Responsive Mode Project BIOFUSE
Effects of biodiversity on the functioning and stability of marine
ecosystems – European scale comparisons
First workshop
Dublin, Ireland
July 27-29 2005
Markus Molis (AWI), Harald Asmus (AWI), Isabel Sousa Pinto (CIMAR), Francisco 'Paco' Arenas
(CIMAR), Rita Araujo (CIMAR), Cedric Hubas (representing CNRS Paris & CNRS Roscoff), Antonio
Terlizzi (CoNISMA), Simonetta Fraschetti (CoNISMA), Kristjan Herkül (EMI), Stefan Forster (IOW),
Stuart Jenkins (MBA), John Griffin (MBA), Richard Thompson (MBA / University of Plymouth), Andreas
Zipperle (RUG), Tasman Crowe (UCD), Sophie Nicol (UCD), Jorge Terrados (UIB),
Lisandro Benedetti-Cecchi (UP), Elena Maggi (UP), Fabio Bulleri (UP), Dave Paterson (USTAN)
Workshop report – BIOFUSE deliverable D1.1
Compiled by Tasman Crowe, UCD
The workshop was generally considered to be very successful and good progress was
made in developing an integrated group and programme of research. The workshop
programme (Annex 1) was largely followed, except for the field excursion, which had
to be cancelled due to very bad weather. The time allocated to the excursion was
occupied instead with discussion. The workshop was well attended, with a total of 21
delegates including representatives of 13 of the 18 participating institutions (contact
details listed in Annex 2, Appendix 3). Apologies and input were received from all but
one of the remaining participants.
Workshop objectives
The workshop aimed to achieve the following:
1. Finalise database of existing research projects that can contribute to Objectives 1-4
2. Establish a basis for the sharing of data sets for European scale comparisons
3. Agree the next steps for integration of modelling and empirical research to meet the objectives
of the RMP
4. Develop a small research project that could be undertaken at future workshops of the RMP
5. Develop a low-cost project or projects to be undertaken in parallel using comparable methods
by RMP participants at their institutions
6. Agree principles for administration, finance, research assistance and delivery of deliverables.
7. Integrate – perhaps with some help from J. Arthur Guinness!
This report will summarise progress made on each of those objectives. It is based on
the “Summary of agreed points” document that was developed at the workshop
(Annex 2). All PowerPoint slides and some images (courtesy of Isabel Sousa Pinto) will
be available to MARBEF members on the BIOFUSE website
(www.marbef.org/projects).
1. Databases of existing data
Spreadsheets containing metadata gathered prior to the workshop were circulated.
The delegates divided into small groups on the basis of habitats of interest. Each
group discussed what additional metadata would be necessary and compiled whatever
information was available to them at the time. The results of these compilations will
be available to MARBEF members in the data sets section of the BIOFUSE project
website (www.marbef.org/projects/biofuse).
It was agreed that we would aim to collate more metadata by requesting information
from other MARBEF participants, particularly the Theme 1 leaders, who are also
compiling potentially relevant data sets. Data sets from outside Europe would
potentially be acceptable, as long as they are relevant to the comparisons being
made. The final compilation of the datasets themselves will be done by the BIOFUSE
postdoc.
2. Basis for sharing data sets
The following basis was agreed upon:
if data are used, each contributor will get the opportunity for coauthorship if they make substantive comments on the manuscript
3, 4 & 5. Agree the next steps to meet the objectives of the RMP
Objective 1 – integrated descriptive research
 It was agreed that we need data-sets containing gradients of diversity and time
series of measures of diversity, such that temporal variability (stability) could
be plotted against diversity. We will also seek data sets with a functional
component (relationships worth testing include: stability v diversity, stability of
functioning v diversity, functioning v stability of community structure; variance
in diversity v mean diversity).
 Each data set will contribute a regression coefficient to meta-analysis.
 Initial analyses to combine all data sets; subsequent analyses on selected
subsets.
 There was some discussion in sub-groups about the possible influence of
combining data sets with a range of temporal extents and intensities. It is
possible that data sets with a very small number of points might be more likely
to have high variance than data sets with many points and may thus introduce
excessive noise into meta-analyses. This could be tested with larger data sets
by deriving a clouds of variance values based on variances of all possible pairs
of points, all possible triplets, quads, etc. This analysis could be used to
develop criteria for acceptance of valid data sets (e.g. only use data sets with
>3 temporal points).
 The original plan had been to subdivide the data sets on the basis of which
gradient of stress was generating temporal variance. After discussion, stressors
were not considered to be of key importance. Gradients of diversity might be
generated by gradients of stress, however. There was discussion of the
2
potential for this to confound comparisons (e.g. apparent relationships between
stability and diversity might actually be relationships between stability and
stress). Lisandro emphasised that Objective 1 aims to describe patterns; a
range of processes might underlie them and it would not be intended or
possible that this analysis would discriminate between them. Others (e.g.
Stuart) argued that it nevertheless be better to use data sets that contain
variation in diversity not already known to be related to variation in other
factors, e.g. by selecting sites of differing diversity but with similar levels of
wave action, salinity, pollution, etc.
 Lisandro gave a presentation showing the use of PERMANOVA to extract a
variance component for community structure which can then be plotted against
the number of taxa in the community. Correlations were evident at the scale of
individual quadrats, not at the scale of whole shores.
