LARGENET DATA WORKSHOP
Ostende, 14.02-15.02.08
Participants:
Herman Hummel (NIOO)
Doris Schiedek (IOW),
Alexandra Kraberg (AWI),
Iacopo Bertocci (Pisa),
Leen Vandepitte (VLIZ),
Ward Appeltans (VLIZ),
Bart VanHoorne (VLIZ)
Day 1:
Day 1 was devoted to a first discussion of the LargeNet integrated database and further
data acquisition tasks
1. The LargeNet database
An introduction to the database was given by Leen Vandepitte. The database now contains
42 datasets. These include: 2664 unique taxa from 2635 stations with a total number of
808961 records. Two further datasets have not yet been incorporated into the database
because of incomplete metadata.
The database contains extensive options for querying the data. Sub-selections can be
made for instance by habitat, i.e. to examine only rocky shore or soft bottom data. Further
options are the selection of data for particular geographic areas, methodologies or
temporal scope. In addition queries can be restricted to a certain taxonomic rank e.g. all
taxa below the level of family or all records for a certain taxon. Where data from replicated
studies were provided these can be queried as the individual data or with all replicates
pooled. The same procedure is available for life-cycle stages, i.e. data can be presented
for a species with all stages pooled or shown separately (e.g. adult copepod, copepodite
stages, nauplii)
Some modifications to the database were discussed--> stages. It was agreed that the
database was to be made available to the Leaders of the LargeNet working groups for an
initial evaluation of database content with feedback to be provided before April 1 st. The
diversity of the data with respect to methodologies and units used e.g. for biomass were
also discussed and the need for appropriate metadata was stressed again in this context.
In the present database
2. Further data acquisition
Data acquisition will continue as at present the majority of data sets are covering Northern
Europe and we can therefore not adequately address latitudinal patterns in species
distribution (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Sampling locations of the data sets in the Integrated LargeNet database. Rocky
shore, soft bottom and pelagic data are shown separately (Map provided by VLIZ) 1.
A list of potential additional data providers was therefore drawn up including Marbef
partners and external data providers. Many of these have been contacted before. Some of
the potential data providers will now be contacted by MarBef management to encourage
their contributions. In addition, the providers of data to the Macroben database will also be
contacted to ask permission to use their data for specific LargeNet activities. In this context
it was stressed by Herman Hummel that permission to use data by relevant data providers
is indeed restricted to a specific analysis and the user of the data should in actual fact
destroy them after his or her analysis is complete.
The types of data needed (in addition to geographical coverage) were also discussed. It
was decided that data should ideally have a temporal coverage from 1965- present. All
future data providers will also be asked whether they can make environmental data
available (at least temperature/ salinity data). Where biomass data are provided
conversion factors might be required (e.g. for wet weight to dry weight).
Day 2:
1. During day 2 of the workshop, on the basis of the data already submitted, it was
discussed to what extent the topics chosen as priorities during the Bremerhaven workshop
in 2006 (see Appendix 1) could already be addressed.
In this context the following general questions were addressed. The aim was to focus
further data acquisition tasks:
 Are any of these goals too ambitious, no matter what further datasets we can still
acquire?

Which topics can we address with additional data. What additional data do we
need?

What analyses are possible on the basis of the available data, i.e. assuming no
further data can be acquired.
Discussions on some of the different LargeNet topics are summarized below.
Topic 1: Range shifts: Although these will also be affected by gaps in geographical
coverage in the data, first analyses should be possible as there are several areas with a
very good coverage for rocky shore data and also long-term data (meaning here several
samplings over the past 50-60 years) which can be inspected at least with respect to the
appearance of new species/ loss of formerly resident species initially while further data are
acquired.
Topic 2: Proportion of species with multifunctional modes
It was already decided prior to the workshop that this topic is low priority and will be
addressed if time permits.
Topic 3: Shifts in Phenology/ Regime shifts
1
At the point of dissemination of the report two further extensive rocky shore datasets from Slovenia and
Greece have been made available to LargeNet
A collaboration with RMP BIOFUSE was also discussed. Several sites were identified for
which LargeNet and Biofuse hold pelagic as well as benthic datasets, which could be used
e.g. for LargeNet topic 3. We will in the next 4-6 weeks establish grounds for data
sharing/ joint publications between the 2 RMPs.
