Marine biodiversity and ecosystem function relationships: The potential for practical monitoring applications

Abstract

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...

Implementing the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive: Scientific challenges and opportunities

“…Some studies have a regional sea focus (Fleming-Lehtinen et al, 2015), while some especially focus on one descriptor, for example descriptor 1 (biodiversity) (Strong et al, 2015). Thus, another important challenge is how to best aggregate the multiple indicators, descriptors and spatialtemporal scales (Borja et al, 2014) and how to assess the environmental status using an integrated tool .…”

Bridging the Gap between Policy and Science in Assessing the Health Status of Marine Ecosystems

“…This need explicitly includes an economic approach and a human health and well-being approach to human-induced changes. Furthermore, while that State change may often relate to the physico-chemical and ecological structure of the marine system, it increasingly requires users to consider the ecological functioning (Strong et al, 2015) especially given that many MSFD descriptors relate to functioning aspects. This "biodiversity-ecosystem functioning debate, " regarding the effect of functioning on biodiversity and vice versa, is an important and developing field (Zeppilli et al, 2016).…”

“…Pressures are the mechanisms that change the system, potentially causing concern. Those changes encompass both the natural system, including its structure and functioning (the "State change"; Strong et al, 2015), and the human system [the Impact (on human Welfare)]. The term Welfare is used sensu stricto to include economic welfare and human and societal well-being (Oxford English Dictionary).…”

A Catalogue of Marine Biodiversity Indicators

“…At the ecosystem level the current set of indicators can be effectively complemented by modeling approaches and their modelderived indicators, in particular for topics such as food webs, connectivity, and the effects of non-indigenous species on the ecosystems (see Piroddi et al, 2015;Tedesco et al, 2016). Functional aspects lag behind in operational indicators, but the recent insights in biodiversity and ecosystem function (BEF) relationships may soon contribute to the use of BEF relationships within ecosystem functioning monitoring (Mouillot et al, 2013; see review by Strong et al, 2015). Recent developments on emerging molecular-based indicators are expected to evolve rapidly with advancing novel analytical technologies, and might fulfill the current lack of genetic indicators availability (Bourlat et al, 2013).…”