1.    The WP2 questionnaire (Preview).

2.    First results.

2.1.          Measuring marine biodiversity.

2.2.          Species considered as "key-species"

2.3.          Stressors of the marine biodiversity.

2.4.          Indicators 

2.5.          Bioindicators and biomonitoring.

3.    Preliminary discussion.

3.1.          Remarks about the questionnaire:

3.2.          Results of the working group discussions.

Methods for assessing marine biodiversity.

The key descriptors of biodiversity.

Some remaining comments or questions.

A question of time scale and of spatial scale.

As a conclusion,

4.    Preview the questionnaire

 

 

The WP2 objective is to meet the need to detect significant changes in the marine biodiversity using standardised methods at a regional or European level. Two different steps are proposed:

 

·       First year : make an inventory of internationally agreed standardised and normalised measures and indicators for marine biodiversity

·       Second year : propose a grid of indicators for monitoring programs of marine biodiversity in Europe (including large-scale and long-term).

 go to the top

 

1.     The WP2 questionnaire (Preview)

A questionnaire has been made to make an inventory and evaluate the relevance of different types of indicators available in Europe (including bioindicators or sentinel organisms, biological indices and biomarkers), their recommendation by national rules and their use within national monitoring network in order to identify the main causes, the rate and extent of biodiversity loss or evaluate the benefit of the implementation of protective or remediative measures. A wide range of indicators is necessary in order to consider the fourth levels of biodiversity: the genetic diversity, species diversity, community or ecosystem diversity and finally the sea-(land)scape diversity.

 

Questions relate to the methods (sampling, recording, assessment) of defining and measuring marine biodiversity and for monitoring at various spatial and temporal scales. A special attention must be paid to rapid assessment techniques (e.g. rapid ecological assessment or side-scan for landscape diversity) and specific surveys of species considered as “key-species” for marine biodiversity. Among the species of a region, “key-species” are those that contribute to the architectural, trophic and functional complexity of a marine ecosystem. This includes taxa of great heritage value as for instance : rare, endemic, threatened, biogenic building, keystone or emblematic species.

Composition and organisation of the ocean's flora, fauna and habitat change under the effect of climate and of human activity. Questions within this inventory relate to factors that have an impact on marine biodiversity. A special attention is given to factors involved in deep modifications of marine communities, mass mortality events, genetic diversity loss or development of modified genetic strains of aquatic organism (e.g. alien species invasion, climate change, etc.). To establish causal relationships between stressors and biological effects at different levels of organization, we must set up a combination of indicators including biological tools from the molecular to the ecosystem level, physical chemical parameters and social economical data. According to the definition of different types of indicators and bioindicators of interest for this survey, participants must give information about the descriptors recommended by their national rules and the usual bioindicators developed for surveying marine biodiversity. The threshold levels must be well known, as well as the existence of baselines and links with ecologically relevant endpoints, especially for measurement of stressor effects at low levels of biological organisation (sub-cellular to organism).

 

The questionnaire has been sent to the steering committee members’ approval by the end of December 2000. After some technical problems, it has been put on-line on the web by the end of January 2001, permitting thus an automatic transfer of the submitted information to a database. The system has broken down just before the first regional meeting in April, the questionnaire becoming once again available on the web by the end of June. Between April and June, several corrections resulting of the regional meetings’ discussions have been made both on the text and the form of the questionnaire. A maximum of answers is expected by the end of September in order to prepare a first state of the art for the BIOMARE plenary workshop to be held in the Balearic Islands, Spain, on November 2^nd and 3^rd.

go to the top

2.     First results

Before the two regional meetings in Sopot and Corinth, 21 questionnaires have been filled-in: 2 concerning the Baltic Sea, 7 the North Atlantic and North Sea, 12 the Mediterranean and Black Sea.

 

Table I : first inventory of the replies to the questionnaire

N°	Biogeographic sector	Country	Contact
1	Atlantic	Ireland	J.G. Wilson
2	Atlantic	United Kingdom	R. Warwick
3	Atlantic	France	C. Amiard-Triquet
4	Atlantic, Channel, North Sea	United Kingdom	J. Foster Smith
5	Atlantic, North Sea	United Kingdom	P. Ducrotoy
6	Baltic Sea	Finland	E. Bonsdorff
7	Baltic Sea	Finland	E. Sandberg-Kilpi
8	Black Sea	Turkey	A. Kideys
9	Black Sea	Ukraine	N. Milchakova
10	Mediterranean	Slovenia	A. Maleij & L. Lipej
11	Mediterranean	France	C. Amiard-Triquet
12	Mediterranean	France	T. Perez & J. Vacelet
13	Mediterranean	Italy	V. Lupo
14	Mediterranean	Greece	N. Simboura
15	Mediterranean	Greece	C. Arvanitidis
16	Mediterranean	Greece	?
17	Mediterranean	Greece	N. Simboura
18	Mediterranean	Greece	N. Simboura
19	Mediterranean	Greece	S. Orfanidis
20	North Sea	Germany	W. Greve & F. Reiners ?
21	North Sea	Scotland	P.G. Moore?

