Yes, We Can! Large-Scale Integrative Assessment of European Regional Seas, Using Open Access Databases

Abstract

Substantial progress has been made in assessing marine health in an integrative way. However, managers are still reluctant in undertaking such assessments, because: (i) lack of indicators; (ii) absence of targets; (iii) difficulty of aggregating indicators from different ecosystem components, habitats, and areas; (iv) absence of criteria on the number of indicators to be used; (v) discussion on the use of "one-out, all-out" (OOAO) principle in aggregating; and (vi) lack of traceability when integrating data. Our objective was, using open access databases with indicators across all the European seas with agreed targets, to demonstrate if the Nested Environmental status Assessment Tool (NEAT), can be used at the European scale, serving to managers and policy-makers as a tool to assess the environmental status under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). We have used MSFD Descriptor D3 (commercial fish) from 341 stocks, 119 species and two indicators from each of them (years 2013-2015); D5 (eutrophication) with 90th percentile of Chlorophyll-a (years 2009-2014); and D8 (contaminants), with Anthracene, Fluoranthene, Naphthalene, Cadmium, Nickel, and Lead as indicators (years 2009-2013). We have calculated the environmental status for each European subdivision, subregion, and regional sea, nested at different levels. The analyses include weighting and no-weighting by each assessment area; for ecosystem component (water column, phytoplankton, fish, crustaceans, and molluscs); descriptor (three), and habitat (pelagic, demersal/benthic), with the confidence value of the status. A sensitivity analysis was undertaken to determine a minimum number of indicators to include for a robust assessment. We demonstrated that using NEAT in assessing the status of large marine areas, by aggregating indicators, ecosystem components and descriptors, at different spatial scales, can remove at least four out of the six barriers that managers and policy-makers confront when undertaking such assessments. This can be done by using open-access databases and already established targets. Aggregating indicators of different origin is possible. Around 40 indicators seem to be enough to obtain robust assessments. It is better to integrate the assessment items using an ecosystem-based approach, rather than using the OOAO principle. Using NEAT, this approach supports identifying the problematic environmental issues needing management attention and measures.

The Status of Coastal Benthic Ecosystems in the Mediterranean Sea: Evidence From Ecological Indicators

“…In well-studied areas, such as the western Mediterranean, the plethora of indicators used (Teixeira et al, 2016) makes comparisons difficult, impairing the potential to obtain a reliable and extensive picture of the situation of the main benthic ecosystems. There is an urgent need to achieve a general consensus on which data and which indicators have to be used to classify the status of marine ecosystem health (Miloslavich et al, 2018), and further attempts to integrate and gather existing information (e.g., Borja et al, 2019;. Current practices are too fragmented depending on decisionmakers, researchers, and practitioners' preferences or interests.…”

“…The achievement and maintenance of good ecological conditions requires large-scale management of human activities and their ensuing pressures to marine ecosystems (Borja et al, 2019;Mazaris et al, 2019). CEA approaches, through mapping estimated cumulative impacts, could represent a powerful tool in this view, especially if embedded in a risk management process (Stelzenmüller et al, 2018).…”

The Importance of Connected Ocean Monitoring Knowledge Systems and Communities

“…Remote sensing is too infrequently employed at a global scale to create a reliable and usable monitoring platform system, however, it remains a promising technique for monitoring water quality (Matthews et al, 2010). Furthermore, progress through new technologies, e.g., the Nested Environmental status Assessment Tool, is improving the ability to aggregate and disaggregate existing data at scales that bridge gaps between marine systems and the people who depend upon them (Borja et al, 2019).…”

The importance of open science for biological assessment of aquatic environments

“…Open science has also influenced how research workflows are conceptualized in other disciplines (e.g., archaeology, Marwick et al, 2016 , behavioral ecology, Ihle et al, 2017 , hydrology, Slater et al, 2019 , vegetation sciences, Collins, 2016 ) and has enabled a shift towards publishing structures that are more fair and transparent through open access ( Van Oudenhoven, Schröter & De Groot, 2016 ; Essl et al, 2020 ). Limited examples have suggested that open access databases can be leveraged to develop bioassessment products that increase transparency among stakeholders ( Borja et al, 2019 ). Adopting an open science paradigm in bioassessment is particularly relevant compared with other fields given the explicit need to develop products that are accessible to the management community.…”