Friday, 12 March 2010
2.0 MARINE BIODIVERSITY STATUS AND TRENDS
2.1 Status
The Millenium Ecosystem Assessment was launched in 2001 to improve the understanding of
interdependencies between human development and changes in ecosystems at the scale of the
planet. This was the first large-scale international program aimed at integrating economic,
ecological and social issues associated to the conservation of biodiversity. The MEA approach
was applied to marine and coastal systems, leading to a global assessment of the dependence of
people on the ocean and coasts and their resources for their survival and well-being. The major
drivers of change, degradation, or loss of marine and coastal ecosystems and services were
assessed, and considered to be mainly anthropogenic. However, the conclusions of the MEA for
marine and coastal systems stressed the importance of gaps in knowledge, particularly regarding
the definition of ecosystem services provided by marine ecosystems, and consequences of
changes in these services for human well-being.
Overall, there is a lack of basic monitoring of the human uses of marine ecosystems, and the
associated benefits derived by society. This hampers analysis of the changes in human uses, and
associated changes in ecosystem quality and human well-being, in space and time. In some
cases, this is due to a total deficit of observations collected in ways other than anecdotal. In other
cases, while some information is available, e.g. via national statistical institutes, the scale at
which it is collected is often not that at which activities interact with ecosystem processes, hence
it is difficult to establish links between changes in uses, changes in ecosystem attributes, and
resulting changes in well-being. In most cases, the information that is collected is fragmented
across sectors and areas. In addition, some data sets may not be readily available for researchers
to work on …
-
regulation (subsidies…) OT
Based on a rapid development of harvesting techniques and fishing capacities, a
geographical expansion of exploitation and an increase in the international trade of
fish products, the global production of marine fisheries increased rapidly from the
1950s to reach its maximum at the beginning of the 1990s (Garcia et al., 2005).
Global fish catches have increased approximately 5 fold since 1950 and reached a
plateau at around 80 million tonnes from the late 1980s. Within the overall catch
trends the relative catches of large demersal fishes have decreased from 23 to 10% of
total catch since 1950. For assessed fish stocks, the proportion of collapsed stocks has
increased through time and 14% were collapsed in 2007, where collapsed biomass is
less than 10% of biomass in the absence of fishing (Worm et al 2009). Despite the
crises and conflicts associated to these evolutions, and efforts made to regulate the
sector’s activity, today’s production capacities considerably exceed requirements.
This is true in Europe, despite a reduction in the fleet and in employment since at least
the middle of the 1940s. This raises the question of the viability of exploitation
systems, from the viewpoint of the resources and the human communities who depend
on them, and also of the capacity of marine ecosystems to sustain present levels of
harvesting.
1
Friday, 12 March 2010
-
-
-
-
1
The issue is all the more urgent in that fish represent a significant protein source for
humans. The global consumption of fish products has doubled since the beginning of
the 1970s because of factors such as population growth, rising incomes and
developing urban centres and is expected to continue to grow (Delgado et al., 2003).
Furthermore, an increasing proportion of fisheries production is used to produce feed
for aquaculture, which is growing rapidly at the international level in response to the
widening gap between fish production and the demand for fish products (FAO, 2006).
In addition to fish production systems, other activities (industries exploiting energy
and mineral marine resources, maritime transport, waste products from land-based
activities, coastal urbanisation, aquaculture, recreational activities) also put pressure
on marine ecosystems. This pressure can have a direct impact on marine biodiversity
through the competition created for access to resources and/or coastal areas, and an
indirect impact through its effects on the structure and the functioning of marine
ecosystems, as well as on water quality (e.g. through chemical and microbiological
contamination of various origins).
The multiplication of warnings about the status of marine ecosystems and fisheries
and the greater awareness of the environmental challenges have led to new social
issues being raised and in particular, a demand for the conservation of marine
biodiversity. This demand already exerts a growing pressure on fisheries management
objectives and systems as shown by the conflicts related to the impacts of fisheries on
some habitats (e.g. cold and warm water corals) or on some symbolic species (marine
mammals, turtles, birds, swordtails, etc.)1. The consensus on environmental issues, the
involvement of civil society and the poor performance of conventional governance
systems therefore create a driving force for a transition to an ecosystem-based
approach to fisheries management (EAF). Broadly, the EAF is a management
approach that seeks to plan, develop and manage fisheries in a manner that addresses
the multiple needs and desires of societies, without jeopardising the options for future
generations to benefit from the full range of goods and services (including non
fisheries benefits) provided by marine ecosystems (FAO 2003). In practice, the EAF
is emerging as an approach that is geographically specific, adaptive, considers
multiple drivers, takes account of uncertainty, seeks to balance multiple objectives
and involves stakeholders (FAO, 2003; Browman & Stergiou 2005; Murwaski 2007
The international institutional framework within which the EAF has developed is
comprised principally of three UN bodies: UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea, 1982), UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development, 1992), and the fisheries committee of FAO (United Nations
Organisation for Food and Agriculture, 1965)22. Two additional founding bodies to
See for example the WWF – France report (2002) A new fisheries policy – for responsible fishing in France and in
Europe. 23pp; or the report entitled “Turning the tide: addressing the impact of fishery on the marine
environment” published in 2004 by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in the United Kingdom.
Consumer associations, environmental NGOs are now present within the new Regional Advisory Councils
within the framework of the European CFP.
2
Friday, 12 March 2010
-
be considered are the CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity) and Agenda 21,
signed at the time of the Rio summit in 1992. At the European level, the EC (EC,
2008) have proposed a route towards implementing an EAF and for this purpose they
defined the EAF as one that “strives to balance diverse social objectives, by taking
into account knowledge and uncertainty about biotic, abiotic, and human components
of ecosystems and their interactions and applying an integrated approach to fisheries
within ecologically meaningful boundaries” which is broadly consistent with
approaches taken internationally. The EC propose that the tasks of fisheries
management are to ensure that the direct and indirect impacts of fisheries on marine
ecosystems are sustainable and to ensure that actions taken to manage fisheries are
consistent with, and supportive of, other relevant policies.
The declarations, agreements and conventions mentioned above commit their
signatories to several broad principles, among which:
• the recognition that all aspects of the ocean are inter-related and must be dealt with
as a whole (holistic approach),
• commitment by States to plan their development in an integrated and co-ordinated
way in order to guarantee the protection and the improvement of the environment for
the benefit of their populations; and to acquire and freely circulate the scientific
information required to resolve environmental issues.
2.1.a What we know - Number of species:
The realisation of the paucity of our knowledge about the world’s biodiversity, together with the
limitations of current approaches to biodiversity diagnosis, are the main driving forces behind
new approaches to species identification. Estimates of the total number of existing eukaryotic
species range from the most conservative 3.6 million up to 100+ million, with 10 million
favoured by most analysts as the nearest order of magnitude. Circa 1.5 to 1.8 million species
have been described to date.
How many species are known in the sea? (What we know)
Estimates of how many marine species known currently:
Winston 1992
Van der Land 1994
Reaka-Kudla 1997
Gordon 2000
Groombridge & Jenkins 2000
Bouchet 2006
250,000
150,000
274,000
160,000
250,000
230,000
According to Bouchet (2006), there are two notorious grey areas in evaluating the number of
valid species. The first grey area is the number of unicellular eukaryotes in particular
foraminifers and radiolarians. They are very important components of marine sediments and they
are studied by micropaleontologists. As a result recent and fossil species are not counted
separately which led to uncertainty in numbers (e.g. 4,000 species in Groombridge & Jenkins
3
Friday, 12 March 2010
2000 vs. 40,000 species in Brusca & Brusca 2003). The second grey area is due to synonymies:
different authors may have described unknowingly the same species under different names in
different parts of the world or described variants (ecological or geographical, ontogenic, sexual
dimorphism) as different species. The problem of synonymy is more severe in groups of
spectacular organisms appealing amateurs and collectors (e.g. mollusks). Marine species
accounts for 15% of the global described biodiversity. Meanwhile they have 28 animal phylum
(among which 14 are exclusively marine) against 11 in the continental domain (and only one that
is exclusively from continental origin).
Fish species are among the best documented and represent more than half of all living
vertebrates, that make 48,000 species altogether. In term of distribution, 58 % fish species are
coming from the marine environment, 41 % from the freshwater and 1 % share the two
environments. Among the 14,500 fish species that have been described (www.fishbase.org), the
vast majority (69 %) lives in shallow waters such as the coral reefs areas. Only 2 % of fish
species live in the pelagic domain (mainly pelagic fish species such as sardine, anchovies,
tunas…).
- Rate of species discovery.
Because of the common thought that the majority of species is currently known, a weak
institutional effort goes into inventory of faunas. Because of the absence of centralized registry,
it is difficult to know how many species are currently described. The 2002 – 2003 dataset
published by Bouchet (o.c.) shows that 1,635 species have been described every year. The annual
growth in number of described species reflects both the size of the phylum and the size of the
taxonomist community that is studying them. Taking in account a synonym rate of 10 – 20 %,
Bouchet proposed that 1,300 – 1,500 species are added each year to the inventory of marine life.
The same author quotes that in marine biodiversity, mollusks aside, amateurs are playing a minor
role in the description of new marine species when they are currently responsible for the
description of 46% of new descriptions in terrestrial and freshwater European animals.
Cumulative curves of number of species discovered vs. time do not show any trend to a plateau
and are linear even in European waters. For example, 20% of the European marine gastropod
species has been named in the last 25 years. (figure 2.1 & 2.2)
Figure 2.1. Yearly average number of marine
species described in 2002-2003 by taxonomic
group (Bouchet, 2006).
4
Friday, 12 March 2010
2.1.2 What we do not know
Even considering the lower estimates, we still know only a minor fraction of the immensity of
life’s diversity. The current rates of discovery - about 10,000 new species are described per year are inadequate if such a huge gap is to be closed in the near future. Moreover, no more than 5%
of the named organisms are known in any biological detail.
-
Can we predict the global magnitude of marine number of species? (What we don’t
know)
No general consensus has currently been reached on the scale of the estimates of how many
species are living in the sea. Present and past estimates are based on taxonomist opinion polls,
extrapolations from samples by habitat or area, extrapolations from known faunas (e.g. ERMS,
fishbase …), discovery rates and are restricted to the “best” known part of marine biodiversity
excluding microbes and viruses as well as parasites. Estimates range from 500,000 (May, 1994)
to >> 10,000,000 (Grassle & Macioleck, 1992; Lambshead, 1993; Poore & Wilson, 1993). Based
on extrapolation of well inventoried European Fauna (and “his intuition”) Bouchet (o.c.)
proposed 1.4 – 1.6 million species of multicellular marine organisms living in the sea and
Costello and coll. (2006) on the same basis 1.15 million species. At the current rate of new
species descriptions it will take 250 – 1,000 years to complete the inventory of marine
biodiversity.
There are also several black boxes that are seen as immense reservoirs of unknown species
(nematodes, parasites, symbionts, microbes and viruses …). Although the description of a new
microbial strains still requires our ability to isolate and cultivate it, culture-independent
molecular techniques have been adopted to explore microbial biodiversity. Not surprisingly these
approaches are resulting in a large-scale re-evaluation of microbial diversity in natural
ecosystems.
Much of animal biodiversity consists of symbionts (commensal, parasites, associated) which are
undersampled and understudied. In his essay (cited by Bouchet, o.c.) “How many copepods?”
Arthur Humes (1994) noted that of the copepods associated with benthic invertebrates in
Madagascar, New Caledonia and the Moluccas, 95% are new species. Viruses, the most common
biological entities in the marine environment, which probably infect all organisms and influence
many ecological processes (nutrient cycling, system respiration, bacterial and algal biodiversity,
algal bloom control, genetic transfers) are almost unknown. Marine viral diversity is high,
probably a few hundred thousand viral species according to Angly et al. (2006).
5
Friday, 12 March 2010
Species naming curves for various taxa
35000
30000
Number of species
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
1750
1800
1850
1900
1950
2000
Year
Figure 2.2: Rate of species description
(Dark blue: molluscs;yellow: fishes; magenta: orthoptera; aqua blue: birds)
Courtesy of P. Bouchet.
