Placing biodiversity in ecosystem models without getting lost in translation

A key challenge to progressing our understanding of biodiversity’s role in the sustenance of ecosystem function is the extrapolation of the results of two decades of dedicated empirical research to regional, global and future landscapes. Ecosystem models provide a platform for this progression, potentially offering a holistic view of ecosystems where, guided by the mechanistic understanding of processes and their connection to the environment and biota, large-scale questions can be investigated. While the benefits of depicting biodiversity in such models are widely recognized, its application is limited by difficulties in the transfer of knowledge from small process oriented ecology into macro-scale modelling. Here, we build on previous work, breaking down key challenges of that knowledge transfer into a tangible framework, highlighting successful strategies that both modelling and ecology communities have developed to better interact with one another. We use a benthic and a pelagic case-study to illustrate how aspects of the links between biodiversity and ecosystem process have been depicted in marine ecosystem models (ERSEM and MIRO), from data, to conceptualisation and model development. We hope that this framework may help future interactions between biodiversity researchers and model developers by highlighting concrete solutions to common problems, and in this way contribute to the advance of the mechanistic understanding of the role of biodiversity in marine (and terrestrial) ecosystems.

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.

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.

Horizon scanning for invasive alien species with the potential to threaten biodiversity in Great Britain

Invasive alien species (IAS) are considered one of the greatest threats to biodiversity, particularly through their interactions with other drivers of change. Horizon scanning, the systematic examination of future potential threats and opportunities, leading to prioritization of IAS threats is seen as an essential component of IAS management. Our aim was to consider IAS that were likely to impact on native biodiversity but were not yet established in the wild in Great Britain. To achieve this, we developed an approach which coupled consensus methods (which have previously been used for collaboratively identifying priorities in other contexts) with rapid risk assessment. The process involved two distinct phases: 1. Preliminary consultation with experts within five groups (plants, terrestrial invertebrates, freshwater invertebrates, vertebrates and marine species) to derive ranked lists of potential IAS. 2. Consensus-building across expert groups to compile and rank the entire list of potential IAS. Five hundred and ninety-one species not native to Great Britain were considered. Ninety-three of these species were agreed to constitute at least a medium risk (based on score and consensus) with respect to them arriving, establishing and posing a threat to native biodiversity. The quagga mussel, Dreissena rostriformis bugensis, received maximum scores for risk of arrival, establishment and impact; following discussions the unanimous consensus was to rank it in the top position. A further 29 species were considered to constitute a high risk and were grouped according to their ranked risk. The remaining 63 species were considered as medium risk, and included in an unranked long list. The information collated through this novel extension of the consensus method for horizon scanning provides evidence for underpinning and prioritizing management both for the species and, perhaps more importantly, their pathways of arrival. Although our study focused on Great Britain, we suggest that the methods adopted are applicable globally.

A review of climate change and the implementation of marine biodiversity legislation in the United Kingdom

1. Marine legislation, the key means by which the conservation of marine biodiversity is achieved, has been developing since the 1960s. In recent decades, an increasing focus on ‘holistic’ policy development is evident, compared with earlier ‘piecemeal’ sectoral approaches. Important marine legislative tools being used in the United Kingdom, and internationally, include the designation of marine protected areas and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) with its aim of meeting ‘Good Environmental Status’ (GES) for European seas by 2020. 2. There is growing evidence of climate change impacts on marine biodiversity, which may compromise the effectiveness of any legislation intended to promote sustainable marine resource management. 3. A review of key marine biodiversity legislation relevant to the UK shows climate change was not considered in the drafting of much early legislation. Despite the huge increase in knowledge of climate change impacts in recent decades, legislation is still limited in how it takes these impacts into account. There is scope, however, to account for climate change in implementing much of the legislation through (a) existing references to environmental variability; (b) review cycles; and (c) secondary legislation and complementary policy development. 4. For legislation relating to marine protected areas (e.g. the EC Habitats and Birds Directives), climate change has generally not been considered in the site-designation process, or for ongoing management, with the exception of the Marine (Scotland) Act. Given that changing environmental conditions (e.g. rising temperatures and ocean acidification) directly affect the habitats and species that sites are designated for, how this legislation is used to protect marine biodiversity in a changing climate requires further consideration. 5. Accounting for climate change impacts on marine biodiversity in the development and implementation of legislation is vital to enable timely, adaptive management responses. Marine modelling can play an important role in informing management decisions.

