Marine environmental monitoring has tended to focus on site-specific methods of investigation. These traditional methods have low spatial and temporal resolution and are relatively labor intensive per unit area/time that they cover. To implement the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), European Member States are required to improve marine monitoring and design monitoring networks. This can be achieved by developing and testing innovative and cost-effective monitoring systems, as well as indicators of environmental status. Here, we present several recently developed methodologies and technologies to improve marine biodiversity indicators and monitoring methods. The innovative tools are discussed concerning the technologies presently utilized as well as the advantages and disadvantages of their use in routine monitoring. In particular, the present analysis focuses on: (i) molecular approaches, including microarray, Real Time quantitative PCR (qPCR), and metagenetic (metabarcoding) tools; (ii) optical (remote) sensing and acoustic methods; and (iii) in situ monitoring instruments. We also discuss Danovaro et al. Innovative Approaches in Marine Monitoring their applications in marine monitoring within the MSFD through the analysis of case studies in order to evaluate their potential utilization in future routine marine monitoring. We show that these recently-developed technologies can present clear advantages in accuracy, efficiency and cost.

Ecosystem-based management (EBM) is promoted as the solution for sustainable use. An ecosystem-wide assessment methodology is therefore required. In this paper, we present an approach to assess the risk to ecosystem components from human activities common to marine and coastal ecosystems. We build on: (i) a linkage framework that describes how human activities can impact the ecosystem through pressures, and (ii) a qualitative expert judgement assessment of impact chains describing the exposure and sensitivity of ecological components to those activities. Using case study examples applied at European regional sea scale, we evaluate the risk of an adverse ecological impact from current human activities to a suite of ecological components and, once impacted, the time required for recovery to pre-impact conditions should those activities subside. Grouping impact chains by sectors, pressure type, or ecological components enabled impact risks and recovery times to be identified, supporting resource managers in their efforts to prioritize threats for management, identify most at-risk components, and generate time frames for ecosystem recovery.

There is an increasing demand for environmental assessments of the marine environment to include ecosystem function. However, existing schemes are predominantly based on taxonomic (i.e. structural) measures of biodiversity. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function (BEF) relationships are suggested to provide a mechanism for converting taxonomic information into surrogates of ecosystem function. This review assesses the evidence for marine BEF relationships and their potential to be used in practical monitoring applications (i.e. operationalized).Five key requirements were identified for the practical application of BEF relationships: 1) a complete understanding of strength, direction and prevalence of marine BEF relationships, 2) an understanding of which biological components are influential within specific BEF relationships, 3) the biodiversity of the selected biological components can be measured easily, 4) detail which ecological mechanisms are the most important for generating marine BEF relationships, e.g. identity effects or complementarity, and 5) establish what proportion of the overall functional variance is explained by biodiversity, and hence BEF relationships.Many positive and some negative BEF relationships were found within the literature, although many reproduced poorly the natural species richness, trophic structures or multiple functions of real ecosystems. Null relationships were also reported. The consistency of the positive and negative relationships was often low that compromised the ability to generalize BEF relationships and confident application of BEF within marine monitoring. Equally, some biological components and functions have received little or no investigation.Expert judgement was used to attribute biological components using spatial extent, presence and functional rate criteria. This approach highlighted the main contributing biological components to the ecosystem functions, and that many of the particularly influential components were found to have received the least amount of research attention.The need for biodiversity to be measureable (requirement 3) is possible for most biological components although difficult within the functionally important microbes. 3Identity effects underpinned most marine BEF relationships (requirement 4). As such, processes that translated structural biodiversity measures into functional diversity were found to generate better BEF relationships.The analysis of the contribution made by biodiversity, over abiotic influences, to the total expression of a particular ecosystem function was rarely measured or considered (requirement 5). Hence it is not possible to determine the overall importance of BEF relationships within the total ecosystem functioning observed. In the few studies where abiotic factors had been considered, it was clear that these modified BEF relationships and have their own direct influence on functional rate.Based on the five requirements, the information required for immediate 'operationalization' of BEF relationships within marin...