About

Clare Smith is a Principal Investigator in the Department of Molecular Genetics and Microbiology at Duke University. Her research focuses on defining the host-pathogen interactions that underlie susceptibility to tuberculosis. She is the recipient of a Scholars@Duke grant awarded by the Pew Scholars Program, which supports her work from August 1, 2024, through July 31, 2029. Her project aims to elucidate the molecular and genetic mechanisms that influence how hosts respond to tuberculosis infection, contributing to a deeper understanding of disease susceptibility.

Research topics

• Ecology
• Geography
• Environmental science
• Environmental resource management
• Fishery
• Geology
• Environmental planning
• Oceanography

Selected publications

• Mobile consumers influence the shoreward edge of intertidal seagrass ecosystems

  Journal of Animal Ecology · 2026-02-10

  articleOpen access

  Habitat edges are often considered environmentally stressful areas, and as such, research has largely focused on the impacts of physical factors in shaping these edges. However, less is known about the relative importance of biotic disturbance agents and bottom-up drivers in shaping habitat edges. Here, we used intertidal seagrass beds as a model system to test how the independent and combined effects of stingrays-a disturbance-generating forager in seagrass beds-and nutrient addition affect the upper elevation edge of seagrasses. A two-season long manipulative experiment with stingray exclusion × nutrient addition revealed that shoreward seagrass edges experienced heightened loss in percent cover when exposed to stingrays (p = 0.037) but were not impacted by nutrient additions to marine sediments (p = 0.13). Additionally, transplant experiments designed to test whether stingrays could limit intertidal seagrass establishment in higher elevation found that transplanted seagrass had a higher chance of survival when stingrays were excluded (p < 0.01), suggesting that seagrass could live higher in the intertidal and that stingrays may limit shoreward expansion. Finally, a multi-site observational survey demonstrated that stingray pit abundance was a strong predictor of the distance between seagrass edge and shoreward habitats. Combined, these results challenge current understanding in plant ecology that seagrass edges are controlled mainly by physical factors and instead suggest that the structure of the seagrass shoreward edge is controlled by both physical and biotic drivers. Our results also indicate that the relative effects of consumer disturbance and physical factors in controlling edge limits are likely predicated on consumer density: in areas with higher densities of large consumers, biotic forcing is likely to be more important. Furthermore, these results could have implications for restoration in areas with high densities of disturbance-generating foragers and align with calls for greater inclusion of animal impacts into restoration schemes. Biotic drivers along environmentally stressful edges are likely not limited to seagrasses and the generality of biotic control of habitat edges deserves further exploration across diverse ecosystems.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Interactions between dense seasonal macroalgal mats and oysters on natural and constructed shellfish reefs

  UNC Libraries · 2026-02-20

  articleOpen accessSenior author

  Oysters are important coastal foundation species that provide valuable hard substrate for the recruitment of epibiotic organisms in environments otherwise dominated by soft sediment. Yet, their interactions with epibionts are relatively understudied. Despite the proliferation of macroalgal mats across the Southeastern United States in winter months, the relationship between oysters (Crassostrea virginica) and seasonal macroalgae is poorly understood. We conducted an observational field survey and two manipulative field experiments to document seasonal macroalgal dynamics on intertidal oyster reefs and to better understand the interaction between the oysters and algae. We found that algal mats in North Carolina were primarily composed of two genera, Ulva and Ectocarpus, which together reached extremely high cover (up to 100%) over large areas of reef. Macroalgae appeared in January and declined in May, with peak cover in February and March. Algal cover was significantly higher on constructed oyster reefs vs. natural oyster reefs. Our field experiments showed that algal cover was significantly higher on dead oyster mimics vs. live oysters, suggesting that the primary mechanism of algal facilitation is associated with the provisioning of hard substrate rather than fertilization. Reciprocally, we found no significant effects of macroalgae on oyster abundance or growth, likely due to relatively low algal cover in the experimental treatments. With a predicted proliferation of macroalgae under global change, our study highlights the important role that intertidal oyster reefs play in providing substrate for macroalgae, but more research on this key species interaction in intertidal areas of the Southeastern United States is needed.

