Repeated mapping of reefs constructed by Sabellaria spinulosa Leuckart 1849 at an offshore wind farm site

Sabellaria spinulosa reefs are considered to be sensitive and of high conservation status. This article evaluates the feasibility of using remote sensing technology to delineate S. spinulosa reefs. S. spinulosa reef habitats associated with the Thanet Offshore Windfarm site were mapped using high resolution sidescan sonar (410 kHz) and multibeam echo sounder (<1 m2) data in 2005 (baseline), 2007 (pre-construction baseline) and 2012 (post-construction). The S. spinulosa reefs were identified in the acoustic data as areas of distinct irregular texturing. Maps created using acoustic data were validated using quantitative measures of reef quality, namely tube density (as a proxy for the density of live S. spinulosa), percentage cover of S. spinulosa structures (both living and dead) and associated macrofauna derived from seabed images taken across the development site. Statistically significant differences were observed in all physical measures of S. spinulosa as well the number (S) and diversity (H׳) of associated species, derived from seabed images classified according to the presence or absence of reef, validating the use of high resolution sidescan sonar to map these important biogenic habitats. High precision mapping in the early stages allowed for the micro-siting of wind turbines in a way that caused minimal damage to S. spinulosa reefs during construction. These habitats have since recovered and expanded in extent. The surveys undertaken at the Thanet Offshore Windfarm site demonstrate the importance of repeat mapping for this emerging industry, allowing habitat enhancement to be attributed to the development whilst preventing background habitat degradation from being wrongly attributed to the development.

Within-Otolith Variability in Chemical Fingerprints: Implications for Sampling Designs and Possible Environmental Interpretation

Largely used as a natural biological tag in studies of dispersal/connectivity of fish, otolith elemental fingerprinting is usually analyzed by laser ablation-inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS). LA-ICP-MS produces an elemental fingerprint at a discrete time-point in the life of a fish and can generate data on within-otolith variability of that fingerprint. The presence of within-otolith variability has been previously acknowledged but not incorporated into experimental designs on the presumed, but untested, grounds of both its negligibility compared to among-otolith variability and of spatial autocorrelation among multiple ablations within an otolith. Here, using a hierarchical sampling design of spatial variation at multiple scales in otolith chemical fingerprints for two Mediterranean coastal fishes, we explore: 1) whether multiple ablations within an otolith can be used as independent replicates for significance tests among otoliths, and 2) the implications of incorporating within-otolith variability when assessing spatial variability in otolith chemistry at a hierarchy of spatial scales (different fish, from different sites, at different locations on the Apulian Adriatic coast). We find that multiple ablations along the same daily rings do not necessarily exhibit spatial dependency within the otolith and can be used to estimate residual variability in a hierarchical sampling design. Inclusion of within-otolith measurements reveals that individuals at the same site can show significant variability in elemental uptake. Within-otolith variability examined across the spatial hierarchy identifies differences between the two fish species investigated, and this finding leads to discussion of the potential for within-otolith variability to be used as a marker for fish exposure to stressful conditions. We also demonstrate that a 'cost'-optimal allocation of sampling effort should typically include some level of within-otolith replication in the experimental design. Our findings provide novel evidence to aid the design of future sampling programs and improve our general understanding of the mechanisms regulating elemental fingerprints.

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.