Moreover, the level of cryptic speciation in the marine realm is known to be high, and it is likely
that very large numbers of hitherto “hidden” species exist. As advanced taxonomic methods
become available (Savolainen 2005), and as new technologies enable exploration of previously
inaccessible habitats, many new marine species are being discovered (e.g. Santelli et al. 2008).
These include both microscopic and microbial taxa (Venter et al. 2004, Goméz et al. 2007), and
also more familiar larger organisms such as fish, crustaceans, corals and molluscs (Bouchet
2005).
Box 2.a. Cryptic speciation in a marine bryozoan.
The marine bryozoan, Celleporella hyalina, was thought until recently to be a single
cosmopolitan species. DNA barcoding and mating tests revealed that geographic isolates
comprised > 20 numerous deep, mostly allopatric, genetic lineages (Gómez et al. 2007; Figure
1). Moreover, such lineages were reproductively isolated, yet share very similar morphology,
6
Friday, 12 March 2010
indicating rampant cryptic speciation.
a
99/100
100
93/85
100
NW Atlantic
100/100
100
Arctic
91/87
90
NE Pacific
99/98
100
99/100
93
100/100
100
81
76
99
86/81
66
N Polar
99/100
100
100/100
100
S Polar
100/100
100
NE Atlantic
90/98
100
92/97
97
Celtic
100/100
100
*
*
99/100
100
96/89
100
95/89
80
S America
100/100
100
100/99
82
76/90
70
100/100
100
California
Woods Hole
C.angusta
A.yagana
0.01 substitutions/site
b
1 00
1 00
NW Atlantic
1 00
1 00 /100
1 00
NE Pacific
c
80
80
1 00
9 9 /1 00
Northern Polar
99
1 00
1 00
NE Atlantic
1 00
99
1 00
Celtic
1 00 /100
40
S America
1 00
9 9 /9 8
1 00
1 00
1 00 /100
1 00
1 00
1 00
California
Woods Hole
C.angusta
C.carolinensis
40
40
60
60
0.05 substitutions/site
Cryptic speciation of the marine bryozoan, Celleporalla hyalina. (After Gómez et al., 2007). (a)
Maximum-likelihood tree of haplotype data from the barcoding gene, COI. (b) Maximumlikelihood tree of the nuclear gene, elongation factor, EF-1a haplotype data. Individuals
traditionally described as C. hyalina are marked with circles coloured according to the
geographical region listed to the right. (c) Map of the sample locations included in the genetic
analysis. Coloured circles indicate the major lineage according to the phylogenetic analysis.
Dotted lines indicate the limits of the temperate oceans (20C isotherm).
There is a large number of undescribed marine species- estimated up to 9 million spp. - (e.g.
fish, algae, bryozoans, microbial taxa, etc): thus the task is enormous. Species identification is
7
Friday, 12 March 2010
the critical starting point of any research in marine biology. Conventional identification
approaches based on phenotypic characters may be apparently straightforward. However there
are various situations in which they may fail or have limited efficiency, such as cryptic species,
inherently difficult taxonomic groups, or taxonomically ambiguous eggs and larvae. The
discovery of new marine habitats and associated new species, increased threats to marine
species from on-going environmental change and habitat disturbance make it increasingly
important to develop rapid and robust ways of describing and cataloguing marine biodiversity.
Molecular tools of universal implementation, such as the recently proposed DNA barcodes (“a
rigorously standardized sequence of a minimum length and quality from an agreed-upon gene,
deposited in a major sequence database, and attached to a voucher specimen whose origins and
current status are recorded”) can counter conventional limitations, providing a simple, yet
robust system to unambiguously identify not only whole individuals, but eggs, larvae and body
fragments. International efforts are now coordinated by the Consortium for the Barcode of Life
(CBOL) which includes more than 120 member organizations in 45 nations. It is closely allied to
the Census of Marine Life, aimed at assessing the diversity, distribution, and abundance of
marine life in the oceans: past, present, and future. In 2003, Hebert and co-authors introduced
the concept of a DNA barcode, and proposed a new approach to species identification,10 which
offered great promise to counter many of the limitations above. The new approach is based on
the premise that the sequence analysis of a short fragment of a single gene (eg, cytochrome c
oxidase subunit 1), enables unequivocal identification of all animal species. Hence, analogously
to the barcodes used in commercial products, the DNA barcode would provide a standardised
tool for fast, simple, robust and precise species identification. Such a ‘barcode region’ would
also have to evolve at a rate that would distinguish species from each other while remaining
more or less identical for all members of the same species. Finally it would have to be flanked by
conserved DNA regions so as to make the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), a method of
targeted gene replication, practical.
2.1.b. Taxonomic databases:
- GBIF (global, all species): The mission of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF)
is to facilitate free and open access to biodiversity data worldwide via the Internet to underpin
sustainable development. Priorities, with an emphasis on promoting participation and working
through partners, include mobilizing biodiversity data, developing protocols and standards to
ensure scientific integrity and interoperability, building informatics architecture to allow the
interlinking of diverse data types from disparate sources, promoting capacity building and
catalyzing development of analytical tools for improved decision-making. GBIF is a
decentralized network of biodiversity information facilities (BIFs) established and maintained by
its Participants: the countries, economies or international organizations that have signed the
GBIF MoU. An important goal for GBIF is to develop the infrastructure needed across its
network to support the management and delivery of the highest quality metadata that will enable
potential end users to easily discover which datasets are available, and, critically, to evaluate the
appropriateness of such datasets for particular purposes. Marine biodiversity and fisheries is one
of the three priority domains of GBIF’s “Content Needs Assessment Task Group” to increase
discovery and mobilization of primary biodiversity data. GBIF France is located at the French
Museum of Natural History.
8
Friday, 12 March 2010
- OBIS (global, marine species only): The Ocean Biogeographic Information System, or OBIS,
is an international information system focused on marine biodiversity. It provides expert georeferenced data on marine species and currently contains more than 8.7 million georeferenced,
accurately identified species records from more than 70 databases. OBIS provides spatial query
tools for visualizing relationships among species and their environment. This information is
readily and freely accessible by the Internet and requires no special software to use. OBIS will
integrate biological, physical, and chemical oceanographic data from numerous sources, provide
a tools to test hypotheses about marine biodiversity, and assist research on marine ecosystems.
Users of OBIS, including researchers, students, and environmental managers, will gain a
dynamic view of the distribution of marine species over space and time. OBIS was established
by the Census of Marine Life program (www.coml.org) in 1999 and will integrate new data
produced by the CoML field projects. Bringing together data from many fields allows us to
discover new patters and from new collaborations that yield discoveries. The OBIS portal is just
the front end of a growing federation of sites, many of which are portals themselves for the
geographic region, taxa or tools that they cover.
- FishBase (Global, Fishes only) was developed at the WorldFish Center in collaboration with
the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and many other partners,
and with support from the European Commission (EC). FishBase is a relational database with
information to cater to different professionals such as research scientists, fisheries managers,
zoologists and many more. FishBase on the web contains practically all fish species known to
science. FishBase is a comprehensive database of information about fish. As of October
2008[update], it included descriptions of over 30,000 species, over 260,000 common names in
hundreds of languages, over 46,000 pictures, and references to more than 42,000 works in the
scientific literature.
- ERMS (European waters, marine species): The European Register of Marine Species
(ERMS) is an authoritative taxonomic list of species occurring in the European marine
environment, defined as up to the strandline or splash zone above the high tide mark and down to
0.5 (psu, ppt) salinity in estuaries. The European Register of Marine Species (ERMS) project has
compiled a list of marine species in Europe and a bibliography of marine species identification
guides. ERMS has also surveyed species identification and taxonomic expertise, and the state of
marine species collections in Europe. A total of 29,713 species-level taxa were catalogued from
European seas. Overall, 90% of the taxon checklists were satisfactory, but non-halacarid
Acarina, diatoms, lichens and cyanobacteria were not included, and geographical coverage of the
European seas was incomplete for Rotifera and Brachiopoda. Lists that would benefit from
further input include (1) those that have not yet been checked by an expert on European fauna,
namely lists of the non-epicarid Isopoda, Cephalochordata, Appendicularia, Hemichordata,
Hirudinea, Gnathostomulida, Ctenophora and Placozoa; (2) preliminary lists, including some of
the above and lists of protists; and (3) lists with many species but which have been reviewed by
only a few experts. These gaps are now being addressed in an online version of ERMS
(www.marbef.org/data/erms.php). The bibliography of 842 identification guides shows that there
are fewer guides for southern European seas, although they contain more species, than for those
in northern Europe. Adequate guides for all of Europe’s seas exist only for fishes. New guides
are especially needed for the species-rich, but small-sized taxa, such as polychaete, oligochaete
and turbellarian worms, and harpacticoid copepods. A database of >600 experts (individuals who
9
Friday, 12 March 2010
stated themselves to be experts) and a subset of these recognized by their peers as being
taxonomic experts was established. While there were generally more experts for taxa with a large
number of species, there was no correlation between the number of taxonomists and the number
of species per taxon; some taxa with thousands of species are studied by relatively few
taxonomists. Such gaps in marine biodiversity knowledge and resources must be addressed by
funding the production of additional species identification guides (Costello et al., 2006).
- WORMS (global, marine species) (Figure 2.3): The aim of a World Register of Marine
Species (WoRMS) is to provide an authoritative and comprehensive list of names of marine
organisms, including information on synonymy. While highest priority goes to valid names,
other names in use are included so that this register can serve as a guide to interpret taxonomic
literature. The content of WoRMS is controlled by taxonomic experts, not by database managers.
WoRMS has an editorial management system where each taxonomic group is represented by an
expert who has the authority over the content, and is responsible for controlling the quality of the
information. Each of these main taxonomic editors can invite several specialists of smaller
groups within their area of responsibility to join them. This register of marine species grew out
of the European Register of Marine Species (ERMS), and its combination with several other
species registers maintained at the Flanders Marine Institute (VLIZ). Rather than building
separate registers for all projects, and to make sure taxonomy used in these different projects is
consistent, VLIZ developed a consolidated database called ‘Aphia’. A list of marine species
registers included in Aphia is available below. MarineSpecies.org is the web interface for this
database. The WoRMS is an idea that is being developed, and will combine information from
Aphia with other authoritative marine species lists which are maintained by others (e.g.
AlgaeBase, FishBase, Hexacorallia, NeMys). According to the World Register of Marine
Species (WoRMS- http://www.marinespecies.org/), currently 164,774 valid marine species have
been listed; of which 121,997 have been validated (74%).
10
Friday, 12 March 2010
Figure 2.3: How WoRMS relates to other databases
- EoL (Global, all species): The Encyclopedia of Life is an unprecedented global partnership
between the scientific community and the general public. The Encyclopedia of Life (EOL) is a
free, online collaborative encyclopedia intended to document all of the 1.8 million living species
known to science. It is compiled from existing databases and from contributions by experts and
non-experts throughout the world. It aims to build one "infinitely expandable" page for each
species, including video, sound, images, graphics, as well as text. In addition, the Encyclopedia
will incorporate the Biodiversity Heritage Library, which will contain the digitized print
collections from the world's major natural history libraries. The project is initially backed by a
US$50 million funding commitment, led by the MacArthur Foundation and the Sloan
Foundation.
DAISIE European – Invasive species ??
GEOBON database ????
- BIOCEAN (global, deep-sea species, restricted to French cruises results): Biocean is
designed to gather the extremely large volume of data collected from different deep-sea
ecosystem studies conducted by Ifremer's department "DEEP" and collaborators (Figure 2.4).
Biocean is a database coming with a six application package: two of them are used onboard
research vessels to collect operational data (Alamer) the others are used to link with a core
database back on land. The latter are used to: (1) manage the taxonomic nomenclature
(BIOCLASS) (2) monitor the identification of faunal collections (GESCOL) (3) fill in chemical
analyses results or measurement data files (DONENV) (4) add or extract data from the database
(ECHANGETM). The goals of the Biocean database are: (1) collection of operational data from
research cruises (2) organisation of faunal and environmental data in a standardized form (3)
preservation of data for studies of long-term temporal changes (BIOCEAN applications are also
used by several European and International bodies).