 Dave suggested testing ‘sampling effect’ in this context: removing some
species (e.g. seasonal ones) from the data sets and test the effect of doing so
on the relationship observed. Richard suggested that the scale-dependence of
the relationship may vary at different locations. John expressed concern about
the comparability of data sets with different temporal extents relative to the
longevity of the organisms present.
 This discussion (and sub-group discussions) led to the suggestion that the
importance of quadrat size and temporal extent and intensity be examined in
supplementary studies. These would be done at workshops and as a specific
sampling programme with fixed quadrats, randomly selected on rocky shores –
fixed quadrats provide opportunity to assess small scale diversity-stability
relationships, different shore heights provide opportunity for larger scale
diversity gradient, range of shores provide even larger scale; select habitats
likely to be variable over 2 year timescale. See Box 1 (below) for more details.
 Markus’ presentation reviewed the resources available to the project at AWI
Biological Station, Helgoland: long history of research, datasets and ongoing
projects (e.g. intertidal studies of recruitment, disturbance, invasion) support of
a technician (~30%), PhD student, constant temperature rooms, laboratory
space, research diver groups.
 Paco described data sets available from research in SW England & Spain on
impacts of invasion and research in Portugal in the form of long term, large
extent sampling of community structure on rocky shores (emergent rock and
rock pools).
In summary, Objective 1 of BIOFUSE will be achieved by:
1. Integrating existing data sets and using meta-analysis
2. Running a specifically designed long-term sampling programme in which
most partners will participate
3. Running sampling experiments at forthcoming workshops, e.g. to test
influence of ‘quadrat’ size and extent of sampling area on measures of
temporal variation
Box 1 (below) summarises the current status of plans for the long term sampling
programme. These plans will be finalised at the second workshop so that the
research can commence in Winter 2005-6.
3
Box 1
BIOFUSE Objective 1 – long-term sampling programme:
Summary of current status of design
Aims:
1. more specifically targetted / coherent examination of diversity-stability
relationships than possible with meta-analysis of existing data;
2. provide basis to compare outcomes with those of meta-analysis to assess
effectiveness of meta-analysis of disparate data sets.
Focal habitat: rocky shores
Participating institutions: UCD, UP, MBA, ConISMA, AWI, CIMAR, USTAN(?),
CNRS(?), please add your institution to the list…
Design:
5 sites selected to maximise likelihood of differences in diversity (e.g. along gradient
of stress – wave exposure, pollution, etc or with different recruitment regimes).
Sites of size 10s of m, 100’s m to km apart.
Ideally sample rock pools and emergent rock at each site. Otherwise chose one or
the other depending on overall availability.
2 shore heights – mid shore and low shore (where bands are large, select upper part
of each band).
Fixed sampling units randomly selected. Size of sampling unit can vary between
partners. e.g. on emergent rock: Mediterranean 20 x 20 cm quadrats, Atlantic 50 x
50 cm quadrat. 5 quadrats, grid of 25 squares used to give visual estimate to nearest
5 % cover. Issue perhaps requires further discussion / supplementary study? Any
comments?
2 samples per year (ie every 6 months) for 2 years commencing Winter 2005-6.
Taxonomic resolution:
best possible resolution achievable non-destructively in the field, including macrofauna
(visible to naked eye). Issue perhaps requires further discussion? e.g. to what extent
might discrepancies between data sets reduce the validity of comparisons among
them? Any comments?
Issues raised after main group discussion by remaining researchers:
Can we in some situations revert to using individual sites as smallest unit in the metaanalysis (rather then regression coefficients from datasets)? In that way, all sites with
all stressors would contribute a point to the graph/analysis and the influence of
individual gradients would be diminished (lost?).
Would this have the consequence of requiring much more stringent guidelines for
standardised taxonomic resolution?
4
Objectives 2-4 – integrated experimental research






Elena described a complex experimental test of the biodiversity-stability
relationship based on assemblages constructed using Stachowicz’s tile
approach and using Lisandro’s published designs for diversity manipulations
and disturbance regimes.
Stuart discussed the use of rock pools as experimental model systems to test
hypotheses about the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem
functioning. Three studies were summarised: (a) functional diversity v
susceptibility to invasion, (b) grazers and/or nutrients v cover of ephemeral
alga and productivity and (c) combining observation, modelling and
experimentation.
Paco showed that the identity rather than number of functional groups of algae
affected the susceptibility of rock pools to invasion.
Kristjan summarised a number of experiments in Estonia that may contribute to
BIOFUSE. The experiments involved mesocosms in the form of cages
suspended from floating rafts and tested (a) the role of functional diversity in
the stability and development of benthic communities, (b) the effect of
suspension feeding bivalves on the development of benthic assemblages and
(c) effects of physical and biological disturbance on the recolonization and
development of benthic assemblages.
Cedric presented relevant research by CNRS, including a purpose-built benthic
incubator for measuring various aspects ecosystem functioning.
Harald described biodiversity-ecosystem functioning research in the Sylt-Rømø
bight. There is a long history of research including long term data sets on a
wide range of taxa and physical variables together as well as experiments
involving bell jar chambers and flumes. Network analysis was presented as one
approach to drawing this information together.
We agreed four aspects of integration of experimental work:
1. meta-analysis of existing data as appropriate;
2. minor modifications to existing projects to improve comparability;
3. ‘simple’ manipulations of key taxa crossed with disturbance to be done by most
partners (rocky shores, sedimentary shores, seagrass – see Figure 1 and details
below);
4. ‘complex’ experiments designed to discriminate between effects of number,
identity and relative density of taxa on ecosystem functioning and stability.