Island-coastal and oceanic epipelagic zooplankton biodiversity in the southwestern Indian Ocean

The oceanic Indian Ocean zooplankton species and their distributions have been well described, but the zooplankton of coastal regions, particularly around the oceanic islands, has not been well researched, either taxonomically or experimentally. The environment of the Mascarene region in the southwestern Indian Ocean and zooplankton research that has been carried out there is detailed, along with gaps in our knowledge. Suggestions are given for future research, particularly on the zooplankton species adapted to live in the fluctuating environment of inshore waters, including studies on taxonomy and biodiversity, life cycles, dispersion and genetics. Problems of carrying out taxonomic research are highlighted.

Bridging the gap between energy and the environment

Meeting the world’s energy demand is a major challenge for society over the coming century. To identify the most sustainable energy pathways to meet this demand, analysis of energy systems on which policy is based must move beyond the current primary focus on carbon to include a broad range of ecosystem services on which human well-being depends. Incorporation of a broad set of ecosystem services into the design of energy policy will differentiates between energy technology options to identify policy options that reconcile national and international obligations to address climate change and the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services. In this paper we consider our current understanding of the implications of energy systems for ecosystem services and identify key elements of an assessment. Analysis must consider the full life cycle of energy systems, the territorial and international footprint, use a consistent ecosystem service framework that incorporates the value of both market and non-market goods, and consider the spatial and temporal dynamics of both the energy and environmental system. While significant methodological challenges exist, the approach we detail can provide the holistic view of energy and ecosystem services interactions required to inform the future of global energy policy.

Biodiversity and Biogeography of Chthamalid Barnacles from the North-Eastern Pacific (Crustacea Cirripedia)

The biogeography and ecology of the species of Chthamalus present on the west coast of America are described, using data from 51 localities from Alaska to Panama, together with their zonation on the shore with respect to that of other barnacles. The species present were C. dalli, Pilsbry 1916, C. fissus, Darwin, 1854, C. anisopoma Pilsbry 1916 and four species in the C. panamensis complex. The latter are C. panamensis Pilsbry, 1916, C. hedgecocki, Pitombo & Burton, 2007, C. alani nom. nov. (formerly C. southwardorum Pitombo & Burton, 2007) and C. newmani sp. nov.). These four species were initially separated by enzyme electrophoresis. They could only be partially separated by DNA bar coding but may be separated using morphological characters.

Relationships between biodiversity and the stability of marine ecosystems: comparisons at a European scale using meta-analysis.

The relationship between biodiversity and stability of marine benthic assemblages was investigated using existing data sets (n = 28) covering various spatial (m-km) and temporal (1973-2006) scales in different benthic habitats (emergent rock, rock pools and sedimentary habitats) through meta-analyses. Assemblage stability was estimated by measuring temporal variances of species richness, total abundance (density or % cover) and community species composition and abundance structure (using multivariate analyses). Positive relationships between temporal variability in species number and richness were generally observed at both quadrat (<1 m2) and site (100 m2) scales, while no relationships were observed by multivariate analyses. Positive relationships were also observed at the scale of site between temporal variability in species number and variability in community structure with evenness estimates. This implies that the relationship between species richness or evenness and species richness variability is slightly positive and depends on the scale of observation, suggesting that biodiversity per se is important for the stability of ecosystems. Changes within community assemblages in terms of structure are, however, generally independent of biodiversity, suggesting no effect of diversity, but the potential impact of individual species, and/or environmental factors. Except for sedimentary and rock pool habitats, no relationship was observed between temporal variation of the aggregated variable of total abundances and diversity at either scale. Overall our results emphasise that relationships depend on scale of measurements, type of habitats and the marine systems (North Atlantic and Mediterranean) considered.

Identidad territorial y paisaje. Evolución morfológica de los núcleos en Castilla y León.

Este estudio intenta esclarecer las transformaciones físicas y socioeconómicas de los asentamientos rurales de la región española de Castilla y León, durante la segunda mitad del siglo XX. Se analiza la evolución temporal de la forma urbana a través de un Sistema de Información Geográfico (SIG), calculando unos índices métricos y comparándolos con la información demográfica histórica. Los resultados pretenden mostrar los efectos de la especialización funcional económica, causada por la integración en las jerarquías productivas globales, sobre la estructura urbana. La pérdida gradual de las características tradicionales de los pueblos castellanos, como la compacidad y la integración en el entorno, debido a la pérdida o degradación de la arquitectura popular y la construcción de nuevas edificaciones industriales, supone un riesgo para las futuras políticas de desarrollo local. Se considera necesario preservar la identidad paisajística y evitar la destrucción del patrimonio cultural para poder revitalizar estos territorios.