Conceptual Ecological Modelling of Sublittoral Rock Habitats to Inform Indicator Selection

The purpose of this study is to produce a series of Conceptual Ecological Models (CEMs) that represent sublittoral rock habitats in the UK. CEMs are diagrammatic representations of the influences and processes that occur within an ecosystem. They can be used to identify critical aspects of an ecosystem that may be studied further, or serve as the basis for the selection of indicators for environmental monitoring purposes. The models produced by this project are control diagrams, representing the unimpacted state of the environment free from anthropogenic pressures. It is intended that the models produced by this project will be used to guide indicator selection for the monitoring of this habitat in UK waters. CEMs may eventually be produced for a range of habitat types defined under the UK Marine Biodiversity Monitoring R&D Programme (UKMBMP), which, along with stressor models, are designed to show the interactions within impacted habitats, would form the basis of a robust method for indicator selection. This project builds on the work to develop CEMs for shallow sublittoral coarse sediment habitats (Alexander et al 2014). The project scope included those habitats defined as ‘sublittoral rock’. This definition includes those habitats that fall into the EUNIS Level 3 classifications A3.1 Atlantic and Mediterranean high energy infralittoral rock, A3.2 Atlantic and Mediterranean moderate energy infralittoral rock, A3.3 Atlantic and Mediterranean low energy infralittoral rock, A4.1 Atlantic and Mediterranean high energy circalittoral rock, A4.2 Atlantic and Mediterranean moderate energy circalittoral rock, and A4.3 Atlantic and Mediterranean low energy circalittoral rock as well as the constituent Level 4 and 5 biotopes that are relevant to UK waters. A species list of characterising fauna to be included within the scope of the models was identified using an iterative process to refine the full list of species found within the relevant Level 5 biotopes. A literature review was conducted using a pragmatic and iterative approach to gather evidence regarding species traits and information that would be used to inform the models and characterise the interactions that occur within the sublittoral rock habitat. All information gathered during the literature review was entered into a data logging pro-forma spreadsheet that accompanies this report. Wherever possible, attempts were made to collect information from UK-specific peer-reviewed studies, although other sources were used where necessary. All data gathered was subject to a detailed confidence assessment. Expert judgement by the project team was utilised to provide information for aspects of the models for which references could not be sourced within the project timeframe. A multivariate analysis approach was adopted to assess ecologically similar groups (based on ecological and life history traits) of fauna from the identified species to form the basis of the models. A model hierarchy was developed based on these ecological groups. One general control model was produced that indicated the high-level drivers, inputs, biological assemblages, ecosystem processes and outputs that occur in sublittoral rock habitats. In addition to this, seven detailed sub-models were produced, which each focussed on a particular ecological group of fauna within the habitat: ‘macroalgae’, ‘temporarily or permanently attached active filter feeders’, ‘temporarily or permanently attached passive filter feeders’, ‘bivalves, brachiopods and other encrusting filter feeders’, ‘tube building fauna’, ‘scavengers and predatory fauna’, and ‘non-predatory mobile fauna’. Each sub-model is accompanied by an associated confidence model that presents confidence in the links between each model component. The models are split into seven levels and take spatial and temporal scale into account through their design, as well as magnitude and direction of influence. The seven levels include regional to global drivers, water column processes, local inputs/processes at the seabed, habitat and biological assemblage, output processes, local ecosystem functions, and regional to global ecosystem functions. The models indicate that whilst the high level drivers that affect each ecological group are largely similar, the output processes performed by the biota and the resulting ecosystem functions vary both in number and importance between groups. Confidence within the models as a whole is generally high, reflecting the level of information gathered during the literature review. Physical drivers which influence the ecosystem were found to be of high importance for the sublittoral rock habitat, with factors such as wave exposure, water depth and water currents noted to be crucial in defining the biological assemblages. Other important factors such as recruitment/propagule supply, and those which affect primary production, such as suspended sediments, light attenuation and water chemistry and temperature, were also noted to be key and act to influence the food sources consumed by the biological assemblages of the habitat, and the biological assemblages themselves. Output processes performed by the biological assemblages are variable between ecological groups depending on the specific flora and fauna present and the role they perform within the ecosystem. Of particular importance are the outputs performed by the macroalgae group, which are diverse in nature and exert influence over other ecological groups in the habitat. Important output processes from the habitat as a whole include primary and secondary production, bioengineering, biodeposition (in mixed sediment habitats) and the supply of propagules; these in turn influence ecosystem functions at the local scale such as nutrient and biogeochemical cycling, supply of food resources, sediment stability (in mixed sediment habitats), habitat provision and population and algae control. The export of biodiversity and organic matter, biodiversity enhancement and biotope stability are the resulting ecosystem functions that occur at the regional to global scale. Features within the models that are most useful for monitoring habitat status and change due to natural variation have been identified, as have those that may be useful for monitoring to identify anthropogenic causes of change within the ecosystem. Biological, physical and chemical features of the ecosystem have been identified as potential indicators to monitor natural variation, whereas biological factors and those physical /chemical factors most likely to affect primary production have predominantly been identified as most likely to indicate change due to anthropogenic pressures.

