Tillin, H. & Tyler-Walters, H., 2014. Assessing the sensitivity of subtidal sedimentary habitats to pressures associated with marine activities. Phase 2 Report – Literature review and sensitivity assessments for ecological groups for circalittoral and offshore Level 5 biotopes. JNCC Report No. 512B, 260 pp.

Human activities within the marine environment give rise to a number of pressures on seabed habitats. Improved understanding of the sensitivity of subtidal sedimentary habitats is required to underpin the management advice provided for Marine Protected Areas, as well as supporting other UK marine monitoring and assessment work. The sensitivity of marine sedimentary habitats to a range of pressures induced by human activities has previously been systematically assessed using approaches based on expert judgement for Defra Project MB0102 (Tillin et al. 2010). This previous work assessed sensitivity at the level of the broadscale habitat and therefore the scores were typically expressed as a range due to underlying variation in the sensitivity of the constituent biotopes. The objective of this project was to reduce the uncertainty around identifying the sensitivity of selected subtidal sedimentary habitats by assessing sensitivity, at a finer scale and incorporating information on the biological assemblage, for 33 Level 5 circalittoral and offshore biotopes taken from the Marine Habitat Classification of Britain and Ireland (Connor et al. 2004). Two Level 6 sub-biotopes were also included in this project as these contain distinctive characterising species that differentiate them from the Level 5 parent biotope. Littoral, infralittoral, reduced and variable salinity sedimentary habitats were excluded from this project as the scope was set for assessment of circalittoral and offshore sedimentary communities. This project consisted of three Phases. • Phase 1 - define ecological groups based on similarities in the sensitivity of characterising species from the Level 5 and two Level 6 biotopes described above. • Phase 2 - produce a literature review of information on the resilience and resistance of characterising species of the ecological groups to pressures associated with activities in the marine environment. • Phase 3 - to produce sensitivity assessment ‘proformas’ based on the findings of Phase 2 for each ecological group. This report outlines results of Phase 2. The Tillin et al., (2010) sensitivity assessment methodology was modified to use the best available scientific evidence that could be collated within the project timescale. An extensive literature review was compiled, for peer reviewed and grey literature, to examine current understanding about the effects of pressures from human activities on circalittoral and offshore sedimentary communities in UK continental shelf waters, together with information on factors that contribute to resilience (recovery) of marine species. This review formed the basis of an assessment of the sensitivity of the 16 ecological groups identified in Phase 1 of the project (Tillin & Tyler-Walters 2014). As a result: • the state of knowledge on the effects of each pressure on circalittoral and offshore benthos was reviewed; • the resistance, resilience and, hence, sensitivity of sixteen ecological groups, representing 96 characteristic species, were assessed for eight separate pressures; • each assessment was accompanied by a detailed review of the relevant evidence; Assessing the sensitivity of subtidal sedimentary habitats to pressures associated with human activities • knowledge gaps and sources of uncertainty were identified for each group; • each assessment was accompanied by an assessment of the quality of the evidence, its applicability to the assessment and the degree of concordance (agreement) between the evidence, to highlight sources of uncertainty as an assessment of the overall confidence in the sensitivity assessment, and finally • limitations in the methodology and the application of sensitivity assessments were outlined. This process demonstrated that the ecological groups identified in Phase 1 (Tillin & Tyler-Walters 2014) were viable groups for sensitivity assessment, and could be used to represent the 33 circalittoral and offshore sediments biotopes identified at the beginning of the project. The results of the sensitivity assessments show: • the majority of species and hence ecological groups in sedimentary habitats are sensitive to physical change, especially loss of habitat and sediment extraction, and change in sediment type; • most sedimentary species are sensitive to physical damage, e.g. abrasion and penetration, although deep burrowing species (e.g. the Dublin Bay prawn - Nephrops norvegicus and the sea cucumber - Neopentadactyla mixta) are able to avoid damaging effects to varying degrees, depending on the depth of penetration and time of year; • changes in hydrography (wave climate, tidal streams and currents) can significantly affect sedimentary communities, depending on whether they are dominated by deposit, infaunal feeders or suspension feeders, and dependant on the nature of the sediment, which is itself modified by hydrography and depth; • sedentary species and ecological groups that dominate the top-layer of the sediment (either shallow burrowing or epifaunal) remain the most sensitive to physical damage; • mobile species (e.g. interstitial and burrowing amphipods, and perhaps cumaceans) are the least sensitive to physical change or damage, and hydrological change as they are already adapted to unstable, mobile substrata; • sensitivity to changes in organic enrichment and hence oxygen levels, is variable between species and ecological groups, depending on the exact habitat preferences of the species in question, although most species have at least a medium sensitivity to acute deoxygenation; • there is considerable evidence on the effects of bottom-contact fishing practices and aggregate dredging on sedimentary communities, although not all evidence is directly applicable to every ecological group; • there is lack of detailed information on the physiological tolerances (e.g. to oxygenation, salinity, and temperature), habitat preferences, life history and population dynamics of many species, so that inferences has been made from related species, families, or even the same phylum; • there was inadequate evidence to assess the effects of non-indigenous species on most ecological groups, and Assessing the sensitivity of subtidal sedimentary habitats to pressures associated with human activities • there was inadequate evidence to assess the effects of electromagnetic fields and litter on any ecological group. The resultant report provides an up-to-date review of current knowledge about the effects of pressures resulting from human activities of circalittoral and offshore sedimentary communities. It provides an evidence base to facilitate and support the provision of management advice for Marine Protected Areas, development of UK marine monitoring and assessment, and conservation advice to offshore marine industries. However, such a review will require at least annual updates to take advantage of new evidence and new research as it becomes available. Also further work is required to test how ecological group assessments are best combined in practice to advise on the sensitivity of a range of sedimentary biotopes, including the 33 that were originally examined.

