Use of Continuous Plankton Recorder information in support of marine management: applications in fisheries, environmental protection, and in the study of ecosystem response to environmental change

The Continuous Plankton Recorder (CPR) survey was conceived from the outset as a programme of applied research designed to assist the fishing industry. Its survival and continuing vigour after 70 years is a testament to its utility, which has been achieved in spite of great changes in our understanding of the marine environment and in our concerns over how to manage it. The CPR has been superseded in several respects by other technologies, such as acoustics and remote sensing, but it continues to provide unrivalled seasonal and geographic information about a wide range of zooplankton and phytoplankton taxa. The value of this coverage increases with time and provides the basis for placing recent observations into the context of long-term, large-scale variability and thus suggesting what the causes are likely to be. Information from the CPR is used extensively in judging environmental impacts and producing quality status reports (QSR); it has shown the distributions of fish stocks, which had not previously been exploited; it has pointed to the extent of ungrazed phytoplankton production in the North Atlantic, which was a vital element in establishing the importance of carbon sequestration by phytoplankton. The CPR continues to be the principal source of large-scale, long-term information about the plankton ecosystem of the North Atlantic. It has recently provided extensive information about the biodiversity of the plankton and about the distribution of introduced species. It serves as a valuable example for the design of future monitoring of the marine environment and it has been essential to the design and implementation of most North Atlantic plankton research.

Macroscale factors affecting diatom abundance: a synergistic use of Continuous Plankton Recorder and satellite remote sensing data

Diatoms exist in almost every aquatic regime; they are responsible for 20% of global carbon fixation and 25% of global primary production, and are regarded as a key food for copepods, which are subsequently consumed by larger predators such as fish and marine mammals. A decreasing abundance and a vulnerability to climatic change in the North Atlantic Ocean have been reported in the literature. In the present work, a data matrix composed of concurrent satellite remote sensing and Continuous Plankton Recorder (CPR) in situ measurements was collated for the same spatial and temporal coverage in the Northeast Atlantic. Artificial neural networks (ANNs) were applied to recognize and learn the complex non-monotonic and non-linear relationships between diatom abundance and spatiotemporal environmental factors. Because of their ability to mimic non-linear systems, ANNs proved far more effective in modelling the diatom distribution in the marine ecosystem. The results of this study reveal that diatoms have a regular seasonal cycle, with their abundance most strongly influenced by sea surface temperature (SST) and light intensity. The models indicate that extreme positive SSTs decrease diatom abundances regardless of other climatic conditions. These results provide information on the ecology of diatoms that may advance our understanding of the potential response of diatoms to climatic change.

The potential use of mapped extent and distribution of habitats as indicators of Good Environmental Status (GES)

The Healthy and Biologically Diverse Seas Evidence Group (HBDSEG) has been tasked with providing the technical advice for the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) with respect to descriptors linked to biodiversity. A workshop was held in London to address one of the Research and Development (R&D) proposals entitled: ‘Mapping the extent and distribution of habitats using acoustic and remote techniques, relevant to indicators for area/extent/habitat loss.’ The aim of the workshop was to identify, define and assess the feasibility of potential indicators of benthic habitat distribution and extent, and identify the R&D work which could be required to fully develop these indicators. The main points that came out of the workshop were: (i) There are many technical aspects of marine habitat mapping that still need to be resolved if cost-effective spatial indicators are to be developed. Many of the technical aspects that need addressing surround issues of consistency, confidence and repeatability. These areas should be tackled by the JNCC Habitat Mapping and Classification Working Group and the HBDSEG Seabed Mapping Working Group. (ii) There is a need for benthic ecologists (through the HBDSEG Benthic Habitats Subgroup and the JNCC Marine Indicators Group) to finalise the list of habitats for which extent and/or distribution indicators should be considered for development, building upon the recommendations from this report. When reviewing the list of indicators, benthic habitats could also be distinguished into those habitats that are defined/determined primarily by physical parameters (although including biological assemblages) (e.g. subtidal shallow sand) and those defined primarily by their biological assemblage (e.g. seagrass beds). This distinction is important as some anthropogenic pressures may influence the biological component of the ecosystem despite not having a quantifiable effect on the physical habitat distribution/extent. (iii) The scale and variety of UK benthic habitats makes any attempt to undertake comprehensive direct mapping exercises prohibitively expensive (especially where there is a need for repeat surveys for assessment). There is a clear need therefore to develop a risk-based approach that uses indirect indicators (e.g. modelling), such as habitats at risk from pressures caused by current human activities, to develop priorities for information gathering. The next steps that came out of the workshop were: (i) A combined approach should be developed by the JNCC Marine Indicators Group together with the HBDSEG Benthic Habitats Subgroup, which will compile and ultimately synthesise all the criteria used by the three different groups from the workshop. The agreed combined approach will be used to undertake a final review of the habitats considered during the workshop, and to evaluate any remaining habitats in order to produce a list of habitats for indicator development for which extent and/or distribution indicators could be appropriate. (ii) The points of advice raised at this workshop, alongside the combined approach aforementioned, and the final list of habitats for extent and/or distribution indicator development will be used to develop a prioritised list of actions to inform the next round of R&D proposals for benthic habitat indicator development in 2014. This will be done through technical discussions within JNCC and the relevant HBDSEG Subgroups. The preparation of recommendations by these groups should take into account existing work programmes, and consider the limited resources available to undertake any further R&D work.

Assessing the sensitivity of seabed species and biotopes - the Marine Life Information Network (MarLIN).

Science-based approaches to support the conservation of marine biodiversity have been developed in recent years. They include measures of ‘rarity’, ‘diversity’, ‘importance’, biological indicators of water ‘quality’ and measures of ‘sensitivity’. Identifying the sensitivity of species and biotopes, the main topic of this contribution, relies on accessing and interpreting available scientific data in a structured way and then making use of information technology to disseminate suitably presented information to decision makers. The Marine Life Information Network (MarLIN) has achieved that research for a range of environmentally critical species and biotopes over the past four years and has published the reviews on the MarLIN Web site (www.marlin.ac.uk). Now, by linking the sensitivity database and databases of survey information, sensitivity mapping approaches using GIS are being developed. The methods used to assess sensitivity are described and the approach is advocated for wider application in Europe.