  PublisherDOI

• A multiyear dataset detailing nekton abundance and biomass along living shorelines

  Ecology · 2026-02-01

  articleOpen accessSenior authorCorresponding

  Living shorelines, a prevalent nature-based coastal infrastructure technique, typically merge the restoration of coastal habitats (e.g., salt marsh, oyster reef) with gray infrastructure (e.g., rock or concrete breakwaters) to provide coastal erosion protection. With increasingly frequent and severe storms, living shorelines have been shown to effectively limit coastal erosion and loss; however, there is still uncertainty regarding the effects of living shorelines on nekton communities as compared to natural marshes and gray coastal protection strategies like bulkheads. Here, we present a dataset of living shoreline-associated nekton species recorded over a 20-year period in North Carolina, USA. We harmonized nekton abundance and biomass data from five different studies (each ranging in duration from 2 to 4 years) across 12 living shorelines with paired natural marshes and, in some cases, bulkheads. These studies used different gear types and sampling methodologies, and therefore future users of this dataset must carefully consider the limitations of different subsets of the data and ensure that they do not make direct catch comparisons across sites that used different methodologies. Altogether, we identified a total of 62 species groups at living shorelines, natural reference marshes, and bulkheads across three categories (i.e., crustacean, mollusk, and fish) between 2001 and 2024. We identified 49 species groups on living shorelines, 49 species groups in natural marshes, and 5 species groups on bulkheads. For each living shoreline and paired natural marsh and/or bulkhead shoreline, we report individual species counts, biomass (when available), and the sampling method. In addition, we report on the living shoreline type, age, and location. In total, these data provide vital insight into how living shorelines function as habitat for nekton, and they can be used to evaluate living shoreline effectiveness as a predominant nature-based solution for coastal protection and biodiversity enhancement. The data are released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

  PublisherDOI

• Restoring surf and turf: Transferable lessons between marine and terrestrial restoration

  Biological Conservation · 2026-04-07

  articleOpen access

  Environmental degradation is accelerating worldwide, prompting unprecedented investments into ecosystem restoration. However, restoration science and practice are often siloed between marine and terrestrial systems despite facing similar environmental stressors and restoration challenges. Deliberate and reciprocal cross-system knowledge sharing of successful strategies and approaches could facilitate new restoration pathways and improve outcomes across both sides of the land-water divide. To that end, we draw upon examples across a range of ecosystems from coral reefs to alpine forests to describe a series of transferable lessons between terrestrial and marine restoration. Lessons identified from terrestrial restoration emphasize developing scalable nurseries, considering substrate preparation, and harnessing successional processes, while lessons from marine restoration include leveraging natural connectivity, planning for climate resilience, and embracing environmental fluctuations. Though not comprehensive, these lessons are representative of the wealth of knowledge that is transferable beyond any single system. We encourage future efforts to utilize a land-to-sea approach to restoration that centers cross-system learning and collaboration, embracing the connections between marine and terrestrial systems and the shared challenges they face. • Marine and terrestrial systems face similar stressors and restoration challenges. • However, knowledge sharing between marine and terrestrial systems is underutilized. • We compile six transferable lessons between marine and terrestrial restoration. • These lessons should spur future discussions and inform new restoration projects. • Future restoration efforts should prioritize cross-system learning and collaboration.

