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.

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.