 

Answers are sometimes incomplete but they can be modified on-line from the new opening questionnaire form.

There are several basic comments:

go to the top

2.1.  Measuring marine biodiversity

Information about rapid assessment methods are very few. “Feeding indices”(of functional diversity) in Mediterranean and the use of taxonomic distinctness based on presence/absence data rather than quantitative ones in Atlantic have been introduced for assessment of marine diversity in different ecosystems. On the other hand, side-scan surveys seem to be useful for studying the habitat diversity, or the extension of a given system (e.g. Posidonia meadows). 

go to the top

2.2.  Species considered as "key-species"

To the question: “does an inventory of the marine patrimony exist in the biogeographic sector considered?”, the majority of answers are “YES”. The marine species and habitats of natural heritage seem to be at least partially inventoried in France, Italy, Greece, UK, Slovenia, Germany. The protected species listed by the Berne Convention should be all considered as key species. Some of them have been cited within the replies:

 

Table II : species cited as “key-species” for a given biogeographic sector.

	Species	Sector	Type (rare, endemic, keystone, threatened, biogenic building, emblematic)	Known stressors
Phanerogams	Zostera marina	Baltic Sea, Black Sea, Med	Keystone, rare	Eutrophication, turbidity
	Posidonia oceanica	Med	keystone	Eutrophication, pollution, turbidity, etc.
	Ruppia maritima	Med	threatened	Eutrophication, pollution, turbidity, etc.
	Zostera noltii	Med	builder	Eutrophication, pollution, turbidity, etc.
	Cymodocea nodosa	Med	builder	Eutrophication, pollution, turbidity, etc.
Macroalgae	Lithothamnium coralliodes	Atlantic	threatened	Fishing, eutrophication
	Ranunculus baudotii	Baltic Sea	keystone	Eutrophication
	Fucus vesiculosus	Baltic Sea, North Sea	keystone constituent	Eutrophication, pollutants, turbidity
	Phyllophora nervosa	Black Sea	keystone	Eutrophication
	Cystoseira crinita	Black Sea	keystone	Eutrophication
	Cystoseira spp.	Med	threatened	Eutrophication, pollution, turbidity, etc.
	Laminaria hyperborea	North Sea	keystone	Chemical pollution
sponges	Spongia spp.	Med	commercial, endemic, threatened	Fishing, climate change
	Asbestopluma hypogea	Med	endemic	global change
	Oopsacas minuta	Med	endemic	global change
cnidariaNs	Cladocora caespitosa	Med	builder	climate change
	Corallium rubrum	Med	commercial, endemic	Fishing, climate change
	Eunicella spp.	Med	keystone	Climate change
	Paramuricea clavata	Med	keystone, endemic	Climate change, fishing, diving, shipping, anchoring
Crustaceans	Monoporeia affinis	Baltic Sea	keystone	Eutrophication, oxygen deficiency
	Saduria entomon	Baltic Sea	keystone	Eutrophication, oxygen deficiency
	Calanus euximus	Black Sea	keystone	Gelatinous predators
	Calanopia metu	Black Sea	endemic	Pollution
	Calanopia levantina	Black Sea	endemic	Pollution
	Scyllarides latus	Med	threatened	fishing
	Semibalanus balanoides	North Sea	keystone	Chemical pollution, tourism, climate change
Echinoderms	Centrostephanus longispinus	Med	threatened	Climate change
Molluscs	Macoma balthica	Baltic Sea	keystone	Eutrophication, oxygen deficiency
	Mytilus edulis	Baltic Sea, North Sea	keystone, builder	Eutrophication
	Lithophaga lithophaga	Med	threatened	loss of habitat, fishing
	Patella ferruginea	Med	threatened	loss of habitat, tourism
	Pinna nobilis	Med	threatened	loss of habitat
	Nucella lapillus	North Sea
Chordates	Eugraulis eucrasicolus	Black Sea	keystone	Pollution, overfishing, gelatinous competitors
fishes	Sciaena umbra	Med	threatened	Spearfishing
	Epinephelus marginatus	Med	endemic, emblematic	Spearfishing
	Cethorhinus maximus	Med	rare
	Carcharodon carcharias	Med	rare
	Hippocampus spp.	Med	threatened	loss of habitat
	Aphanius fasciatus	Med	rare
AvIes	Morus bassanus	North Sea	keystone	Threat on habitat
turtles	Caretta caretta	Med	emblematic, threatened	Fishing, shipping, loss of habitat
mamals	Monachus monachus	Med	emblematic, threatened	Fishing, shipping, loss of habitat
	Tursiops truncatus	Med	emblematic, threatened	Fishing, shipping
	Phoceana phoceana	North Sea	keystone	Threaten locally, shipping; fishing, pollution

