Heliana Teixeira

Good Environmental Status of marine ecosystems: What is it and how do we know when we have attained it?

The European Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) requires EU Member States (MS) to achieve Good Environmental Status (GEnS) of their seas by 2020. We address the question of what GEnS entails especially with regard to the level at which targets are set (descriptors, criteria, indicators), to scales for assessments (regional, sub-divisions, site-specific), and to difficulties in putting into practice the GEnS concept. We propose a refined and operational definition of GEnS, indicating the data and information needed to all parts of that definition. We indicate the options for determining when GEnS has been met, acknowledge the data and information needs for each option, and recommend a combination of existing quantitative targets and expert judgement. We think that the MSFD implementation needs to be less complex than shown for other similar directives, can be based largely on existing data and can be centred on the activities of the Regional Seas Conventions.

Response of single benthic metrics and multi-metric methods to anthropogenic pressure gradients, in five distinct European coastal and transitional ecosystems

In recent times many benthic indices have been proposed to assess the ecological quality of marine waters worldwide. In this study we compared single metrics and multi-metric methods to assess coastal and transitional benthic status along human pressure gradients in five distinct environments across Europe: Varna bay and lake (Bulgaria), Lesina lagoon (Italy), Mondego estuary (Portugal), Basque coast (Spain) and Oslofjord (Norway). Hence, 13 single metrics (abundance, number of taxa, and several diversity and sensitivity indices) and eight of the most common indices used within the European Water Framework Directive (WFD) for benthic assessment were selected: index of size spectra (ISS), Benthic assessment tool (BAT), Norwegian quality index (NQI), Multivariate AMBI (M-AMBI), Benthic quality index (BQI), (Benthic ecosystem quality index (BEQI), Benthic index based on taxonomic sufficiency (BITS), and infaunal quality index (IQI). Within each system, sampling sites were ordered in an increasing pressure gradient according to a preliminary classification based on professional judgement. The different indices are largely consistent in their response to pressure gradient, except in some particular cases (i.e. BITS, in all cases, or ISS when a low number of individuals is present). Inconsistencies between indicator responses were most pronounced in transitional waters (i.e. IQI, BEQI), highlighting the difficulties of the generic application of indicators to all marine, estuarine and lagoonal environments. However, some of the single (i.e. ecological groups approach, diversity, richness) and multi-metric methods (i.e. BAT, M-AMBI, NQI) were able to detect such gradients both in transitional and coastal environments, being these multi-metric methods more consistent in the detection than single indices. This study highlights the importance of survey design and good reference conditions for some indicators. The agreement observed between different methodologies and their ability to detect quality trends across distinct environments constitutes a promising result for the implementation of the WFDs monitoring plans. Moreover, these results have management implications, regarding the dangers of misclassification, uncertainty in the assessment, use of conflicting indices, and testing and validation of indices.

Assessing coastal benthic macrofauna community condition using best professional judgement - Developing consensus across North America and Europe

Benthic indices are typically developed independently by habitat, making their incorporation into large geographic scale assessments potentially problematic because of scaling inequities. A potential solution is to establish common scaling using expert best professional judgment (BPJ). To test if experts from different geographies agree on condition assessment, sixteen experts from four regions in USA and Europe were provided species-abundance data for twelve sites per region. They ranked samples from best to worst condition and classified samples into four condition (quality) categories. Site rankings were highly correlated among experts, regardless of whether they were assessing samples from their home region. There was also good agreement on condition category, though agreement was better for samples at extremes of the disturbance gradient. The absence of regional bias suggests that expert judgment is a viable means for establishing a uniform scale to calibrate indices consistently across geographic regions.

The robustness of ecological indicators to detect long-term changes in the macrobenthos of estuarine systems

