Marine biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and carbon cycles

Although recent studies suggest that climate change may substantially accelerate the rate of species loss in the biosphere, only a few studies have focused on the potential consequences of a spatial reorganization of biodiversity with global warming. Here, we show a pronounced latitudinal increase in phytoplanktonic and zooplanktonic biodiversity in the extratropical North Atlantic Ocean in recent decades. We also show that this rise in biodiversity paralleled a decrease in the mean size of zooplanktonic copepods and that the reorganization of the planktonic ecosystem toward dominance by smaller organisms may influence the networks in which carbon flows, with negative effects on the downward biological carbon pump and demersal Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua). Our study suggests that, contrary to the usual interpretation of increasing biodiversity being a positive emergent property promoting the stability/resilience of ecosystems, the parallel decrease in sizes of planktonic organisms could be viewed in the North Atlantic as reducing some of the services provided by marine ecosystems to humans.

Tropical Marginal Seas: Priority Regions for Managing Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function

Tropical marginal seas (TMSs) are natural subregions of tropical oceans containing biodiverse ecosystems with conspicuous, valued, and vulnerable biodiversity assets. They are focal points for global marine conservation because they occur in regions where human populations are rapidly expanding. Our review of 11 TMSs focuses on three key ecosystems—coral reefs and emergent atolls, deep benthic systems, and pelagic biomes—and synthesizes, illustrates, and contrasts knowledge of biodiversity, ecosystem function, interaction between adjacent habitats, and anthropogenic pressures. TMSs vary in the extent that they have been subject to human influence—from the nearly pristine Coral Sea to the heavily exploited South China and Caribbean Seas—but we predict that they will all be similarly complex to manage because most span multiple national jurisdictions. We conclude that developing a structured process to identify ecologically and biologically significant areas that uses a set of globally agreed criteria is a tractable first step toward effective multinational and transboundary ecosystem management of TMSs.

Marine Biodiversity Data Flow in the UK

The report provides a review of the current level of exchange in marine life data and its management in the UK taking into account the current structures that are in place between data providers, custodians and managers. In addition, the report makes recommendations on how data flow can be improved over the next few years to achieve greater exchange and interoperability within the marine sector.

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.

A comparison of the degree of implementation of marine biodiversity indicators by European countries in relation to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)

The degree of development and operability of the indicators for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) using Descriptor 1 (D1) Biological Diversity was assessed. To this end, an overview of the relevance and degree of operability of the underlying parameters across 20 European countries was compiled by analysing national directives, legislation, regulations, and publicly available reports. Marked differences were found between countries in the degree of ecological relevance as well as in the degree of implementation and operability of the parameters chosen to indicate biological diversity. The best scoring EU countries were France, Germany, Greece and Spain, while the worst scoring countries were Italy and Slovenia. No country achieved maximum scores for the implementation of MSFD D1. The non-EU countries Norway and Turkey score as highly as the top-scoring EU countries. On the positive side, the chosen parameters for D1 indicators were generally identified as being an ecologically relevant reflection of Biological Diversity. On the negative side however, less than half of the chosen parameters are currently operational. It appears that at a pan-European level, no consistent and harmonized approach currently exists for the description and assessment of marine biological diversity. The implementation of the MSFD Descriptor 1 for Europe as a whole can therefore at best be marked as moderately successful.