Social impacts of a temperate fisheries closure: understanding stakeholders' views

The social dimensions of marine protected areas (MPAs) play an important role in MPA success, yet these social dimensions are little understood. We explore the social impacts arising from the establishment of an MPA using Lyme Bay (south west England) as a case study. Through a series of small group semi-structured interviews the social impacts experienced by fishermen (mobile and static gear), recreational users (divers and sea anglers) and recreation service providers (charter boat and dive businesses) were explored. The social impacts expressed varied according to activity in which the stakeholder group engaged. Negative themes included lengthening fishing trips, tension and conflict, fishermen identity, equity and uncertainty in the long-term. Positive themes included improved experiences for both commercial fishermen and recreational users, and expectations for long-term benefits. These impacts need to be understood because they influence stakeholder behaviour. Failure to interpret stakeholder responses may lead to poor decision-making and worsening stakeholder relations. These findings have implications for the success of the MPA in Lyme Bay, but also for the future network of marine conservation zones around the UK. Any assessment of MPA impacts must therefore identify social as well as economic and environmental change.

Marine biodiversity and ecosystem function relationships:the potential for practical monitoring applications

There is an increasing demand for environmental assessments of the marine environment to include ecosystem function. However, existing schemes are predominantly based on taxonomic (i.e. structural) measures of biodiversity. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function (BEF) relationships are suggested to provide a mechanism for converting taxonomic information into surrogates of ecosystem function. This review assesses the evidence for marine BEF relationships and their potential to be used in practical monitoring applications (i.e. operationalized). Five key requirements were identified for the practical application of BEF relationships: (1) a complete understanding of strength, direction and prevalence of marine BEF relationships, (2) an understanding of which biological components are influential within specific BEF relationships, (3) the biodiversity of the selected biological components can be measured easily, (4) the ecological mechanisms that are the most important for generating marine BEF relationships, i.e. identity effects or complementarity, are known and (5) the proportion of the overall functional variance is explained by biodiversity, and hence BEF relationships, has been established. Numerous positive and some negative BEF relationships were found within the literature, although many reproduced poorly the natural species richness, trophic structures or multiple functions of real ecosystems (requirement 1). Null relationships were also reported. The consistency of the positive and negative relationships was often low that compromised the ability to generalize BEF relationships and confident application of BEF within marine monitoring. Equally, some biological components and functions have received little or no investigation. Expert judgement was used to attribute biological components using spatial extent, presence and functional rate criteria (requirement 2). This approach highlighted the main biological components contributing the most to specific ecosystem functions, and that many of the particularly influential components were found to have received the least amount of research attention. The need for biodiversity to be measureable (requirement 3) is possible for most biological components although difficult within the functionally important microbes. Identity effects underpinned most marine BEF relationships (requirement 4). As such, processes that translated structural biodiversity measures into functional diversity were found to generate better BEF relationships. The analysis of the contribution made by biodiversity, over abiotic influences, to the total expression of a particular ecosystem function was rarely measured or considered (requirement 5). Hence it is not possible to determine the overall importance of BEF relationships within the total ecosystem functioning observed. In the few studies where abiotic factors had been considered, it was clear that these modified BEF relationships and have their own direct influence on functional rate. Based on the five requirements, the information required for immediate ‘operationalization’ of BEF relationships within marine functional monitoring is lacking. However, the concept of BEF inclusion within practical monitoring applications, supported by ecological modelling, shows promise for providing surrogate indicators of functioning.