Essential coastal habitats for fish in the Baltic Sea

Many coastal and offshore fish species are highly dependent on specific habitat types for population maintenance. In the Baltic Sea, shallow productive habitats in the coastal zone such as wetlands, vegetated flads/lagoons and sheltered bays as well as more exposed rocky and sandy areas are utilized by fish across many life history stages including spawning, juvenile development, feeding and migration. Although there is general consensus about the critical importance of these essential fish habitats (EFH) for fish production along the coast, direct quantitative evidence for their specific roles in population growth and maintenance is still scarce. Nevertheless, for some coastal species, indirect evidence exists, and in many cases, sufficient data are also available to carry out further quantitative analyses. As coastal EFH in the Baltic Sea are often found in areas that are highly utilized and valued by humans, they are subjected to many different pressures. While cumulative pressures, such as eutrophication, coastal construction and development, climate change, invasive species and fisheries, impact fish in coastal areas, the conservation coverage for EFH in these areas remains poor. This is mainly due to the fact that historically, fisheries management and nature conservation are not integrated neither in research nor in management in Baltic Sea countries. Setting joint objectives for fisheries management and nature conservation would hence be pivotal for improved protection of EFH in the Baltic Sea. To properly inform management, improvements in the development of monitoring strategies and mapping methodology for EFH are also needed. Stronger international cooperation between Baltic Sea states will facilitate improved management outcomes across ecologically arbitrary boundaries. This is especially important for successful implementation of international agreements and legislative directives such as the Baltic Sea Action Plan, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, the Habitats Directive, and the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive, but also for improving the communication of information related to coastal EFH among researchers, stakeholders, managers and decision makers. In this paper, efforts are made to characterize coastal EFH in the Baltic Sea, their importance and the threats/pressures they face, as well as their current conservation status, while highlighting knowledge gaps and outlining perspectives for future work in an ecosystem-based management framework. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Peer reviewe

Ocean current connectivity propelling the secondary spread of a marine invasive comb jelly across western Eurasia

Publication history: Accepted - 15 February 2018; Published - 16 May 2018.Aim: Invasive species are of increasing global concern. Nevertheless, the mechanisms driving further distribution after the initial establishment of non-native species remain largely unresolved, especially in marine systems. Ocean currents can be a major driver governing range occupancy, but this has not been accounted for in most invasion ecology studies so far. We investigate how well initial establishment areas are interconnected to later occupancy regions to test for the potential role of ocean currents driving secondary spread dynamics in order to infer invasion corridors and the source–sink dynamics of a non-native holoplanktonic biological probe species on a continental scale. Location: Western Eurasia. Time period: 1980s–2016. Major taxa studied: ‘Comb jelly’ Mnemiopsis leidyi. Methods: Based on 12,400 geo-referenced occurrence data, we reconstruct the invasion history of M. leidyi in western Eurasia. We model ocean currents and calculate their stability to match the temporal and spatial spread dynamics with large-scale connectivity patterns via ocean currents. Additionally, genetic markers are used to test the predicted connectivity between subpopulations. Results: Ocean currents can explain secondary spread dynamics, matching observed range expansions and the timing of first occurrence of our holoplanktonic non-native biological probe species, leading to invasion corridors in western Eurasia. In northern Europe, regional extinctions after cold winters were followed by rapid recolonizations at a speed of up to 2,000 km per season. Source areas hosting year-round populations in highly interconnected regions can re-seed genotypes over large distances after local extinctions. Main conclusions: Although the release of ballast water from container ships may contribute to the dispersal of non-native species, our results highlight the importance of ocean currents driving secondary spread dynamics. Highly interconnected areas hosting invasive species are crucial for secondary spread dynamics on a continental scale. Invasion risk assessments should consider large-scale connectivity patterns and the potential source regions of non-native marine species.Danish Council for Independent Research; Grant/Award Number: DFF-1325-00102B; FP7 People: Marie-Curie Actions, Grant/Award Number: MOBILEX, DFF - 1325-00025; EU, BONUS, BMBF, Grant/ Award Number: 03F0682; Excellence Cluster “Future Ocean”, Grant/Award Number: CP153

Ocean current connectivity propelling the secondary spread of a marine invasive comb jelly across western Eurasia