These experiments would require a minimum of 12 treatments, ideally 16 (as
presented by Lisandro, based on Benedetti-Cecchi (2004) Funct. Ecol. 18: 761768 (MARBEF publication series www.marbef.org/documents)). Such
experiments would be done by a small number of partners with sufficient
additional resources (6 partners expressed interest: focussing on rocky shores
(pools, emergent substrata?) - AWI (Markus), USTAN (Dave), CIMAR (Isabel),
ConISMA (Simonetta), UP (Lisandro), UCD (Tasman) and sedimentary habitats
- USTAN (Dave).
The ‘simple’ deletion experiments would test the effect on ecosystem function and
stability of factorial removal of a small number of key taxa/functional groups.
Selected taxa would vary among habitats (final decisions to be made by module
5
leaders) and might include canopy algae, mussels, seagrass, Corophium. Stability
would be tested in the face of disturbance regimes such as thermal stress, mechanical
stress (e.g. bioturbation, trampling, boulders), sedimentation, nutrient pulses,
hypoxia, salinity (e.g. add salt or freshwater). Target variables could include simple
measures such as change in biomass or change in community composition and more
complex measures such as community respiration, production (e.g. as measured using
benthic incubation chambers described by Cedric and Harald). Listed below are some
combinations of taxa and disturbance proposed for different habitats:
Sedimentary shores
Manipulate: burrowing worms (Arenicola, Nereis) using buried mesh
Disturbance: trampling / bioturbation (short-term study, 2-3 months)
Measure: community structure, biomass accumulation, community respiration
etc (measured with incubation chamber).
Rocky shores
Manipulate: canopy algae, mussels
Disturbance: sedimentation
Measure: community structure, biomass accumulation, community respiration
etc (measured with incubation chamber).
Sea grass
Manipulate: Zostera noltii / marina (leave algae in place)
Disturbance: mechanical – waves, currents, sediment displacement
Measure: cover of macrophytes & associated fauna, biomass accumulation,
oxygen fluxes, nutrient fluxes
Harald suggested mussels and canopy algae could be manipulated in both soft and
hard substrata to enable some direct inter-habitat comparisons.
6
Rocky
Sediment
Seagrass
Location
correct?
?
Figure 1. Some possible locations for ‘simple’ experiments on rocky shores,
sedimentary shores and sea grass beds (as indicated by workshop delegates).
Modelling
Given the lack of modellers in the final group of participants, we agreed that we could
not achieve the original aspiration of combining empirical work and modelling within
BIOFUSE. We will therefore focus on empirical work and there will be no substantial
modelling component in BIOFUSE. Instead, steps towards integration will be taken by
developing links with the modelling RMP. Harald agreed to take the lead in this.
6. Finance and administration
Support for postdoctoral research assistant


€103k has been committed as contributions towards pooled staff / equipment
(see Table 1).
We will recruit a 3 year post-doc to be based for 1.5 years at UCD and 1.5
years at UP.
7




Their tasks will be to collate existing data sets and build fully functional
database; meta-analysis; co-ordinate integrated research projects; take lead in
authorship of some of the combined papers.
Over the 2 weeks following the workshop, financial contributions of partners
were finalised. Participants were asked to check Annex 2, Appendix 2,
especially the final column in the table, and to send amendments to T. Crowe.
Amendments were received and the table has been updated (Table 1).
Partners contributing to the postdoc will be invoiced by UCD / UP (invoice to
state its purpose: postdoc, and not to include overhead, so overhead can be
claimed by contributing partner).
The position was advertised in August. The advertisement was distributed via
MARBEF website, email discussion lists and personal email distribution lists.
Table 1. Finalised budgetary commitments from partners (in €k).
Partner ID Partner
Own MARBEF MARBEF
resources Basic Additional
1 NIOO-CEME
10
9
13
4 CSIC
5 USTAN
13 IOPAS
14 AWI
15 AAU
20 IOW
22 CoNISMa
24 UCD
26 RUG
32 CIMAR
39 IOUG
42 IMBC
43 MBA
52 UP
44c CNRS Roscoff
44e CNRS Paris
4.5
30
2
4.1
20
15.25
4
57
0
36
8
32
4
3.8
30
6
19
31
2
8
8
1
0
6
1
2
7
0
4
20
3
50
15
36
9.34
316.19
4
2
8
26
7
6
205.8
2
6
3
2
53
TOTALS
*PhD student and technician's time committed to BIOFUSE
** postdoc's time committed to BIOFUSE
MARBEF
Total
22
8
40
5
3.8
36
7
21
38
2
12
4
2
10
32
10
8
260.8
Support for shared
Overall post-doc / equipment?
Total Amount of contribution
32
12.5
70
7
7.9
56
22.25
25
95
2
48
24
5
60
47
46
17.34
576.99
40
*
15
6
20
**
1
4
16
1
103
Module leaders





Rocky shores: S Jenkins
Sedimentary: D Paterson
Seagrass: J Terrados
Modelling liaison: H Asmus
Outreach: S Fraschetti
Next full workshop

At the end of the workshop, it was agreed that the workshop would take place
as planned in March / April 2006; Cedric Hubas was to investigate possibility of
8



it being hosted in Roscoff; MBA, Plymouth was proposed as a possible
alternative.
