Robust model-based indicators of regional differences in food-web structure in the Southern Ocean

Efforts to model marine food-webs are generally undertaken by small teams working separately on specific regions (<106 km2) and making independent decisions about how to deal with data gaps and uncertainties. Differences in these largely arbitrary decisions (which we call ‘model personality’) can potentially obscure true differences between regional food-webs or lead to spurious differences. Here we explore the influence of model personality on a comparison of four Southern Ocean regional food-web models. We construct alternative model versions which sequentially remove aspects of personality (alternative model ‘currencies’, schemes for aggregating organisms into functional groups, and energetic parameter values). These alternative versions preserve regional differences in biomass and feeding relationships. Variation in a set of model metrics that are insensitive to absolute biomass and production identifies multiple regional contrasts, a subset of which are robust to differences in model personality. These contrasts imply real differences in ecosystem structure which, in conjunction with differences in primary production and consumer biomass (spanning two and four orders of magnitude respectively), underpin differences in function. Existing regional models are therefore a useful resource for comparing ecosystem structure, function and response to change if comparative studies assess and report the influence of model personality

Detailed insights into pan-European population structure and inbreeding in wild and hatchery Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas) revealed by genome-wide SNP data.

Cultivated bivalves are important not only because of their economic value, but also due to their impacts on natural ecosystems. The Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas) is the world's most heavily cultivated shellfish species and has been introduced to all continents except Antarctica for aquaculture. We therefore used a medium-density single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array to investigate the genetic structure of this species in Europe, where it was introduced during the 1960s and has since become a prolific invader of coastal ecosystems across the continent. We analyzed 21,499 polymorphic SNPs in 232 individuals from 23 localities spanning a latitudinal cline from Portugal to Norway and including the source populations of Japan and Canada. We confirmed the results of previous studies by finding clear support for a southern and a northern group, with the former being indistinguishable from the source populations indicating the absence of a pronounced founder effect. We furthermore conducted a large-scale comparison of oysters sampled from the wild and from hatcheries to reveal substantial genetic differences including significantly higher levels of inbreeding in some but not all of the sampled hatchery cohorts. These findings were confirmed by a smaller but representative SNP dataset generated using restriction site-associated DNA sequencing. We therefore conclude that genomic approaches can generate increasingly detailed insights into the genetics of wild and hatchery produced Pacific oysters

Ecological indicators to capture the effects of fishing on biodiversityand conservation status of marine ecosystems

IndiSeas (“Indicators for the Seas”) is a collaborative international working group that was established in2005 to evaluate the status of exploited marine ecosystems using a suite of indicators in a comparative framework. An initial shortlist of seven ecological indicators was selected to quantify the effects of fishing on the broader ecosystem using several criteria (i.e., ecological meaning, sensitivity to fishing, data avail-ability, management objectives and public awareness). The suite comprised: (i) the inverse coefficient of variation of total biomass of surveyed species, (ii) mean fish length in the surveyed community, (iii)mean maximum life span of surveyed fish species, (iv) proportion of predatory fish in the surveyed community, (v) proportion of under and moderately exploited stocks, (vi) total biomass of surveyed species,and (vii) mean trophic level of the landed catch. In line with the Nagoya Strategic Plan of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2011–2020), we extended this suite to emphasize the broader biodiversity and conservation risks in exploited marine ecosystems. We selected a subset of indicators from a list of empirically based candidate biodiversity indicators initially established based on ecological significance to complement the original IndiSeas indicators. The additional selected indicators were: (viii) mean intrinsic vulnerability index of the fish landed catch, (ix) proportion of non-declining exploited species in the surveyed community, (x) catch-based marine trophic index, and (xi) mean trophic level of the surveyed community. Despite the lack of data in some ecosystems, we also selected (xii) mean trophic level of the modelled community, and (xiii) proportion of discards in the fishery as extra indicators. These additional indicators were examined, along with the initial set of IndiSeas ecological indicators, to evaluate whether adding new biodiversity indicators provided useful additional information to refine our under-standing of the status evaluation of 29 exploited marine ecosystems. We used state and trend analyses,and we performed correlation, redundancy and multivariate tests. Existing developments in ecosystem-based fisheries management have largely focused on exploited species. Our study, using mostly fisheries independent survey-based indicators, highlights that biodiversity and conservation-based indicators are complementary to ecological indicators of fishing pressure. Thus, they should be used to provide additional information to evaluate the overall impact of fishing on exploited marine ecosystems

