The effect of ocean acidification on carbon storage and sequestration in seagrass beds; a global and UK context

Ocean acidification will have many negative consequences for marine organisms and ecosystems, leading to a decline in many ecosystem services provided by the marine environment. This study reviews the effect of ocean acidification (OA) on seagrasses, assessing how this may affect their capacity to sequester carbon in the future and providing an economic valuation of these changes. If ocean acidification leads to a significant increase in above- and below-ground biomass, the capacity of seagrass to sequester carbon will be significantly increased. The associated value of this increase in sequestration capacity is approximately 500 and 600 billion globally between 2010 and 2100. A proportionally similar increase in carbon sequestration value was found for the UK. This study highlights one of the few positive stories for ocean acidification and underlines that sustainable management of seagrasses is critical to avoid their continued degradation and loss of carbon sequestration capacity.

Assessing the sensitivity of blue mussel beds to pressures associated with human activities.

The Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) commissioned this project to generate an improved understanding of the sensitivities of blue mussel (Mytilus edulis) beds, found in UK waters, to pressures associated with human activities in the marine environment. The work will provide an evidence base that will facilitate and support management advice for Marine Protected Areas, development of UK marine monitoring and assessment, and conservation advice to offshore marine industries. Blue mussel beds are identified as a Habitat of Principle Importance (HPI) under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006, as a Priority Marine Feature (PMF) under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010, and included on the OSPAR (Annex V) list of threatened and declining species and habitats. The purpose of this project was to produce sensitivity assessments for the blue mussel biotopes included within the HPI, PMF and OSPAR habitat definitions, and clearly document the supporting evidence behind the assessments and any differences between them. A total of 20 pressures falling in five categories - biological, hydrological, physical damage, physical loss, and pollution and other chemical changes - were assessed in this report. The review examined seven blue mussel bed biotopes found on littoral sediment and sublittoral rock and sediment. The assessments were based on the sensitivity of M. edulis rather than associated species, as M. edulis was considered the most important characteristic species in blue mussel beds. To develop each sensitivity assessment, the resistance and resilience of the key elements are assessed against the pressure benchmark using the available evidence gathered in this review. The benchmarks were designed to provide a ‘standard’ level of pressure against which to assess sensitivity. Blue mussel beds were highly sensitive to a few human activities: • introduction or spread of non-indigenous species (NIS); • habitat structure changes - removal of substratum (extraction); and • physical loss (to land or freshwater habitat). Physical loss of habitat and removal of substratum are particularly damaging pressures, while the sensitivity of blue mussel beds to non-indigenous species depended on the species assessed. Crepidula fornicata and Crassostrea gigas both had the potential to outcompete and replace mussel beds, so resulted in a high sensitivity assessment. Mytilus spp. populations are considered to have a strong ability to recover from environmental disturbance. A good annual recruitment may allow a bed to recovery rapidly, though this cannot always be expected due to the sporadic nature of M. edulis recruitment. Therefore, blue mussel beds were considered to have a 'Medium' resilience (recovery within 2-10 years). As a result, even where the removal or loss of proportion of a mussel bed was expected due to a pressure, a sensitivity of 'Medium' was reported. Hence, most of the sensitivities reported were 'Medium'. It was noted, however, that the recovery rates of blue mussel beds were reported to be anywhere between two years to several decades. In addition, M. edulis is considered very tolerant of a range of physical and chemical conditions. As a result, blue mussel beds were considered to be 'Not sensitive' to changes in temperature, salinity, de-oxygenation, nutrient and organic enrichment, and substratum type, at the benchmark level of pressure. The report found that no distinct differences in overall sensitivity exist between the HPI, PMF and OSPAR definitions. Individual biotopes do however have different sensitivities to pressures, and the OSPAR definition only includes blue mussel beds on sediment. These differences were determined by the position of the habitat on the shore and the sediment type. For example, the infralittoral rock biotope (A3.361) was unlikely to be exposed to pressures that affect sediments. However in the case of increased water flow, mixed sediment biotopes were considered more stable and ‘Not sensitive’ (at the benchmark level) while the remaining biotopes were likely to be affected.