It was agreed that we’d probably need smaller workshops before then e.g. to
develop protocols and equipment (e.g. incubator).
After the overall group disbanded, it was suggested that the full workshop be
brought forward in time (e.g. January 2006). This would avoid the need for
smaller workshops and enable sampling for Objective 1 to be agreed and
commenced in winter 2005-6 and give the maximum possible time to prepare
for experiments to meet Objectives 2-4, which will be initiated in summer 2006.
It was also suggested we go further south at that time of year. After wider
consultation, it was agreed that the second workshop will be hosted by CIMAR
in Viana, near Oporto, Portugal on 12-14 January 2006 (see
www.ciimar.up.pt/biodiversidade/LBCViana.htm).
A future workshop will be hosted by CNRS Roscoff.
AOB




Andreas was not present to describe GBIRM in detail, but the potential for links
between the RMPs was stressed (see supporting documentation to the
programme (Annex 1).
Isabel indicated that the Congress of Conservation Biology would take place in
August 2006 and would include a MARBEF session on Conservation of Marine
Biodiversity. A number of delegates agreed to give talks in that session.
Dave pointed out that there will be a training workshop on ecosystem
functioning at USTAN
Outreach – presentation by Olive Heffernan; there was agreement that each
participant contribute at least one piece of outreach material during the RMP.
7. Integration
The workshop generated good interaction among the delegates, with active, inclusive
discussions. Original plans to subdivide into small groups based on habitats were
shelved in favour of whole group discussions, giving a much higher level of
integration. The social events were enjoyed by all. There was a strong sense of
momentum and optimism at the end of the workshop, suggesting that BIOFUSE
should be a successful and productive RMP.
9
Annex 1 – workshop programme
Responsive Mode Project BIOFUSE
Effects of biodiversity on the functioning and stability of marine
ecosystems – European scale comparisons
First workshop
Dublin, Ireland
July 27-29 2005
Workshop objectives:
8. Finalise database of existing research projects that can contribute to Objectives
1-4
9. Establish a basis for the sharing of data sets for European scale comparisons
10. Agree the next steps for integration of modelling and empirical research to
meet the objectives of the RMP
11. Develop a small research project that could be undertaken at future workshops
of the RMP*
12. Develop a low-cost project or projects to be undertaken in parallel using
comparable methods by RMP participants at their institutions*
13. Agree principles for administration, finance, research assistance and delivery of
deliverables.
14. Integrate - perhaps with some help from J. Arthur Guinness!
* Such projects should yield deliverables under the stated Objectives of the RMP.
Deliverables specified in the RMP work package description - D1.1: Report of kick-off
workshop with the identification of:
(i)
testable hypotheses on biodiversity-stability relationships, including appropriate
response variables and measures of ecosystem functioning
(ii)
types of analyses on existing data sets,
(iii)
types of models
(iv)
types of experimental designs
10
Wednesday 27 July
Morning session 1 (9.00 – 11.00)
Chair: Tasman Crowe
Welcome and Introduction
Focus on Objective 1 – quantifying stability at sites of naturally differing diversity and
exposure to disturbance.
 Discuss the metadata on existing sampling programmes already collated
 Include some short presentations (5-10 minutes) about existing data sets or
sampling programmes to help stimulate discussion.
o Lisandro Benedetti-Cecchi (UP): Temporal variability in assemblages of rocky
seashores in relation to natural and anthropogenic disturbance
o Markus Molis (AWI): Research on diversity drivers of rocky shore macrobenthic
communites on the island of Helgoland
o Francisco Arenas (CIIMAR): Rocky shore data sets from CIMAR
 Decide whether there are gaps which we could aim to fill by initiating additional
low cost sampling programmes.
11.00 – 11.20 Coffee
Morning session 2 (11.20 – 1.00)
Objective 1 (continued).
 Discuss basis on which data sets can be used for European scale comparisons,
including initial discussion of joint publications and authorship.
 Break into smaller groups (e.g. according to habitat or focal disturbance type)
to discuss more specific details of the data sets – e.g. based on availability of
data, which specific hypotheses can be tested, using which kinds of designs
and analyses.
1.00-2.00
Lunch
Afternoon session 1 (2.00 – 3.30)
Chair: Lisandro Benedetti-Cecchi
Focus on objectives 2-4 – experimental research to test relationships between
biodiversity and the functioning and stability of ecosystems.
 Discuss existing projects and scope for integration of findings
 Include some short presentations (5-10 minutes) on existing research to help
stimulate discussion
o Elena Maggi (UP): Manipulation of the number,identity and equitability of
species on rock surfaces: effects on succession and relevance for the analysis
of biodiversity-stability relationships
o Stuart Jenkins (MBA): Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in rock pools
o Francisco Arenas (CIMAR): Diversity-invisibility relationships in rock pools
o Kristjan Herkül (EMI): Recent experimental studies on the relationships
between ecosystem function and benthic diversity in the Estonian coastal sea
o Harald Asmus (AWI): Flumes, models and fluxes - effects of biodiversity on the
functioning and stability of seagrass and mussel bed systems
 Discuss the integration of modelling and empirical (lab and field) approaches
11
3.30 – 4.00 Coffee
Afternoon session 2 (4.00 – 5.30)
Objectives 2-4 (continued)
 Break into small groups as necessary (e.g. combining modellers and empiricists
working on same habitats or combining lab- and field-based empiricists working
on same habitats) to discuss more specific details of integration and to deliver
some specific hypotheses and summaries of modelling approaches,
experimental designs, protocols and response variables.