  PublisherDOI

• Interactions between dense seasonal macroalgal mats and oysters on natural and constructed shellfish reefs

  Open MIND · 2026-01-01

  articleSenior author

  Oysters are important coastal foundation species that provide valuable hard substrate for the recruitment of epibiotic organisms in environments otherwise dominated by soft sediment. Yet, their interactions with epibionts are relatively understudied. Despite the proliferation of macroalgal mats across the Southeastern United States in winter months, the relationship between oysters (Crassostrea virginica) and seasonal macroalgae is poorly understood. We conducted an observational field survey and two manipulative field experiments to document seasonal macroalgal dynamics on intertidal oyster reefs and to better understand the interaction between the oysters and algae. We found that algal mats in North Carolina were primarily composed of two genera, Ulva and Ectocarpus, which together reached extremely high cover (up to 100%) over large areas of reef. Macroalgae appeared in January and declined in May, with peak cover in February and March. Algal cover was significantly higher on constructed oyster reefs vs. natural oyster reefs. Our field experiments showed that algal cover was significantly higher on dead oyster mimics vs. live oysters, suggesting that the primary mechanism of algal facilitation is associated with the provisioning of hard substrate rather than fertilization. Reciprocally, we found no significant effects of macroalgae on oyster abundance or growth, likely due to relatively low algal cover in the experimental treatments. With a predicted proliferation of macroalgae under global change, our study highlights the important role that intertidal oyster reefs play in providing substrate for macroalgae, but more research on this key species interaction in intertidal areas of the Southeastern United States is needed.

• Interactions between dense seasonal macroalgal mats and oysters on natural and constructed shellfish reefs

  PeerJ · 2026-02-12

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  Oysters are important coastal foundation species that provide valuable hard substrate for the recruitment of epibiotic organisms in environments otherwise dominated by soft sediment. Yet, their interactions with epibionts are relatively understudied. Despite the proliferation of macroalgal mats across the Southeastern United States in winter months, the relationship between oysters ( Crassostrea virginica ) and seasonal macroalgae is poorly understood. We conducted an observational field survey and two manipulative field experiments to document seasonal macroalgal dynamics on intertidal oyster reefs and to better understand the interaction between the oysters and algae. We found that algal mats in North Carolina were primarily composed of two genera, Ulva and Ectocarpus , which together reached extremely high cover (up to 100%) over large areas of reef. Macroalgae appeared in January and declined in May, with peak cover in February and March. Algal cover was significantly higher on constructed oyster reefs vs . natural oyster reefs. Our field experiments showed that algal cover was significantly higher on dead oyster mimics vs . live oysters, suggesting that the primary mechanism of algal facilitation is associated with the provisioning of hard substrate rather than fertilization. Reciprocally, we found no significant effects of macroalgae on oyster abundance or growth, likely due to relatively low algal cover in the experimental treatments. With a predicted proliferation of macroalgae under global change, our study highlights the important role that intertidal oyster reefs play in providing substrate for macroalgae, but more research on this key species interaction in intertidal areas of the Southeastern United States is needed.

  PublisherDOI

• Beyond despair: Leveraging ecosystem restoration for psychosocial resilience

  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2025-01-02 · 10 citations

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  Ecosystem restoration has historically been viewed as an ecological endeavor, but restoration possesses significant, yet largely untapped, potential as a catalyst for personal and social transformation. We highlight the opportunity for restoration to enhance community resilience by increasing agency and collective action and countering the pervasive perception that we are powerless witnesses to environmental decline. In this perspective, we take a "bright spots" approach and highlight successful examples of ecosystem restoration that have helped to nurture a sense of place, foster optimism, and cultivate stronger and more diverse social networks. These three individual- and community-level capacities have the potential to lead to increased psychosocial resilience, which is a key component of community resilience. Our aim is to spark discussion and research to better understand how we can transform restoration from a largely technical endeavor to a practice and process through which human-nature relationships are infused with deliberate meaning and human well-being is improved. With current calls to upscale and technologize restoration to meet sustainable development goals, we cannot lose sight of the value of community-engaged ecosystem restoration as a strategy with great potential for psychosocial benefits.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• A roadmap for incorporating positive species interactions into Spartina alterniflora restoration designs

