ALBERT

Description: Marine invertebrates and macrophytes are sensitive to the toxic effects of oil. Depending on the intensity, duration and circumstances of the exposure, they can suffer high levels of initial mortality together with prolonged sublethal effects that can act at individual, population and community levels. Under some circumstances, recovery from these impacts can take years to decades. However, effects are variable because some taxa are less sensitive than others, and many factors can mitigate the degree of exposure, meaning that impacts are moderate in many cases, and recovery occurs within a few years. Exposure is affected by a myriad of factors including: type and amount of oil, extent of weathering, persistence of exposure, application of dispersants or other clean-up measures, habitat type, temperature and depth, species present and their stage of development or maturity, and processes of recolonisation, particularly recruitment. Almost every oil spill is unique in terms of its impact because of differing levels of exposure and the type of habitats, communities and species assemblages in the receiving environment. Between 1970 and February 2017, there were 51 significant oil spills in Australia. Five occurred offshore with negligible likely or expected impacts. Of the others, only 24 of the spills were studied in detail, while 19 had only cursory or no assessment despite the potential for oil spills to impact the marine environment. The majority were limited to temperate waters, although 10 of the 14 spills since 2000 were in tropical coastal or offshore areas, seven were in north Queensland in areas close to the Great Barrier Reef. All four spills that have occurred from offshore petroleum industry infrastructure have occurred since 2009. In Australia, as elsewhere, a prespill need exists to assess the risk of a spill, establish environmental baselines, determine the likely exposure of the receiving environment, and test the toxicity of the oil against key animal and plant species in the area of potential impact. Subsequent to any spill, the baseline provides a reference for targeted impact monitoring.

Description: As ocean temperatures rise, species distributions are tracking towards historically cooler regions in line with their thermal affinity(1,2). However, different responses of species to warming and changed species interactions make predicting biodiversity redistribution and relative abundance a challenge(3,4). Here, we use three decades of fish and plankton survey data to assess how warming changes the relative dominance of warm-affinity and cold-affinity species(5,6). Regions with stable temperatures (for example, the Northeast Pacific and Gulf of Mexico) show little change in dominance structure, while areas with warming (for example, the North Atlantic) see strong shifts towards warm-water species dominance. Importantly, communities whose species pools had diverse thermal affinities and a narrower range of thermal tolerance showed greater sensitivity, as anticipated from simulations. The composition of fish communities changed less than expected in regions with strong temperature depth gradients. There, species track temperatures by moving deeper(2,7), rather than horizontally, analogous to elevation shifts in land plants(8). Temperature thus emerges as a fundamental driver for change in marine systems, with predictable restructuring of communities in the most rapidly warming areas using metrics based on species thermal affinities. The ready and predictable dominance shifts suggest a strong prognosis of resilience to climate change for these communities.

Description: Conservation and environmental management are principal countermeasures to the degradation of marine ecosystems and their services.However, in many cases, current practices are insufficient to reverse ecosystem declines. We suggest that restoration ecology, the science underlying the concepts and tools needed to restore ecosystems, must be recognized as an integral element for marine conservation and environmental management. Marine restoration ecology is a young scientific discipline, often with gaps between its application and the supporting science. Bridging these gaps is essential to using restoration as an effective management tool and reversing the decline of marine ecosystems and their services. Ecological restoration should address objectives that include improved ecosystem services, and it therefore should encompass social–ecological elements rather than focusing solely on ecological parameters. We recommend using existing management frameworks to identify clear restoration targets, to apply quantitative tools for assessment, and to make the re-establishment of ecosystem services a criterion for success.

Description: Coral reefs of the world face rapid degradation of biodiversity and ecosystem services, and marine protected areas (MPAs) are a commonly applied solution. Nevertheless, coral reefs continue to decline worldwide, raising questions about the adequacy of management and protection efforts. We argue that expanding the range of MPA targets to also include degraded reefs (i.e. 'DR-MPA'), could help reverse this trend. This approach requires new ecological criteria for MPA design, siting, and management. Rather than focusing solely on preserving healthy reefs, the proposed approach focuses on the potential for biodiversity recovery and renewal of ecosystem services. The new criteria highlight sites with the highest potential for recovery, the greatest resistance to future threats (e.g., temperature and acidification) and the largest contribution to connectivity of MPA networks. The DR-MPA approach is not a substitute for traditional MPA selection criteria; it is rather a complimentary framework when traditional approaches are inadequate. We believe that the DR-MPA approach can help to: 1. Enhance the natural, or restoration-assisted, recovery of degraded reefs and their ecosystem services, 2. Increase the total reef area available for protection, 3. Promote more resilient and better-connected MPA networks, and 4. More effectively contribute to improved conditions for human communities dependent on these ecosystem services. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Description: © The Author(s), 2018]. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Global Ecology and Biogeography 27 (2018): 760-786, doi:10.1111/geb.12729.