11
Friday, 12 March 2010
Figure 2.4: Distribution map of deep-sea benthic faunal data stored in the BIOCEAN core
database and available through the OBIS portal (from Fabri et al. 2006).
- ITIS (North America, all species): The Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) is a
partnership designed to provide consistent and reliable information on the taxonomy of
biological species. ITIS was originally formed in 1996 as an interagency group within the U.S.
federal government, involving agencies from the Department of Commerce to the Smithsonian
Institution. It has now become an international body, with Canadian and Mexican government
agencies participating. The primary focus of ITIS is North American species, but many groups
are worldwide and ITIS continues to collaborate with other international agencies to increase its
global coverage. ITIS provides an automated reference database of scientific and common names
for species. As of January 2009, it contains over 592,000 scientific names, synonyms, and
common names for terrestrial, marine, and freshwater taxa from all biological kingdoms
(animals, plants, fungi, and microbes). While the system does focus on North American species,
it also includes many species not found in North America, especially among birds, fishes,
amphibians, mammals, many reptiles, and several invertebrate animal groups. Data presented in
ITIS are considered public information, and may be freely distributed and copied, though
appropriate citation is requested. ITIS is frequently used as the de facto source of taxonomic data
in biodiversity informatics projects. ITIS couples each scientific name with a stable and unique
taxonomic serial number TSN as the "common denominator" for accessing information on such
issues as invasive species, declining amphibians, migratory birds, fishery stocks, pollinators,
agricultural pests, and emerging diseases. It presents the names in a standard classification that
contains author, date, distributional, and bibliographic information related to the names. In
addition, common names are available through ITIS in the major official languages of the
Americas (English, French, Spanish, and Portuguese).
- The GenBank sequence database (Global, all species, sequences) is an open access, annotated
collection of all publicly available nucleotide sequences and their protein translations. This
database is produced at National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) as part of the
International Nucleotide Sequence Database Collaboration, or INSDC. GenBank and its
collaborators receive sequences produced in laboratories throughout the world from more than
160,000 distinct organisms. GenBank continues to grow at an exponential rate, doubling every
18 months. Release 155, produced in August 2006, and contained over 65 billion nucleotide
bases in more than 61 million sequences. GenBank is built by direct submissions from individual
laboratories, as well as from bulk submissions from large-scale sequencing centers. Database
“taxonomy” contains the names and phylogenetic lineages of more than 160,000 organisms that
have molecular data in the NCBI databases. New taxa are added to the Taxonomy database as
data are deposited for them.
- ICES Fisheries data bank: The ICES Secretariat devotes considerable resources to the
maintenance of the five fisheries related Databanks. In addition, a number of software packages
are held in the Secretariat for use by ICES Working Groups and some of these are interfaced to
the relevant databanks. The five fisheries databanks are:
1. STATLANT 27A (Official Statistics on nominal catches of fish and shellfish)
12
Friday, 12 March 2010
2. ICES Fisheries Assessment Package (for use by approximately 20 Working Groups for
ICES stock assessments. Includes catches in tonnes, fishing effort, catch in number at age
and relevant biological data).
3. International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) (results from an international survey
conducted each year in the North Sea since 1970 which provides an annual index of
abundance by ICES Statistical Rectangle).
4. North Sea databank (contains details of catches and fishing effort originally set up by the
EC). North Sea Multispecies databank (contains stomach content data for each of the
main predatory
-
INPN (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle): Inventaire national du Patrimoine naturel
(INPN) (Service du Patrimoine naturel, Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris) : Up
to now mostly terrestrial and intertidal data.
Vigie Nature (to be added)?
SINP (to be added)?
SEXTANT (to be added)?
- QUADRIGE is a component of the Water Information System (SIE) and thus contributes to
the works of the National Water Data Administration (SANDRE). Quadrige underwent a major
overhaul carried out by Ifremer, Quadrige started in March 2004 and continued until 2007. This
information system is a national reference for monitoring networks dedicated to the coastal
environment (RNO, REMI, REPHY, IGO). It contributes towards satisfying European
commitments, especially the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and regarding health in the
framework of regulations governing shellfish production areas. The stakes for Quadrige² are
numerous and varied. The most important of them is the need to store data collected from the
coastal environment measurement networks and related resources. This data storage must ensure
that the data are stored under optimal conditions.
The other stakes stem directly from the success of the first, whether for the need to perform
studies on all the data from the networks or ensure the availability of the latter.
Mention can be made of the following functions, among other, expected from Quadrige²:
• Launching or the integration of new monitoring networks (REBENT, REMORA,
MOREST, REPER, RSL, etc.),
• Taking into account spatial data and mapping functions,
• Diffusion of data and communication to the general public,
• Exchange of qualified data between national (SANDRE format) and international
partners.
Remark: A considerable funding stress is given by national and EU agencies to data- and
metadata banking of existing datasets which is likely suitable due to scattered existing data.
Nevertheless at some extent, this priority is built on a naïve perception of the supposed richness
of collected data: a major part of the information on species and habitats in the marine realm is
still lacking and a systematic acquisition of original data would deserve prioritization (e.g. the
cost of habitat mapping of the EU continental shelves is estimated to .900 M€; how much to
inventory biodiversity?).
13
Friday, 12 March 2010
2.1.c. The taxonomic impediment and the molecular tools.
Taxonomy is the science which identifies, describes, classifies and names living beings.
Taxonomy is becoming crucial to biodiversity management, public health, agriculture, and many
other aspects of life and society. Global biodiversity is being lost at an unprecedented rate as a
result of human activities, and decisions must be taken now to combat this trend. The Conference
of the Parties to the Convention on Biodiversity (COP) has requested a report from the
Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) on ways to
overcome shortage of taxonomists available to inventory and characterize the world’s
biodiversity. This shortage has been recognized not only by the COP, but has been documented
in many reports around the world (House of Lords Report, UK, 1991; Systematics Agenda 2000,
1994). It was called the Taxonomic Impediment by IUBS/Diversitas, because lack of taxonomic
expertise prevents other biodiversity research from going forward. The taxonomic impediment to
progress in the study of biodiversity is linked to a worldwide shortage of taxonomists who can be
called upon to identify species, describe species that are new to science, determine their
taxonomic relationships, and make predictions about their properties. The shortage is expected to
worsen, because the taxonomic workforce is aging, coupled with a decline in students being
trained in taxonomy. The decline in taxonomists available to study biodiversity and the parallel
decline in taxonomic teaching during University courses lead to a worrying situation.
Conventional identification approaches based on phenotypic characters may be apparently
straightforward. However there are various situations in which they may fail or have limited
efficiency, such as cryptic species, inherently difficult taxonomic groups, or taxonomically
ambiguous eggs and larvae. The discovery of new marine habitats and associated new species,
increased threats to marine species from on-going environmental change and habitat disturbance
make it increasingly important to develop rapid and robust ways of describing and cataloguing
marine biodiversity. Molecular tools of universal implementation, such as the recently proposed
DNA barcodes (“a rigorously standardized sequence of a minimum length and quality from an
agreed-upon gene, deposited in a major sequence database, and attached to a voucher specimen
whose origins and current status are recorded”) can counter conventional limitations, providing a
simple, yet robust system to unambiguously identify not only whole individuals, but eggs, larvae
and body fragments. International efforts are now coordinated by the Consortium for the Barcode
of Life (CBOL) which includes more than 120 member organizations in 45 nations. It is closely
allied to the Census of Marine Life, aimed at assessing the diversity, distribution, and abundance
of marine life in the oceans: past, present, and future. In 2003, Hebert and co-authors introduced
the concept of a DNA barcode, and proposed a new approach to species identification,10 which
offered great promise to counter many of the limitations above. The new approach is based on
the premise that the sequence analysis of a short fragment of a single gene (eg, cytochrome c
oxidase subunit 1), enables unequivocal identification of all animal species. Hence, analogously
to the barcodes used in commercial products, the DNA barcode would provide a standardised
tool for fast, simple, robust and precise species identification. Such a ‘barcode region’ would
also have to evolve at a rate that would distinguish species from each other while remaining
more or less identical for all members of the same species. Finally it would have to be flanked by
conserved DNA regions so as to make the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), a method of
targeted gene replication, practical.
14
Friday, 12 March 2010
Nevertheless if molecular data, abundant and inexpensive, have revolutionized phylogenetics and
identification techniques they do not diminished the importance of traditional work. Morphology
links living and fossil species, is the object of natural selection, inspires the search for causal
explanations, and democratizes science. Visual morphological knowledge is ideally suited to
communication. The need for the morphological research has been masked, because molecular
researchers could draw on centuries of banked morphology knowledge. That knowledge,
however, is limited to a fraction of Earth's species and will very soon be exhausted. The reality is
that for all but a few taxa, much data is outdated or unreliable. Many specimens represent
undescribed or misidentified species.
2.1.c. Fisheries, captures, by-catches, coastal fisheries
2.1.d. Transport, pollution, recreative activities, infrastructures, urbanisms, mining, trawling.
The Millenium Ecosystem Assessment was launched in 2001 to improve the understanding of
interdependencies between human development and changes in ecosystems at the scale of the
planet. This was the first large-scale international program aimed at integrating economic,
ecological and social issues associated to the conservation of biodiversity. The MEA approach
was applied to marine and coastal systems, leading to a global assessment of the dependence of
people on the ocean and coasts and their resources for their survival and well-being. The major
drivers of change, degradation, or loss of marine and coastal ecosystems and services were
assessed, and considered to be mainly anthropogenic. However, the conclusions of the MEA for
marine and coastal systems stressed the importance of gaps in knowledge, particularly regarding
the definition of ecosystem services provided by marine ecosystems, and consequences of
changes in these services for human well-being.
Overall, there is a lack of basic monitoring of the human uses of marine ecosystems, and the
associated benefits derived by society. This hampers analysis of the changes in human uses, and
associated changes in ecosystem quality and human well-being, in space and time. In some
cases, this is due to a total deficit of observations collected in ways other than anecdotal. In other
cases, while some information is available, e.g. via national statistical institutes, the scale at
which it is collected is often not that at which activities interact with ecosystem processes, hence
it is difficult to establish links between changes in uses, changes in ecosystem attributes, and
resulting changes in well-being. In most cases, the information that is collected is fragmented
across sectors and areas. In addition, some data sets may not be readily available for researchers
to work on …
2.1.e. Regulation (subsidies…) OT
2.2 Trends
2.2.a. Description and drivers of the patterns of extinction in the marine environment
2.2.a.1. Number of endangered or extinct species
15
Friday, 12 March 2010
The oceans occupy 67% of the earth surface, but they contain 275 000, that is only 15
% of the 1,8 millions species that have been described. Meanwhile they have 28
animal’s phylum (among which 14 are exclusively marine) against 11 in the continental
domain (and only one that is exclusively from continental origin).
Historical or recent extinctions are rarely reported among marine and estuarine invertebrates. But
three considerations suggest that extinctions among marine invertebrates have been generally
overlooked (1) hundred of taxa have not been reported since 18th and 19th centuries (these are
treated by taxonomists as either unrecognizable, rare, or synonyms of known species (2) species
may have become extinct prior their description and (3) there has been a precipitous decline in
systematic, biogeography, and natural history at the end of 20th century leaving too few workers
to tell the story of extinctions in the ocean (Carlton, 1993).
