Marine ecosystem services: Linking indicators to their classification

There is a multitude of ecosystem service classifications available within the literature, each with its own advantages and drawbacks. Elements of them have been used to tailor a generic ecosystem service classification for the marine environment and then for a case study site within the North Sea: the Dogger Bank. Indicators for each of the ecosystem services, deemed relevant to the case study site, were identified. Each indicator was then assessed against a set of agreed criteria to ensure its relevance and applicability to environmental management. This paper identifies the need to distinguish between indicators of ecosystem services that are entirely ecological in nature (and largely reveal the potential of an ecosystem to provide ecosystem services), indicators for the ecological processes contributing to the delivery of these services, and indicators of benefits that reveal the realized human use or enjoyment of an ecosystem service. It highlights some of the difficulties faced in selecting meaningful indicators, such as problems of specificity, spatial disconnect and the considerable uncertainty about marine species, habitats and the processes, functions and services they contribute to.

On the Potential of Surfers to Monitor Environmental Indicators in the Coastal Zone

The social and economic benefits of the coastal zone make it one of the most treasured environments on our planet. Yet it is vulnerable to increasing anthropogenic pressure and climate change. Coastal management aims to mitigate these pressures while augmenting the socio-economic benefits the coastal region has to offer. However, coastal management is challenged by inadequate sampling of key environmental indicators, partly due to issues relating to cost of data collection. Here, we investigate the use of recreational surfers as platforms to improve sampling coverage of environmental indicators in the coastal zone. We equipped a recreational surfer, based in the south west United Kingdom (UK), with a temperature sensor and Global Positioning System (GPS) device that they used when surfing for a period of one year (85 surfing sessions). The temperature sensor was used to derive estimates of sea-surface temperature (SST), an important environmental indicator, and the GPS device used to provide sample location and to extract information on surfer performance. SST data acquired by the surfer were compared with data from an oceanographic station in the south west UK and with satellite observations. Our results demonstrate: (i) high-quality SST data can be acquired by surfers using low cost sensors; and (ii) GPS data can provide information on surfing performance that may help motivate data collection by surfers. Using recent estimates of the UK surfing population, and frequency of surfer participation, we speculate around 40 million measurements on environmental indicators per year could be acquired at the UK coastline by surfers. This quantity of data is likely to enhance coastal monitoring and aid UK coastal management. Considering surfing is a world-wide sport, our results have global implications and the approach could be expanded to other popular marine recreational activities for coastal monitoring of environmental indicators.

Determination of relevant Indicators for Environmental monitoring: A Strategy for Europe (DIESE) Final Scientific Report

The DIESE program (Determination of relevant Indicators for Environmental monitoring: A Strategy for Europe) brought together seven French and British research teams, a private company and the agencies responsible for the management of water bodies of the two countries (ONEMA and the Environmental Agency) in a joint effort to document the ecotoxicological effects related to the presence of chemicals in the environment. To contribute to a better understanding and management of the environment, the program has expanded its efforts to (1) use existing knowledge, or new information acquired during the research program, to identify important biological problems affecting the wildlife, (2) increase our understanding of toxicological mechanisms involved and thus be able to identify the causes of the identified dysfunctions and (3) to hone our expertise and vigilance system in order to better monitor changes in the environment and make appropriate diagnoses.

A comparison of the degree of implementation of marine biodiversity indicators by European countries in relation to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)

The degree of development and operability of the indicators for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) using Descriptor 1 (D1) Biological Diversity was assessed. To this end, an overview of the relevance and degree of operability of the underlying parameters across 20 European countries was compiled by analysing national directives, legislation, regulations, and publicly available reports. Marked differences were found between countries in the degree of ecological relevance as well as in the degree of implementation and operability of the parameters chosen to indicate biological diversity. The best scoring EU countries were France, Germany, Greece and Spain, while the worst scoring countries were Italy and Slovenia. No country achieved maximum scores for the implementation of MSFD D1. The non-EU countries Norway and Turkey score as highly as the top-scoring EU countries. On the positive side, the chosen parameters for D1 indicators were generally identified as being an ecologically relevant reflection of Biological Diversity. On the negative side however, less than half of the chosen parameters are currently operational. It appears that at a pan-European level, no consistent and harmonized approach currently exists for the description and assessment of marine biological diversity. The implementation of the MSFD Descriptor 1 for Europe as a whole can therefore at best be marked as moderately successful.

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.

Decadal reanalysis of biogeochemical indicators and fluxes in the North West European shelf-sea ecosystem

In this paper we present the first decadal reanalysis simulation of the biogeochemistry of the North West European shelf, along with a full evaluation of its skill and value. An error-characterized satellite product for chlorophyll was assimilated into a physical-biogeochemical model of the North East Atlantic, applying a localized Ensemble Kalman filter. The results showed that the reanalysis improved the model predictions of assimilated chlorophyll in 60% of the study region. Model validation metrics showed that the reanalysis had skill in matching a large dataset of in situ observations for ten ecosystem variables. Spearman rank correlations were significant and higher than 0.7 for physical-chemical variables (temperature, salinity, oxygen), ∼0.6 for chlorophyll and nutrients (phosphate, nitrate, silicate), and significant, though lower in value, for partial pressure of dissolved carbon dioxide (∼0.4). The reanalysis captured the magnitude of pH and ammonia observations, but not their variability. The value of the reanalysis for assessing environmental status and variability has been exemplified in two case studies. The first shows that between 340,000-380,000 km2 of shelf bottom waters were oxygen deficient potentially threatening bottom fishes and benthos. The second application confirmed that the shelf is a net sink of atmospheric carbon dioxide, but the total amount of uptake varies between 36-46 Tg C yr−1 at a 90% confidence level. These results indicate that the reanalysis output dataset can inform the management of the North West European shelf ecosystem, in relation to eutrophication, fishery, and variability of the carbon cycle.