Assessing the sensitivity of subtidal sedimentary habitats to pressures associated with marine activities. Phase 1 Report: Rationale and proposed ecological groupings for Level 5 biotopes against which sensitivity assessments would be best undertaken.

The purpose of this study is to produce a series of Conceptual Ecological Models (CEMs) that represent sublittoral rock habitats in the UK. CEMs are diagrammatic representations of the influences and processes that occur within an ecosystem. They can be used to identify critical aspects of an ecosystem that may be studied further, or serve as the basis for the selection of indicators for environmental monitoring purposes. The models produced by this project are control diagrams, representing the unimpacted state of the environment free from anthropogenic pressures. It is intended that the models produced by this project will be used to guide indicator selection for the monitoring of this habitat in UK waters. CEMs may eventually be produced for a range of habitat types defined under the UK Marine Biodiversity Monitoring R&D Programme (UKMBMP), which, along with stressor models, are designed to show the interactions within impacted habitats, would form the basis of a robust method for indicator selection. This project builds on the work to develop CEMs for shallow sublittoral coarse sediment habitats (Alexander et al 2014). The project scope included those habitats defined as ‘sublittoral rock’. This definition includes those habitats that fall into the EUNIS Level 3 classifications A3.1 Atlantic and Mediterranean high energy infralittoral rock, A3.2 Atlantic and Mediterranean moderate energy infralittoral rock, A3.3 Atlantic and Mediterranean low energy infralittoral rock, A4.1 Atlantic and Mediterranean high energy circalittoral rock, A4.2 Atlantic and Mediterranean moderate energy circalittoral rock, and A4.3 Atlantic and Mediterranean low energy circalittoral rock as well as the constituent Level 4 and 5 biotopes that are relevant to UK waters. A species list of characterising fauna to be included within the scope of the models was identified using an iterative process to refine the full list of species found within the relevant Level 5 biotopes. A literature review was conducted using a pragmatic and iterative approach to gather evidence regarding species traits and information that would be used to inform the models and characterise the interactions that occur within the sublittoral rock habitat. All information gathered during the literature review was entered into a data logging pro-forma spreadsheet that accompanies this report. Wherever possible, attempts were made to collect information from UK-specific peer-reviewed studies, although other sources were used where necessary. All data gathered was subject to a detailed confidence assessment. Expert judgement by the project team was utilised to provide information for aspects of the models for which references could not be sourced within the project timeframe. A multivariate analysis approach was adopted to assess ecologically similar groups (based on ecological and life history traits) of fauna from the identified species to form the basis of the models. A model hierarchy was developed based on these ecological groups. One general control model was produced that indicated the high-level drivers, inputs, biological assemblages, ecosystem processes and outputs that occur in sublittoral rock habitats. In addition to this, seven detailed sub-models were produced, which each focussed on a particular ecological group of fauna within the habitat: ‘macroalgae’, ‘temporarily or permanently attached active filter feeders’, ‘temporarily or permanently attached passive filter feeders’, ‘bivalves, brachiopods and other encrusting filter feeders’, ‘tube building fauna’, ‘scavengers and predatory fauna’, and ‘non-predatory mobile fauna’. Each sub-model is accompanied by an associated confidence model that presents confidence in the links between each model component. The models are split into seven levels and take spatial and temporal scale into account through their design, as well as magnitude and direction of influence. The seven levels include regional to global drivers, water column processes, local inputs/processes at the seabed, habitat and biological assemblage, output processes, local ecosystem functions, and regional to global ecosystem functions. The models indicate that whilst the high level drivers that affect each ecological group are largely similar, the output processes performed by the biota and the resulting ecosystem functions vary both in number and importance between groups. Confidence within the models as a whole is generally high, reflecting the level of information gathered during the literature review. Physical drivers which influence the ecosystem were found to be of high importance for the sublittoral rock habitat, with factors such as wave exposure, water depth and water currents noted to be crucial in defining the biological assemblages. Other important factors such as recruitment/propagule supply, and those which affect primary production, such as suspended sediments, light attenuation and water chemistry and temperature, were also noted to be key and act to influence the food sources consumed by the biological assemblages of the habitat, and the biological assemblages themselves. Output processes performed by the biological assemblages are variable between ecological groups depending on the specific flora and fauna present and the role they perform within the ecosystem. Of particular importance are the outputs performed by the macroalgae group, which are diverse in nature and exert influence over other ecological groups in the habitat. Important output processes from the habitat as a whole include primary and secondary production, bioengineering, biodeposition (in mixed sediment habitats) and the supply of propagules; these in turn influence ecosystem functions at the local scale such as nutrient and biogeochemical cycling, supply of food resources, sediment stability (in mixed sediment habitats), habitat provision and population and algae control. The export of biodiversity and organic matter, biodiversity enhancement and biotope stability are the resulting ecosystem functions that occur at the regional to global scale. Features within the models that are most useful for monitoring habitat status and change due to natural variation have been identified, as have those that may be useful for monitoring to identify anthropogenic causes of change within the ecosystem. Biological, physical and chemical features of the ecosystem have been identified as potential indicators to monitor natural variation, whereas biological factors and those physical /chemical factors most likely to affect primary production have predominantly been identified as most likely to indicate change due to anthropogenic pressures.

