Understanding the impact of sand extraction on benthic ecosystem functioning: a combination of functional indices and biological trait analysis

Marine aggregates have been intensively extracted in the North-East Atlantic over the past decades. This study aimed to assess the effect of sand extraction on benthic ecosystem functioning using a combination of biological traits and functional indices (the bioturbation (BPc) and irrigation potential (IPc) and secondary production (SPc) of the macrobenthic community). Data on macrobenthos, sediment properties and extraction intensity were collected over a time period of ten years (2010 – 2019) for three coarse sediment extraction areas in the Belgian Part of the North Sea, each with a different extraction regime. Sediment parameters such as the medium sand fraction (250 – 500 µm) and median grain size showed a significant effect on all functional indices. Whilst sand extraction variables only significantly affected secondary production estimates. The secondary production of the macrobenthic community decreased following a high yearly extraction intensity, whereas a high cumulative (10-year period) extraction intensity resulted in a slightly increased secondary production. Species-specific responses revealed that these high cumulative extraction volumes increased the abundance of opportunistic species, which could have contributed to the higher SPc values observed in cumulative disturbed areas. Response traits such as tube-living and sessile individuals with a pelagic egg development were positively influenced by a long-term disturbance, an indication of a more disturbance-tolerant community. A short-term disturbance rather seemed to favor a macrobenthic community characterized by a higher burrowing capability. In terms of effect traits, both short- and long-term extraction clearly favored deposit feeders, which can structure organic matter distribution and thus indirectly influence nutrient and oxygen fluxes as well. Future in situ measurements in sand extraction areas could help to unravel and strengthen our understanding of the ecosystem processes linked to these trait-based observations

Report of the Working Group on the Effects of Extraction of Marine Sediments on the Marine Ecosystem, WGEXT, 11-15 April 2011, Delft, the Netherlands

ICES WGEXT Report 201

Quantifying and addressing the prevalence and bias of study designs in the environmental and social sciences

Building trust in science and evidence-based decision-making depends heavily on the credibility of studies and their findings. Researchers employ many different study designs that vary in their risk of bias to evaluate the true effect of interventions or impacts. Here, we empirically quantify, on a large scale, the prevalence of different study designs and the magnitude of bias in their estimates. Randomised designs and controlled observational designs with pre-intervention sampling were used by just 23% of intervention studies in biodiversity conservation, and 36% of intervention studies in social science. We demonstrate, through pairwise within-study comparisons across 49 environmental datasets, that these types of designs usually give less biased estimates than simpler observational designs. We propose a model-based approach to combine study estimates that may suffer from different levels of study design bias, discuss the implications for evidence synthesis, and how to facilitate the use of more credible study designs.Fil: Christie, Alec P.. University of Cambridge; Reino UnidoFil: Abecasis, David. Universidad de Algarve. Centro de Ciencias del Mar; PortugalFil: Adjeroud, Mehdi. Université de Perpignan; Francia. Institut de Recherche Pour Le Developpement; FranciaFil: Alonso, Juan Carlos. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales; EspañaFil: Amano, Tatsuya. University of Queensland; AustraliaFil: Anton, Alvaro. Universidad del País Vasco. Facultad de Educación de Bilbao; EspañaFil: Baldigo, Barry P.. United States Geological Survey; Estados UnidosFil: Barrientos, Rafael. Universidad Complutense de Madrid; EspañaFil: Bicknell, Jake E.. University of Kent; Reino UnidoFil: Buhl, Deborah A.. United States Geological Survey; Estados UnidosFil: Cebrian, Just. Mississippi State University; Estados UnidosFil: Ceia, Ricardo S.. Universidad de Coimbra; PortugalFil: Cibils Martina, Luciana. Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Fisicoquímicas y Naturales. Departamento de Ciencias Naturales; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba; ArgentinaFil: Clarke, Sarah. Marine Institute; IrlandaFil: Claudet, Joachim. Universite de Paris; Francia. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique; FranciaFil: Craig, Michael D.. University of Western Australia; Australia. Murdoch University; AustraliaFil: Davoult, Dominique. Sorbonne University; FranciaFil: De Backer, Annelies. Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; BélgicaFil: Donovan, Mary K.. University of California; Estados Unidos. University of Hawaii at Manoa; Estados UnidosFil: Eddy, Tyler D.. University of South Carolina; Estados Unidos. Memorial University of Newfoundland; Canadá. Victoria University of Wellington; Nueva ZelandaFil: França, Filipe M.. Lancaster University; Reino UnidoFil: Gardner, Jonathan P. A.. Victoria University of Wellington; Nueva ZelandaFil: Harris, Bradley P.. Alaska Pacific University; Estados UnidosFil: Huusko, Ari. Natural Resources Institute Finland; FinlandiaFil: Jones, Ian L.. Memorial University of Newfoundland; CanadáFil: Kelaher, Brendan P.. Southern Cross University; AustraliaFil: Kotiaho, Janne S.. Universidad de Jyvaskyla; FinlandiaFil: López Baucells, Adrià. Universidad de Lisboa; Portugal. Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute; Panamá. Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Instituto de Investigaciones Amazonicas; Colombia. Museo de Ciencias Naturales de Granollers; EspañaFil: Major, Heather L.. University of New Brunswick; CanadáFil: Mäki Petäys, Aki. Voimalohi Oy; Finlandia. University of Oulu; Finlandi

Quantifying and addressing the prevalence and bias of study designs in the environmental and social sciences

Abstract: Building trust in science and evidence-based decision-making depends heavily on the credibility of studies and their findings. Researchers employ many different study designs that vary in their risk of bias to evaluate the true effect of interventions or impacts. Here, we empirically quantify, on a large scale, the prevalence of different study designs and the magnitude of bias in their estimates. Randomised designs and controlled observational designs with pre-intervention sampling were used by just 23% of intervention studies in biodiversity conservation, and 36% of intervention studies in social science. We demonstrate, through pairwise within-study comparisons across 49 environmental datasets, that these types of designs usually give less biased estimates than simpler observational designs. We propose a model-based approach to combine study estimates that may suffer from different levels of study design bias, discuss the implications for evidence synthesis, and how to facilitate the use of more credible study designs

The mud shrimp Corophium volutator: a key species in tidal flat sedimentary processes?

This PhD thesis examines the influence of small-scale biotic processes on sediment properties and sediment dynamics of tidal flats. Corophium volutator is thereby used as a model organism since it is a very abundant prey species in North Atlantic tidal flats, which has the potential to modify the benthic physical environment, and for which contrasting results on sediment stability have been observed. Several experiments and a field study quantify different aspects of the impact of Corophium bioturbation on the biophysical environment, and the consequences for sediment erodability. The general discussion integrates the results to discuss ecosystem engineering effects of Corophium in cohesive mudflats with implications for tidal flat morphology