One knows about nothing from the viruses, protozoa and marine fungi as well as parasites. Fish
species are among the best documented and represent more than half of all living vertebrates,
that make 48 000 species altogether. In term of distribution, 58 % fish species are coming from
the marine environment, 41 % from the freshwater and 1 % share the two environments. Among
the 14,500 fish species that have been described (www.fishbase.org), the vast majority (69 %)
lives in shallow waters such as the coral reefs areas. Only 2 % of fish species live in the pelagic
domain (mainly pelagic fish species such as sardine, anchovies, tunas…). Marine biodiversity is
consequently unequally distributed in the oceans: it is more represented in the benthic domain
rather that in the pelagic domain, and in the coastal domain rather than the High Sea; with
notable exceptions such as associated fauna in seamounts and the coral reefs. Thus with only 600
000 km2 occupied by coral reefs (only 0.2% of the oceanic surface), it constitutes the habitat of
93 000 species, that is one third of all marine species (Philippe Bouchet & Patrice Cayré in Cury
and Morand 2005). Seamounts contain many unknown species that are often associated with one
particular seamount that is isolated in vast unproductive areas (seamount pooled surfaces exceed
that of continental shelves). At the world level, those seamounts still constitute the last location
for future development of fisheries, and for the exploration of biodiversity. However the use of
fishing gears such as trawlers is very harmful in terms of biodiversity destruction, and
exploitation of those seamounts that are not sustainable regarding the very low renewable rates
of the populations inhabiting them. Mangroves and coral reefs are the most vulnerable habitats as
they are under direct pressures (e.g., fisheries, mineral extraction, aquaculture…) and indirect
ones (e.g., climate change, pollution, eutrophisation from land). It is considered today that 40%
of the world coral reefs have been severely damaged.
The world fisheries are landing a relatively small number of fish species (i.e., for pelagic
fisheries 186 fish species are represented; and half of the total world pelagic fish catch is
constituted by only 6 fish species). Only a small number of species are abundant in the sea and
make fisheries viable, thus 35% of the world fisheries are composed of only 12 species of fish. If
fisheries statistics (www.fao.org) give the impression that the exploitation is only targeting few
species, the reality appears to be more complex as many species are caught by fishing gears but
not landed as they are of poor economic value.
The exploitation of demersal fishes (groupers, cod, hake, monkfish, …) by trawlers
(representing) approximately 60% of the world fish catch, is not selective and affects many other
species and bottom habitats. The total world bycatch that is trashed in the sea is not recorded in
the fisheries statistics but represents 10 to 27 million tonnes according to two estimates produced
16
Friday, 12 March 2010
by FAO (www.fao.org). The amount of bycatch depends on the type of gears and target species.
For example shrimp fisheries exploited by trawlers catch three to ten times their amount with
species that will not be commercialized (juvenile fishes, benthic species…). For one kilogramme
of shrimps, five to ten kilos will be rejected. Gears such as trawlers contribute to the destruction
of bottom habitat and catch numerous species affecting biodiversity. To modify and adapt gears
to new conservation objectives is a long process, which appears to be slow and does not inverse
past trends. Results are not perceivable at the world level quantitatively or even qualitatively. If
the negative effects of trawling on benthic habitats and marine fish populations can be evaluated
(the positive effects being extremely marginal), it is still difficult to know the contribution of the
benthic modification to marine extinction.
2.2.a.2. Extinct species
Extinctions rates for marine species are not comparable with terrestrial rates. There would be up
to a few dozen real extinct species (e.g. species that totally disappear from the oceans) in the
marine environment (Carlson 1999); a very low number compared to what is experienced in the
terrestrial environment. Knowing the high level of impact in the oceans, this could be interpreted
in the way that the anthropogenic effects remain moderate in the marine environment. Only a
few marine species would have disappeared in the oceans during the past three hundred years:
only 12 marine species were regarded as extinct, 3 mammals, 5 birds species and 4 molluscs
(Carlson 1999). Dulvy and collaborators produced the most advanced study in 2003 to review
this first estimate and to evaluate the number of extinct species at the local, regional or global
levels. They documented 133 examples of extinct animal and vegetal species (mammals, birds,
fishes, chondichtyans, echinoderms, molluscs, annelids, coelentera and algae). This number
could be considered as underestimated knowing the techniques that were used in this study
(retrospective analyses, catch statistics, interviews of old fishers…). In fact the time between the
observed disappearance of a species and the time it is declared extinct is about 53 years. The
factors that contribute to the extinction are multiple. However overexploitation appears to be the
main factor causing extinctions (55 %). Habitat loss (37 %) and displacement of native species
by alien species are two important causes of local extinctions. Pollution may disrupt reproductive
physiology, mating systems and life histories of organisms and probably combines with other
extinction-causing factors to reduce population persistence (Jones and Reynols, 1997). Pollution
has been implicated in one of the best documented global extinctions: Bennett’s seaweed
(Vanvoorstia bennettiana) (Millar 2002).
Local extinction concerned species such as dugongs, sea otters, skates, sharks and coral reef
(including deep coral reefs) mainly from overexploitation and gear impact. For fish and
molluscs, it is for example the Spring spawning Islandic Herring or the Abalone of the NorthEast Pacific. In 2007, Pablo del Monte-Luna and collaborators showed that the number given by
Dulvy et al. were sometimes overestimated by almost 50% for several groups. Several species
that were considered as extinct were still alive, and a few individuals spotted occasionally in
recent times, such as sea otters in the North-East Pacific or the dugongs along the Chinese coasts.
Skates such as the common skate (Raja batis) or a large skate (Dipturus leavis), that were
thought to be extinct since a few decades, have been fished recently in remote areas occasionally.
Ecological analyses to quantify marine extinction are laborious and difficult to implement, and
many species have reached such a low level abundance that they might go extinct. In the marine
17
Friday, 12 March 2010
environment the main concern for biodiversity might not be the number of cases of extinctions
but rather the number of depleted species which promote a drastic and durable change in the
productivity of marine ecosystems and change in the ecosystem services. This point is stressed
by the Living Planet Index. This indicator is based on a group of 3,000 vertebrate animal
populations representing more than 1,100 species (Loh et al., 2005) living on land, in fresh water
or in the ocean. It shows that the decrease of abundance is more important for marine species
than for terrestrial or freshwater ones (Figure XX), though it is necessary to recognise that
obtaining the maximum sustainable yield from a fish population, which is often a stated
objective of management, will typically reduce biomass by 25 to 50% of biomass in the absence
of fishing.
But we may assume that most species of marine invertebrates, even in shallow shelf waters
remain undescribed. Thus much extinction may go undetected. This would be especially true in
the more poorly explored regions of the world.
2.2.a.3. Number of endangered species (IUCN red list)
Since many years the IUCN provides lists of extinct, endangered, vulnerable… species.
Whatever their accuracy could be, those categories are now widely acknowledged and represent
a useful tool to assess to what extent biodiversity is impacted. However, regarding marine
biodiversity, such indicators are still poorly used except for some emblematic clades like sharks,
turtles, corals, marine mammals, or sea birds. Therefore, most of marine biodiversity (including
major groups of invertebrates) falls so far out of the range of UICN. Even if regular efforts are
done, they remain small considering the huge diversity of marine invertebrates and fishes.
Today, for the great majority of marine life, we just do not know how bad or good is the
18
Friday, 12 March 2010
situation. This means that we are collectively faced with the necessity to investigate marine
species, starting with those submitted to the greatest pressures (fisheries, destruction of littoral
habitats…). To be properly taken in account, this challenge will require a drastic change of scale
in the means allocated to such investigations.
Trends in invasive species ????
2.2.b Patterns: beyond the description.
2.2.b.1 : Distribution and quality of habitats.
A number of definitions of the term “habitat” are available in the scientific literature. The first
definition by Charles Darwin (1859) refers to the environment in which a single species lives.
However, it is today usual to expand the concept to refer to a habitat as the place where multiple
species occur together under similar environmental conditions, such that a habitat can be
distinguished from surrounding habitats on the basis of both its species composition and its
physical environmental characteristics (e.g. type of seabed, tidal currents, salinity, etc.). If
coastal and shelf habitats are now rather well known (even if not mapped), deep-sea and pelagic
habitat knowledge are still in their infancy and recent years demonstrated that the use of modern
at sea technologies (manned and remotely operated vehicles) will bring new insights on marine
habitats.
2.2.b.1.1. Habitat classification
A common first step in conservation planning and resource management is to identify and
classify habitat types, and this has led to a proliferation of habitat classification systems. Creating
a habitat classification and mapping system for marine and coastal ecosystems is a difficult
challenge due to the complex array of habitats that shift on various spatial and temporal scales.
To meet this challenge, several countries have, or are developing, national classification systems
and mapping protocols for marine habitats. To be effectively applied by scientists and managers
it is essential that classification systems be comprehensive and incorporate pertinent physical,
geological, biological, and anthropogenic habitat characteristics. Two main marine habitat
hierarchical classifications are currently available: (1) the Coastal and Marine Ecological
Classification Standard (CMECS) developed by NOAA (mainly North America) and European
EUNIS classification. Recently Guarinello et al. (2010) published a critical paper on these topdown classifications and proposed a new multiscale hierarchical classification of habitats.
- The Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard (CMECS)-is currently being
developed for North America by NatureServe and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). CMECS is a nested, hierarchical framework that applies a uniform set
of rules and terminology across multiple habitat scales using a combination of oceanographic
(e.g. salinity, temperature), physiographic (e.g. depth, substratum), and biological (e.g.
community type) criteria.
19
Friday, 12 March 2010
- The EUNIS Habitat types classification is a comprehensive pan-European system to facilitate
the harmonized description and collection of data across Europe through the use of criteria for
habitat identification; it covers all types of habitats from natural to artificial, from terrestrial to
freshwater and marine.
2.2.b.1.2. Habitat mapping.
Knowledge about the “European seas” — 9 million km² for continental Europe, (7 M for the
deep and 2 M for the shelf) & 11 million for the French EEZ including offshore territories and
departments — and ocean beds is very patchy. There are national projects of mapping in
progress in Ireland, Italy, Denmark, and some in preparation in the UK and France. But habitat
mapping of the sea-bed is a several decade process and needs long-term support. EDMONET
(European marine observation and data network) formulated basic principles which must be
applied to habitat mapping: (1) collect data once and use it many times (2) develop standards
across disciplines as well as within them (3) process and validate data at different levels (4)
provide sustainable financing (5) build on existing efforts where data communities have already
organized themselves (6) accompany data with statements on ownership, accuracy and precision.
- The European MESH project has compiled the first habitat maps and models for north-west
Europe in the pan-European EUNIS classification system. MESH has developed a framework for
international marine habitat mapping through the establishment of standard Data Exchange
Formats and guidelines for habitat mapping, together with a bespoke web-based GIS application
which provides a means to integrate mapping data at an international level. The increased
importance of marine habitat mapping is reflected in new EU policy mechanisms, such as the
Marine Strategy Framework Directive and a proposal for an Atlas of the Oceans in its Maritime
Strategy.
- SEXTANT portal (Ifremer): SEXTANT aims to collect and spread a directory of georeferenced data sets on marine environment. SEXTANT deals with biodiversity, integrated
coastal management, fisheries, coastal and deep-sea environments, exploitation of the seabed.
SEXTANT can be accessed by the general public through internet (though access may be
restricted for some data) and gathers data (vectorized or meshed) produced by Ifremer and
partners. Data and metadata are perpetuated by a data management system. A tool box helps
sorting, consulting and visualizing metadata. SEXTANT is based on OGC and ISOTC211
standards.
- SINP-Mer is an upcoming information system implemented by the French Ministry of ecology
and sustainable development (MEEDDM) in collaboration with AAMP, Ifremer, MnHn and
Universities. It aims to identify and upgrade inventories and mapping of biodiversity, to create a
list of endangered species and habitats, and survey in order to help management and
conservation decision. It will be build on existing data banks i.e. INPN, SEXTANT,
QUADRIDGE2 and will provide one common portal to data users.
(Of course, this list in non limitative)
Observatoire National Biodiversité ?
20
Friday, 12 March 2010
2.2.b.1.3. Habitat loss and degradation.
The oceans have lost much of their fish biomass and megafauna to hunting, and key coastal
habitats are lost globally at rates 2 to 10 times faster than those in tropical forests. Anthropogenic
inputs to the ocean are causing hypoxia and widespread deterioration of water quality, and
anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing ocean acidification, which is emerging as a global
threat to calcifying marine organisms.