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.

On the ultrastructure of Gephyrocapsa oceanica (Haptophyta) life stages.

Gephyrocapsa oceanica is a cosmopolitan bloom-forming coccolithophore species belonging to the haptophyte order Isochrysidales and family Noëlaerhabdaceae. Exclusively pelagic, G. oceanica is commonly found in modern oceans and in fossil assemblages. Its sister species Emiliania huxleyi is known to possess a haplo-diplontic life cycle, the non-motile diploid coccolith-bearing cells alternating with haploid cells that are motile and covered by non-mineralized organic scales. Since the cytology and ultrastructure of other members of the Noëlaerhabdaceae has never been reported, it is not clear whether these features are common to the family. Here, we report on the ultrastructure of both the non-motile calcifying stage and the non-calcifying motile stage of G. oceanica. We found no significant ultrastructural differences between E. huxleyi and G. oceanica either in the calcifying diploid stage or the haploid phase. The similarities between these two morphospecies demonstrated a high degree of conservation of cytological features. We discuss the significance of these results in the light of the evolution of the Noelaerhabdaceae.

Feeding rates and prey selectivity of planktonic decapod larvae in the Western English Channel

Meroplankton are seasonally important contributors to the zooplankton, particularly at inshore sites, yet their feeding ecology is poorly known relative to holoplankton. While several studies have measured feeding in decapod larvae, few studies have examined the feeding rates of decapod larvae on natural prey assemblages throughout the reproductive season. We conducted 8 feeding experiments with Necora puber, Liocarcinus spp. and Upogebia spp. zoea larvae collected from the L4 monitoring site off Plymouth (50°15.00′N, 4°13.02′W) during spring–summer 2009 and 2010. This period spanned moderate-to-high food availability (0.5–1.6 µg chl-a L−1), but a great range in food composition with small cells <20 µm dominating in 2010. Daily rations averaged 17, 60 and 22 % of body C for the 3 respective decapod species. Clearance rates differed according to prey type, and all 3 decapod genera showed evidence of selection of dinoflagellates. Importantly, small cells including nano- and pico-plankton were ingested, this being demonstrated independently by flow cytometric analysis of the feeding experiments and molecular analysis. PCR-based analysis of the haptophyte portion of the diet revealed ingestion of Isochrysis galbana by decapod larvae in the bottle incubations and Isochrysis galbana and Phaeocystis globosa by decapod larvae collected directly from the field. This study has shown that pico- and nano-sized plankton form an important supplement to the diverse and variable diet of decapod larvae.

