas, M., U. Bergström, A.L. Downie, G. Sundblad, M. Gullström, M. von Numers, A. Siaulys, and M. Lindegarth. 2013. Empirical modelling of benthic species distribution, abundance, and diversity in the Baltic Sea: Evaluating the scope for predictive mapping using different modelling approaches. ICES Journal of Marine Science 70: 1233–1243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elith, J., and J.R. Leathwick. 2009. Species distribution models: Ecological explanation and prediction across space and time. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics 40: 677–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eriksson, B.K., A. Sandström, M. Isæus, H. Schreiber, and P. Karås. 2004. Effects of boating activities on aquatic vegetation in the Stockholm archipelago, Baltic Sea. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 61: 339–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eriksson, B.K., K. Sieben, J. Eklöf, L. Ljunggren, J. Olsson, M. Casini, and U. Bergström. 2011. Effects of altered offshore food webs on coastal ecosystems emphasize the need for cross-ecosystem management. AMBIO 40: 786–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gillet, C., and J.-P. Dubois. 1995. A survey of the spawning of perch (Perca fluviatilis), pike (Esox lucius), and roach (Rutilus rutilus), using artificial spawning substrates in lakes. Hydrobiologia 300: 409–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grenouillet, G., and D. Pont. 2001. Juvenile fishes in macrophyte beds: Influence of food resources, habitat structure and body size. Journal of Fish Biology 59: 939–959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hansen, J.P., S.A. Wikström, and L. Kautsky. 2008. Effects of water exchange and vegetation on the macroinvertebrate fauna composition of shallow land-uplift bays in the Baltic Sea. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 77: 535–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hanski, I. 2011. Habitat loss, the dynamics of biodiversity, and a perspective on conservation. AMBIO 40: 248–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hassler, T.J. 1970. Environmental influences on early development and year-class strength of northern pike in Lakes Oahe and Sharpe, South Dakota. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 99: 369–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. HELCOM. 2013. Red List of Baltic Sea underwater biotopes, habitats and biotope complexes. Baltic Sea Environmental Proceedings No. 138.Google Scholar
  18. Härmä, M., A. Lappalainen, and L. Urho. 2008. Reproduction areas of roach (Rutilus rutilus) in the northern Baltic Sea: Potential effects of climate change. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 65: 2678–2688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jordan, S.J., L.M. Smith, and J.A. Nestlerode. 2008. Cumulative effects of coastal habitat alterations on fishery resources: Toward prediction at regional scales. Ecology and Society 14: 16.Google Scholar
  20. Jude, D.J., and J. Pappas. 1992. Fish utilization of Great Lakes coastal wetlands. Journal of Great Lakes Research 18: 651–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kallasvuo, M., M. Salonen, and A. Lappalainen. 2009. Does the zooplankton prey availability limit the larval habitats of pike in the Baltic Sea? Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 86: 148–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Killgore, K.J., S.T. Maynord, M.D. Chan, and R.P. Morgan. 2001. Evaluation of propeller-induced mortality on early life stages of selected fish species. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 21: 947–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kindström, M., and G. Aneer. 2007. What is happening to our shores? BALANCE Interim Report no. 26, Copenhagen, Denmark, 28 pp. Retrieved from
  24. Lindegarth, M., U. Bergström, J. Mattila, S. Olenin, M. Ollikainen, A. L. Downie, G. Sundblad, M. Bučas, et al. 2014. PREHAB: Testing the potential for predictive modeling and mapping and extending its use as a tool for evaluating management scenarios and economic valuation in the Baltic Sea. AMBIO 43: 82–93.Google Scholar
  25. Lotze, H.K., H.S. Lenihan, B.J. Bourque, R.H. Bradbury, R.G. Cooke, M.C. Kay, S.M. Kidwell, M.X. Kirby, et al. 2006. Depletion, degradation, and recovery potential of estuaries and coastal seas. Science 312: 1806–1809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pauly, D. 1995. Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 10: 430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rochette, S., E. Rivot, J. Morin, S. Mackinson, P. Riou, and O. Le Pape. 2009. Effect of nursery habitat degradation on flatfish population: Application to Solea solea in the Eastern Channel (Western Europe). Journal of Sea Research 64: 34–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sandström, A., B.K. Eriksson, P. Karås, M. Isæus, and H. Schreiber. 2005. Boating and navigation activities influence the recruitment of fish in a Baltic Sea archipelago area. AMBIO 34: 125–130.Google Scholar
  29. Seitz, R.D., H. Wennhage, U. Bergström, R.N. Lipcius, and T. Ysebaert. 2013. Ecological value of coastal habitats for commercially and ecologically important species. ICES Journal of Marine Science. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fst152.Google Scholar
  30. SFS. 2009. The Swedish Environmental Code. Ds 2000:61.
  31. Snickars, M., A. Sandström, A. Lappalainen, J. Mattila, K. Rosqvist, and L. Urho. 2009. Fish assemblages in coastal lagoons in land-uplift succession: The relative importance of local and regional environmental gradients. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 81: 247–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Snickars, M., G. Sundblad, A. Sandström, L. Ljunggren, U. Bergström, G. Johansson, and J. Mattila. 2010. Habitat selectivity of substrate-spawning fish: Modelling requirements for the Eurasian perch Perca fluviatilis. Marine Ecology Progress Series 398: 235–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sundblad, G., M. Härmä, A. Lappalainen, L. Urho, and U. Bergström. 2009. Transferability of predictive fish distribution models in two coastal systems. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 83: 90–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sundblad, G., U. Bergström, and A. Sandström. 2011. Ecological coherence of marine protected area networks: A spatial assessment using species distribution models. Journal of Applied Ecology 48: 112–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sundblad, G., U. Bergström, A. Sandström, and P. Eklöv. 2013. Nursery habitat availability limits adult stock sizes of predatory coastal fish. ICES Journal of Marine Science. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fst056.Google Scholar
  36. Sweitzer, J., S. Langaas, and C. Folke. 1996. Land use and population density in the Baltic Sea drainage basin: A GIS database. AMBIO 25: 191–198.Google Scholar
  37. Söderqvist, T., H. Eggert, B. Olsson, and Å. Soutukorva. 2005. Economic valuation for sustainable development in the Swedish coastal zone. AMBIO 34: 169–175.Google Scholar
  38. Tjärnlund, U., G. Ericson, E. Lindesjöö, I. Petterson, G. Åkerman, and L. Balk. 1996. Further studies of the effects of exhaust from two-stroke outboard motors on fish. Marine Environmental Research 42: 267–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Törnqvist, O., and A. Engdahl. 2010. Kartering och analys av fysiska påverkansfaktorer i marin miljö. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Report 6376, Stockholm, Sweden, 79 pp (in Swedish, English summary).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.AquaBiota Water ResearchStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Department of Aquatic Resources, Institute of Coastal ResearchSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesÖregrundSweden

Personalised recommendations