Accurate and reliable benthic quality indicators are in great demand following the recent developments and the strict time schedule for implementing the European Water Framework Directive. The Mondego estuary has experienced a progressive deterioration during the 1990s, followed by a partial ecological recovery due to restoration measures in 1997/1998. We have used the estuary as a model system to test the performance and robustness of a set of ecological indicators in highlighting the changes in the ecological state of intertidal areas. Over a period of 17 years (1985-2002), we calculated Margalef, Shannon-Wiener, Berger-Parker, Taxonomic Distinctness measures, AZTIs Marine Biotic Index, Infaunal Trophic Index, and Eco-Exergy based indices and tested differences across periods characterised by different anthropogenic disturbance. We combined temporal data within three periods: before, during and after disturbance, based on progressive information on the changes in the extended type of anthropogenic disturbance. Indices were then compared with biological and abiotic descriptors (macroalgae, macrophytes, benthic macrofauna, nutrients concentration, sediment grain size and total organic carbon). We found great disparity in the indicators ability to capture temporal changes, showing distinct performances at each site. At the Zostera noltii site, only Margalef, Total Taxonomic Distinctness and the thermodynamically based indices captured temporal changes, despite giving higher values during the disturbance period. At the bare sediment site, Taxonomic Distinctness, ITI, Shannon-Wiener, Berger-Parker, AMBI and the TBI were able to distinguish between periods, in agreement with the differences observed analysing the macrobenthic assemblages. Furthermore, Taxonomic Distinctness was not robust enough to detect any temporal or spatial change. We thus suggest further research to understand the behaviour of ecological indicators, in view of their crucial importance for the management and protection of marine coastal areas.

Tales from a thousand and one ways to integrate marine ecosystem components when assessing the environmental status

Assessing the environmental status of marine ecosystems is useful when communicating key messages to policymakers or the society, reducing the complex information of the multiple ecosystem and biodiversity components and their important spatial and temporal variability into manageable units. Taking into account the ecosystem components to be addressed (e.g. biological, chemical, physical), the numerous biodiversity elements to be assessed (e.g. from microbes to sea mammals), the different indicators needed to be studied (e.g. in Europe, 56 indicators of status have been selected), and the different assessment scales to be undertaken (e.g. from local to regional sea scale), some criteria to define spatial scales and some guidance on aggregating and integrating information is needed. We have reviewed, from ecological and management perspectives, the approaches for aggregating and integrating currently available for marine status assessment in Europe and other regions of the world. Advantages and shortcomings of the different alternatives are highlighted. We provide some guidance on the steps towards defining rules for aggregation and integration of information at multiple levels of ecosystem organization, providing recommendations on when using specific rules in the assessment. A main conclusion is that any integration principle used should be ecologically-relevant, transparent and well documented, in order to make it comparable across different geographic regions.

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the ecosystem-based approach – pitfalls and solutions

The European Marine Strategy Framework Directive aims at good environmental status (GES) in marine waters, following an ecosystem-based approach, focused on 11 descriptors related to ecosystem features, human drivers and pressures. Furthermore, 29 subordinate criteria and 56 attributes are detailed in an EU Commission Decision. The analysis of the Decision and the associated operational indicators revealed ambiguity in the use of terms, such as indicator, impact and habitat and considerable overlap of indicators assigned to various descriptors and criteria. We suggest re-arrangement and elimination of redundant criteria and attributes avoiding double counting in the subsequent indicator synthesis, a clear distinction between pressure and state descriptors and addition of criteria on ecosystem services and functioning. Moreover, we suggest the precautionary principle should be followed for the management of pressures and an evidence-based approach for monitoring state as well as reaching and maintaining GES.

Systematic processes of land use/land cover change to identify relevant driving forces: implications on water quality.

Land use and land cover (LULC) are driving forces that potentially exert pressures on water bodies, which are most commonly quantified by simply obtained aggregated data. However, this is insufficient to detect the drivers that arise from the landscape change itself. To achieve this objective one must distinguish between random and systematic transitions and identify the transitions that show strong signals of change, since these will make it possible to identify the transitions that have evolved due to population growth, industrial expansion and/or changes in land management policies. Our goal is to describe a method to characterize driving forces both from LULC and dominant LULC changes, recognizing that the presence of certain LULC classes as well as the processes of transition to other uses are both sources of stress with potential effects on the condition of water bodies. This paper first quantifies the driving forces from LULC and also from processes of LULC change for three nested regions within the Mondego river basin in 1990, 2000 and 2006. It then discusses the implications for the environmental water body condition and management policies. The fingerprint left on the landscape by some of the dominant changes found, such as urbanization and industrial expansion, is, as expected, low due to their proportion in the geographic regions under study, yet their magnitude of change and consistency reveal strong signals of change regarding the pressures acting in the system. Assessing dominant LULC changes is vital for a comprehensive study of driving forces with potential impacts on water condition.