Using a clearly documented, evidence-based approach to create sensitivity assessments allows the assessment basis and any subsequent decision making or management plans to be readily communicated, transparent and justifiable. The assessments can be replicated and updated where new evidence becomes available ensuring the longevity of the sensitivity assessment tool. For every pressure where sensitivity was previously assessed as a range of scores in MB0102, the assessments made by the evidence review have supported one of the MB0102 assessments. The evidence review has reduced the uncertainty around assessments previously undertaken in the MB0102 project (Tillin et al., 2010) by assigning a single sensitivity score to the pressures as opposed to a range. Finally, as blue mussel bed habitats also contribute to ecosystem function and the delivery of ecosystem services, understanding the sensitivity of these biotopes may also support assessment and management in regard to these. Whatever objective measures are applied to data to assess sensitivity, the final sensitivity assessment is indicative. The evidence, the benchmarks, the confidence in the assessments and the limitations of the process, require a sense-check by experienced marine ecologists before the outcome is used in management decisions.

The hypoxia that developed in a microtidal estuary following an extreme storm produced dramatic changes in the benthos

Runoff from an extreme storm on 22 March 2010 led, during the next 3 months, to the formation of a pronounced halocline and underlying hypoxia in the upper reaches of the microtidal Swan–Canning Estuary. Benthic macroinvertebrates were sampled between January 2010 and October 2011 at five sites along 10 km of this region. By mid-April, the number of species, total density, Simpson’s evenness index and taxonomic distinctness had declined markedly, crustaceans had disappeared and the densities of annelids and molluscs had declined slightly. These faunal attributes (except Simpson’s index) and species composition did not recover until after the end of the hypoxia. The survival of annelids and loss of crustaceans in this period reflects different sensitivities of these taxa to severe environmental stress. The results emphasise that microtidal estuaries with long residence times are highly vulnerable to the effects of environmental perturbations, particularly during warmer periods of the year.

The hypoxia that developed in a microtidal estuary following an extreme storm produced dramatic changes in the benthos

Runoff from an extreme storm on 22 March 2010 led, during the next 3 months, to the formation of a pronounced halocline and underlying hypoxia in the upper reaches of the microtidal Swan–Canning Estuary. Benthic macroinvertebrates were sampled between January 2010 and October 2011 at five sites along 10 km of this region. By mid-April, the number of species, total density, Simpson’s evenness index and taxonomic distinctness had declined markedly, crustaceans had disappeared and the densities of annelids and molluscs had declined slightly. These faunal attributes (except Simpson’s index) and species composition did not recover until after the end of the hypoxia. The survival of annelids and loss of crustaceans in this period reflects different sensitivities of these taxa to severe environmental stress. The results emphasise that microtidal estuaries with long residence times are highly vulnerable to the effects of environmental perturbations, particularly during warmer periods of the year.

Climate-driven shifts in species' distributions may exacerbate the impacts of storm disturbances on North-east Atlantic kelp forests

Physical disturbance through wave action is a major determinant of kelp forest structure. The North-east Atlantic storm season of 2013–14 was unusually severe; the south coast of the UK was subjected to 6 of the 12 most intense storms recorded in the past 5 years. Inshore significant wave heights and periods exceeded 7 m and 13 s with two storms classified as ‘1-in-30 year’ events. We examined the impacts of the storm season on kelp canopies at three study sites. Monospecific canopies comprising Laminaria hyperborea were unaffected by storm disturbance. However, at one study site a mixed canopy comprising Laminaria ochroleuca, Saccharina latissima and L. hyperborea was significantly altered by the storms, due to decreased abundances of the former two species. Quantification of freshly severed stipes suggested that the ‘warm water’ kelp L. ochroleuca was more susceptible to storm damage than L. hyperborea. Overall, kelp canopies were highly resistant to storm disturbance because of the low vulnerability of L. hyperborea to intense wave action. However, if climate-driven shifts in kelp species distributions result in more mixed canopies, as predicted, then resistance to storm disturbance may be eroded.