Jaspers, Cornelia ... et al.-- 14 pages, 5 figures, 3 tables, supporting information https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12742.-- All data are available from the Pangaea database (https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.884403) and GenBank (accession numbers KY204070–KY204083)Aim: Invasive species are of increasing global concern. Nevertheless, the mechanisms driving further distribution after the initial establishment of non-native species remain largely unresolved, especially in marine systems. Ocean currents can be a major driver governing range occupancy, but this has not been accounted for in most invasion ecology studies so far. We investigate how well initial establishment areas are interconnected to later occupancy regions to test for the potential role of ocean currents driving secondary spread dynamics in order to infer invasion corridors and the source–sink dynamics of a non-native holoplanktonic biological probe species on a continental scale. Location: Western Eurasia. Time period: 1980s–2016. Major taxa studied: ‘Comb jelly’ Mnemiopsis leidyi. Methods: Based on 12,400 geo-referenced occurrence data, we reconstruct the invasion history of M. leidyi in western Eurasia. We model ocean currents and calculate their stability to match the temporal and spatial spread dynamics with large-scale connectivity patterns via ocean currents. Additionally, genetic markers are used to test the predicted connectivity between subpopulations. Results: Ocean currents can explain secondary spread dynamics, matching observed range expansions and the timing of first occurrence of our holoplanktonic non-native biological probe species, leading to invasion corridors in western Eurasia. In northern Europe, regional extinctions after cold winters were followed by rapid recolonizations at a speed of up to 2,000 km per season. Source areas hosting year-round populations in highly interconnected regions can re-seed genotypes over large distances after local extinctions. Main conclusions: Although the release of ballast water from container ships may contribute to the dispersal of non-native species, our results highlight the importance of ocean currents driving secondary spread dynamics. Highly interconnected areas hosting invasive species are crucial for secondary spread dynamics on a continental scale. Invasion risk assessments should consider large-scale connectivity patterns and the potential source regions of non-native marine speciesThis work received funding from the Danish Council for Independent Research and the European Commission (Marie‐Curie program) with the DFF‐MOBILEX mobility grant number: DFF‐1325‐00102B (C.J.). Additional support was received from the BIO‐C3 project, funded jointly by the EU, BONUS (Art 185) and the national funding agencies in Germany (BMBF grant no. 03F0682), Denmark, Finland and Poland, as well as the Excellence Cluster Future Ocean (CP1539)Peer Reviewe

Working Group on Bycatch of Protected Species (WGBYC)

Six Terms of Reference (ToRs; Annex 2) were addressed during the meeting through plenary and subgroups. The 2019 report is structured in the same order as the ToRs. Contributions to ToRs were requested in advance of the meeting and all data submissions were requested via a formal WGBYC/ICES data call (Annex 7). The data call requested data on fishing effort, monitoring ef-fort and protected species (marine mammals, seabirds, reptiles and fish) bycatch incidents in 2017. Of the 24 countries contacted, 20 responded to the data call. Many countries continue to submit data late (one-third) and the quality of the data submissions is variable. The data call referred to bycatch of fish, as per the list provided in Table 1D of the Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1251 adopting a Multiannual Union Programme (EU-MAP); however, WGBYC this year reviewed this list to create a priority fish bycatch list since many of the species on D1 are commercially caught and other scientific bodies, e.g. ICES expert groups, carry out assessments for these. Member States (MS) reports on the implementation of Regulation 812/2004 during 2017 were reviewed. Most MS continue to monitor protected species bycatch using fisheries observers con-ducting sampling under the Data Collection Framework (DCF); only a few countries have a ded-icated bycatch observer programme. With the upcoming repeal of Regulation 812/2004 in 2019, WGBYC will in future receive its data from monitoring under EU-MAP. Monitoring of smaller vessels (<15m) in the European fleet has to date generally been poor, and sampling designs under EU-MAP need to ensure representative coverage of relevant metiers for protected species by-catch. In 2017, bycatch records from the datacall included 148 cetaceans (5 species); 63 seals ( 4 species), 528 birds (22 species); 97,816 elasmobranchs (49 species) and 15 turtles (2 species). Equivalent data from non-EU countries was also received from the USA and Iceland. MS’s compliance with the pinger requirements of Regulation 812/2004 is difficult to gauge from the submitted reports, as there are reporting inconsistencies and in-complete information. Only the UK appears to comply fully and reported that all relevant vessels are equipped with “DDD” pingers used under a derogation and there is active enforcement in place. But in general, there has been little progress in the mitigation of cetacean bycatch and the effectiveness of pingers appears to vary between with fishing metiers and geographical areas