Adjourn to a nearby pub, plans for dinner at discretion of participants
Thursday 28 July
Visit to Sea Point, a shore in Dublin Bay with natural and artificial hard substrata and
extensive soft substrata. Opportunity to develop ideas for collaborative research and
discuss practical issues in sampling and experimental manipulation. Bring sampling
protocols and equipment, including any prototypes in development. Low tide is at
11.09, depart Dublin by DART at 9.15 to arrive on shore by 10.00. Stay until 12.30
(approx.).
Lunch at the Purty Kitchen – a good pub within 15 minutes’ walk of the shore.
Afternoon session (3.30 – 5.30)
Chair: Tasman Crowe
Overall introduction (inlcuding brief description of GEBIRM by Andreas Zipperle),
followed by small group discussions on:

The potential to develop a project linking expertise from BIOFUSE and GEBIRM
(another RMP, focussed on genetic diversity). See ‘supporting documentation’
(No. 1) below.

The development of a specific piece of research that could be completed at a
given site within 1-3 days such that it could be executed by participants at
future workshops of the RMP, taking advantage of the numbers and combined
skills of those present – a Workshop Research Project.

Developing a position statement on the interpretation of best practice in terms
of experimental design and analysis (MARBEF core deliverable D1.5)
7.30 Workshop dinner
Friday 29 July
Morning session 1 (9.00 – 11.00)
Chair: Stuart Jenkins
12
Discuss longer term, low cost research that could be executed by RMP participants at
their research institutions during the course of the RMP. Such research would
capitalise on the large number of institutions involved and the opportunity to create a
substantial piece of focussed research with minimal cost to any one institution.
Discuss development of proposal for additional funding.
Continue discussions initiated on previous days.
11.00 – 11.20
Coffee
Morning session 2 (11.20 – 1.00)
Chair: Tasman Crowe
Financial, administrative and other issues, including:
 agree principles for sharing of data sets / authorship, etc.
 support for postdoctoral / postgraduate research assistants to assist in
integrative research
 confirmation of module leaders and individuals / teams responsible for
deliverables
 outreach – comments from Simonetta Fraschetti and Olive Heffernan
 date and venue of next workshop(s)
 any other business
 concluding remarks, including summary of agreed points
1.00 – 2.00 Lunch
Afternoon session (2.00 – 4.00)
Opportunity for small group discussions about specific issues arising during the
workshop and to complete tasks initiated earlier in the workshop.
13
Annex 1 (contd.) - Supporting documentation
1. Correspondence in relation to development of experimental manipulation of
genetic diversity
March 2004 – from Ester Serrao
Report on discussions concerning cross-cutting approaches within RMPs on Genetics (GBIRM) and
Experimental (BIOFUSE) approaches
1.
It was decided to integrate again an experimental approach to assessing relationships between genetic
diversity and ecosystem stability, as had initially been proposed during the planning stages of Marbef.
2.
- Genotypic diversity (= clonal diversity) was selected as the variable to be manipulated, for simplicity
in the initial studies. Other genetic diversity aspects were discussed and might be considered later on.
Therefore clonal species with availability of good markers capable of distinguishing genets, must be
selected as models.
The two model types selected were therefore:
- Animal model: (suggestions by Steve Hawkins) colonial bryozoans (to be discussed with Roger
Hughes) or colonial tunicates (to be discussed with John Bishop), selected due to easiness of application
of manipulative approaches.
- Primary producer model: a clonal plant or seaweed:
Zostera noltii was selected due to (among other reasons):
- broad distribution across European coasts
- availability of markers
- feasibility of manipulative approaches in the field.
Stress factors to be manipulated for Z.noltii: sediment burial, intertidal exposure, temperature.
July 2005 – from Jeanine Olsen
Dear Tasman and Lisandro:
As you know the kick off meeting of GEBIRM was held in Marseille last week. There will be an official
report coming from Jean-Pierre and Anne but I'd like to fill you in on a couple of highlights that may be
relevant for discussion during the Dublin meeting. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend, but am
sending my PhD student Andreas Zipperle (works on Zostera noltii in Sylt and is part of our Zostera
team). Sophie Arnoud was going to try and come or at least have contact with CarlosD beforehand.
Onno Diekmann will talk to Ester Serrao who may be able to come. I don't think there's anyone else.
The point is, we are interested but we are not yet properly coordinated with BIOFUSE.
QUICKIE REPORT:
Macrophyte cluster people at GEBIRM were:
RUG. Jeanine Olsen, Wytze Stam, Jim Coyer, Andreas Zipperle. I am coordinator of the macrophyte
cluster within GEBIRM although Jean-Pierre is the big boss.
SZN. Gabrelle Procaccini
UIB (Carlos Durate's group). Sophie Arnaud
ROSCOFF. Thierry Comtet (representing Myriam Valero who could not come)
UGOT (Tjarno). Carl Andre.
CCMAR (Faro,Porto). Onno Diekmann (Zn person)
Taxa. From a list of 17 macrophyte species we ranked our top 5 and then second top 5 and then an
invasives group. Crieteria for the top group were a combination of geographic coverage available,
present of msat loci and large data sets for multi-species phylogeographic comparisons. Criteria for the
second group were somewhat more relaxed. Invasavis mainly for eventual coordination with Theme 3
(mgmt).