Description: The BioTIME database contains raw data on species identities and abundances in ecological assemblages through time. These data enable users to calculate temporal trends in biodiversity within and amongst assemblages using a broad range of metrics. BioTIME is being developed as a community‐led open‐source database of biodiversity time series. Our goal is to accelerate and facilitate quantitative analysis of temporal patterns of biodiversity in the Anthropocene. The database contains 8,777,413 species abundance records, from assemblages consistently sampled for a minimum of 2 years, which need not necessarily be consecutive. In addition, the database contains metadata relating to sampling methodology and contextual information about each record. BioTIME is a global database of 547,161 unique sampling locations spanning the marine, freshwater and terrestrial realms. Grain size varies across datasets from 0.0000000158 km2 (158 cm2) to 100 km2 (1,000,000,000,000 cm2). BioTIME records span from 1874 to 2016. The minimal temporal grain across all datasets in BioTIME is a year. BioTIME includes data from 44,440 species across the plant and animal kingdoms, ranging from plants, plankton and terrestrial invertebrates to small and large vertebrates.

Description: European Research Council and EU, Grant/Award Number: AdG‐250189, PoC‐727440 and ERC‐SyG‐2013‐610028; Natural Environmental Research Council, Grant/Award Number: NE/L002531/1; National Science Foundation, Grant/Award Number: DEB‐1237733, DEB‐1456729, 9714103, 0632263, 0856516, 1432277, DEB‐9705814, BSR‐8811902, DEB 9411973, DEB 0080538, DEB 0218039, DEB 0620910, DEB 0963447, DEB‐1546686, DEB‐129764, OCE 95‐21184, OCE‐ 0099226, OCE 03‐52343, OCE‐0623874, OCE‐1031061, OCE‐1336206 and DEB‐1354563; National Science Foundation (LTER) , Grant/Award Number: DEB‐1235828, DEB‐1440297, DBI‐0620409, DEB‐9910514, DEB‐1237517, OCE‐0417412, OCE‐1026851, OCE‐1236905, OCE‐1637396, DEB 1440409, DEB‐0832652, DEB‐0936498, DEB‐0620652, DEB‐1234162 and DEB‐0823293; Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, Grant/Award Number: POPH/FSE SFRH/BD/90469/2012, SFRH/BD/84030/2012, PTDC/BIA‐BIC/111184/2009; SFRH/BD/80488/2011 and PD/BD/52597/2014; Ciência sem Fronteiras/CAPES, Grant/Award Number: 1091/13‐1; Instituto Milenio de Oceanografía, Grant/Award Number: IC120019; ARC Centre of Excellence, Grant/Award Number: CE0561432; NSERC Canada; CONICYT/FONDECYT, Grant/Award Number: 1160026, ICM PO5‐002, CONICYT/FONDECYT, 11110351, 1151094, 1070808 and 1130511; RSF, Grant/Award Number: 14‐50‐00029; Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Grant/Award Number: GBMF4563; Catalan Government; Marie Curie Individual Fellowship, Grant/Award Number: QLK5‐CT2002‐51518 and MERG‐CT‐2004‐022065; CNPq, Grant/Award Number: 306170/2015‐9, 475434/2010‐2, 403809/2012‐6 and 561897/2010; FAPESP (São Paulo Research Foundation), Grant/Award Number: 2015/10714‐6, 2015/06743‐0, 2008/10049‐9, 2013/50714‐0 and 1999/09635‐0 e 2013/50718‐5; EU CLIMOOR, Grant/Award Number: ENV4‐CT97‐0694; VULCAN, Grant/Award Number: EVK2‐CT‐2000‐00094; Spanish, Grant/Award Number: REN2000‐0278/CCI, REN2001‐003/GLO and CGL2016‐79835‐P; Catalan, Grant/Award Number: AGAUR SGR‐2014‐453 and SGR‐2017‐1005; DFG, Grant/Award Number: 120/10‐2; Polar Continental Shelf Program; CENPES – PETROBRAS; FAPERJ, Grant/Award Number: E‐26/110.114/2013; German Academic Exchange Service; sDiv; iDiv; New Zealand Department of Conservation; Wellcome Trust, Grant/Award Number: 105621/Z/14/Z; Smithsonian Atherton Seidell Fund; Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority; Research Council of Norway; Conselleria de Innovació, Hisenda i Economia; Yukon Government Herschel Island‐Qikiqtaruk Territorial Park; UK Natural Environment Research Council ShrubTundra Grant, Grant/Award Number: NE/M016323/1; IPY; Memorial University; ArcticNet. DOI: 10.13039/50110000027. Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research in the Tropics NWO, grant W84‐194. Ciências sem Fronteiras and Coordenação de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES, Brazil), Grant/Award Number: 1091/13‐1. National Science foundation (LTER), Award Number: OCE‐9982105, OCE‐0620276, OCE‐1232779. FCT ‐ SFRH / BPD / 82259 / 2011. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/State Wildlife federal grant number T‐15. Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies (CE140100020). Australian Research Council Future Fellowship FT110100609. M.B., A.J., K.P., J.S. received financial support from internal funds of University of Lódź. NSF DEB 1353139. Catalan Government fellowships (DURSI): 1998FI‐00596, 2001BEAI200208, MECD Post‐doctoral fellowship EX2002‐0022. National Science Foundation Award OPP‐1440435. FONDECYT 1141037 and FONDAP 15150003 (IDEAL). CNPq Grant 306595‐2014‐1