Natural impact known to cause habitat loss include earthquakes, storms, hurricanes, freshwater
input (coastal), turbidity currents and avalanches, lava flows … Human-induced habitat loss has
been caused by coastal reclamation and development with associated pollution, leading to
changes in turbidity and added nutrients inputs. Climate change, which is at least in part human
induced will directly impact coastal areas, and storm frequencies but also coral bleaching which
probably will have serious consequences for species that are interdependent and may have led to
several unnoticed extinctions (Régnier et al. 2009). The global rate of mangrove habitat loss is at
least 1% per year but can be locally higher (up to 32% in Thailand between 1979 and 1993)
affecting local populations, even if we don’t know whether there have been associated global
extinctions (Dulvy et al., 2003). Mangrove have been also fragilized by natural events as violent
storms and increase in temperature that have been recorded.Sand and gravel extraction impacts
directly shelf benthic habitats. Destruction of habitats could be perceived as insignificant due to
the wide range of the potential habitat that can be used in the marine ecosystems. However
certain gears can significantly contribute to habitat destruction such as trawling. Every year the
surface that is covered by trawling is about half the surface of the continental shelf. This surface
represents 150 times the deforestation surface in the terrestrial domain and illustrates the
potential impact on sedentary species. The activity of fishing can reach in some cases a
preoccupying intensity, certain fishing areas in the North Sea can be trawled as much as 8 times
per year and this can reach 141 times in several estuaries. On seamounts, the intensity of trawling
can be extremely high with hundreds or even thousands of trawls carried out on individual
seamounts from the summit down to the flanks. There is a direct impact on benthic communities
caused by physical disturbance or destruction by bottom trawls but also sediment resuspension
which can change habitat structure. Cold corals living on the flanks of the seamounts can be
reduced to rubble over much of the area. Catches of corals taken when trawling on seamounts for
deep-sea species as orange roughy can be large, with tons, sometimes tens of tons caugh in a
single trawl. In a new fishery on three seamounts off southern Australia, it was estimated that the
first year of fishing, over 1700 tones of coral comprised the bycatch of 4000 tones of orange
roughy (Clark, 2010). Upcoming human activities in the deep-sea as deep-mining of polymetallic
sulfides or ultra deep oil drilling could have a deleterious impact on fragile deep-sea habitats.
OSPAR published (2008) a list of threatened marine habitats in the North-East Atlantic which
comprises: carbonate mounds, coral gardens, deep-sea sponges aggregations, Cymodocea
meadows, intertidal Mytilus edulis beds on mixed and sandy sediments, intertidal mudflats,
littoral chalk communities, Lophelia pertusa reefs, Maerl beds, Modiolus modiolus beds, oceanic
ridges with hydrothermal fields, Ostrea edulis beds, Sabellaria spinulosa reefs, seamounts, seapens and burrowing megafauna communities, Zostera beds.
2.2.b.2. Geographic entities, endemism
21
Friday, 12 March 2010
What are the large scale patterns structuring the spatial distribution of marine life ? This question
is not new, and it was addressed by many scientists since the mid-1800’s, among them people as
famous as Darwin, Wallace, or de Candolle. We know that life is not evenly, nor randomly
distributed on Earth: they are latitudinal, altitudinal (including depth) gradients, hotspots of
biodiversity, endemicity… We know that the South Atlantic fauna differs from the South Pacific
one… At small scale (see above the section devoted to the habitats), ecological studies relate the
presence and success of species or communities to physical, chemical or biological drivers. The
aim is there to access to some deterministic processes allowing to explain the local distribution
of faunas. But beyond local factors, the spatial distribution of life is also inherited from the
history of clades and from the history of Earth. These contingent parameters combine their
effects to those of proximal factors to delineate biogeographic patterns at different embodied
scales, the greater the scale, the stronger the influence of historical contingency (Ricklefs 2004).
In this context, macroecology is more than a simple renewal of biogeography (Brown & Maurer
1989, Brown 1995, Gaston & Blackburn 2000). Macroecology aims at a modelisation of large
scale biogeographic patterns relating biological entities (populations, species, communities,
clades…, but also abundances, life history traits, sizes…) to environmental and historical
parameters. It relies on statistical tools (Chao & Shen 2005, Chao et al. 2005), and on geographic
information systems to decipher such relationships. Macroecology seeks to identify general
mechanisms, and as such, it is appropriate to understand how climatic change may affect the
marine realm. More generally, the predictive power of macroecology is necessary to tackle the
question of marine biodiversity in time and space. For the last 10 years, the WoS returns only
485 references from the key-word macroecology, and less than 20% of them pertain for marine
areas. This means that the patterns of biodiversity in the oceans are very poorly known. For
example why endemicity is stronger in the Southern Ocean than in the Arctic Ocean ? Why
Antarctic biodiversity is so much diverse than the Arctic one ? So far we are generally unable to
tell if the large scale distribution of a given marine clade or community is controlled by
environmental and physical factors such as water temperature, nature of sediment, depth… or if
it is best explained by historical biogeography ? Answer such a question is not trivial in the
context of global change. This should apply for shallow areas, which are strongly structurated by
their relationships with the continents, but also for open sea and deep sea areas even if they can
be considered a priori more homogeneous (part of their supposed homogeneity comes from a
lack of knowledge).
2.2.b.3. Population structure and connectivity in marine systems.
What we know.
The classical notion that marine environments tend to be demographically “open”, and that many
species have either high mobility or potential for dispersal during the egg and larval stages
coincided with many early genetic studies that typically indicated a lack of genetic
differentiation across often even wide geographic scales (Ward et al., 1994). The implication was
that most marine species have vast population sizes that would not be subjected to either rapid or
stochastic genetic change. The predominant evolutionary forces affecting marine species were
considered to be selection and gene flow, resulting in expectations of populations exhibiting
modest rates of evolutionary change, often with wide distribution and large population size. In
such circumstances, opportunities for local adaptation would be constrained by high migration
22
Friday, 12 March 2010
and exposure to a breadth of environments. Recently, however, several studies have challenged
such views by demonstrating population subdivision on a limited geographical scale ranging
from tens of kilometres to a few hundred kilometres (Ruzzante, 1998, Knutsen et al., 2003a,
Nielsen et al., 2004, Olsen et al., in press). Such data are especially relevant for example to the
design of marine protected areas, and other quantitative approaches for assessing population
connectivity and dynamics. Furthermore, these patterns can be temporally stable (Nielsen et al.,
2007, Cimmaruta et al., 2008). Several hypotheses exist regarding the factors responsible for
such patterns of population structuring, including local retention of juvenile stages (Pogson,
2001), life history characteristics (Bekkevold et al., 2005), habitat preference (e.g. benthic versus
pelagic spawning (Hemmer-Hansen et al., 2007b)), environmental transitions (Bekkevold et al.,
and Waples, 2000). It is becoming increasingly evident, for example, that despite the potential
for high gene flow based on egg and larval dispersal, a combination of oceanographic processes,
behaviour and high mortality (Cowen et al., 2006, Gawarkiewicz et al., 2008, Jones et al., 2008)
promote retention or loss of life history stages and a finer scale of genetic structuring than once
appreciated. Additionally, recent data now indicate that genetically effective population sizes
(Ne) in marine fishes and many marine invertebrates, especially those characterised by high
fecundity and high larval mortality, is typically 2 to 6 orders of magnitude smaller than census
population sizes. Such discrepancies have profound implications for estimating both quantitative
change in population size relative to recruitment and harvesting, but also for qualitative change,
in terms of the nature and speed of genetic change in marine populations. A low ratio of effective
population size to census size (Ne/N), suggests vulnerability to changes in genetic diversity,
patterns of genetic differentiation and responses to environmental change (selection pressures)
even in apparently large, commercially exploited populations.
What we don’t know.
Our knowledge of the biology of marine organisms and their interplay with the physical and
chemical environment in the oceans is less advanced compared to terrestrial species. The marine
realm poses some very obvious challenges for research in population biology. Few marine
organisms can be visually monitored, and therefore inferences on standard biological reference
points such as population size, migration and individual behaviour have to rely almost entirely
on indirect measures. Despite the large literature that exists on marine connectivity (see: Selkoe,
et al. 2008) there exists information on the range of connectivities exhibited by different parts of
the marine realm, but information precludes firm quantification of the degree to which marine
connectivity is maintained by year-to-year demographic exchange. The indirect nature of
estimates of dispersal and connectivity is usually indirect, and generates contradictory estimates:
some suggest long-distance dispersal is common, but other emerging data suggests the opposite.
Moreover, the nature of factors influencing connectivity (e.g. oceanographic and local
hydrographic features, life history variation, biotic factors such as behaviour and predation,
population size) are difficult to disentangle, thereby generating a high level of uncertainty in the
forecasting of incorporation of demographic, evolutionary and management scenarios. In
addition to the need for data on the scale of demographic and evolutionary exchange, the level of
connectivity also plays a major role in determining the capacity for local adaptation. For many
taxa, it has not been possible to incorporate the scale of population-level and genetically based
adaptive variation into estimates of response to environmental change because studies to date
have been primarily descriptive (Hauser and Carvalho, 2008) Paradigm shifts in marine fisheries
23
Friday, 12 March 2010
genetics: ugly hypotheses slain by beautiful facts. Fish and Fisheries, 9 (4), 333-362), that is a
focus on the level and patterns of genetic differentiation in neutral markers. Although the latter
do provide a framework for assessing and investigating the capacity of marine taxa to adapt to
environmental change, they fail usually to provide direct empirical evidence on the nature,
causes and consequences of local adaptation. Concomitant differences in ecologically significant
traits and associated adaptive differentiation and biocomplexity also underpin our understanding of
resilience and recovery to exploitation and disturbance.
2.2.b.4 Reduced biodiversity may lead to an impaired functioning of ecosystem through
cascading effects (overexploitation of large predatory species, invasive species....)
24
Friday, 12 March 2010
Fig X1. Simplified coastal food webs showing changes in some of the important top-down
interactions due to overfishing; before (left side) and after (right side) fishing. (A and B) Kelp
forests for Alaska and southern California (left box), and Gulf of Maine (right box). (C and D)
Tropical coral reefs and seagrass meadows. (E and F) (from Jakson et al. 2003)
Fishing fundamentally altered coastal marine ecosystems during each of the cultural periods
analysed by Jakson et al. (2003): changes in ecosystem structure and function occurred as early
as the late aboriginal and early colonial stages, although it has been accelerating in the modern
period in their magnitude, rates of change, and in the diversity of processes responsible for
changes over time.
Early changes increased the sensitivity of coastal marine ecosystems to subsequent disturbance
and thus preconditioned the ecosystems collapse that we are witnessing today. This accelerated
loss of populations and species in marine ecosystems lead to unexpected consequences.
Biodiversity loss affects marine ecosystem services across temporal and spatial scales. Overall,
rates of resource collapse increased and recovery potential, stability, and water quality decreased
exponentially with declining diversity (Worm et al. 2006). Ecological extinction of entire trophic
levels makes ecosystems more vulnerable to other natural and human disturbances such as
nutrient loading and eutrophication, hypoxia, disease, storms, and climate change. Using
paleoecological, archaeological, and historical data Jackson et al. (2001) explored the change
that appeared in the structure and functioning of coral reef, estuarine and coastal ecosystems over
the last centuries . Several species of mammals or large species (e.g. whales, monk seals, sea
cows, sea otters, crocodiles, marine turtles, sailfish, sharks) are now functionally extinct or
became rare in many areas provoking drastic changes in the ecosystems (figX1).
According to this retrospective study ecological extinction caused by overfishing precedes all
other pervasive human disturbance to coastal ecosystems, including pollution, degradation of
water quality, and anthropogenic climate change (FigX2.).
Figure X2. Historical sequence of human disturbances affecting coastal ecosystems. Fishing
25
Friday, 12 March 2010
(step1) always preceded other human disturbance in coastal, coral reef and estuarine ecosystems
(reproduced from Jackson et al. 2003).