 go to the top

2.3.  Stressors of the marine biodiversity

Among the causes of loss and degradation of biodiversity are: (1) direct threats [fragmentation and loss of natural habitats, overexploitation of certain species, biological invasion, consequences of human activity, pollution, climatic changes] and (2) indirect threats [development of river and coast line, increase of human population, disturbance linked to leisure or industrial activities, exploitation of wild stocks, non recognition or under-assessment of marine diversity and natural resources in economic terms, weakness of legal systems and institutions, absence of adequate scientific knowledge and/or ineffective transmission of information].

Among the local causes of biodiversity degradation, the most often cited is “eutrophication” and “OM [organic matter] enrichment”. Chemical pollutants have been rarely mentioned. Does it mean that this kind of stressor has never been identified as responsible of biodiversity loss? Their deleterious effects at lower biological levels of organization are quiet well known. For example, the long-term decline in the population of stripped bass in San Francisco Bay has been related to reduced fecundity and increased larval mortality due to hydrocarbons, DDT, PCB and metals. Chemical pollutants may also reduce immunocompetence and increase high parasitic infestations.

The most frequent causes of biodiversity change or loss cited are alien species and climate change. Both give cause of concern at various spatial scales. Although climate change is a global problem, according to the Europe ACACIA project (2000), some parts of Europe may be more vulnerable. For instance, annual temperature over Europe warm at a rate of between 0.1°C and 0.4°C/decade, this warming being greatest over Southern and North-Eastern Europe, and least along the Atlantic coastline of the continent. Thus global climate change or climatic event is probably the major cause of biodiversity change at a European level. Disease outbreaks may be favored by changing environmental conditions that either increase prevalence or virulence of existing disease. For example, eradication of Diadema in the 80’s was one of the first well studied marine epidemics (works of Lessios, 1984-1990, Panama). In some locations, loss of this keystone herbivore contributed to phase shifts from coral to algae dominated reefs. This topic should be one the main task of the BIOMARE concerted action. The biological pollution represented by alien species (also cited as exotic, invasive, introduced species) represent a growing problem due to the unexpected and harmful impacts they cause to the environment, indigenous species, economy and human health. This should also be a priority for BIOMARE.

 go to the top

2.4.  Indicators

Very few indicators recommended or imposed by national rules have been mentioned. Among the data listed within the questionnaire, participants replied YES to the existence of data on the amount of fisheries and frequentation rates of a given biogeographic sector. This kind of informations could provide a better knowledge of the tolerance thresholds of marine ecosystems. Details should be asked for areas selected as reference or primary site.

go to the top

2.5.  Bioindicators and biomonitoring

Due to the good knowledge of marine ecosystems, we suppose that each marine laboratory has a list of species as bioindicator the algae Ulva spp., Enteromorpha spp. and benthic invertebrates Capitella spp., Malacoceros fuliginosa, Corbula gibba, etc., being the most often cited. These types of bioindicator correspond to the local problems of eutrophication and OM enrichment. Species at their limit of distribution, as thermophilic ones for instance as bioindicator of global environmental modifications, have not been yet cited.

 

Stressor effects on populations, communities and ecosystems have a high ecological relevance, but cannot represent early signs of human pressures on biodiversity. It can be reasonably argued that biodiversity loss, widespread mortality or other population-level effects manifest themselves long after biochemical dysfunction, physiological abnormalities, growth or reproduction impairment, and ecologically important changes have occurred as a result of environmental degradation. Several biomarkers (responses at infra-individual level) are able to give the first warning of biodiversity threat. Generally, the ecological relevance of biochemical events remains very low. However, among those listed by Claude Amiard-Triquet, DNA alterations may represent the more potential marker of future population perturbation because of their very crucial role in major ecological functions such as reproductive success and gene transmission. Unfortunately, the links between biochemical and ecological levels are today still difficult to establish formally. An other example is the acetylcholinesterase inhibition by neurotoxicants that may have consequences on behaviours which are important in life cycles: research of food, research of sexual partner, care of young, inducing potential threat at the population level. A discussion on the relevance of several biomarkers should go deeper during the next workshop, perhaps via the organization of a specific working group.