Results were:
Top 5 [actually 6] (no order within): Zostera noltii, Z. marina, Posidonia, Cymodosia, Fucus vesiculosus
and F. distichus.
14
Second top (no order): Fucus spiralis, Fucus serratus, Laminaria digitata, Aspargopsis taxiformis,
Caulerpa prolifera
Invasives (order important in this case): Undaria, Caulerpa racemosa, Aspargopsis armata, Caulerpa
taxifolia.
Funds. The total monies available for the macrophyte cluster for work is around 50K after we reserve
travel monies to workshops and so on. so, not enough for personnel (which was a point of discussion).
It was decided (the invert and fish clusters too; the also have about 50K each) that the best general way
to spend the money is to fill in sampling gaps through mini-expeditions/collecting trips. For example,
one area that is a hole for almost everyone (regardless of group) is the eastern Mediterranenan (Greek,
Turkish coasts, Middle East; also Black Sea for some people). Other areas are parts of the north
African coast, northern Scotland and Siberia (east of the White Sea). Task teams will begin to
investigate the possibiliites for joing forces with local marine labs, getting permits (a particular problem
in Greece and Turkey), estimates of boat hires and so on.
So, within GEBIRM we will be starting to see what sorts of collecting trips can be planned.
Cross-cutting RMP. Recall too that GEBIRM is also a cross-cutting RMP with links to themes 1 and 2.
As I understand it, there was a discussion at the Tevira meeting about the possibility of manipulating
genetic diversity in some of the planned experiments and Zostera noltii was mentioned. We support
this.
If there are disucssions about experiments involving fucoids for which msat genotyping and
chararacterization of areas would be of interest, that can also be arranged depending upong the scope
of things....remembering that there's not much money.
These two items would serve as a cross-cutting theme topic and we might also be able to get modest
support from core Marbef funds. So, in short, the macrophyte cluster within GEBIRM is keen to
integrate where appropriate.
The thing is, we are not sure who from GEBIRM will be able to actually attend BIOFUSE-Dublin. As I
said, Andreas will come (assuming he has been accepted) and hopefully someone from Ester's and
Carlos's group.
I hope this is sufficient information for now.
Jeanine
July 2005 – from Carlos Duarte
Dear all,
It is my understanding that the experimental evaluaiton of the role of genetic diversity on ecosystem
function was not going to be conducted as an addition to the RMP.
Indeed, in a document under consideration by the governing bodies of MARBEF, which I prepared
some months ago, I requested specific funds to run these experiments as part of the future activities on
the JPA for the remaining of the project, the rationale being that the RMP does not have enough
resources to add new work not planned in the initial submission of the RMP.
However, I have not yet received any indication from the governing bodies as to whether this specific
request will be supported or not.
Best regards,
Carlos M. Duarte
July 2005 – from Gabriele Procaccini
15
Dear all,
this just to say that we (SZN) are potentially interested to be involved in the Z. noltii manipulation
experiments. Ischia could be a backup site (different depth, conditions, etc...) although it really depends
from several factors such as the possibility to replicate the experiments (that I imagine have been
planned in the intertidal), funds, etc...
No possibility for us to go to Dublin.
ciao
Gabriele
2. Q & A with management office about finances
(replies from management office prefixed by ‘MO:’)
1. Is there a formal process to draw down funds in relation to RMPs or will
the next payment automatically be transferred from MARBEF to the
institution? If there is a process, I'd be grateful if you could advise
me on how it works - e.g. is there an official application form?
MO: The annual refunding depends on the (eligible and agreed) costs that you made in that year (to be mentioned
in the Cost Statement). Nothing more nothing less. There is no special treatment for costs associated with RMPs
(no lump-sum payments, no pre-payments).
2. Within an RMP, if we (the participants) elect to pool some of our
resources, for example to support a postdoc, what is the correct way to do
it? I guess the postdoc would be paid through a host institution (even if
they travel between insitutions for extended periods). In that case,
should that host institution invoice each of the contributing participants
for their agreed contributions? Are there alternatives? I ask because this
will be one of the points of discussion at the first workshop of RMP 4-4
(now called BIOFUSE) to be held on 27-29 July in Dublin.
MO: There are no special rules for pooling money for a post-doc or PhD. In other RMPs similar questions came to
the foreground. Your solution of sending an invoice to the participating institutions was until now similar to the
best solution I've heard (I proposed it also to GBIRM). You should take care about the fact that the invoice should
be free of overhead - in that way the participating institutions can still ask for their own overhead (on the basis of
the value of the invoice they have paid to the host institution). To my knowledge there are no good alternatives.
3. In hosting a workshop, I assume a suitable procedure to recover expenses,
eg. for catering, etc., would be to charge a 'registration fee' to each
participant, by invoicing their institutions. Am I correct in this assumption?
MO: you are fully correct.
4. I couldn't find any official minutes from the Porto GA on the
website. Could you let me know the official decision on what happens to
unspent funds at the end of the initial 18 month period? Will they be
reclaimed into the central budget or will some or all of the money
potentially be available to support aspects of the RMP?
