Why is it so hard to set MSFD indicators and targets? Messages from the plankton

Unprecedented basin-scale ecological changes are occurring in our seas. As temperature and carbon dioxide concentrations increase, the extent of sea ice is decreasing, stratification and nutrient regimes are changing, and pH is decreasing. These unparalleled changes present new challenges for managing our seas as we are only just beginning to understand the ecological manifestations of these climate alterations. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive requires all European Member States to achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) in their seas by 2020; this means management toward GES will take place against a background of climate-driven macroecological change. Each Member State must set environmental targets to achieve GES; however, in order to do so an understanding of large-scale ecological change in the marine ecosystem is necessary. Much of our knowledge of macroecological change in the North Atlantic is a result of research using data gathered by the Continuous Plankton Recorder (CPR) survey, a near-surface plankton monitoring program which has been sampling in the North Atlantic since 1931. CPR data indicate that North Atlantic and North Sea plankton dynamics are responding to both climate and human-induced changes, presenting challenges to the development of pelagic targets for achievement of GES in European seas. Thus the continuation of long-term ecological time-series such as the CPR is crucial for informing and supporting the sustainable management of European seas through policy mechanisms.

How well do ecosystem indicators communicate the effects of anthropogenic eutrophication?

Anthropogenic eutrophication affects the Mediterranean, Black, North and Baltic Seas to various extents. Responses to nutrient loading and methods of monitoring relevant indicators vary regionally, hindering interpretation of ecosystem state changes and preventing a straightforward pan-European assessment of eutrophication symptoms. Here we summarize responses to nutrient enrichment in Europe's seas, comparing existing time-series of selected pelagic (phytoplankton biomass and community composition, turbidity, N:P ratio) and benthic (macro flora and faunal communities, bottom oxygen condition) indicators based on their effectiveness in assessing eutrophication effects. Our results suggest that the Black Sea and Northern Adriatic appear to be recovering from eutrophication due to economic reorganization in the Black Sea catchment and nutrient abatement measures in the case of the Northern Adriatic. The Baltic is most strongly impacted by eutrophication due to its limited exchange and the prevalence of nutrient recycling. Eutrophication in the North Sea is primarily a coastal problem, but may be exacerbated by climatic changes. Indicator interpretation is strongly dependent on sea-specific knowledge of ecosystem characteristics, and no single indicator can be employed to adequately compare eutrophication state between European seas. Communicating eutrophication-related information to policy-makers could be facilitated through the use of consistent indicator selection and monitoring methodologies across European seas. This work is discussed in the context of the European Commission's recently published Marine Strategy Directive.

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.

Impacts of Climate Change on European Marine Ecosystems: Observations, Expectations and Indicators

The Northern Hemisphere has been warmer since 1980 than at any other time during the last 2000 years. The observed increase in temperature has been generally higher in northern than in southern European seas, and higher in enclosed than in open seas. Although European marine ecosystems are influenced by many other factors, such as nutrient enrichment and overfishing, every region has shown at least some changes that were most likely attributable to recent climate change. It is expected that within open systems there will generally be (further) northward movement of species, leading to a switch from polar to more temperate species in the northern seas such as the Arctic, Barents Sea and the Nordic Seas, and subtropical species moving northward to temperate regions such as the Iberian upwelling margin. For seas that are highly influenced by river runoff, such as the Baltic Sea, an increase in freshwater due to enhanced rainfall will lead to a shift from marine to more brackish and even freshwater species. If semi-enclosed systems such as the Mediterranean and the Black Sea lose their endemic species, the associated niches will probably be filled by species originating from adjacent waters and, possibly, with species transported from one region to another via ballast water and the Suez Canal. A better understanding of potential climate change impacts (scenarios) at both regional and local levels, the development of improved methods to quantify the uncertainty of climate change projections, the construction of usable climate change indicators, and an improvement of the interface between science and policy formulation in terms of risk assessment will be essential to formulate and inform better adaptive strategies to address the inevitable consequences of climate change.

Black-legged kittiwakes as indicators of environmental change in the North Sea; evidence from long-term studies

Top predators, particularly seabirds, have repeatedly been suggested as indicators of marine ecosystem status. One region currently under pressure from human fisheries and climate change is the North Sea. Standardized seabird monitoring data have been collected on the Isle of May, an important seabird colony in the northwestern North Sea, over the last 10–20 years. Over this period oceanographic conditions have varied markedly, and between 1990 and 1999 a major industrial fishery for sandlance (Ammodytes marinus), the main prey of most seabird species, was prosecuted nearby. Sandlance fishing grounds close to seabird colonies down the east coast of the UK were closed in 2000 in an attempt to improve foraging opportunities for breeding seabirds, particularly black-legged kittiwakes (Rissa tridactyla). Initially this closure seemed to be beneficial for kittiwakes with breeding success recovering to pre-fishery levels. However, despite the ban continuing, kittiwakes and many other seabird species in the North Sea suffered severe breeding failures in 2004. In this paper, we test the predictive power of four previously established correlations between kittiwake breeding success and climatic/trophic variables to explain the observed breeding success at the Isle of May in 2004. During the breeding season, kittiwakes at this colony switch from feeding on 1+ group to 0 group sandlance, and results up until 2003 indicated that availability of both age classes had a positive effect on kittiwake breeding success. The low breeding success of kittiwakes in 2004 was consistent with the late appearance and small body size of 0 group sandlance, but at odds with the two variables likely to operate via 1 group availability (lagged winter sea surface temperature and larval sandlance cohort strength in 2003). The reason for the discrepancy is currently unknown, but analysis of 1 group sandlance body composition indicated that lipid content in 2004 was extremely low, and thus fish eaten by kittiwakes during pre-breeding and early incubation were likely to be of poor quality. Monitoring of reproductive success of kittiwakes, although useful, was clearly not sufficient to tease apart the complex causation underlying the 2004 event. Monitoring programs such as this, therefore, need to be complemented by detailed research to identify the mechanisms involved, and to attribute and predict the effects of natural and human-induced environmental change.

Plankton indicators and ocean observing systems: support to the marine ecosystem state assessment

Ecological indicators are used extensively as tools to manage environmental resources. In the oceans, indicators of plankton can be measured using a variety of observing systems including: mooring stations, ships, autonomous floats and ocean colour remote sensing. Given the broad range of temporal and spatial sampling resolutions of these different observing systems, as well as discrepancies in measurements obtained from different sensors, the estimation and interpretation of plankton indicators can present significant challenges. To provide support to the assessment of the state of the marine ecosystem, we propose a suite of plankton indicators and subsequently classify them in an ecological framework that characterizes key attributes of the ecosystem. We present two case studies dealing with plankton indicators of biomass, size structure and phenology, estimated using the most spatially extensive and longest in situ and remote-sensing observations. Discussion of these studies illustrates how some of the challenges in estimating and interpreting plankton indicators may be addressed by using for example relative measurement thresholds, interpolation procedures and delineation of biogeochemical provinces. We demonstrate that one of the benefits attained, when analyzing a suite of plankton indicators classified in an ecological framework, is the elucidation of non-trivial changes in composition, structure and functioning of the marine ecosystem.

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.