Ecosystem services, targets, and indicators for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity

After the collective failure to achieve the Convention on Biological Diversity's (CBD's) 2010 target to substantially reduce biodiversity losses, the CBD adopted a plan composed of five strategic goals and 20 “SMART” (Specific, Measurable, Ambitious, Realistic, and Time-bound) targets, to be achieved by 2020. Here, an interdisciplinary group of scientists from DIVERSITAS – an international program that focuses on biodiversity science – evaluates these targets and considers the implications of an ecosystem-services-based approach for their implementation. We describe the functional differences between the targets corresponding to distinct strategic goals and identify the interdependency between targets. We then discuss the implications for supporting research and target indicators, and make several specific suggestions for target implementation.

Response to Comments on "Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services"

We show that globally declining fisheries catch trends cannot be explained by random processes and are consistent with declining stock abundance trends. Future projections are inherently uncertain but may provide a benchmark against which to assess the effectiveness of conservation measures. Marine reserves and fisheries closures are among those measures and can be equally effective in tropical and temperate areas—but must be combined with catch-, effort-, and gear restrictions to meet global conservation objectives.

Latitudinal phytoplankton distribution and the neutral theory of biodiversity

Aim Recent studies have suggested that global diatom distributions are not limited by dispersal, in the case of both extant species and fossil species, but rather that environmental filtering explains their spatial patterns. Hubbell's neutral theory of biodiversity provides a framework in which to test these alternatives. Our aim is to test whether the structure of marine phytoplankton (diatoms, dinoflagellates and coccolithophores) assemblages across the Atlantic agrees with neutral theory predictions. We asked: (1) whether intersite variance in phytoplankton diversity is explained predominantly by dispersal limitation or by environmental conditions; and (2) whether species abundance distributions are consistent with those expected by the neutral model. Location Meridional transect of the Atlantic (50 degrees N50 degrees S). Methods We estimated the relative contributions of environmental factors and geographic distance to phytoplankton composition using similarity matrices, Mantel tests and variation partitioning of the species composition based upon canonical ordination methods. We compared the species abundance distribution of phytoplankton with the neutral model using Etienne's maximum-likelihood inference method. Results Phytoplankton communities are slightly more determined by niche segregation (24%), than by dispersal limitation and ecological drift (17%). In 60% of communities, the assumption of neutrality in species' abundance distributions could not be rejected. In tropical zones, where oceanic gyres enclose large stable water masses, most communities showed low species immigration rates; in contrast, we infer that communities in temperate areas, out of oligotrophic gyres, have higher rates of species immigration. Conclusions Phytoplankton community structure is consistent with partial niche assembly and partial dispersal and drift assembly (neutral processes). The role of dispersal limitation is almost as important as habitat filtering, a fact that has been largely overlooked in previous studies. Furthermore, the polewards increase in immigration rates of species that we have discovered is probably caused by water mixing conditions and productivity.

A review of climate change and the implementation of marine biodiversity legislation in the United Kingdom

1. Marine legislation, the key means by which the conservation of marine biodiversity is achieved, has been developing since the 1960s. In recent decades, an increasing focus on ‘holistic’ policy development is evident, compared with earlier ‘piecemeal’ sectoral approaches. Important marine legislative tools being used in the United Kingdom, and internationally, include the designation of marine protected areas and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) with its aim of meeting ‘Good Environmental Status’ (GES) for European seas by 2020. 2. There is growing evidence of climate change impacts on marine biodiversity, which may compromise the effectiveness of any legislation intended to promote sustainable marine resource management. 3. A review of key marine biodiversity legislation relevant to the UK shows climate change was not considered in the drafting of much early legislation. Despite the huge increase in knowledge of climate change impacts in recent decades, legislation is still limited in how it takes these impacts into account. There is scope, however, to account for climate change in implementing much of the legislation through (a) existing references to environmental variability; (b) review cycles; and (c) secondary legislation and complementary policy development. 4. For legislation relating to marine protected areas (e.g. the EC Habitats and Birds Directives), climate change has generally not been considered in the site-designation process, or for ongoing management, with the exception of the Marine (Scotland) Act. Given that changing environmental conditions (e.g. rising temperatures and ocean acidification) directly affect the habitats and species that sites are designated for, how this legislation is used to protect marine biodiversity in a changing climate requires further consideration. 5. Accounting for climate change impacts on marine biodiversity in the development and implementation of legislation is vital to enable timely, adaptive management responses. Marine modelling can play an important role in informing management decisions.