Ecological indicators to capture the effects of fishing on biodiversityand conservation status of marine ecosystems

IndiSeas (“Indicators for the Seas”) is a collaborative international working group that was established in2005 to evaluate the status of exploited marine ecosystems using a suite of indicators in a comparative framework. An initial shortlist of seven ecological indicators was selected to quantify the effects of fishing on the broader ecosystem using several criteria (i.e., ecological meaning, sensitivity to fishing, data avail-ability, management objectives and public awareness). The suite comprised: (i) the inverse coefficient of variation of total biomass of surveyed species, (ii) mean fish length in the surveyed community, (iii)mean maximum life span of surveyed fish species, (iv) proportion of predatory fish in the surveyed community, (v) proportion of under and moderately exploited stocks, (vi) total biomass of surveyed species,and (vii) mean trophic level of the landed catch. In line with the Nagoya Strategic Plan of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2011–2020), we extended this suite to emphasize the broader biodiversity and conservation risks in exploited marine ecosystems. We selected a subset of indicators from a list of empirically based candidate biodiversity indicators initially established based on ecological significance to complement the original IndiSeas indicators. The additional selected indicators were: (viii) mean intrinsic vulnerability index of the fish landed catch, (ix) proportion of non-declining exploited species in the surveyed community, (x) catch-based marine trophic index, and (xi) mean trophic level of the surveyed community. Despite the lack of data in some ecosystems, we also selected (xii) mean trophic level of the modelled community, and (xiii) proportion of discards in the fishery as extra indicators. These additional indicators were examined, along with the initial set of IndiSeas ecological indicators, to evaluate whether adding new biodiversity indicators provided useful additional information to refine our under-standing of the status evaluation of 29 exploited marine ecosystems. We used state and trend analyses,and we performed correlation, redundancy and multivariate tests. Existing developments in ecosystem-based fisheries management have largely focused on exploited species. Our study, using mostly fisheries independent survey-based indicators, highlights that biodiversity and conservation-based indicators are complementary to ecological indicators of fishing pressure. Thus, they should be used to provide additional information to evaluate the overall impact of fishing on exploited marine ecosystems

Ecological indicators to capture the effects of fishing on biodiversity and conservation status of marine ecosystems

IndiSeas ("Indicators for the Seas") is a collaborative international working group that was established in 2005 to evaluate the status of exploited marine ecosystems using a suite of indicators in a comparative framework. An initial shortlist of seven ecological indicators was selected to quantify the effects of fishing on the broader ecosystem using several criteria (i.e., ecological meaning, sensitivity to fishing, data availability, management objectives and public awareness). The suite comprised: (i) the inverse coefficient of variation of total biomass of surveyed species, (ii) mean fish length in the surveyed community, (iii) mean maximum life span of surveyed fish species, (iv) proportion of predatory fish in the surveyed community, (v) proportion of under and moderately exploited stocks, (vi) total biomass of surveyed species, and (vii) mean trophic level of the landed catch. In line with the Nagoya Strategic Plan of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2011-2020), we extended this suite to emphasize the broader biodiversity and conservation risks in exploited marine ecosystems. We selected a subset of indicators from a list of empirically based candidate biodiversity indicators initially established based on ecological significance to complement the original IndiSeas indicators. The additional selected indicators were: (viii) mean intrinsic vulnerability index of the fish landed catch, (ix) proportion of non-declining exploited species in the surveyed community, (x) catch-based marine trophic index, and (xi) mean trophic level of the surveyed community. Despite the lack of data in some ecosystems, we also selected (xii) mean trophic level of the modelled community, and (xiii) proportion of discards in the fishery as extra indicators. These additional indicators were examined, along with the initial set of IndiSeas ecological indicators, to evaluate whether adding new biodiversity indicators provided useful additional information to refine our understanding of the status evaluation of 29 exploited marine ecosystems. We used state and trend analyses, and we performed correlation, redundancy and multivariate tests. Existing developments in ecosystem-based fisheries management have largely focused on exploited species. Our study, using mostly fisheries independent survey-based indicators, highlights that biodiversity and conservation-based indicators are complementary to ecological indicators of fishing pressure. Thus, they should be used to provide additional information to evaluate the overall impact of fishing on exploited marine ecosystems