Contrasting transcriptome response to thermal stress in two key zooplankton species, Calanus finmarchicus and C. glacialis

Climate change has already led to the range expansion of warm-water plankton assemblages in the northeast Atlantic and the corresponding range contraction of colder-water species. The temperate copepod Calanus finmarchicus is predicted to shift farther northward into polar waters traditionally dominated by the arctic copepod C. glacialis. To identify temperaturemediated changes in gene expression that may be critical for the thermal acclimation and resilience of the 2 Calanus spp., we conducted a whole transcriptome profiling using RNA-seq on an Ion Torrent platform. Transcriptome responses of C. finmarchicus and C. glacialis from Disko Bay, west Greenland, were investigated under realistic thermal stresses (at + 5, +10 and +15°C) for 4 h and 6 d. C. finmarchicus showed a strong response to temperature and duration of stress, involving up-regulation of genes related to protein folding, transcription, translation and metabolism. In sharp contrast, C. glacialis displayed only low-magnitude changes in gene expression in response to temperature and duration of stress. Differences in the thermal responses of the 2 species, particularly the lack of thermal stress response in C. glacialis, are in line with laboratory and field observations and suggest a vulnerability of C. glacialis to climate change.

Depth-related gradients in community structure and relatedness of bivalves and isopods in the Southern Ocean.

Despite increased research over the last decade, diversity patterns in Antarctic deep-sea benthic taxa and their driving forces are only marginally known. Depth-related patterns of diversity and distribution of isopods and bivalves collected in the Atlantic sector of the Southern Ocean are analysed. The data, sampled by epibenthic sledge at 40 deep-sea stations from the upper continental slope to the hadal zone (774 – 6348 m) over a wide area of the Southern Ocean, comprises 619 species of isopods and 81 species of bivalves,. There were more species of isopods than bivalves in all samples, and species per station varied from 2 to 85 for isopods and from 0 to 18 for bivalves. Most species were rare, with 72% of isopod species restricted to one or two stations, and 45% of bivalves. Among less-rare species bivalves tended to have wider distributions than isopods. The species richness of isopods varied with depth, showing a weak unimodal curve with a peak at 2000 – 4000 m, while the richness of bivalves did not. Multivariate analyses indicate that there are two main assemblages in the Southern Ocean, one shallow and one deep. These overlap over a large depth-range (2000 – 4000 m). Comparing analyses based on the Sørensen resemblance measure (presence/absence) and Γ+ (presence/absence incorporating relatedness among species) indicates that rare species tend to have other closely related species within the same depth band. Analysis of relatedness among species indicates that the taxonomic variety of bivalves tends to decline at depth, whereas that of isopods is maintained. This, it is speculated, may indicate that the available energy at depth is insufficient to maintain a range of bivalve life-history strategies

Assessing the conservation status of marine habitats: thoughts from a sandflat on the Isles of Scilly.

Statutory monitoring of the fauna of the ‘mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide’ biotope complex on St Martin’s Flats, a part of the Isles of Scilly Complex Special Area of Conservation, was undertaken in 2000, 2004 and 2009. The targets set by Natural England for “characteristic biotopes” were that “composite species, abundance and diversity should not deviate significantly from an established baseline, subject to natural change”. The three specified biotopes could not be distinguished, and instead three assemblages were subjectively defined based on sediment surface features. There were statistically significant natural changes in diversity and species composition between years, especially in the association initially characterized by the razor-clam Ensis, and possible reasons for this are discussed. It is suggested that setting fixed local limits on natural variability is almost always impractical. Two possible approaches to distinguishing between natural and anthropogenic changes are suggested; a change in ecological condition as indicated by AMBI scores, and a significant change in average taxonomic distinctness (Δ+) compared with expectation. The determination of species biomasses as well as abundances might also open more possibilities for assessment. The practice of setting objectives for a marine SAC feature that include the range and number of biotopes cannot be supported, in view the difficulty in ascribing assemblages to recognised biotopes. A more realistic definition of species assemblages might best be gained from examination of the species that consistently make a substantial contribution to the Bray Curtis similarity among samples collected from specific sites.

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.