 

A few monitoring network in Europe are using biological tools for evaluating the marine environment health or the state of the marine biodiversity. Monitoring programme must include survey of sensitive populations. The Posidonia Monitoring Network (RSP), set up in 1984, is probably the older Mediterranean monitoring system using routinely a “key-species” as bioindicator. In 2001, as a consequence of the 1999 mass mortality event occurred in the NW Mediterranean, a network based on measurements of the gorgonian vitality has been settled up in France.

 go to the top

3.     Preliminary discussion

WP 2 Objectives and bioindicators have been presented at the regional meetings held in Sopot and Corith. The corresponding Powerpoint file including concepts, definitions and illustrations is available on the BIOMARE website. After these two meetings, several questions have been modified, corrected or completed. Working groups have been organized with the following instructions:

·       Think you are an end-use, and then you’ll use a protocol and according to your question, you will select some biodiversity indicators.

·       Think about different scales and levels: scale of time (rapid assessment or long term monitoring), scale of space (station, regional, pan European), level of organisations (one species, all species, surrogates).

·       What levels and scales do you recognize as being important to measure biodiversity (following the above, or make concrete additions).

·       Then, take the questionnaire and for each level and scale that you indicated, we ask you to give with priorities.

go to the top

3.1.  Remarks about the questionnaire:

Some examples of indicators given are indicators of biodiversity and some others of the environment health. Our job is to deal with biodiversity and select the best biological tools to work on all aspects of marine biodiversity.

The term “patrimonial species” has not been understood. It has been changed within the new questionnaire by “emblematic species”.

The European program BEEP (Biological effects of environmental pollution in marine coastal ecosystems) represented by P. Garrigues at Sopot is very interested with the data base on-line and the participants are ready to share their data of ecotoxicology with us. The BEEP Project involves collaboration between groups from the different EU member states and associated states, with complementary capabilities. It establishes an integrated network of European laboratories with the common objective of studying biological markers under chemical stress in marine organisms distributed along the North Atlantic Sea, Baltic and Mediterranean coasts. The mutual interests between BEEP and BIOMARE mainly focus on those results obtained within the BEEP framework that concern biodiversity and its dynamics.

That represents an additional source of bioindicators, which covers also all the coasts of Europe.

 

go to the top

3.2.  Results of the working group discussions

Methods for assessing marine biodiversity

Multiscale and multidisciplinary approaches are necessary. According to participants in Corinth, few people use rapid assessment methods around Mediterranean and Black Sea. Several concepts have been proposed in Sopot: functional indices could be good methods, as well as the habitat diversity perhaps surveyed with the help of remote sensing (e.g. side-scan) and GIS. Rapid assessment methods may also involve particular taxonomic groups: large erect invertebrates and macoralgae on hard substrates, the ratio annelid/nematod on soft bottom, the diatom index, etc.

 

The key descriptors of biodiversity

Taxon inventories

Key species (at least a list by basin)

Functional groups

Phylogenetic groups

Biomass/species/abundance

Biogeographic groups (spatial distribution, limits of distribution)

Community indices and population dynamics

 

Some remaining comments or questions

·        Impact of the seasonal effects and of environmental factors. Combined effects with anthropogenic stressors. How to standardize? Which relations with the environment health?

·        There is a need of standardized sampling methods: which grab, number of replicates, which nets, mesh and duration, transects, size of the quadrats, photography parameters, close up, etc…

·        Be aware of the regional specificity: diversity (e.g. high in Mediterranean and lower in Baltic), biomass, main stressor (+++ tourism in Mediterranean and eutrophication in Baltic), etc.

 

A question of time scale and of spatial scale

According to most of the participants, factors that may have biological effects must be classified according the scale of space to which they concern: local, regional or global problem. We must be able to discriminate the global change effects from the local perturbations. A protocol including local and pan European tools, short and long term monitoring has been submitted during the Sopot meeting:

 

Local tools:                            Taxon inventories

                                                Rare/endemic species

                                                Taxa indicating environmental conditions

                                                Invasive taxa

                                                Emblematic species (as top predators for example)

 

Pan European tools:             Community descriptors

                                                Biogeography

                                                Population genetic

                                                Broad community indices

 

Short term monitoring:             to measure a direct effect à rapid assessment (1 time)

 

Long term monitoring: to measure long term changes à rapid assessment (x times) including the use of functional groups, key species, baselines on species composition, historical data, etc…

 

 go to the top

As a conclusion,

BIOMARE aims should be to produce a manual about methodologies, to set training courses in taxonomy, field censing, biomarker, molecular biology and perhaps also to create a Cd-rom called “BIOMARE protocol on biodiversity”

go to the top