Simple rules can guide whether land or ocean based conservation will best benefit marine ecosystems

Coastal marine ecosystems can be managed by actions undertaken both on the land and in the ocean. Quantifying and comparing the costs and benefits of actions in both realms is therefore necessary for efficient management. Here, we quantify the link between terrestrial sediment run-off and a downstream coastal marine ecosystem, and contrast the cost-effectiveness of marine and land-based conservation actions. We use a dynamic land- and sea-scape model to determine whether limited funds should be directed to one of four alternative conservation actions – protection on land, protection in the ocean, restoration on land, or restoration in the ocean – to maximise the extent of light-dependent marine benthic habitats, across decadal time-scales. We apply the model to a case study seagrass meadow in Australia. We find that marine restoration is the most cost-effective action over decadal time-scales in this system, based on a conservative estimate of the rate at which seagrass can expand into new habitat. The optimal decision will vary in different social-ecological contexts, but some basic information can guide optimal investments to counteract land and ocean based stressors: (1) marine restoration should be prioritised if the rates of marine ecosystem decline and expansion are similar and low; (2) marine protection should take precedence if the rate of marine ecosystem decline is high, or if the adjacent catchment is relatively intact and has a low rate of vegetation decline; (3) land-based actions are optimal when the ratio of marine ecosystem expansion to decline is >1.4, with terrestrial restoration typically the most cost effective; and (4) land protection should be prioritised if the catchment is relatively intact, but the rate of vegetation decline is high. These rules-of-thumb illustrate how cost-effective conservation outcomes for connected land-ocean systems can proceed without complex modelling

Global challenges for seagrass conservation

Seagrasses, flowering marine plants that form underwater meadows, play a significant global role in supporting food security, mitigating climate change and supporting biodiversity. Although progress is being made to conserve seagrass meadows in select areas, most meadows remain under significant pressure resulting in a decline in meadow condition and loss of function. Effective management strategies need to be implemented to reverse seagrass loss and enhance their fundamental role in coastal ocean habitats. Here we propose that seagrass meadows globally face a series of significant common challenges that must be addressed from a multifaceted and interdisciplinary perspective in order to achieve global conservation of seagrass meadows. The six main global challenges to seagrass conservation are (1) a lack of awareness of what seagrasses are and a limited societal recognition of the importance of seagrasses in coastal systems; (2) the status of many seagrass meadows are unknown, and up-to-date information on status and condition is essential; (3) understanding threatening activities at local scales is required to target management actions accordingly; (4) expanding our understanding of interactions between the socio-economic and ecological elements of seagrass systems is essential to balance the needs of people and the planet; (5) seagrass research should be expanded to generate scientific inquiries that support conservation actions; (6) increased understanding of the linkages between seagrass and climate change is required to adapt conservation accordingly. We also explicitly outline a series of proposed policy actions that will enable the scientific and conservation community to rise to these challenges. We urge the seagrass conservation community to engage stakeholders from local resource users to international policy-makers to address the challenges outlined here, in order to secure the future of the world’s seagrass ecosystems and maintain the vital services which they supply

Distribution, Temporal Change, and Conservation Status of Tropical Seagrass Beds in Southeast Asia: 2000–2020