MO: You are again correct - the minutes are not published yet (will follow soon). There is no decision on unspent
funds. A decision will be made in September (at the SSC/EC meetings in Barcelona). We are now preparing
criteria in order to evaluate what to do with unspent funds. The general idea is that partner that performed
properly, and have spent more than 15 kEuro can spent the remaining funding for other (e.g. RMP) activities in
the following years. All others will be asked to explain why they under-spent. In case partners do not need so
much, or fail to be more active, we will reallocate part of their funding towards the central budget - this last will
16
be especially for those who spent les than 5 kEuro and hardly participated in any activity. But, mind that this is
still in preparation.
3 Outreach guidelines (from Olive Heffernan, MARBEF outreach officer)
MarBEF RMP Outreach Guidelines
1. Identify one contact within the RMP who will act as a media/outreach liason
This will involve feeding information from the project to the Communications and
Outreach Officer as and when necessary and handling media enquiries or providing
information for media relations should the need arise
2. All RMP participants to fill out attached form identifying areas of expertise and email to
Communications and Outreach Officer
3. Identify target audiences for outreach. Progress and outcome of the project should be
published to the scientific public, the public at large, the media, stakeholders and end-users
(communication with Theme 3), where appropriate.
For example, is the project to have any likely implications for or be of interest to:
 industry e.g. fisheries, aquaculture
 Policy/decision makers/environmental managers
 Users of marine resources
4. Identify your key messages and make format appropriate for target audience-liase with
Communications and Outreach Officer
5. Identify target media appropriate to your outreach; this will depend very much on the
audience e.g. MarBEF newsletter, website, symposium session for scientific community,
trade magazines for industry, distribution of news releases through Press Office for media
etc
6. Identify timeframe (deadlines) and budget for outreach activities
7. Identify other RMPs where outreach activities or material could overlap
8. Draft list of minimum outreach activities/contributions for the lifespan of the project e.g.
a. 2 articles for the MarBEF newsletter
b. One page or ‘topic note’ on the outreach website
c. Publicity material on project? Posters? Flyers?
d. Supply of images and other media where possible for outreach site and for events
e.g. MarBEF roadshow
9. Individual Communications/Media contacts within each RMP will be responsible for
writing their own releases; the outreach officer can be contacted for editorial assistance
where necessary. The MarBEF Press Office will distribute press releases Europe-wide
through Alpha Galileo and where necessary internationally through EurekAlert!
17
Annex 2 - Summary of agreed points
Databases of existing data
 TC to compile and circulate current versions (with additional columns for details
of scale etc) to MARBEF (incl. Theme 1 leaders) and other potential
contributors, requesting required meta-data for additional data sets
 BIOFUSE post-doc to compile the data sets
 Basis for sharing data: if data used, each contributor will get the opportunity
for co-authorship if they make substantive comments on the manuscript
Objective 1
 Need data-sets with gradient of diversity and time series of measures of
diversity; plot temporal variability v diversity; will also seek data sets with a
functional component (relationships worth testing include: stability v diversity,
stability of functioning v diversity, functioning v stability of community
structure; variance in diversity v mean diversity)
 Each data set will contribute a regression coefficient to meta-analysis
 Initial analyses to combine all data sets; subsequent analyses on subsets
 Stressors not of key importance
 Importance of quadrat size and temporal extent and intensity to be examined
in supplementary studies (at workshops and specific sampling programme with
fixed quadrats, randomly selected on rocky shores – fixed quadrats provide
opportunity to assess small scale diversity-stability relationships, different shore
heights provide opportunity for larger scale diversity gradient, range of shores
provide even larger scale; select habitats likely to be variable over 2 year
timescale. See Appendix 1).
Objectives 2-4
4 aspects of integration
5. meta-analysis of existing data as appropriate
6. minor modifications to existing projects to improve comparability
7. ‘simple’ manipulations of key taxa crossed with disturbance to be done by most
partners (rocky shores, sedimentary shores, seagrass)
8. ‘complex’ experiments (minimum 12 treatments, ideally 16, as presented by L
Benedetti-Cecchi, based on paper in Functional Ecology 2004) to be done by
small number of partners with sufficient additional resources (approx. 6
partners expressed interest, focussing on rocky shores (pools, emergent
substrata), sedimentary habitats).
Modelling
 No major concerted effort on modelling as part of BIOFUSE
 Instead develop links with the modelling RMP
18
Finance and administration
Support for postdoctoral research assistant






€103k committed as contributions towards pooled staff / equipment (see
Appendix 1)
Recruit 3 year post-doc to be based for 1.5 years at UCD and 1.5 years at UP
Tasks: collate existing data sets and build fully functional database; metaanalysis; co-ordinate integrated research projects; take lead in authorship of
some of the combined papers.
Over next 2 weeks will finalise agreed financial contributions of partners (check
Appendix 1, especially final column in table, and send amendments to T.
Crowe).
They will then be invoiced by UCD / UP (invoice to state its purpose: postdoc,
and not to include overhead, so overhead can be claimed by contributing
partner).
Position to be advertised in next few weeks and in post as soon as possible.
Advertisement to be distributed via MARBEF website, email discussion lists,
jobs.ac.uk, personal email distribution lists.
Module leaders





Rocky shores: S Jenkins
Sedimentary: D Paterson
Seagrass: J Terrados
Modelling liaison: H Asmus
Outreach: S Fraschetti
Next full workshop



AOB




March / April 2006; Cedric Hubas to investigate possibility of it being hosted in
Roscoff; MBA, Plymouth proposed as a possible alternative.
