Search

There is concern across the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) region that a consideration of vulnerable components and the wider support mechanisms underpinning benthic marine ecosystems may be lacking from the process of marine protected area (MPA) designation, management and monitoring. In this study, MPAs across six European ecoregions were assessed from a benthic ecology perspective. The study included 102 MPAs, designated by 10 countries, and focused on three aspects regarding the role of the benthos in: (i) the designation of MPAs; (ii) the management measures used in MPAs; and (iii) the monitoring and assessment of MPAs. Qualitative entries to a questionnaire based on an existing framework (EU project ‘Monitoring Evaluation of Spatially Managed Areas’, (MESMA) were collected by 19 benthic experts of the ICES Benthic Ecology Working Group. A pedigree matrix was used to apply a numerical scale (score) to these entries. The results showed clear differences in scores between ecoregions and between criteria. The designation‐phase criteria generally achieved higher scores than the implementation‐phase criteria. Poor designation‐phase scores were generally reiterated in the implementation‐phase scores, such as scores for assessment and monitoring. Over 70% of the MPA case studies were found to consider the benthos to some extent during selection and designation; however, this was not followed up with appropriate management measures and good practice during the implementation phase. Poor spatial and temporal coverage of monitoring and ineffective indicators is unlikely to pick up changes caused by management measures in the MPA. There is concern that without adequate monitoring and adaptive management frameworks, the MPAs will be compromised. Also, there could be an increased likelihood that, with regard to the benthos, they will fail to meet their conservation objectives. This assessment was successful in highlighting issues related to the representation and protection of the benthos in MPAs and where changes need to be made, such as expanding the characterization and monitoring of benthic species or habitats of interest. These issues could be attributable to an ongoing process and/or an indication that some MPAs only have ‘paper protection’.

Sublittoral rocky reef habitats host important ecological communities in UK waters, but their ecological condition is difficult to monitor. Monitoring methods based on seabed imagery data are prone to inconsistencies in both the identification and enumeration of species, which is a major hurdle in detecting meaningful ecological change. To overcome this problem, our study used a single monitoring dataset, collected using one standard method at the Pisces Reef Marine Protected Area (MPA) in 2016. We identified which method of data extraction from seabed imagery is best able to detect change along a gradient of anthropogenic resuspended sediments, which represents a pressure on the epifaunal community. We modelled the spatial distribution of the pressure, caused by nearby fishing activity, using an approach based on individual Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) ping data, rather than spatially homogenised data aggregated to a grid cell. We found that up to 22% of the biological variability across the three reef areas within the MPA is explained by the measured and derived environmental variables. The response of the epibenthic community at Pisces Reef MPA to the resuspended sediments pressure gradient is masked by commonly used univariate metrics such as species diversity and abundance of individuals. Conversely, a Threshold Indicator Taxa Analysis (TITAN) identifies community-level change caused by a low level of modelled resuspended sediments pressure. We found that a 0.05 decimal degree grid cell of seabed within 1 km of the MPA boundary, swept by demersal fishing gear as little as five times per year on average, can elicit such a community response. The data extraction metric best able to detect this change in the sublittoral rock community is the frequency of occurrence of taxa in images with an average field of view of 0.7 m2, using a 25-cell grid. More traditional metrics extracted from seabed imagery, such as raw counts and percentage cover estimates, are less sensitive to detecting such community change. The TITAN also identified taxon-level responses to the pressure gradient that could be considered for future monitoring programmes. The solitary coral genus Caryophyllia and cup-like sponges show a sharp and strong negative response to pressure exposure, and could represent a starting point for a future monitoring programme of UK sublittoral rock habitats. The implications for future monitoring are discussed, including survey design, environmental and biological data collection and improved pressure modelling.

The UK recognises the importance of understanding marine ecosystems and biodiversity to achieve its ambition of ‘clean, healthy, safe and biologically diverse seas’. Yet comprehensive UK marine monitoring presents a considerable challenge in terms of the resources required. The Joint Nature Conservation Committee has led the development of an ambitious framework for marine monitoring that will integrate the different components of biodiversity together, and with other marine monitoring. This has required a range of work from novel science to developing monitoring indicators and survey methods. It also seeks efficiency savings through, practical integration of survey time on vessels, and access to new data e.g., satellites. Our approach uses risk to inform resource allocation by utilising human activities data and the interactions with biodiversity to create risk models and determine survey priorities. This is achieved by engaging scientists and policy makers to develop monitoring options for different biodiversity components (i.e., benthic habitats, cetaceans, seals, seabirds, fish, cephalopods and plankton). This process will allow policy makers to successfully conclude on the level of resourcing required for marine monitoring, that reflects the risk to biodiversity and the public’s concerns for the marine environment, and fulfils our national and international legislative obligations.