Biodiversity as a dynamic variable in the Gulf of Maine continuous plankton recorder transect

Studies relating biodiversity to ecosystem processes typically do not take into account changes in biodiversity through time. Marine systems are highly dynamic, with biodiversity changing at diel, seasonal and inter-decadal timescales. We examined the dynamics of biodiversity in the Gulf of Maine pelagic zooplankton community. Taxonomic data came from the Gulf of Maine continuous plankton recorder (CPR) transect, spanning the years 1961–2006. The CPR transect also contains coincident information on temperature and phytoplankton biomass (measured by the phytoplankton color index). Taxonomic richness varied at all timescales considered. The relationships between temperature and richness, and between phytoplankton and richness, also depended on temporal scale. The temperature–richness relationship was monotonic at the multi-decadal scale, and tended to be hump-shaped at finer scales; the productivity–richness relationship was hump-shaped at the multi-decadal scale, and tended to be monotonic at finer scales. Seasonal biodiversity dynamics were linked to temperature; inter-decadal biodiversity dynamics were linked to phytoplankton.

Biodiversity Loss in the Ocean: How Bad Is It?

MURAWSKI AND COLLEAGUES STATE THAT OUR assessment of the impacts of global marine biodiversity loss is overly pessimistic. They imply that management interventions are likely to reverse current trends of overfishing, and that the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has already met that goal. They cite Georges Bank haddock as an example and contest that catch metrics (as used in our global analysis) are sufficient to track the status of this particular fish stock and possibly others. We agree that precise biomass data are preferable, but these are rarely available. Here, we illustrate that catches are a good proxy of the status of haddock, although there can be a short delay in detecting recovery under intense management. While NMFS’s own data show that full recovery is still uncommon (<5% of overfished stocks) (1), we strongly agree that destructive trends can be turned around and that rebuilding efforts need to be intensified to meet that goal. But we must not miss the forest for the trees: Continuing focus on single, well-assessed, economically viable species will leave most of the ocean’s declining biodiversity under the radar.

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.

Tropical Marginal Seas: Priority Regions for Managing Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function

Tropical marginal seas (TMSs) are natural subregions of tropical oceans containing biodiverse ecosystems with conspicuous, valued, and vulnerable biodiversity assets. They are focal points for global marine conservation because they occur in regions where human populations are rapidly expanding. Our review of 11 TMSs focuses on three key ecosystems—coral reefs and emergent atolls, deep benthic systems, and pelagic biomes—and synthesizes, illustrates, and contrasts knowledge of biodiversity, ecosystem function, interaction between adjacent habitats, and anthropogenic pressures. TMSs vary in the extent that they have been subject to human influence—from the nearly pristine Coral Sea to the heavily exploited South China and Caribbean Seas—but we predict that they will all be similarly complex to manage because most span multiple national jurisdictions. We conclude that developing a structured process to identify ecologically and biologically significant areas that uses a set of globally agreed criteria is a tractable first step toward effective multinational and transboundary ecosystem management of TMSs.

Marine Biodiversity Data Flow in the UK

The report provides a review of the current level of exchange in marine life data and its management in the UK taking into account the current structures that are in place between data providers, custodians and managers. In addition, the report makes recommendations on how data flow can be improved over the next few years to achieve greater exchange and interoperability within the marine sector.

Environmental variability and biodiversity of megabenthos on the Hebrides Terrace Seamount (Northeast Atlantic)

We present the first remotely operated vehicle investigation of megabenthic communities (1004-1695 m water depth) on the Hebrides Terrace Seamount (Northeast Atlantic). Conductivity-temperature-depth casts showed rapid light attenuation below the summit and an oceanographic regime on the flanks consistent with an internal tide, and high short-term variability in water temperature, salinity, light attenuation, aragonite and oxygen down to 1500 m deep. Minor changes in species composition (3-14%) were explained by changes in depth, substratum and oceanographic stability, whereas environmental variability explained substantially more variation in species richness (40-56%). Two peaks in species richness occurred, the first at 1300-1400 m where cooler Wyville Thomson Overflow Water (WTOW) mixes with subtropical gyre waters and the second at 1500-1600 m where WTOW mixes with subpolar mode waters. Our results suggest that internal tides, substrate heterogeneity and oceanographic interfaces may enhance biological diversity on this and adjacent seamounts in the Rockall Trough.