Applicability of ecological evaluation tools in estuarine ecosystems: the case of the lower Mondego estuary (Portugal)

In accordance with the Water Framework Directive guidelines (WFD, 2000, European Communities Official Journal L327 2000/60/EC), classification schemes and ecological evaluation tools (based on benthic invertebrate fauna data sets from 1990 to 2002) were applied in the lower Mondego estuary. Two distinct scenarios could be tested due to the implementation of mitigation practices in 1999, following a long eutrophication process, which started by the early 1980s. Some discrepancies in the results were found by the application of the different indices. The AMBI index (accounting for taxonomic composition) and the ABC method (accounting for abundance and biomass k-dominance patterns) classifications often disagreed with those based on species diversity (Margalef and Shannon-Wiener). The ambiguous results made the classification a complex task to achieve, contrary to the Directive’s objective of maintaining it simple and clear. Our results suggest the necessity of adjusting some of the indices and their ranges to estuarine characteristics, namely to account the typical dominance and abundance of some particular species. These aspects are not taken into consideration by some of the indices proposed, which are more adapted to typical marine conditions. Based on our results, these widely applied indices might still improve their efficiency in estuarine systems allowing their use in the resembling types already established within the new Directive agenda.

European Marine Biodiversity Monitoring Networks: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats

By 2020, European Union Member States should achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) for eleven environmental quality descriptors for their marine waters to fulfill the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). By the end of 2015, in coordination with the Regional Seas Conventions, each EU Member States was required to develop a marine strategy for their waters, together with other countries within the same marine region or sub-region. Coherent monitoring programs, submitted in 2014, form a key component of this strategy, which then aimed to lead to a Program of Measures (submitted in 2015). The European DEVOTES FP7 project has produced and interrogated a catalogue of EU marine monitoring related to MSFD descriptors 1 (biological diversity), 2 (non-indigenous species), 4 (food webs) and 6 (seafloor integrity). Here we detail the monitoring activity at the regional and sub-regional level for these descriptors, as well as for 11 biodiversity components, 22 habitats and the 37 anthropogenic pressures addressed. The metadata collated for existing European monitoring networks were subject to a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis. This interrogation has indicated case studies to address the following questions: a) what are the types of monitoring currently in place?; b) who does what and how?; c) is the monitoring fit-for-purpose for addressing the MSFD requirements?, and d) what are the impediments to better monitoring (e.g. costs, shared responsibilities between countries, overlaps, co-ordination)? We recommend the future means, to overcome the identified impediments and develop more robust monitoring strategies and as such the results are especially relevant to implementing coordinated monitoring networks throughout Europe, for marine policy makers, government agencies and regulatory bodies. It is emphasized that while many of the recommendations given here require better, more extensive and perhaps more costly monitoring, this is required to avoid any legal challenges to the assessments or to bodies and industries accused of causing a deterioration in marine quality. More importantly the monitoring is required to demonstrate the efficacy of management measures employed. Furthermore, given the similarity in marine management approaches in other developed systems, we consider that the recommendations are also of relevance to other regimes worldwide.

A Catalogue of Marine Biodiversity Indicators

A Catalogue of Marine Biodiversity Indicators was developed with the aim of providing the basis for assessing the environmental status of the marine ecosystems. Useful for the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), this catalogue allows the navigation of a database of indicators mostly related to biological diversity, non-indigenous species, food webs, and seafloor integrity. Over 600 indicators were compiled, which were developed and used in the framework of different initiatives (e.g. EU policies, research projects) and in national and international contexts (e.g. Regional Seas Conventions, and assessments in non-European seas). The catalogue reflects the current scientific capability to address environmental assessment needs by providing a broad coverage of the most relevant indicators for marine biodiversity and ecosystem integrity. The available indicators are reviewed according to their typology, data requirements, development status, geographical coverage, relevance to habitats or biodiversity components, and related human pressures. Through this comprehensive overview, we discuss the potential of the current set of indicators in a wide range of contexts, from large-scale to local environmental programs, and we also address shortcomings in light of current needs. Developed by the DEVOTES Project, the catalogue is freely available through the DEVOTool software application, which provides browsing and query options for the associated metadata. The tool allows extraction of ranked indicator lists best fulfilling selected criteria, enabling users to search for suitable indicators to address a particular biodiversity component, ecosystem feature, habitat or pressure in a marine area of interest. This tool is useful for EU Member States, Regional Sea Conventions, the European Commission, non-governmental organizations, managers, scientists and any person interested in marine environmental assessment. It allows users to build, complement or adjust monitoring programs and has the potential to improve comparability and foster transfer of knowledge across marine regions.