Relationships between biodiversity and the stability of marine ecosystems: comparisons at a European scale using meta-analysis.

The relationship between biodiversity and stability of marine benthic assemblages was investigated using existing data sets (n = 28) covering various spatial (m-km) and temporal (1973-2006) scales in different benthic habitats (emergent rock, rock pools and sedimentary habitats) through meta-analyses. Assemblage stability was estimated by measuring temporal variances of species richness, total abundance (density or % cover) and community species composition and abundance structure (using multivariate analyses). Positive relationships between temporal variability in species number and richness were generally observed at both quadrat (<1 m2) and site (100 m2) scales, while no relationships were observed by multivariate analyses. Positive relationships were also observed at the scale of site between temporal variability in species number and variability in community structure with evenness estimates. This implies that the relationship between species richness or evenness and species richness variability is slightly positive and depends on the scale of observation, suggesting that biodiversity per se is important for the stability of ecosystems. Changes within community assemblages in terms of structure are, however, generally independent of biodiversity, suggesting no effect of diversity, but the potential impact of individual species, and/or environmental factors. Except for sedimentary and rock pool habitats, no relationship was observed between temporal variation of the aggregated variable of total abundances and diversity at either scale. Overall our results emphasise that relationships depend on scale of measurements, type of habitats and the marine systems (North Atlantic and Mediterranean) considered.

The evaluation of time series: their scientific value and contribution to policy needs. Occasional Publication of the Marine Biological Association 22

In 2000 a Review of Current Marine Observations in relation to present and future needs was undertaken by the Inter-Agency Committee for Marine Science and Technology (IACMST). The Marine Environmental Change Network (MECN) was initiated in 2002 as a direct response to the recommendations of the report. A key part of the current phase of the MECN is to ensure that information from the network is provided to policy makers and other end-users to enable them to produce more accurate assessments of ecosystem state and gain a clearer understanding of factors influencing change in marine ecosystems. The MECN holds workshops on an annual basis, bringing together partners maintaining time-series and long-term datasets as well as end-users interested in outputs from the network. It was decided that the first workshop of the MECN continuation phase should consist of an evaluation of the time series and data sets maintained by partners in the MECN with regard to their ‘fit for purpose’ for answering key science questions and informing policy development. This report is based on the outcomes of the workshop. Section one of the report contains a brief introduction to monitoring, time series and long-term datasets. The various terms are defined and the need for MECN type data to complement compliance monitoring programmes is discussed. Outlines are also given of initiatives such as the United Kingdom Marine Monitoring and Assessment Strategy (UKMMAS) and Oceans 2025. Section two contains detailed information for each of the MECN time series / long-term datasets including information on scientific outputs and current objectives. This information is mainly based on the presentations given at the workshop and therefore follows a format whereby the following headings are addressed: Origin of time series including original objectives; current objectives; policy relevance; products (advice, publications, science and society). Section three consists of comments made by the review panel concerning all the time series and the network. Needs or issues highlighted by the panel with regard to the future of long-term datasets and time-series in the UK are shown along with advice and potential solutions where offered. The recommendations are divided into 4 categories; ‘The MECN and end-user requirements’; ‘Procedures & protocols’; ‘Securing data series’ and ‘Future developments’. Ever since marine environmental protection issues really came to the fore in the 1960s, it has been recognised that there is a requirement for a suitable evidence base on environmental change in order to support policy and management for UK waters. Section four gives a brief summary of the development of marine policy in the UK along with comments on the availability and necessity of long-term marine observations for the implementation of this policy. Policy relating to three main areas is discussed; Marine Conservation (protecting biodiversity and marine ecosystems); Marine Pollution and Fisheries. The conclusion of this section is that there has always been a specific requirement for information on long-term change in marine ecosystems around the UK in order to address concerns over pollution, fishing and general conservation. It is now imperative that this need is addressed in order for the UK to be able to fulfil its policy commitments and manage marine ecosystems in the light of climate change and other factors.