Effects of formalin preservation on stable carbon and nitrogen isotope signatures in Calanoid copepods: implications for the use of Continuous Plankton Recorder Survey samples in stable isotope analyses

Preserved and archived organic material offers huge potential for the conduct of retrospective and long-term historical ecosystem reconstructions using stable isotope analyses, but because of isotopic exchange with preservatives the obtained values require validation. The Continuous Plankton Recorder (CPR) Survey is the most extensive long-term monitoring program for plankton communities worldwide and has utilised ships of opportunity to collect samples since 1931. To keep the samples intact for subsequent analysis, they are collected and preserved in formalin; however, previous studies have found that this may alter stable carbon and nitrogen isotope ratios in zooplankton. A maximum ~0.9‰ increase of δ15N and a time dependent maximum ~1.0‰ decrease of δ13C were observed when the copepod, Calanus helgolandicus, was experimentally exposed to two formalin preservatives for 12 months. Applying specific correction factors to δ15N and δ13C values for similarly preserved Calanoid species collected by the CPR Survey within 12 months of analysis may be appropriate to enable their use in stable isotope studies. The isotope values of samples stored frozen did not differ significantly from those of controls. Although the impact of formalin preservation was relatively small in this and other studies of marine zooplankton, changes in isotope signatures are not consistent across taxa, especially for δ15N, indicating that species-specific studies may be required. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Family-level AMBI is valid for use in the north-eastern Atlantic but not for assessing the health of microtidal Australian estuaries

Analysis of benthic macroinvertebrate samples at a higher taxonomic level than species, e.g. family, potentially provides a more cost-effective protocol for environmental impact assessments and monitoring as it requires less time, funds and taxonomic expertise. Using the AMBI database, species ecological group scores are shown to be coherent within families. Faunal data from a wide range of environmental impact scenarios in the north-eastern Atlantic demonstrate that AMBI, calculated from mean values for families, exhibits a strong linear relationship with species-level AMBI, the correlation improving by using square-root transformed rather than untransformed abundances. In many regions of the world, however, the sensitivity of benthic macroinvertebrates to environmental perturbations is unknown, precluding the use of AMBI for environmental assessments. Yet the families are essentially the same as in the AMBI database. The utility of family-level AMBI is tested using data for four south-western Australian estuaries previously subjected to environmental quality assessments, but where only 17 species of the 144 taxa are included in the AMBI database. Although family-level AMBI scores reflect differences in environmental quality spatially and temporally within an estuary, they do not follow variations in environmental quality among estuaries. Indeed, south-western Australia estuaries are numerically dominated by families with high AMBI scores, probably due to the detrimental effects of natural accumulations of organic material in estuaries with long residence times. As taxonomic distinctness follows trends in environmental quality among estuaries, as well as temporally and spatially within a system, it provides an appropriate substitute for assessing the 'heath' of microtidal estuaries.

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.