2.2.b.5. Invasive species
Invasive species can be defined as non-indigeneous species with a negative impact. We know
that marine areas are strongly impacted by invasive species. This is largely due to characteristics
of the marine realm. The density of water (compared to air for terrestrial areas)
provides a better support for wide range dispersal. The currents move water masses and help
dispersal (air is also a fluid, but the solid ground is not, and strictly terrestrial species are not
“helped” in their displacement); pelagic species that can follow the displacements of water
masses or be transported by them, and, in addition, the majority of benthic species have pelagic
larvae in their cycle. There are no clearcut boundaries in the sea and the oceans are largely
interconnected. The sea is more buffered than terrestrial environments, and the risk of success of
an alien species is greater. All this parameters contribute to increase the impact of displaced
species, and make them more widely distributed and invasive. Marine invasive species can be
ranked in three categories according to the way they became invasive. 1) Some take advantage of
man-made infrastructures to move by themselves. The Suez canal illustrates the most famous
case of this category (box). 2) Others are voluntarily transported, and installed on purpose at
another place (those are generally related to aquaculture activities, such as Mytilus
galloprovincialis, which competes the native mussels where it has been transplanted). 3) But
most of them are clandestine passengers, transported secretly, attached to ship hull, or more
generally in the ballast waters of ocean going vessels, which is likely the most significant vector.
Marine invaders mediated by ballast waters encompass a wide range of taxa, molluscs and
crustaceans being particularly well represented (Carlton and Geller 1993).
Add the case of aquaculture selected strains (e.g. salmon) impacting the native populations …???
26
Friday, 12 March 2010
Figure reproduced from Global Biodiversity Outlook 2 (CBD), and based on data in Weidema, I.
(ed.). 2000. Introduced Species in the Nordic Countries. Nord Environment 2000:13. Nordic
Council of Ministers. Produced by the ‘Nordic/Baltic Network on Invasive Alien Species
(NOBANIS)’ as a contribution to European biodiversity indicators in the context of
‘Streamlining European 2010 Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI2010).
Some cases are more complex and involve successive invasions through different ways. The
mollusc Crepidula fornicata, which is a pest along the Channel coasts, is likely to be a good
example of such a multiple transportation: introduction from North America to European waters
through oysters transfers (XIXth), then as hitchhikers with the landing boats of the Normandy D
Day beaches in 1944 (category 3), and re-introduction along with the Japanese oysters during the
70’s to overcome a collapse of the oyster culture, and followed by massive transfers among
rearing areas along the French coastline (categories 3+2) (Refs.).
Moreover, the recent climatic change has facilitated dispersal of recent exotic species and
effected drastically species distribution…. Case box model cf Miossec et al. 2009 Alert Report
ICES Crassostrea gigas…(to be expanded)
We know that they are a lot of invasive species in the sea (Figure) and that they have a strong
impact. For example, the sea star Asterias amurensis, native from North Pacific, invaded
Tasmanian and South Australian coastal areas where it impacted strongly the local fauna as well
as mussel farming, eating mussels, scallops and clams (it is estimated that 12 million individuals
became installed in Port Phillip Bay, close to Melbourne, within two years). We know that many
species with larval stages are potential new invaders, all the more that a small increase in the sea
temperature may open new areas for invasion. But there is no available list, and we do not know
what could be the impact of a displaced species: we make the account a posteriori (see the
example of Caulerpa taxifolia).
So far prevention is not very effective, even if regulation of the use of ballast waters are
attempted (eg. the Ballast Water Decision Support System in Australia). The main efforts are
devoted to eradication that is much more costy and less effective. Experiences on Asterias
amurensis attest that, even if discovered early, once a population is established there is little
chance for a successful eradication (Parry et al. 2000). The removal of tens of thousands of
specimens during pest-control operations was without effect (Johnson 1994). The end of the
story is that we are generally forced to adapt our social or economic behavior to the presence of
the invader. Research efforts are usually required for this last step, in order to appraise the
ecological processes of the impact, as well as to contribute to its measurement, and sometimes
reduction. This was the case for A. amurensis. The knowledge of the life cycle of this sea star in
the context of South Australia (Byrne et al. 1997) allowed to define “ballast windows” during
which the risk of transportation was minimum or null. It was also envisaged to rely on the
castrating effect of a parasite to reduce Asterias populations (Byrne 1996).
(Box – Lessepsian migrants)
Box – Lessepsian migrants
27
Friday, 12 March 2010
The opening of the Suez canal in 1869 allowed exchange of species between the Red Sea and the
Mediterranean. The “trafic” is not symmetrical, and more Red Sea species move to the north
than the opposite way (this is due to differences in salinity, slow currents, and a 1.2 m higher
level of the Red Sea). The invaders, so-called Lessepsian migrants (Por 1978), are freely moving
animals that swim across the canal (category 1), or clandestine passengers (category 3). Since
1869, several hundreds of species became installed in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea, so that a
Lessepsian biogeographic province was defined. Many fishes (Mavruk & Avsar 2008),
polychaetes, molluscs, planctonic forms (Belmonte & Potenza 2001)… participated to this new
biogeographic province. The migration process is still going on, the first Lessepsian squid was
detected in 2002 (Lefkaditou et al. 2009), and the present rate is about 5 to 10 species per year.
2.2.b.6 Trophic cascades
Trophic cascades occur when predators in a food web suppress the abundance of their prey,
thereby releasing the next lower trophic level from predation. Trophic cascades are important for
understanding the effects of removing top predators from food webs, as humans have done in
many places through fishing activities.
Fig X3: Evolution of marine ecosystems in a context of overexploitation: a gradual transition is
observed in marine ecosystems from long-lived, high trophic level, piscivorous bottom fish
toward short-lived, low trophic level invertebrates and planktivorous pelagic fish. A process
known as fishing down marine food webs (Pauly et al 1998) that strongly affects marine
biodiversity.
Fisheries tend at first to remove large, slower-growing fishes, and a gradual transition in landings
and marine ecosystems is observed, since the 1950s, from long-lived, high trophic level,
piscivorous bottom fish toward short-lived, low trophic level invertebrates and planktivorous
pelagic fish. This process known as ‘fishing down marine ecosystems’ (Pauly et al. 1998) is
28
Friday, 12 March 2010
pervasive in marine ecosystems (Fig X3). Historical abundances of large consumer species were
shown to be fantastically large in comparison with recent observations, and today predatory
fishes are at low to extremely low level of abundance (Myers et Worm 2003, Baum et al. 2003)
Removal of top predators from ecosystems can result in cascading effects through the trophic
levels below, completely restructuring the food web. Marine ecosystems are then dominated by
small living, pelagic species with high turn-over rates that are at lower trophic levels (e.g. pelagic
fish species, shrimps, octopus..). After the collapse of cod and the depletion of many large fish
predators in Nova Scotia in the 1990s, herrings, capelin, shrimps and crabs became abundant and
the other components of the marine ecosystems including seals and phytoplankton changed in
abundance (Frank et al 2005). In West-Africa the outburst of octopus is thought to be due to the
overexploitation of groupers. In 2007 Myers et al. (2007) analyzed the decrease in abundances of
all 11 great sharks, that consume other elasmobranchs (rays, skates, and small sharks). They
found that they fell over the past 35 years from 87 to 99 %, 12 of 14 of these prey species
increased in coastal northwest Atlantic ecosystems. Effects of this community restructuring have
cascaded downward from the cownose ray, whose enhanced predation on its bay scallop prey
was sufficient to terminate a century-long scallop fishery as catch fell from 840000 tonnes to 300
in a few years.
The Black Sea was described as healthy and dominated by various marine predators, by the late
20th century it had experienced anthropogenic impacts such as heavy fishing, cultural
eutrophication, and invasions by alien species. Major shifts were detected, related to a depletion
of marine predators and an outburst of the alien comb jelly Mnemiopsis leidyi; resulting in
system-wide trophic cascade resulting in a poorly productive ecosystem (Daskalov et al. 2007).
These trends are a source of functional impoverishment and of ecosystem services loss, beyond
the problem of fisheries. It enables to follow indirectly the changes in the provisioning,
regulating but also cultural services provided by marine biodiversity.
The role of biodiversity is crucial for the stability of marine food webs as illustrated by the
dynamics of trophic cascades in the marine environment. Rapid changes occurring in ecosystems
stress the importance of preserving the functional biodiversity, particularly at high trophic level
(large predators) as they have a key role in dampening lower trophic dynamics and in preserving
the overall productivity of marine ecosystems.
2.2.b.7 Evolution of fisheries, and all other human activities related to sea
Based on a rapid development of harvesting techniques and fishing capacities, a geographical
expansion of exploitation and an increase in the international trade of fish products, the global
production of marine fisheries increased rapidly from the 1950s to reach its maximum at the
beginning of the 1990s (Garcia et al., 2005). Beyond the fact that the volumes landed have
remained practically unchanged for about two decades, reports of the overexploitation of
commercially-important stocks have multiplied. Despite the crises and conflicts associated to
these evolutions, and efforts made to regulate the sector’s activity, today’s production capacities
considerably exceed requirements. This is true in Europe, despite a reduction in the fleet and in
employment since at least the middle of the 1940s. This raises the question of the viability of
exploitation systems, from the viewpoint of the resources and the human communities who
29
Friday, 12 March 2010
depend on them, and also of the capacity of marine ecosystems to sustain present levels of
harvesting.
The issue is all the more urgent in that fish represent a significant protein source for humans. The
global consumption of fish products has doubled since the beginning of the 1970s because of
factors such as population growth, rising incomes and developing urban centres and is expected
to continue to grow (Delgado et al., 2003). Furthermore, an increasing proportion of fisheries
production is used to produce feed for aquaculture, which is growing rapidly at the international
level in response to the widening gap between fish production and the demand for fish products
(FAO, 2006).
In addition to fish production systems, other activities (industries exploiting energy and mineral
marine resources, maritime transport, waste products from land-based activities, coastal
urbanisation, aquaculture, recreational activities) also put pressure on marine ecosystems. This
pressure can have a direct impact on marine biodiversity through the competition created for
access to resources and/or coastal areas, and an indirect impact through its effects on the
structure and the functioning of marine ecosystems, as well as on water quality (e.g. through
chemical and microbiological contamination of various origins).
The multiplication of warnings about the status of marine ecosystems and fisheries and the
greater awareness of the environmental challenges have led to new social issues being raised and
in particular, a demand for the conservation of marine biodiversity. This demand already exerts a
growing pressure on fisheries management objectives and systems as shown by the conflicts
related to the impacts of fisheries on some habitats (e.g. cold and warm water corals) or on some
symbolic species (marine mammals, turtles, birds, swordtails, etc.)2. The consensus on
environmental issues, the involvement of civil society and the poor performance of conventional
governance systems therefore create a driving force for a transition to an ecosystem-based
approach to fisheries management.
The international institutional framework within which the EAF has developed is comprised
principally of three UN bodies: UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,
1982), UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, 1992), and the
fisheries committee of FAO (United Nations Organisation for Food and Agriculture, 1965)22.
Two additional founding bodies to be considered are the CBD (Convention on Biological
Diversity) and Agenda 21, signed at the time of the Rio summit in 1992. At the European level,
the new common fisheries policy of the EU explicitly adopts several themes from the EAF in its
“green paper” (e.g. overcapacity, governance or marine biodiversity). The declarations,
agreements and conventions mentioned above commit their signatories to several broad
principles, among which:
• the recognition that all aspects of the ocean are inter-related and must be dealt with as a whole
(holistic approach),
2
See for example the WWF – France report (2002) A new fisheries policy – for responsible fishing in France and in
Europe. 23pp; or the report entitled “Turning the tide: addressing the impact of fishery on the marine
environment” published in 2004 by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in the United Kingdom.
Consumer associations, environmental NGOs are now present within the new Regional Advisory Councils
within the framework of the European CFP.
30
Friday, 12 March 2010
• commitment by States to plan their development in an integrated and co-ordinated way in order
to guarantee the protection and the improvement of the environment for the benefit of their
populations; and to acquire and freely circulate the scientific information required to resolve
environmental issues.
2.2.b.7’ Additional human impacts on marine ecosystems
Halpern et al. (2008) produced a global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. They
developed an ecosystem-specific, multi-scale spatial model to synthesize 17 global data sets of
anthropogenic drivers of ecological change for 20 marine ecosystems. The approach allowed a
geographic analysis of the distribution of drivers- and identification of those heavily impacted,
and those less so (e.g. close to poles). The intention was to use such detail to provide flexible
tools for regional and global efforts to (1) allocate conservation resources; (2) to implement
ecosystem-based management; (3) to inform marine spatial planning, education and basic
research. An example of how these human drivers and associated “threat scores” is shown in Fig.
