A review of vulnerability indicators for deltaic social–ecological systems

The sustainability of deltas worldwide is under threat due to the consequences of global environmental change (including climate change) and human interventions in deltaic landscapes. Understanding these systems is becoming increasingly important to assess threats to and opportunities for long-term sustainable development. Here, we propose a simplified, yet inclusive social–ecological system (SES)-centered risk and vulnerability framework and a list of indicators proven to be useful in past delta assessments. In total, 236 indicators were identified through a structured review of peer-reviewed literature performed for three globally relevant deltas—the Mekong, the Ganges–Brahmaputra–Meghna and the Amazon. These are meant to serve as a preliminary “library” of potential indicators to be used for future vulnerability assessments. Based on the reviewed studies, we identified disparities in the availability of indicators to populate some of the vulnerability domains of the proposed framework, as comprehensive social–ecological assessments were seldom implemented in the past. Even in assessments explicitly aiming to capture both the social and the ecological system, there were many more indicators for social susceptibility and coping/adaptive capacities as compared to those relevant for characterizing ecosystem susceptibility or robustness. Moreover, there is a lack of multi-hazard approaches accounting for the specific vulnerability profile of sub-delta areas. We advocate for more comprehensive, truly social–ecological assessments which respond to multi-hazard settings and recognize within-delta differences in vulnerability and risk. Such assessments could make use of the proposed framework and list of indicators as a starting point and amend it with new indicators that would allow capturing the complexity as well as the multi-hazard exposure in a typical delta SES

Large-Scale Spatial Distribution Patterns of Echinoderms in Nearshore Rocky Habitats

This study examined echinoderm assemblages from nearshore rocky habitats for large-scale distribution patterns with specific emphasis on identifying latitudinal trends and large regional hotspots. Echinoderms were sampled from 76 globally-distributed sites within 12 ecoregions, following the standardized sampling protocol of the Census of Marine Life NaGISA project (www.nagisa.coml.org). Sample-based species richness was overall low (<1–5 species per site), with a total of 32 asteroid, 18 echinoid, 21 ophiuroid, and 15 holothuroid species. Abundance and species richness in intertidal assemblages sampled with visual methods (organisms >2 cm in 1 m(2) quadrats) was highest in the Caribbean ecoregions and echinoids dominated these assemblages with an average of 5 ind m(−2). In contrast, intertidal echinoderm assemblages collected from clearings of 0.0625 m(2) quadrats had the highest abundance and richness in the Northeast Pacific ecoregions where asteroids and holothurians dominated with an average of 14 ind 0.0625 m(−2). Distinct latitudinal trends existed for abundance and richness in intertidal assemblages with declines from peaks at high northern latitudes. No latitudinal trends were found for subtidal echinoderm assemblages with either sampling technique. Latitudinal gradients appear to be superseded by regional diversity hotspots. In these hotspots echinoderm assemblages may be driven by local and regional processes, such as overall productivity and evolutionary history. We also tested a set of 14 environmental variables (six natural and eight anthropogenic) as potential drivers of echinoderm assemblages by ecoregions. The natural variables of salinity, sea-surface temperature, chlorophyll a, and primary productivity were strongly correlated with echinoderm assemblages; the anthropogenic variables of inorganic pollution and nutrient contamination also contributed to correlations. Our results indicate that nearshore echinoderm assemblages appear to be shaped by a network of environmental and ecological processes, and by the differing responses of various echinoderm taxa, making generalizations about the patterns of nearshore rocky habitat echinoderm assemblages difficult