Covariance among North Sea ecosystem state indicators during the past 50 years - contrasts between coastal and open waters

Regime shift and principal component analysis of a spatially disaggregated database capturing time-series of climatic, nutrient and plankton variables in the North Sea revealed considerable covariance between groups of ecosystem indicators. Plankton and climate time-series span the period 1958–2003, those of nutrients start in 1980. In both regions, the period from 1989 to 2001 identified in principal component 1 had warmer surface waters, higher Atlantic inflow and stronger winds, than the periods before or after. However, it was preceded by a regime shift in both open (PC2) and coastal (PC3) waters during 1977 towards more hours of sunlight and higher water temperature, which lasted until 1997. The relative influence of nutrient availability and climatic forcing differed between open and coastal North Sea regions. Inter-annual variability in phytoplankton dynamics of the open North Sea was primarily regulated by climatic forcing, specifically by sea surface temperature, Atlantic inflow and co-varying wind stress and NAO. Coastal phytoplankton variability, however, was regulated by insolation and sea surface temperature, as well as Si availability, but not by N or P. Regime shifts in principal components of hydrographic and climatic variables (explaining 55 and 61% of the variance in coastal and open water variables) were detected using Rodionov's sequential t-test. These shifts in hydroclimatic variables which occurred around 1977, 1989, 1997 and 2001, were synchronized in open and coastal waters, and were tracked by open water chlorophyll and copepods, but not by coastal plankton. North–central–south or open-coastal spatial breakdowns of the North Sea explained similar amounts of variability in most ecosystem indicators with the exception of diatom abundance and chlorophyll concentration, which were clearly better explained using the open-coastal configuration.

The potential use of mapped extent and distribution of habitats as indicators of Good Environmental Status (GES)

The Healthy and Biologically Diverse Seas Evidence Group (HBDSEG) has been tasked with providing the technical advice for the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) with respect to descriptors linked to biodiversity. A workshop was held in London to address one of the Research and Development (R&D) proposals entitled: ‘Mapping the extent and distribution of habitats using acoustic and remote techniques, relevant to indicators for area/extent/habitat loss.’ The aim of the workshop was to identify, define and assess the feasibility of potential indicators of benthic habitat distribution and extent, and identify the R&D work which could be required to fully develop these indicators. The main points that came out of the workshop were: (i) There are many technical aspects of marine habitat mapping that still need to be resolved if cost-effective spatial indicators are to be developed. Many of the technical aspects that need addressing surround issues of consistency, confidence and repeatability. These areas should be tackled by the JNCC Habitat Mapping and Classification Working Group and the HBDSEG Seabed Mapping Working Group. (ii) There is a need for benthic ecologists (through the HBDSEG Benthic Habitats Subgroup and the JNCC Marine Indicators Group) to finalise the list of habitats for which extent and/or distribution indicators should be considered for development, building upon the recommendations from this report. When reviewing the list of indicators, benthic habitats could also be distinguished into those habitats that are defined/determined primarily by physical parameters (although including biological assemblages) (e.g. subtidal shallow sand) and those defined primarily by their biological assemblage (e.g. seagrass beds). This distinction is important as some anthropogenic pressures may influence the biological component of the ecosystem despite not having a quantifiable effect on the physical habitat distribution/extent. (iii) The scale and variety of UK benthic habitats makes any attempt to undertake comprehensive direct mapping exercises prohibitively expensive (especially where there is a need for repeat surveys for assessment). There is a clear need therefore to develop a risk-based approach that uses indirect indicators (e.g. modelling), such as habitats at risk from pressures caused by current human activities, to develop priorities for information gathering. The next steps that came out of the workshop were: (i) A combined approach should be developed by the JNCC Marine Indicators Group together with the HBDSEG Benthic Habitats Subgroup, which will compile and ultimately synthesise all the criteria used by the three different groups from the workshop. The agreed combined approach will be used to undertake a final review of the habitats considered during the workshop, and to evaluate any remaining habitats in order to produce a list of habitats for indicator development for which extent and/or distribution indicators could be appropriate. (ii) The points of advice raised at this workshop, alongside the combined approach aforementioned, and the final list of habitats for extent and/or distribution indicator development will be used to develop a prioritised list of actions to inform the next round of R&D proposals for benthic habitat indicator development in 2014. This will be done through technical discussions within JNCC and the relevant HBDSEG Subgroups. The preparation of recommendations by these groups should take into account existing work programmes, and consider the limited resources available to undertake any further R&D work.