X, and allows a quantitative comparison of effects across a range of spatial scales.
Fig. X. Total area affected (square km, grey bars) and summed threat scores (rescaled units,
black bars) for each anthropogenic driver. (A) globally and (B) for all coastal regions ,200 m in
depth. Value for each bar are reported in millions (After Halpern et al., 2008).
The ongoing escalation in size of human populations will increase the pressure upon coastal and
marine goods and services. The above approach provides a structured framework for quantifying
and comparing the various impacts and threats produced by the different human uses of these
31
Friday, 12 March 2010
services and possibly the identification of strategies to minimize negative impacts and promote
sustainability. Moreover, the approach incorporates various types of data such as species
distributions and diversity data so that hot spots of diversity and high cumulative human impacts
can be identified and monitored spatially, allowing the targeting of resources and investment. A
priority will be to accumulate regional and global databases of empirical data to further validate
and apply such a quantitative and comparative framework.
2.2.b.8. Spatial distribution of pressures.
Deep-sea.
With the development of new technologies, industries such as oil and gas exploitation, deepwater fishing (see above), bioprospecting or mining are rapidly entering deep-water territories.
Even injection and sequestration of CO2 in deep-water reservoirs is now considered. These
human-based activities, as well as the use of the deep-sea for dumping toxic material (despite of
the London Convention) are affecting a fragile ecosystem, in some cases before we even
understand the diversity and functioning of faunal communities. Anthropogenic disturbances is
especially important in the deep sea, because species often have long lives, with slow growth and
delayed maturation, making recovery from disturbance a long process and even, in some cases,
causing local extinctions.
A case study: Deep-sea mining of polymetallic sulphides. Currently 99% of extracted minerals
come from the 29% of the world that is land. Reserves of many metals, such as copper, are being
depleted at a greater rate than new reserves are being discovered and mining companies are now
investigating the possibility of mining marine metal sulphide deposits, including chalcopyrite
(CuFeS2), which have been formed at hydrothermal vents. Marine technology has now improved
to a stage at which engineers are confident that mining machines can be constructed to work at
several thousand metres of water depth. There are some apparent environmental advantages to
mining on the seabed; for example there will be no acid mine drainage. There may be cost
advantages; a large mining ship or barge is mobile and could be moved from one ore deposit to
another. This mobility is not a feature of most current onshore methods. In addition, the legal
problems of tenure may be fewer and less complex than those on land. Even with these trends, it
is difficult to predict the timing of potential future exploitation at vent sites. The timing will
depend upon economic conditions favouring marine mineral development in the face of mineral
conservation, recycling, substitution, technological advances in onshore mining, exploration in
other areas, and declining price trends in most metal markets. Nautilus Mineral Corporation
license has been extended to 2003 by the Papua New Guinea government, for the exploration of
polymetallic sulphide deposits at all hydrothermal sites in the East Manus Basin. Neptune
Resources has applied to the New Zealand government for an exploration license in the Havre
Trough. Neptune has recently merged with Deep Sea Minerals, which has 3 further applications
pending for exploration licences. Several hydrothermal vent fields are now under National
protection (in Canada and Portugal).
Additional potential paragraphs :
32
Friday, 12 March 2010
Marine Protected Areas ??? status & trends – a tool for ecosystem management
Indicators ????
2.3
Tools of investigation
-
genetics (barcoding, sequencing, population genetics…)
2.4 Crossing aspects
2.4.3. Dedicated time-series:
Societal concerns over the potential impacts of recent global change have resulted in renewed
interest in long-term ecological monitoring of large ecosystems. Ecologists are struggling to
either maintain or activate the long-term ecological monitoring stations/systems that are required
to validate any predictive models.
- Geological scale
Although probably outside the scope of the present expertise, paleobiology records may bring
important data series on previous long-term cycles in the history of marine life as well as
information on previous extinction processes.
- Historical scale
Census of Marine Life developed a project named “History of Marine Animal Populations”
(HMAP) aiming to improve the understanding of ecosystem dynamics, specifically with regard
to long-term changes in stock abundance, the ecological impact of large-scale harvesting by man,
and the role of marine resources in the historical development of human society. HMAP relies
on the teamwork of ecologists, marine biologists, historians, anthropologists, paleoecologists and
paleo-oceanographers. These teams analyze records from a variety of unique sources, such as
colonial fisheries and monastic records, modern fisheries statistics, ship logs, tax documents,
sediment cores and other environmental records, to piece together changes in specific
populations throughout history. Seven case studies focused on a few species of commercial
importance or habitat and biodiversity changes:
 Gulf of Maine, New-Foundland Grand Banks, Greenland cod fisheries,
 Southeast Australian shelf and slope fisheries, New Zealand shelf fisheries,
 Russian and Norwegian herring, salmon and cod fisheries, and Atlantic walrus hunting,
 Clupeid fisheries in Southwest African shelf, a continental boundary current system,
 Multinational cod, herring and plaice fisheries, Norwegian, North and Baltic Seas,
 Worldwide whaling,
 Impact of removing large predators on Caribbean communities.
33
Friday, 12 March 2010
- Recording time-series
Temporally marine ecosystems are impacted by annual, interannual, and multi-decadal scale
influences that introduce significant variability in features such as sea surface temperature (SST),
storm intensity, large-scale atmospheric forcing, advective processes, mixed layer depth,
horizontal and vertical transport, and ecological dynamics. Trophodynamically, marine
ecosystem food webs are dynamic and nonlinearly respond to climatic, anthropogenic, and
ecological influences (Link, 2002). Space and time form convenient dimensions upon which to
classify natural phenomena, ranging from the diurnal migration of zooplankton, the seasonal
impact of hurricanes, the climatic shifts of the Quaternary to the mass extinctions recorded in the
deep geological record. Yet surprisingly few long-term ecological time series studies are
available even for shallow-water settings. The best are from the continuous plankton surveys of
the North Atlantic (Richardson and Schoeman, 2004) and the North-East Pacific (Roemmich and
McGowan, 1995), which have run for close to 80 years (CPR) and for over fifty years (NEP) and
show trends that co-vary with recent climatic shifts. The CPR survey provides a long-term
baseline of the near-surface distribution, abundance and diversity of phyto- and zooplankton.
Wherever possible, all the sampling and analytical methods have not been changed to maintain
the consistency of the time series. More than 900 papers have been published from the samples
acquired by the CPR (Reid et al. 2003). Recently, the survey became an integral component of
the Global Ocean Observation System (GOOS). At Ifremer a multiyear survey of toxic
phytoplankton (REPHY) is running since 1984 along the French coasts aiming to detect colored
tides and blooming of toxic species.
Fisheries: Clearly, fluctuations of exploited fish populations can be affected by both
environmental forcing and fishing mortality, and these factors are inextricably convolved in
catch data. From the viewpoints of fisheries management and conservation of marine resources,
it is important to determine fishing effects on fish populations and communities within the
context of a changing environment. This view is an essential component of ecosystem-based
approaches to fisheries management that has gradually become the standard requirement for
fisheries management; that is, to base management decisions not only on the status of a fish
population but also the ecosystem. Nearly all fisheries and many marine biological stations in
Europe conduct or have conducted surveys to estimate abundance of fish species in local waters.
Some of these data are already held by ICES but many other datasets (e. g., those used in coastal
monitoring and which make no direct contribution to fisheries stock assessment or those which
are being/were carried out in the non-ICES member countries) exist. For example, based on a
100 years series of observations, Klyashtorin et al. (2009) studying the long-term changes of
Atlantic spring-spawning herring and Northeast Arctic cod commercial stocks, show 50-70-year
fluctuations that are synchronous with the fluctuations of climatic indices. A simple stochastic
model is suggested that makes it possible to predict the probable trends of basic climatic indices
and populations of major commercial fish species for up to 20-30 years into the future.
For non-pelagic ecosystems, rather little is known on the 50-100 year scale. Of course the
covered area has a dramatic smaller scale and benthic time-series are generally speaking, dealing
with local or at the most regional information. The longest concerted time series that involve
sampling soft-bottom (sediment) communities in coastal and shallow-water settings span shorter
periods, for example, 36 years in the North Sea off the Northumberland coast (Frid et al., 2008).
34
Friday, 12 March 2010
Fisheries biologists have collected quantitative data on the benthos in some areas since the
1920s, and qualitative information can be derived from historical sources over centennial time
scales (e.g. Jackson et al., 2001; Holm, 2003; Robinson and Frid, 2008). The majority of
shallow-water studies, however, fall within the decadal or sub-decadal range, where the
influence of climate is hard to separate from other factors such as ENSO and stochastic shifts in
new production and food supply. Even for major variables, such as global ocean productivity,
there are currently no more than about 10 years of analysed remote-sensing data (Behrenfeld et
al., 2006). In Ifremer, REBENT is monitoring in c.a. 10 stations around Brittany coasts several
biocœnoses (e.g. intertidal eelgrass meadows, maërl beds, worm reefs, different rocky habitats
…) to detect and characterize qualitative and quantitative changes at the community level
(biennial scale).
Historically, the deep ocean was considered a relatively stable environment, buffered from the
climatic and geological drivers that so influence the terrestrial and littoral marine ecosystems. It
is only recently that long-term sampling has started to reveal significant trends at a number of
deep-sea sites (Billett et al., 2001; K.L. Smith et al., 2006). Muddy, deep-sea sediments represent
the most widespread habitat on the Earth’s solid surface, occupying approximately 96% of the
ocean floor (Glover and Smith, 2003). With an average ocean depth of 3800m they are also one
of the least accessible of habitats. For example, the Porcupine Abyssal Plain site lies at 4850 m
water depth in the north-east Atlantic. This important site has been sampled in different ways and
at various frequencies over a period of more than 15 years. The most complete datasets are for
invertebrate megafauna (1989-2005) and fish (1977-1989 and 1997-2002) collected using a
semi-balloon otter trawl. From 1989 to 2002 there was a three-fold increase in megafaunal
abundance and major changes in species composition. . These time-series samples therefore
suggest that decadal-scale changes have occurred among shallow-infaunal foraminifera at the
PAP site, more or less coincident with changes in the megafauna, as well as indications of
shorter-term events related to seasonally-pulsed phytodetrital inputs.
Although deep-sea chemosynthetic ecosystems, such as hydrothermal vents and seeps, are driven
by quite different physical and chemical processes to sedimented habitats, their fauna share a
relatively recent evolutionary origin (Little and Vrijenhoek, 2003) and are likely to show
common physiological and metabolic constraints. New data are emerging on long-term changes
at vents, highlighting how geology dynamically influences biology over decadal scales (Sarrazin
et al., 1997). In general, time-series data has been obtained from cruises that were launched in
response to a major eruption (e.g the famous 1991 eruption at 9°N), or by piecing together data
from a series of discrete cruises that were not originally designed for temporal studies. In almost
all cases, biological data is in the form of video surveys, with only small samples taken for the
obvious reason that major sampling would severely impact the community to be studied. Twelve
hydrothermal vent sites were identified as having useful long-term data (to date the best
documented hydrothermal fields are 9°N/EPR and Lucky Strike/MAR). For cold seeps, repeat
visits to the same sites are scarce (mainly focused on Haakon Mosby Mud Volcano in the Arctic
sector of Scandinavian Margin, or have gone unpublished, and inferences are made on what is
known about cold seep biology. For chemosynthetic ecosystems of biogenic origin (e.g whalefalls) time-series data are available for sites in the north-east Pacific, and fjords of the Swedish
west coast.
New internet-based technology for dissemination and exchange of species identification.
35
Friday, 12 March 2010
It is not difficult nowadays to find more than 50 different websites on the Internet dealing with
species identification on many levels, i.e. taxonomic (all groups, fish, cephalopods, crustaceans
etc.), geographical area (worldwide or regional), special characteristics (e.g. invasive,
endangered), use (e.g. aquariology, fisheries, aquaculture, SCUBA diving, food safety), parts of
animals (e.g. otoliths), or life history (e.g. larvae).
New internet – based technology for species tracking :
database…for invasive species tracking …..
GPS/Cell-phones connected to
Guides / Handbooks.
