Monitoring program design for data‐limited marine biogenic habitats: A structured approach

Abstract

Marine biogenic habitats—habitats created by living organisms—provide essential ecosystem functions and services, such as physical structuring, nutrient cycling, biodiversity support, and increases in primary, secondary, and tertiary production. With the growing trend toward ecosystem approaches to marine conservation and fisheries management, there is greater emphasis on rigorously designed habitat monitoring programs. However, such programs are challenging to design for data‐limited habitats for which underlying ecosystem processes are poorly understood. To provide guidance in this area, we reviewed approaches to benthic assessments across well‐studied marine biogenic habitats and identified common themes related to indicator selection, sampling methods, and survey design. Biogenic habitat monitoring efforts largely focus on the characteristics, distribution, and ecological function of foundation species, but may target other habitat‐forming organisms, especially when community shifts are observed or expected, as well as proxies of habitat status, such as indicator species. Broad‐scale methods cover large spatial areas and are typically used to examine the spatial configuration of habitats, whereas fine‐scale methods tend to be laborious and thus restricted to small survey areas, but provide high‐resolution data. Recent, emerging methods enhance the capabilities of surveying large areas at high spatial resolution and improve data processing efficiency, bridging the gap between broad‐ and fine‐scale methods. Although sampling design selection may be limited by habitat characteristics and available resources, it is critically important to ensure appropriate matching of ecological, observational, and analytical scales. Drawing on these common themes, we propose a structured, iterative approach to designing monitoring programs for marine biogenic habitats that allows for rigorous data collection to inform management strategies, even when data and resource limitations are present. A practical application of this approach is illustrated using glass sponge reefs—a recently discovered and data‐limited habitat type—as a case study.

Foundation Species Abundance Influences Food Web Topology on Glass Sponge Reefs

“…This makes it more difficult to detect all taxa in areas of live sponge cover when compared to less structurally complex locations. Extractive sampling methods are generally not advisable (Loh et al, 2019) given that reef-building sponges are extremely fragile and slow to recover from physical disturbance (Kahn et al, 2016). Consequently, our community data are likely incomplete, especially in high sponge cover reefs.…”

A generic framework to assess the representation and protection of benthic ecosystems in European marine protected areas

“…This indicates that at the time of this study, two-thirds of the MPA case studies showed an inconsistent use of appropriate MPA-scale indicators and an inadequate assessment of the state of the benthos. This mismatch opposes the generally accepted opinion that good-quality initial data leads to good-quality monitoring and assessment (Loh et al, 2019). This possibly results from the slow application of assessment and monitoring programmes or from fewer resources being applied to the implementation phases in the majority of the MPA case studies.…”

“…Effective monitoring and assessment programmes for MPAs require accurate baseline data, which first includes a characterization of the habitat, identifying key species of interest and major ecological relationships, and determines the ecological scale of the patterns or processes of interest (at a fine scale, broad scale, or both) (Buhl-Mortensen et al, 2017;Loh, Archer, & Dunham, 2019). Also, these baseline data should inform the long-term design of the monitoring and assessment programme for the MPA and should highlight any knowledge gaps.…”

“…Also, these baseline data should inform the long-term design of the monitoring and assessment programme for the MPA and should highlight any knowledge gaps. These programmes should: be aligned with the conservation and operational objectives of the MPA; use appropriate indicators; be sensitive to identified stressors or management actions; and be integrated into the wider scale of regional monitoring programmes (Buhl-Mortensen et al, 2017;Loh et al, 2019;Van Hoey et al, 2019).…”

“…The Norwegian Sea and Barents Sea scored zero for monitoring of the benthos because although habitat extents were mapped during the designation phase (MAREANO, 2019), this has not been followed up with assessment and monitoring in the implementation phase. It is generally considered to be poor practice to consider an ecological component of a management scheme important but then to not monitor it at an appropriate spatio-temporal scale, or to use poor-quality indicators and targets (Loh et al, 2019). This could result in monitoring schemes that are ineffective for detecting any change in the benthos as a result of MPA management (Loh et al, 2019).…”