Topic 4: Changes in ß-diversity
The database will be evaluated by Tony Terlizzi to assess to what extent this topic can be
addressed with the available data.
Topic 5: Negative effects of rising temperatures on summer reproducing species –
this will mainly deal with rocky shore species
A comprehensive literature review on physiological data has been carried out to prepare a
review on this topic based on available literature (physiological tolerances) and LargeNet
sampling data. We will also address this in a more general sense and compare rocky
shore communities across Europe (e.g. Laminaria and Fucus serratus dominated
communities)
Topic 6:
This topic will be strongly affected by geographical gaps in the data, although data from
Lecce, Helgoland and Pisa were regarded as suitable for the planned analyses. Data from
France and Spain were established as a priority. The MBA in Plymouth will also be
contacted again to check whether they can contribute further data
General comment: all need 50 year data sets for addressing climate change issues. These
are difficult to obtain for instance for rocky shore data. By concentrating on large scale
spatial data first we can examine the available data without the need for extensive longterm data sets for rocky shores.
2. The possible employment of a further person to assist in data analysis tasks:
The attending teams agreed that this would be useful. It was agreed to prepare a short text
LargeNet members should be contacted to discuss how much money they could allocate
to the project.
3. Collaboration with University of Oslo
A collaboration with the University of Oslo was agreed with respect to the analysis of
community data using modelling tools developed in Oslo. The LargeNet database contains
a large number of presence-absence data, which are well suited for the planned analyses.
One requirement of suitable datasets is a spatially intense sampling design, i.e. many
sampling sites. Potential LargeNet data providers with suitable data will be approached to
inquire whether they will be willing to
The next steps for the leaders of the LargeNet working groups and LargeNet coordinators was agreed as follows:
1. Give access to the database to task leaders
2. tell team leaders to test the database and report problems before April 1 st with
respect to errors in their own data
3. Within 4-6 weeks establish concrete basis of collaboration with Biofuse
4. make further request for data from different data providers by March 21st.
Appendix 1: LargeNet topic groups:
The people listed in the different groups were named during the workshop as suitable for
the tasks. This is not yet set in stone. Please let us know if there are additional activities
you would like to participate in (or if you feel totally out of place in a certain group)
Topic 1: Shifts in geographic ranges of species (nova@mba.ac.uk)
Responsible (?): Alex Kraberg/ Fred Buchholz/ Karen Wiltshire, Martin Edwards, Doris
Schiedek, Sabine Cochrane (Arctic), Monica Kedra (topic leader: Nova Mieszkowska)
Possible external partners: Ester Serrao, Ivka Munda
Topic 3: Shifts in phenology in relation to latitudinal gradient: effect of increasing
temperatures on loss in synchronicity between primary and secondary producers
( match-mismatch scenarios)  should include the regime shift question as well
(Alexandra.Kraberg@awi.de)
Responsible (?): Martin Edwards, Alex Kraberg/ Karen Wiltshire, Matt Frost, Nicole BouryEsnault, Tony Terlizzi, Christos Arvanitidis, Norbert Wasmund (topic leader: Alex Kraberg)
Topic
4:
Changes
in
(antonio.terlizzi@unile.it):
ß-diversity
along
a
latitudinal
gradient
Topic leader: Tony Terlizzi
Responsible: Stanislao Bevilacqua, Monica Kedra, 1 external partner from New Zealand
Topic 5: shifts in phenology (2): negative effects of rising temperatures on summer
reproducing species – this will mainly deal with rocky shore species
(Inka.Bartsch@awi.de).
Responsible(?):Inka Bartsch, Alex Kraberg
(topic leader: Inka Bartsch)
Topic 6: Analysis of relationships between environmental gradients and patterns of
biodiversity over large scales (ibertocci@biologia.unipi.it)
Responsible: Iacopo Bertocci, Simonetta Fraschetti, Fred Buchholz
(Topic leader: Iacopo Bertocci)
Low priority: Topic 2: Proportion of species with multifunctional modes:
Responsible (?): Sabine Cochrane, Paul Somerfield, Christos Arvanitidis (topic leader tba)