There are both taxonomic and geographic gaps in the availability of up-to-date marine species
identification guides. The large, common, and/or ecologically significant species are covered in
several to many guides. In contrast, many of the smaller, rarer or taxonomically difficult to
identify species are not covered in any of the guides listed. Yet, these species may be of great
importance to biodiversity, ecosystem function and marine resources. Although many
identification guides are available for those regions of Europe in which the marine fauna and
flora is least diverse (the North and Baltic Seas), there are considerably fewer guides for those
regions of Europe in which the marine fauna and flora is most diverse (the Mediterranean, the
Atlantic archipelagos, the deep sea). Thus, the taxonomic and geographic gaps that most urgently
require attention are the smaller sized taxa in the southern European seas (both Atlantic and
Mediterranean).
36
Friday, 12 March 2010
To be moved to Section 8
REFERENCES
Angly F.E., Felts B. Breitbart M., Salamon P., Edwards R.A., Carlson C., Chan A.M., Haynes
M., Kelley S., Liu H., Mahaffy J.M., Mueller J.E., Nulton J., Olson R., Parsons R., Rayhawk S.
Suttle C.A. & F. Rohwer (2006) PLoS Biology 4(11) e368.
Baum J., Myers R. A., Kehler D. G., Worm B., Harley S. J. & P. A. Doherty. 2003. Collapse
and Conservation of Shark Populations in the Northwest Atlantic. Science, vol 299 : 389-392.
Beaumont N., Duffy J. E., Folke C., Halpern B. S., Jeremy B. C. Jackson, Heike K. Lotze,
Fiorenza Micheli, Stephen R. Palumbi, Sala E., Selkoe K. A., Carlton J.T., Geller J.B., ReakaKudla M.L. & Norse E.A. (1999) Historical extinctions in the sea. Annual Review of Ecology
and Systematics, 30, 525-538
Belmonte G, Potenza D (2001) Biogeography of the family Acartiidae (Calanoida) in the PontoMediterranean Province. Hydrobiologia 453/454 : 171-176
Behrenfeld M.J., O'Malley R.T., Siegel D.A., McClain C.R., Sarmiento J.L., Feldman G.C.,
Milligan A.J., Falkowski P.G., Letelier R.M. and Boss E.S. (2006). Climate-driven trends in
contemporary ocean productivity. Nature 444, 752-755.
Billett D.S.M., Bett B.J., Rice A.L., Thurston M.H., Galéron J., Sibuet M. and Wolff G.A.
(2001). Long-term change in the megabenthos of the Porcupine Abyssal Plain (NE Atlantic).
Progress in Oceanography 50, 325-348.
Bouchet, P. (2006). The magnitude of marine biodiversity. Pp 33-62 In: The exploration of
marine biodiversity: Scientific and technological challenges, edit Carlos M. Duarte, Fundacion
BBVA publisher.
Brown J.H. & Maurer B.A., 1989. Macroecology: the division of food and space among species
on continents. Science 243, 1145-1150.
Brown J.H. (1995). Macroecology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Byrne M (1996) Starfish wanted, dead or alive. New Scient 2052: 53
Byrne M, Morrice M, Wolf B (1997) Introduction of the northern Pacific seastar, Asterias
amurensis, to Tasmania: reproduction and current distribution. Marine Biology 127: 673-685
Carlton, J. (1993) Neoextinctions of marine invertebrates. American Zoologist 33: 499-509.
Carlton J, Geller J (1993) Ecological roulette: the global transport of nonindigenous marine
organisms. Science 262: 78-82
Chao A, Chazdon RL, Colwell RK, Shen TJ 2005 A new statistical approach for assessing
similarity of species composition with incidence and abundance data. Ecology Letter 8: 148–159
Chao A, Shen TJ 2005 Program SPADE (species prediction and diversity estimation).
Clark M.R. (2010). Effects of trawling on seamounts. Oceanography, 23 (1): 132-133.
Costello M., Bouchet P., Emblow C. & A. Legakis (2006). European marine biodiversity
inventory and taxonomic resources: state of art and gaps in the knowledge. Marine Ecology
Progress Series 316: 257-268
37
Friday, 12 March 2010
Cury P. & S. Morand. 2004. Biodiversité marine et changements globaux: une dynamique
d’interactions où l’humain est partie prenante. In Biodiversité et Changements globaux. Adpf
éditeur. In Barbault, Chevassu-au-Louis et Teyssèdre A. Biodiversité et Changement Global
(Une version Anglaise existe également): 50-79.
Daskalov G. M, Grishin A. N., Rodionov S., & V. Mihneva. 2007. Trophic cascades triggered by
overfishing reveal possible mechanisms of ecosystem regime shifts. PNAS June 19, 2007 vol.
104 no. 25 10518-10523
del Monte-Luna P., Lluch-Belda D., Serviere-Zaragoza E., Carmona R., Reyes-Bonilla H.,
Aurioles-Gamboa D., Castro-Aguirre J.-L., Guzmán del Próo S. A., Trujillo-Millán O. & B. W.
Brook. 2007. Marine extinctions revisited. Fish and Fisheries 2007 vol. 8 (2), 107-122.
Dulvy N. K., Stuart S. J., Rogers I., & D. L. Maxwell. 2006. Threat and decline in fishes: an
indicator of marine biodiversity. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 63(6): 1267–1275.
Dulvy N.K., Sadovy Y. & Reynolds J.D. (2003) Extinction vulnerability in marine populations.
Fish and Fisheries, 4, 25-64
Fabri, M.C., Galéron J., Larour M. & G. Maudire (2006) Combining the Biocean database for
deep-sea benthic data with the online Ocean Biogeographic Information System. Marine Ecology
Progress Series, 316: 215–224, 2006
Frank K. T., Petrie B., Choi J. S., Leggett W. C. 2005. Trophic Cascades in a Formerly CodDominated Ecosystem. Science 10 June 2005: Vol. 308. no. 5728, pp. 1621 - 1623
Frid, C.L.J., Garwood, P. and Robinson, L.A. (2008). Climate, fishing and observing change in a
North Sea benthic system: A 36 year time series. Journal of Climate Change
Gaston K.J. & Blackburn T.M. (2000). Pattern and process in Macroecology. Blackwell
Science.
Glover A.G. and Smith C.R. (2003). The deep-sea floor ecosystem: current status and prospects
of anthropogenic change by the year 2025. Environmental Conservation 30, 219-241.
Grassle J.F. & N.J. Maciolek (1992). Deep-sea species richness: regional and local diversity
estimates from quantitative bottom samples. American Naturalist 139: 313-341.
Groombridge, B. & M.D. Jenkins eds. (2000) Global biodiversity: Earth’s living resources in the
21st century. Cambridge: World Conservation Press.
Guarinello M. L., • Shumchenia E. J. & •J. W. King (2010). Marine habitat classification for
ecosystem-based management: a proposed hierarchical framework. Environmental Management
(on line).
Halpern et al. (2008). Science, 319, 948-952.
Holm, P. (2005). Human impacts on fisheries resources and abundance in the Danish Wadden
Sea, c1520 to the present. Helgoland Marine Research 59, 39–44
Hutchings J.A. & Reynolds J.D. (2004) Marine fish population collapses: consequences for
recovery and extinction risk. BioScience, 54, 297-309
38
Friday, 12 March 2010
Humes, A. G. (1994). How many copepods? Hydrobiologia 292-293: 1-7.
Jackson J. B. C. 2008. Ecological extinction and evolution in the brave new ocean. PNAS August
12, 2008 vol. 105 no. Supplement 1 11458-11465
Jackson, J.B.C., Kirby, M.X., Berger, W.H., Bjorndal, K.A., Botsford, L.W., Bourque, B.J.,
Bradbury, R.H., Cooke, R., Erlandson, J. Estes, J.A., Hughes, T.P., Kidwell, S., Lange, C.B.,
Lenihan, H.S., Pandolfi, J.M., Peterson, C.H., Steneck, R.S., Tegner, M.J., and Warner, R.R.
(2001). Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 293, 629637.
Johnson D (1994) Seastar fight gains momentum. Aust Fish 53: 25-27.
Klyashtorin L. B.; Borisov V. & A. Lyubushin (2009) Cyclic changes of climate and major
commercial stocks of the Barents Sea. Marine Biology Research 551): 4-17.
Lambshead, J. (1993) Recent developments in marine benthic biodiversity research. Oceanis
19:5-24.
Lefkaditou E, Corsini-Foka M, Kondilatos G (2009) Description of the first Lessepsian squid
migrant, Sepioteuthis lessoniana (CEPHALOPODA: Loliginidae), in the Aegean Sea (Eastern
Mediterranean). Mediterranean Marine Science 10: 87-97
Little, C.T.S. and Vrijenhoek, R.C. (2003). Are hydrothermal vent animals living fossils? Trends
in Ecology and Evolution 18, 582-588.
Loh J., Green R.E., Ricketts T., Lamoreux J., Jenkins M., Kapos V. and Randers J., (2005), “The
Living Planet Index: using species population time series to track trends in biodiversity”,
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B., n°360, pp. 425-441.
Mavruk S, Avsar D (2008) Non-native fishes in the Mediterranean from the Red Sea, by way of
the Suez Canal. Rev Fish Biol Fisheries 18:251–262
Myers R. A. & B. Worm. 2003. Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities.
Nature 423, 280-283.
Myers R. A., Baum J. K., Shepherd T. D., Powers S. P. & C. H. Peterson.2007. Cascading
Effects of the Loss of Apex Predatory Sharks from a Coastal Ocean. Science 30 March 2007:
Vol. 315. no. 5820, pp. 1846 - 1850
Parry G, Cohen B, McArthur M, Hickman N (2000) Victorian Incursions Report Number 2 .
Asterias amurensis incursions in Port Phillip Bay: Status at May 1999. Marine and Freshwater
Research Institute, Australia, internal report no 19: 21pp
Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Dalsgaard, J., Froese, R. & Torres, F. Jr. 1998. Fishing down marine
food webs. Science 279, 860–863.
Poore G. & G. Wilson (1993) Marine species richness. Nature 361: 597-598.
Por FD (1978) The influx of Red Sea biota into the Mediterranean by way of the Suez Canal, vol
23. Spinger, Berlin, 228 pp.
Reaka-Kudla, M.L. (1997). The global biodiversity of coral reefs: a comparison with rain forests.
In: M.L. Reaka-Kudla, D.E., & E.O. Wilson eds. Biodiversity II Washington: Joseph Henry
Press, 83-108.
Reigner, C. Fontaine, B. & P. Bouchet (2008). Nor knowing, not recording, not listing :
39
Friday, 12 March 2010
Numerous unnoticed mollusk extinctions. Conservation Biology 23(5): 1214-1221.
Richardson, A.J. and Schoeman, D.S. (2004). Climate impact on plankton ecosystems in the
Northeast Atlantic. Science. 305, 1609-1612.
Ricklefs R.E. (2004). A comprehensive framework for global patterns in biodiversity. Ecology
Letters 7, 1-15.
Robinson, L.A. and Frid, C.L.J. (2008). Historical marine ecology: examining the role of
fisheries in changes in North Sea benthos. Ambio 37, 362-371
Roemmich D. and Mcgowan J. (1995). Climatic Warming and the Decline of Zooplankton in the
California Current. Science 268, 352-353.
Smith, K.L., Baldwin, R.J., Ruhl, H.A., Kahru, M., Mitchell, B.G. and Kaufmann R.S. (2006).
Climate effect on food supply to depths greater than 4,000 meters in the northeast Pacific.
Limnology and Oceanography 51, 166-176.
Stachowicz J. J., Watson R. 2006. Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem
Services. Science 3 November 2006: Vol. 314. no. 5800, pp. 787 – 790
Winston, 1992.
Worm B., Barbier E. B., Beaumont N., Duffy J. E., Folke C., Halpern B. S., Jackson J. B.
C., Lotze H. K., Micheli F., Palumbi S. R., Sala E., Selkoe K. A., Stachowicz J. J. & R.
Watson. (2006). Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services. Science 3
November 2006: Vol. 314. no. 5800, pp. 787 – 790.
40