Decreased depth distribution of Fucus vesiculosus (Phaeophyceae) in the Western Baltic: effects of light deficiency and epibionts on growth and photosynthesis

For many coastal areas of the world, a decrease in abundance and depth penetration of perennial macroalgae and seagrasses has been documented and attributed to eutrophication. A surplus of nutrients impairs perennial seaweeds in at least two ways: increased phytoplankton densities reduce the depth penetration of light and in addition filamentous seaweeds and microalgae growing epiphytically shade their perennial hosts. A reduction of depth limit and total abundance has also been observed for the brown seaweed Fucus vesiculosus at many sites in the Baltic Sea. However, in most cases the mechanistic reason for the loss of Fucus has been deduced from observations rather than from experimental evidence. Here, we present results of a two-factorial (water depth/light supply and epibionts) experiment that was run in the Kiel Fjord, western Baltic, from August to October 2005. Performance of F. vesiculosus was recorded by growth and chlorophyll measurements, PI-curves and in situ measurements of the photosynthetic activity as the relative rate of electron transport (rETR). rETR and growth decreased with water depth. Chlorophyll a concentrations increased with reduced light intensities, but this apparently could not compensate for the light deficiency. Epibionts enhanced the negative effect of reduced light conditions on growth. According to these findings we estimated the physiological depth limit of F. vesiculosus in the Kiel Fjord to lie between 4 and 6 m water depth

Report on identification of keystone species and processes across regional seas. DEVOTES FP7 Project

WP6, Deliverable 6.1, DEVOTES ProjectIn managing for marine biodiversity, it is worth recognising that, whilst every species contributes to biodiversity, each contribution is not of equal importance. Some have important effects and interactions, both primary and secondary, on other components in the community and therefore by their presence or absence directly affect the biodiversity of the community as a whole. Keystone species have been defined as species that have a disproportionate effect on their environment relative to their abundance. As such, keystone species might be of particular relevance for the marine biodiversity characterisation within the assessment of Good Environmental Status (GEnS), for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD).The DEVOTES Keystone Catalogue and associated deliverable document is a review of potential keystone species of the different European marine habitats. The catalogue has 844 individual entries, which includes 210 distinct species and 19 groups classified by major habitat in the Baltic Sea, North East Atlantic, Mediterranean, Black Sea (EU Regional Seas) and Norwegian Sea (Non-­‐EU Sea). The catalogue and the report make use/cite 164 and 204 sources respectively. The keystones in the catalogue are indicated by models, by use as indicators, by published work (e.g. on traits and interactions with other species), and by expert opinion based on understanding of systems and roles of species/groups. A total of 74 species were considered to act as keystone predators, 79 as keystone engineers, 66 as keystone habitat forming species, while a few were thought of having multiple roles in their marine ecosystems. Benthic invertebrates accounted for 50% of the reported keystone species/groups, while macroalgae contributed 17% and fish12%. Angiosperms were consistently put forward as keystone habitat forming and engineering species in all areas. A significant number of keystones were invasive alien species.Only one keystone, the bivalve Mya arenaria, was common to all four EU regional seas. The Mediterranean Sea had the largest number of potential keystones (56% of the entries) with the least in the Norwegian Sea. There were very few keystones in deep waters (Bathyal-­‐Abyssal, 200+ m), with most reported in sublittoral shallow and shelf seabeds or for pelagic species in marine waters with few in reduced/variable salinity waters. The gaps in coverage and expertise in the catalogue are analysed at the habitat and sea level, within the MSFD biodiversity component groups and in light of knowledge and outputs from ecosystem models (Ecopath with Ecosim).The understanding of keystones is discussed as to when a species may be a dominant or keystone with respect to the definition term concerning ‘disproportionate abundance’, how important are the ‘disproportionate effects’ in relation to habitat formers and engineers, what separates a key predator and key prey for mid-­‐trophic range species and how context dependency makes a species a keystone. Keystone alien invasive species are reviewed and the use of keystone species model outputs investigated. In the penultimate sections of the review the current level of protection on keystone species and the possibilities for a keystone operational metric and their use in management and in GEnS assessments for the MSFD are discussed. The final section highlights the one keystone species and its interactions not covered in the catalogue but with the greatest impact on almost all marine ecosystems, Homo sapiens

European Red List of Habitats Part 1. Marine habitats

The European Red List of Habitats provides an overview of the risk of collapse (degree of endangerment) of marine, terrestrial and freshwater habitats in the European Union (EU28) and adjacent regions (EU28+), based on a consistent set of categories and criteria, and detailed data and expert knowledge from involved countries1. A total of 257 benthic marine habitat types were assessed. In total, 19% (EU28) and 18% (EU28+) of the evaluated habitats were assessed as threatened in categories Critically Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable. An additional 12% were Near Threatened in the EU28 and 11% in the EU28+. These figures are approximately doubled if Data Deficient habitats are excluded. The percentage of threatened habitat types differs across the regional seas. The highest proportion of threatened habitats in the EU28 was found in the Mediterranean Sea (32%), followed by the North-East Atlantic (23%), the Black Sea (13%) and then the Baltic Sea (8%). There was a similar pattern in the EU28+. The most frequently cited pressures and threats were similar across the four regional seas: pollution (eutrophication), biological resource use other than agriculture or forestry (mainly fishing but also aquaculture), natural system modifications (e.g. dredging and sea defence works), urbanisation and climate change. Even for habitats where the assessment outcome was Data Deficient, the Red List assessment process has resulted in the compilation of a substantial body of useful information to support the conservation of marine habitats