Suggest smaller workshops before then e.g. to develop protocols and
equipment (e.g. incubator)
Alternatively (suggested after overall group disbanded): why not bring full
workshop forward in time (e.g. to beginning of January? Better to go further
south at that time of year?).
Links with GBIRM and potential for combined project
Congress of Conservation Biology
Forthcoming training workshop on ecosystem functioning at USTAN
Outreach – presentation by Olive Heffernan; agreement that each participant
contribute at least one piece of outreach material during the RMP.
Draft full report of workshop to be circulated within next 2 months, workshop
materials (e.g. powerpoint presentations) to be placed on MARBEF website ASAP.
19
Annex 2, Appendix 1 - outline of long-term monitoring programme (part of
Objective 1)
Aims:
1. more specifically targetted / coherent examination of diversity-stability
relationships than possible with meta-analysis of existing data;
2. provide basis to compare outcomes with those of meta-analysis to assess
effectiveness of meta-analysis of disparate data sets.
Focal habitat: rocky shores
Participating institutions: UCD, UP, MBA, ConISMA, AWI, CIMAR, USTAN(?),
CNRS(?), please add your institution to the list…
Design:
5 sites selected to maximise likelihood of differences in diversity (e.g. along gradient
of stress – wave exposure, pollution, etc or with different recruitment regimes).
Sites of size 10s of m, 100’s m to km apart.
Ideally sample rock pools and emergent rock at each site. Otherwise chose one or
the other depending on overall availability.
2 shore heights – mid shore and low shore (where bands are large, select upper part
of each band).
Fixed sampling units randomly selected. Size of sampling unit can vary between
partners. e.g. on emergent rock: Mediterranean 20 x 20 cm quadrats, Atlantic 50 x
50 cm quadrat. 5 quadrats, grid of 25 squares used to give visual estimate to nearest
5 % cover. Issue perhaps requires further discussion / supplementary study? Any
comments?
2 samples per year (ie every 6 months) for 2 years commencing Winter 2005-6.
Taxonomic resolution:
best possible resolution achievable non-destructively in the field, including macrofauna
(visible to naked eye). Issue perhaps requires further discussion? e.g. to what extent
might discrepancies between data sets reduce the validity of comparisons among
them? Any comments?
Issues raised after main group discussion by remaining researchers:
Can we in some situations revert to using individual sites as smallest unit in the metaanalysis (rather then regression coefficients from datasets)? In that way, all sites with
all stressors would contribute a point to the graph/analysis and the influence of
individual gradients would be diminished (lost?).
Would this have the consequence of requiring much more stringent guidelines for
standardised taxonomic resolution?
20
Annex 2, Appendix 2 – budget and commitment of resources to shared staff / equipment
Budgetary commitments (€k) - figures taken from RMP workpackage description / earlier correspondence
Partner ID Partner
1 NIOO-CEME
4 CSIC
5 USTAN
13 IOPAS
14 AWI
15 AAU
20 IOW
22 CoNISMa
24 UCD
26 RUG
32 CIMAR
39 IOUG
42 IMBC
43 MBA
52 UP
44c CNRS Roscoff
44e CNRS Paris
TOTALS
Own MARBEF MARBEF
resources Basic Additional
10
9
13
4.5
30
2
4.1
20
15.25
4
57
0
36
8
32
4
4.1
30
6
19
31
2
8
8
1
0
6
1
2
7
0
4
20
3
50
15
36
9.34
316.19
4
2
8
26
7
6
206.1
2
6
3
2
53
MARBEF
Total
22
8
40
5
4.1
36
7
21
38
2
12
4
2
10
32
10
8
261.1
Support for shared
Overall post-doc / equipment?
Total Amount of contribution
32
12.5
70
7
8.2
56
22.25
25
95
2
48
24
5
60
47
46
17.34
577.29
40
15
6
20
1
4
16
1
103
21
Annex 2, Appendix 3 – delegate list
Institution
AWI
AWI
CIMAR
CIMAR
CIMAR
CNRS Paris & CNRS Roscoff
CoNISMa
CoNISMa
EMI
IOW
MBA
MBA
MBA
RUG
UCD
UCD
UIB
UP
UP
UP
USTAN
Delegates
Email
Markus Molis
mmolis@awi-bremerhaven.de
Harald Asmus
hasmus@awi-bremerhaven.de
Isabel Sousa Pinto
ispinto@cimar.org
Francisco 'Paco' Arenas
farenas@ciimar.up.pt
Rita Araujo
ritaraujo@cimar.org
Cedric Hubas
hubas@sb-roscoff.fr
Antonio Terlizzi
antonio.terlizzi@.unile.it
Simonetta Fraschetti
sfrasca@ilenic.unile.it
Kristjan Herkül
kristjan.herkyl@sea.ee
Stefan Forster
stefan.forster@uni-rostock.de
Stuart Jenkins
sjen@mba.ac.uk
John Griffin
john.griffin@plymouth.ac.uk
Richard Thompson, University of Plymouth r.c.thompson@plymouth.ac.uk
Andreas Zipperle
A.Zipperle@rug.nl
Tasman Crowe
tasman.crowe@ucd.ie
Sophie Nicol
sonic_255@yahoo.co.uk
Jorge Terrados
jorge.terrados@uib.es
Lisandro Benedetti-Cecchi
bencecc@discat.unipi.it
Elena Maggi
maggie@discau.unipi.it
Fabio Bulleri
fbulleri@discau.unipi.it
Dave Paterson
d.paterson@st-andrews.ac.uk
22