Placing biodiversity in ecosystem models without getting lost in translation

A key challenge to progressing our understanding of biodiversity’s role in the sustenance of ecosystem function is the extrapolation of the results of two decades of dedicated empirical research to regional, global and future landscapes. Ecosystem models provide a platform for this progression, potentially offering a holistic view of ecosystems where, guided by the mechanistic understanding of processes and their connection to the environment and biota, large-scale questions can be investigated. While the benefits of depicting biodiversity in such models are widely recognized, its application is limited by difficulties in the transfer of knowledge from small process oriented ecology into macro-scale modelling. Here, we build on previous work, breaking down key challenges of that knowledge transfer into a tangible framework, highlighting successful strategies that both modelling and ecology communities have developed to better interact with one another. We use a benthic and a pelagic case-study to illustrate how aspects of the links between biodiversity and ecosystem process have been depicted in marine ecosystem models (ERSEM and MIRO), from data, to conceptualisation and model development. We hope that this framework may help future interactions between biodiversity researchers and model developers by highlighting concrete solutions to common problems, and in this way contribute to the advance of the mechanistic understanding of the role of biodiversity in marine (and terrestrial) ecosystems.

Marine biodiversity and ecosystem function relationships:the potential for practical monitoring applications

There is an increasing demand for environmental assessments of the marine environment to include ecosystem function. However, existing schemes are predominantly based on taxonomic (i.e. structural) measures of biodiversity. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function (BEF) relationships are suggested to provide a mechanism for converting taxonomic information into surrogates of ecosystem function. This review assesses the evidence for marine BEF relationships and their potential to be used in practical monitoring applications (i.e. operationalized). Five key requirements were identified for the practical application of BEF relationships: (1) a complete understanding of strength, direction and prevalence of marine BEF relationships, (2) an understanding of which biological components are influential within specific BEF relationships, (3) the biodiversity of the selected biological components can be measured easily, (4) the ecological mechanisms that are the most important for generating marine BEF relationships, i.e. identity effects or complementarity, are known and (5) the proportion of the overall functional variance is explained by biodiversity, and hence BEF relationships, has been established. Numerous positive and some negative BEF relationships were found within the literature, although many reproduced poorly the natural species richness, trophic structures or multiple functions of real ecosystems (requirement 1). Null relationships were also reported. The consistency of the positive and negative relationships was often low that compromised the ability to generalize BEF relationships and confident application of BEF within marine monitoring. Equally, some biological components and functions have received little or no investigation. Expert judgement was used to attribute biological components using spatial extent, presence and functional rate criteria (requirement 2). This approach highlighted the main biological components contributing the most to specific ecosystem functions, and that many of the particularly influential components were found to have received the least amount of research attention. The need for biodiversity to be measureable (requirement 3) is possible for most biological components although difficult within the functionally important microbes. Identity effects underpinned most marine BEF relationships (requirement 4). As such, processes that translated structural biodiversity measures into functional diversity were found to generate better BEF relationships. The analysis of the contribution made by biodiversity, over abiotic influences, to the total expression of a particular ecosystem function was rarely measured or considered (requirement 5). Hence it is not possible to determine the overall importance of BEF relationships within the total ecosystem functioning observed. In the few studies where abiotic factors had been considered, it was clear that these modified BEF relationships and have their own direct influence on functional rate. Based on the five requirements, the information required for immediate ‘operationalization’ of BEF relationships within marine functional monitoring is lacking. However, the concept of BEF inclusion within practical monitoring applications, supported by ecological modelling, shows promise for providing surrogate indicators of functioning.

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.