Status, trends and drivers of kelp forests in Europe: an expert assessment

A comprehensive expert consultation was conducted in order to assess the status, trends and the most important drivers of change in the abundance and geographical distribution of kelp forests in European waters. This consultation included an on-line questionnaire, results from a workshop and data provided by a selected group of experts working on kelp forest mapping and eco-evolutionary research. Differences in status and trends according to geographical areas, species identity and small-scale variations within the same habitat where shown by assembling and mapping kelp distribution and trend data. Significant data gaps for some geographical regions, like the Mediterranean and the southern Iberian Peninsula, were also identified. The data used for this study confirmed a general trend with decreasing abundance of some native kelp species at their southern distributional range limits and increasing abundance in other parts of their distribution (Saccharina latissima and Saccorhiza polyschides). The expansion of the introduced species Undaria pinnatifida was also registered. Drivers of observed changes in kelp forests distribution and abundance were assessed using experts’ opinions. Multiple possible drivers were identified, including global warming, sea urchin grazing, harvesting, pollutionand fishing pressure, and their impact varied between geographical areas. Overall, the results highlight major threats for these ecosystems but also opportunities for conservation. Major requirements to ensure adequate protection of coastal kelp ecosystems along European coastlines are discussed, based on the local to regional gaps detected in the study.

Status, trends and drivers of kelp forests in Europe: an expert assessment

A comprehensive expert consultation was conducted in order to assess the status, trends and the most important drivers of change in the abundance and geographical distribution of kelp forests in European waters. This consultation included an on-line questionnaire, results from a workshop and data provided by a selected group of experts working on kelp forest mapping and eco-evolutionary research. Differences in status and trends according to geographical areas, species identity and small-scale variations within the same habitat where shown by assembling and mapping kelp distribution and trend data. Significant data gaps for some geographical regions, like the Mediterranean and the southern Iberian Peninsula, were also identified. The data used for this study confirmed a general trend with decreasing abundance of some native kelp species at their southern distributional range limits and increasing abundance in other parts of their distribution (Saccharina latissima and Saccorhiza polyschides). The expansion of the introduced species Undaria pinnatifida was also registered. Drivers of observed changes in kelp forests distribution and abundance were assessed using experts’ opinions. Multiple possible drivers were identified, including global warming, sea urchin grazing, harvesting, pollutionand fishing pressure, and their impact varied between geographical areas. Overall, the results highlight major threats for these ecosystems but also opportunities for conservation. Major requirements to ensure adequate protection of coastal kelp ecosystems along European coastlines are discussed, based on the local to regional gaps detected in the study.

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.