Description: Coral reefs provide ecosystem goods and services for millions of people in the tropics, but reef conditions are declining worldwide. Effective solutions to the crisis facing coral reefs depend in part on understanding the context under which different types of conservation benefits can be maximized. Our global analysis of nearly 1,800 tropical reefs reveals how the intensity of human impacts in the surrounding seascape, measured as a function of human population size and accessibility to reefs (“gravity”), diminishes the effectiveness of marine reserves at sustaining reef fish biomass and the presence of top predators, even where compliance with reserve rules is high. Critically, fish biomass in high-compliance marine reserves located where human impacts were intensive tended to be less than a quarter that of reserves where human impacts were low. Similarly, the probability of encountering top predators on reefs with high human impacts was close to zero, even in high-compliance marine reserves. However, we find that the relative difference between openly fished sites and reserves (what we refer to as conservation gains) are highest for fish biomass (excluding predators) where human impacts are moderate and for top predators where human impacts are low. Our results illustrate critical ecological trade-offs in meeting key conservation objectives: reserves placed where there are moderate-to-high human impacts can provide substantial conservation gains for fish biomass, yet they are unlikely to support key ecosystem functions like higher-order predation, which is more prevalent in reserve locations with low human impacts.

Description: Kelp forests (Order Laminariales) form key biogenic habitats in coastal regions of temperate and Arctic seas worldwide, providing ecosystem services valued in the range of billions of dollars annually. Although local evidence suggests that kelp forests are increasingly threatened by a variety of stressors, no comprehensive global analysis of change in kelp abundances currently exists. Here, we build and analyze a global database of kelp time series spanning the past half-century to assess regional and global trends in kelp abundances. We detected a high degree of geographic variation in trends, with regional variability in the direction and magnitude of change far exceeding a small global average decline (instantaneous rate of change = −0.018 y−1). Our analysis identified declines in 38% of ecoregions for which there are data (−0.015 to −0.18 y−1), increases in 27% of ecoregions (0.015 to 0.11 y−1), and no detectable change in 35% of ecoregions. These spatially variable trajectories reflected regional differences in the drivers of change, uncertainty in some regions owing to poor spatial and temporal data coverage, and the dynamic nature of kelp populations. We conclude that although global drivers could be affecting kelp forests at multiple scales, local stressors and regional variation in the effects of these drivers dominate kelp dynamics, in contrast to many other marine and terrestrial foundation species.

Description: Fishes are the most diverse group of vertebrates, play key functional roles in aquatic ecosystems, and provide protein for a billion people, especially in the developing world. Those functions are compromised by mounting pressures on marine biodiversity and ecosystems. Because of its economic and food value, fish biomass production provides an unusually direct link from biodiversity to critical ecosystem services. We used the Reef Life Survey’s global database of 4,556 standardized fish surveys to test the importance of biodiversity to fish production relative to 25 environmental drivers. Temperature, biodiversity, and human influence together explained 47% of the global variation in reef fish biomass among sites. Fish species richness and functional diversity were among the strongest predictors of fish biomass, particularly for the large-bodied species and carnivores preferred by fishers, and these biodiversity effects were robust to potentially confounding influences of sample abundance, scale, and environmental correlations. Warmer temperatures increased biomass directly, presumably by raising metabolism, and indirectly by increasing diversity, whereas temperature variability reduced biomass. Importantly, diversity and climate interact, with biomass of diverse communities less affected by rising and variable temperatures than species-poor communities. Biodiversity thus buffers global fish biomass from climate change, and conservation of marine biodiversity can stabilize fish production in a changing ocean.