  Wetlands Ecology and Management · 2025-03-14 · 3 citations

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  There is a growing recognition of the influence that biotic factors have on restoration outcomes. In particular, the Stress Gradient Hypothesis predicts that harnessing positive species interactions (e.g., mutualism, facilitation) will enhance restoration success. Accordingly, there have been numerous calls for the incorporation of positive species interactions into restoration practice. To better guide restoration practitioners on the use of positive species interactions in wetland restoration, we performed a systematic review to document all facilitative interactions that benefit a dominant salt marsh species, Spartina alterniflora. In total, we identified thirty studies of facilitation, which revealed eleven unique species interactions that benefit S. alterniflora. These included interspecific interactions with molluscs, crabs, a plant and a parasite. The most supported interaction was with the ribbed mussel, Geukensia demissa, as it was shown to have a largely beneficial effect on S. alterniflora throughout much of its range. Notably, most of the identified species interactions were context-dependent (i.e., positive effects only existed under certain experimental or environmental conditions, and sometimes negative effects could occur). Altogether, this review provides a starting point for restoration practitioners that are interested in identifying species that may be suitable for co-restoration with S. alterniflora. Incorporating positive species interactions into restoration designs has the potential to improve restoration efficiency, but more work is needed to fully understand the mechanisms and context-dependency behind these interactions and explicitly guide their use in different locations.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Leveraging built marine structures to benefit and minimize impacts on natural habitats

  BioScience · 2025-02-01 · 15 citations

  articleOpen access

  Abstract Many natural marine habitats are decreasing in extent despite global conservation and restoration efforts. In contrast, built marine structures, such as hardened shorelines, offshore energy and aquaculture infrastructure, and artificial reefs, are increasing in extent—and, in some locations, represent over 80% of nearshore, structured habitat. When introduced into the seascape, built marine structures inevitably interact with natural habitats, but these structures are not typically designed to support natural systems. This approach often results in overall harm to natural systems, further impeding marine conservation goals. However, there is growing recognition within the ocean management and engineering community that built marine structures can be strategically designed to minimize their negative impacts and potentially support ecosystems and associated biota. We synthesize the best available science and provide bright spot examples of how leveraging built marine structures to mimic or facilitate natural habitats can help recover biodiversity, augment ecosystem services, and rehabilitate degraded habitats, providing positive outcomes for people and nature in a changing climate. Despite these bright spots, we caution that built structures typically have overall negative environmental consequences for natural habitats and should not be used in lieu of conventional habitat restoration or conservation or to justify the destruction of natural habitats.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Recommendations for built marine infrastructure that supports natural habitats

  Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment · 2025-03-11 · 3 citations

  reviewOpen access

  The extent of built marine infrastructure—from energy infrastructure and ports to artificial reefs and aquaculture—is increasing globally. The rise in built structure coverage is concurrent with losses and degradation of many natural habitats. Although historically associated with net negative impacts on natural systems, built infrastructure—with proper design and innovation—could offer a largely unrealized opportunity to reduce those impacts and support natural habitats. We present nine recommendations that could catalyze momentum toward using built structures to both serve their original function and benefit natural habitats (relative to the status quo, for example). These recommendations integrate functional, economic, and social considerations with marine spatial planning and holistic ecosystem management. As the footprint of the Anthropocene expands into ocean spaces, adopting these nine recommendations at global scales can help to ensure that ecological harm is minimized and that, where feasible, ecological benefits from marine built structures are accrued.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

Recent grants

• EAPSI: Ecosystem-Friendly Engineering can Enhance Fisheries Production in Japan

  NSF · $5k · 2016–2017

Frequent coauthors

• Brian R. Silliman

  Duke University

  36 shared

• Rachel K. Gittman

  33 shared

• Avery B. Paxton

  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

  30 shared

• Brandon J. Puckett

  NOAA National Ocean Service

  19 shared

• Camille L. Steenrod

  NOAA National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science

  18 shared

• Trevor Riley

  NOAA Oceanic and Atmospheric Research

  18 shared

• Pedro Daleo

  Institute of Marine and Coastal Research

  17 shared

• Y. Stacy Zhang

  North Carolina State University

  16 shared

Labs

• Smith LabPI

Education

• PhD, Marine Sciences

  University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Institute of Marine Sciences

  2019