Projections of change in key ecosystem indicators for planning and management of marine protected areas: An example study for European seas

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are widely used as tools to maintain biodiversity, protect habitats and ensure that development is sustainable. If MPAs are to maintain their role into the future it is important for managers to understand how conditions at these sites may change as a result of climate change and other drivers, and this understanding needs to extend beyond temperature to a range of key ecosystem indicators. This case study demonstrates how spatially-aggregated model results for multiple variables can provide useful projections for MPA planners and managers. Conditions in European MPAs have been projected for the 2040s using unmitigated and globally managed scenarios of climate change and river management, and hence high and low emissions of greenhouse gases and riverborne nutrients. The results highlight the vulnerability of potential refuge sites in the north-west Mediterranean and the need for careful monitoring at MPAs to the north and west of the British Isles, which may be affected by changes in Atlantic circulation patterns. The projections also support the need for more MPAs in the eastern Mediterranean and Adriatic Sea, and can inform the selection of sites.

Projections of change in key ecosystem indicators for planning and management of marine protected areas: An example study for European seas

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are widely used as tools to maintain biodiversity, protect habitats and ensure that development is sustainable. If MPAs are to maintain their role into the future it is important for managers to understand how conditions at these sites may change as a result of climate change and other drivers, and this understanding needs to extend beyond temperature to a range of key ecosystem indicators. This case study demonstrates how spatially-aggregated model results for multiple variables can provide useful projections for MPA planners and managers. Conditions in European MPAs have been projected for the 2040s using unmitigated and globally managed scenarios of climate change and river management, and hence high and low emissions of greenhouse gases and riverborne nutrients. The results highlight the vulnerability of potential refuge sites in the north-west Mediterranean and the need for careful monitoring at MPAs to the north and west of the British Isles, which may be affected by changes in Atlantic circulation patterns. The projections also support the need for more MPAs in the eastern Mediterranean and Adriatic Sea, and can inform the selection of sites.

An Objective Framework to Test the Quality of Candidate Indicators of Good Environmental Status

Large efforts are on-going within the EU to prepare the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’s (MSFD) assessment of the environmental status of the European seas. This assessment will only be as good as the indicators chosen to monitor the eleven descriptors of good environmental status (GEnS). An objective and transparent framework to determine whether chosen indicators actually support the aims of this policy is, however, not yet in place. Such frameworks are needed to ensure that the limited resources available to this assessment optimize the likelihood of achieving GEnS within collaborating states. Here, we developed a hypothesis-based protocol to evaluate whether candidate indicators meet quality criteria explicit to the MSFD, which the assessment community aspires to. Eight quality criteria are distilled from existing initiatives, and a testing and scoring protocol for each of them is presented. We exemplify its application in three worked examples, covering indicators for three GEnS descriptors (1, 5 and 6), various habitat components (seaweeds, seagrasses, benthic macrofauna and plankton), and assessment regions (Danish, Lithuanian and UK waters). We argue that this framework provides a necessary, transparent and standardized structure to support the comparison of candidate indicators, and the decision-making process leading to indicator selection. Its application could help identify potential limitations in currently available candidate metrics and, in such cases, help focus the development of more adequate indicators. Use of such standardized approaches will facilitate the sharing of knowledge gained across the MSFD parties despite context-specificity across assessment regions, and support the evidence-based management of European seas.

An Objective Framework to Test the Quality of Candidate Indicators of Good Environmental Status

Large efforts are on-going within the EU to prepare the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’s (MSFD) assessment of the environmental status of the European seas. This assessment will only be as good as the indicators chosen to monitor the eleven descriptors of good environmental status (GEnS). An objective and transparent framework to determine whether chosen indicators actually support the aims of this policy is, however, not yet in place. Such frameworks are needed to ensure that the limited resources available to this assessment optimize the likelihood of achieving GEnS within collaborating states. Here, we developed a hypothesis-based protocol to evaluate whether candidate indicators meet quality criteria explicit to the MSFD, which the assessment community aspires to. Eight quality criteria are distilled from existing initiatives, and a testing and scoring protocol for each of them is presented. We exemplify its application in three worked examples, covering indicators for three GEnS descriptors (1, 5 and 6), various habitat components (seaweeds, seagrasses, benthic macrofauna and plankton), and assessment regions (Danish, Lithuanian and UK waters). We argue that this framework provides a necessary, transparent and standardized structure to support the comparison of candidate indicators, and the decision-making process leading to indicator selection. Its application could help identify potential limitations in currently available candidate metrics and, in such cases, help focus the development of more adequate indicators. Use of such standardized approaches will facilitate the sharing of knowledge gained across the MSFD parties despite context-specificity across assessment regions, and support the evidence-based management of European seas.