An Objective Framework to Test the Quality of Candidate Indicators of Good Environmental Status

Large efforts are on-going within the EU to prepare the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’s (MSFD) assessment of the environmental status of the European seas. This assessment will only be as good as the indicators chosen to monitor the eleven descriptors of good environmental status (GEnS). An objective and transparent framework to determine whether chosen indicators actually support the aims of this policy is, however, not yet in place. Such frameworks are needed to ensure that the limited resources available to this assessment optimize the likelihood of achieving GEnS within collaborating states. Here, we developed a hypothesis-based protocol to evaluate whether candidate indicators meet quality criteria explicit to the MSFD, which the assessment community aspires to. Eight quality criteria are distilled from existing initiatives, and a testing and scoring protocol for each of them is presented. We exemplify its application in three worked examples, covering indicators for three GEnS descriptors (1, 5 and 6), various habitat components (seaweeds, seagrasses, benthic macrofauna and plankton), and assessment regions (Danish, Lithuanian and UK waters). We argue that this framework provides a necessary, transparent and standardized structure to support the comparison of candidate indicators, and the decision-making process leading to indicator selection. Its application could help identify potential limitations in currently available candidate metrics and, in such cases, help focus the development of more adequate indicators. Use of such standardized approaches will facilitate the sharing of knowledge gained across the MSFD parties despite context-specificity across assessment regions, and support the evidence-based management of European seas.

An Objective Framework to Test the Quality of Candidate Indicators of Good Environmental Status

Large efforts are on-going within the EU to prepare the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’s (MSFD) assessment of the environmental status of the European seas. This assessment will only be as good as the indicators chosen to monitor the eleven descriptors of good environmental status (GEnS). An objective and transparent framework to determine whether chosen indicators actually support the aims of this policy is, however, not yet in place. Such frameworks are needed to ensure that the limited resources available to this assessment optimize the likelihood of achieving GEnS within collaborating states. Here, we developed a hypothesis-based protocol to evaluate whether candidate indicators meet quality criteria explicit to the MSFD, which the assessment community aspires to. Eight quality criteria are distilled from existing initiatives, and a testing and scoring protocol for each of them is presented. We exemplify its application in three worked examples, covering indicators for three GEnS descriptors (1, 5 and 6), various habitat components (seaweeds, seagrasses, benthic macrofauna and plankton), and assessment regions (Danish, Lithuanian and UK waters). We argue that this framework provides a necessary, transparent and standardized structure to support the comparison of candidate indicators, and the decision-making process leading to indicator selection. Its application could help identify potential limitations in currently available candidate metrics and, in such cases, help focus the development of more adequate indicators. Use of such standardized approaches will facilitate the sharing of knowledge gained across the MSFD parties despite context-specificity across assessment regions, and support the evidence-based management of European seas.

Evolution of the diatoms: major steps in their evolution and a review of the supporting molecular and morphological evidence.

Over the years, many reviews of different aspects of diatom biology, ecology and evolution have appeared. Since 1993 many molecular trees have been produced to infer diatom phylogeny. In 2004, Medlin & Kaczmarska revised the systematics of the diatoms based on more than 20 years of consistent recovery of two major clades of diatoms that did not correspond to a traditional concept of centrics and pennates and established three classes of diatoms: Clade 1 = Coscinodiscophyceae (radial centrics) and Clade 2 = Mediophyceae (polar centrics + radial Thalassiosirales) and Bacillariophyceae (pennates). However, under certain analytical conditions, an alternative view of diatom evolution, a grades of clades, has been recovered that suggests a gradual evolution from centric to pennate symmetry. These two schemes of diatom evolution are evaluated in terms of whether or not the criteria advocated by Medlin & Kaczmarska that should be met to recover monophyletic classes have been used. The monophyly of the three diatom classes can only be achieved if (1) a secondary structure of the small subunit (SSU) rRNA gene was used to construct the alignment and not an alignment based on primary structure and (2) multiple outgroups were used. These requirements have not been met in each study of diatom evolution; hence, the grade of clades, which is useful in reconstructing the sequence of evolution, is not useful for accepting the new classification of the diatoms. Evidence for how these two factors affect the recovery of the three monophyletic classes is reviewed here. The three classes have been defined by clear morphological differences primarily based on gametangia and auxospore ontogeny and envelope structure, the presence or absence of a structure (tube process or sternum) associated with the annulus and the location of the cribrum in those genera with loculate areolae. New evidence supporting the three clades is reviewed. Other features of the cell are examined to determine whether they can also be used to support the monophyly of the three classes.

Evolution of the diatoms: major steps in their evolution and a review of the supporting molecular and morphological evidence.

Over the years, many reviews of different aspects of diatom biology, ecology and evolution have appeared. Since 1993 many molecular trees have been produced to infer diatom phylogeny. In 2004, Medlin & Kaczmarska revised the systematics of the diatoms based on more than 20 years of consistent recovery of two major clades of diatoms that did not correspond to a traditional concept of centrics and pennates and established three classes of diatoms: Clade 1 = Coscinodiscophyceae (radial centrics) and Clade 2 = Mediophyceae (polar centrics + radial Thalassiosirales) and Bacillariophyceae (pennates). However, under certain analytical conditions, an alternative view of diatom evolution, a grades of clades, has been recovered that suggests a gradual evolution from centric to pennate symmetry. These two schemes of diatom evolution are evaluated in terms of whether or not the criteria advocated by Medlin & Kaczmarska that should be met to recover monophyletic classes have been used. The monophyly of the three diatom classes can only be achieved if (1) a secondary structure of the small subunit (SSU) rRNA gene was used to construct the alignment and not an alignment based on primary structure and (2) multiple outgroups were used. These requirements have not been met in each study of diatom evolution; hence, the grade of clades, which is useful in reconstructing the sequence of evolution, is not useful for accepting the new classification of the diatoms. Evidence for how these two factors affect the recovery of the three monophyletic classes is reviewed here. The three classes have been defined by clear morphological differences primarily based on gametangia and auxospore ontogeny and envelope structure, the presence or absence of a structure (tube process or sternum) associated with the annulus and the location of the cribrum in those genera with loculate areolae. New evidence supporting the three clades is reviewed. Other features of the cell are examined to determine whether they can also be used to support the monophyly of the three classes.