Although Southeast Asia is a hotspot of global seagrass diversity, there are considerable information gaps in the distribution of seagrass beds. Broad-scale seagrass distribution has not been updated in the global seagrass database by UNEP-WCMC since 2000, although studies on seagrasses have been undertaken intensively in each region. Here we analyze the recent distribution of tropical seagrass beds, their temporal changes, causes of decline and conservation status in Southeast Asia (plus southern mainland China, Taiwan and Ryukyu Island of Japan) using data collected after 2000. Based on the 195 literature published since 2000, we identified 1,259 point data and 1,461 polygon data showing the distribution of seagrass beds. A large discrepancy was found in the seagrass bed distribution between our updated data and the UNEP-WCMC database, mostly due to inaccurate and low resolution location information in the latter. Temporal changes in seagrass bed area analyzed for 68 sites in nine countries/regions demonstrated that more than 60% of seagrass beds declined at an average rate of 10.9% year&ndash;1, whereas 20% of beds increased at an average rate of 8.1% year&ndash;1, leading to an overall average decline of 4.7% year&ndash;1. Various types of human-induced threats were reported as causes for the decline, including coastal development, fisheries/aquaculture, and natural factors such as typhoons and tsunamis. The percentage of seagrass beds covered with existing marine protected areas (MPAs) varied greatly among countries/regions, from less than 1% in Brunei Darussalam and Singapore to 100% in southern Japan. However, the degree of conservation regulation was not sufficient even in regions with higher MPA coverage. The percentage of seagrass beds within EBSAs (Ecologically and Biologically Significant Area determined by the Convention of Biological Diversity) was higher than that within MPAs because EBSAs cover a greater area than MPAs. Therefore, designating EBSAs as legally effective MPAs can greatly improve the conservation status of seagrass beds in Southeast Asia.</jats:p

Plastic pollution on the world’s coral reefs

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Nature Research via the DOI in this recordData are available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7679509. Source data are provided with this paper.Code is available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7679509.Coral reefs are losing the capacity to sustain their biological functions1. In addition to other well-known stressors, such as climatic change and overfishing1, plastic pollution is an emerging threat to coral reefs, spreading throughout reef food webs2, and increasing disease transmission and structural damage to reef organisms3. Although recognized as a global concern4, the distribution and quantity of plastics trapped in the world’s coral reefs remains uncertain3. Here we survey 84 shallow and deep coral ecosystems at 25 locations across the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian ocean basins for anthropogenic macrodebris (pollution by human-generated objects larger than 5 centimetres, including plastics), performing 1,231 transects. Our results show anthropogenic debris in 77 out of the 84 reefs surveyed, including in some of Earth’s most remote and near-pristine reefs, such as in uninhabited central Pacific atolls. Macroplastics represent 88% of the anthropogenic debris, and, like other debris types, peak in deeper reefs (mesophotic zones at 30–150 metres depth), with fishing activities as the main source of plastics in most areas. These findings contrast with the global pattern observed in other nearshore marine ecosystems, where macroplastic densities decrease with depth and are dominated by consumer items5. As the world moves towards a global treaty to tackle plastic pollution6, understanding its distribution and drivers provides key information to help to design the strategies needed to address this ubiquitous threat.National Science FoundationFundação Grupo O Boticário de Proteção à NaturezaFundação De Amparo À Pesquisa Do Estado De São Paulo (FAPESP)Fundação De Amparo À Pesquisa Do Estado De São Paulo (FAPESP)CNPq fellowshipRolex Award for EnterpriseCalifornia Academy of Science

Author Correction: Plastic pollution on the world's coral reefs

This is the author accepted manuscript. the final version is available from Nature Research via the DOI in this recordThe article to which this is the correction is available in ORE at http://hdl.handle.net/10871/133598Correction to: Nature Published online 12 July 2023 In the version of the article initially published, the Acknowledgements section omitted reference to the role of Brownies Global Logistics, the technical divers of Global Underwater Explorers (M. McClellan, M. Tanguay, S. Bird, K. Dow, G. Blackmore, J. P. Bressor, S. E. Kim, and K. Kim), various departments of the Seychelles Government, especially the Ministry of Agriculture, Climate Change and Environment, the Islands Development Company, the Island Conservation Society, the Seychelles Islands Foundation, the Seychelles Fishing Authority, The Nature Conservancy, University of Seychelles, The Seychelles Conservation and Climate Adaptation Trust, Alphonse Foundation, Blue Safaris Seychelles, Desroches Foundation, Marine Conservation Society Seychelles, Nature Seychelles, Poivre Foundation and Save our Seas Foundation