Impact of climate change on marine pelagic phenology and trophic mismatch

Phenology, the study of annually recurring life cycle events such as the timing of migrations and flowering, can provide particularly sensitive indicators of climate change. Changes in phenology may be important to ecosystem function because the level of response to climate change may vary across functional groups and multiple trophic levels. The decoupling of phenological relationships will have important ramifications for trophic interactions, altering food-web structures and leading to eventual ecosystem-level changes. Temperate marine environments may be particularly vulnerable to these changes because the recruitment success of higher trophic levels is highly dependent on synchronization with pulsed planktonic production. Using long-term data of 66 plankton taxa during the period from 1958 to 2002, we investigated whether climate warming signals are emergent across all trophic levels and functional groups within an ecological community. Here we show that not only is the marine pelagic community responding to climate changes, but also that the level of response differs throughout the community and the seasonal cycle, leading to a mismatch between trophic levels and functional groups.

In hot water: zooplankton and climate change

An overview is provided of the observed and potential future responses of zooplankton communities to global warming. I begin by describing the importance of zooplankton in ocean ecosystems and the attributes that make them sensitive beacons of climate change. Global warming may have even greater repercussions for marine ecosystems than for terrestrial ecosystems, because temperature influences water column stability, nutrient enrichment, and the degree of new production, and thus the abundance, size composition, diversity, and trophic efficiency of zooplankton. Pertinent descriptions of physical changes in the ocean in response to climate change are given as a prelude to a detailed discussion of observed impacts of global warming on zooplankton. These manifest as changes in the distribution of individual species and assemblages, in the timing of important life-cycle events, and in abundance and community structure. The most illustrative case studies, where climate has had an obvious, tangible impact on zooplankton and substantial ecosystem consequences, are presented. Changes in the distribution and phenology of zooplankton are faster and greater than those observed for terrestrial groups. Relevant projected changes in ocean conditions are then presented, followed by an exploration of potential future changes in zooplankton communities from the perspective of different modelling approaches. Researchers have used a range of modelling approaches on individual species and functional groups forced by output from climate models under future greenhouse gas emission scenarios. I conclude by suggesting some potential future directions in climate change research for zooplankton, viz. the use of richer zooplankton functional groups in ecosystem models; greater research effort in tropical systems; investigating climate change in conjunction with other human impacts; and a global zooplankton observing system.

An unusually large phytoplankton spring bloom drives rapid changes in benthic diversity and ecosystem function

In 2012, the Western English Channel experienced an unusually large and long-lived phytoplankton spring bloom. When compared with data from the past 20 years, average phytoplankton biomass at Station L4 (part of the Western Channel Observatory) was approximately 3× greater and lasted 50% longer than any previous year. Regular (mostly weekly) box core samples were collected from this site before, during and after the bloom to determine its impact on macrofaunal abundance, diversity, biomass, community structure and function. The spring bloom of 2012 was shown to support a large and rapid response in the majority of benthic taxa and functional groups. However, key differences in the precise nature of this response, as well as in its timing, was observed between different macrofauna feeding groups. Deposit feeders responded almost instantly at the start of the bloom, primarily thorough an increase in abundance. Suspension feeders and opportunistic/predatory/carnivorous taxa responded slightly more slowly and primarily with an increase in biomass. At the end of the bloom a rapid decline in macrobenthic abundance, diversity and biomass closely followed the decline in phytoplankton biomass. With suspension feeders showing evidence of this decline a few weeks before deposit feeders, it was concluded that this collapse in benthic communities was driven primarily by food availability and competition. However, it is possible that environmental hypoxia and the presence of toxic benthic cyanobacteria could also have contributed to this decline. This study shows evidence for strong benthic–pelagic coupling at L4; a shallow (50 m), coastal, fine-sand habitat. It also demonstrates that in such habitats, it is not just planktonic organisms that demonstrate clear community phenology. Different functional groups within the benthic assemblage will respond to the spring bloom in specific manner, with implications for key ecosystem functions and processes, such as secondary production and bioturbation. Only by taking integrated benthic and pelagic observations over such fine temporal scales (weekly) was the current study able to identify the intimate structure of the benthic response. Similar studies from other habitats and under different bloom conditions are urgently needed to fully appreciate the strength of benthic–pelagic coupling in shallow coastal environments.