m@rble ELectronic conference on MARine Biodiversity in Europe

Overall summary of the m@rble conference

Main issues in marine biodiversity research

Carlo Heip
Centre for Estuarine and Marine Ecology/Netherlands Institute of Ecological Research, Korringaweg 7, Postbus 140, NL-4400 AC Yerseke, The Netherlands

Marine ecological biodiversity research is a scientific field with few observational data to support a weak theory largely borrowed from terrestrial ecology and lacking in experimental verification. The lack of scientific interest and effort until recently was a consequence of the general feeling that marine biodiversity is far less threatened than terrestrial biodiversity. This view is not sustainable. There is now ample evidence of widespread changes in most coastal habitats in populated areas around the world (coral reefs, mangroves, seagrass fields, intertidal rocky shores and subtidal sediments on the continental shelf and margin) due to exploitation of marine resources, introduction of exotic species and the increased pressure from mariculture and fisheries. The sustainable exploitation of the seas requires development of a sound theoretical framework for marine biodiversity, including genetic, species and habitat diversity and especially the relationships between them. At the present state of knowledge such a general theory is still far from being reality. Developing a sound theoretical framework underpinning the management of marine resources requires scientific networking and cooperation beyond the classical ways in which biologists are doing research.

What are the priorities? Surprisingly, even some of the basic facts are not known. Large-scale patterns of biodiversity are inferred from what is known from land and the concept of biodiversity hotspots is now emerging in marine studies as well, but they have not really been identified for Europe. Within basins, even within the entire western Mediterranean or northern Atlantic, the differences between regions are not so clear. Evolutionary patterns are only evident at the largest scales and seem to correlate with environmental variability within regions. Patterns must be studied at a variety of scales, within and between habitats, regions and basins and studies must be based on agreed and standardised methodology. Efforts such as the EC Concerted Action BIOMARE are necessary to prepare for the study of large-scale patterns and a lot of logistic problems need overcoming.

Another problem is the lack of taxonomic knowledge and expertise. Complete species inventories do not exist for any area in Europe, but for some areas there is more information than for any other area in the world. A recent EC funded network of over 170 scientists listed almost 30,000 species from European seas in the European Register of Marine Species ERMS. Despite a long history of research in Europe, the rate of discovery of marine species still shows no sign of decreasing. An inventory of micro-organizms can only now be made for the first time. A major challenge for the near future will be to synthesise all this knowledge, make it available to the policy makers and the public alike, requiring a major effort in bio-informatics.

A further step must be to elucidate the role of biodiversity in ecosystem functioning. Experiments in the marine environment are altogether very difficult and expensive, except for some easily accessible habitats, which can be reached on foot or by diving. Nevertheless field experiments remain an essential tool in scientific research. Mesocosms, when carefully handled, are an intermediate step between the field and the laboratory. But experiments only improve our knowledge on small parts of the systems and there is a clear lack of a synthetic theory. In the near future a comparative approach in which key species or functional groups are studied in different habitats may provide better insight in the link between species and biogeochemical processes. But the concept of key species itself needs careful scrutiny before it can be applied in conservation issues.

The third step in developing scientific theory is good models that can be applied in assessments of changing biodiversity and its causes. Classical ecological theory has concentrated on describing and predicting species interactions but it is unclear whether species richness in any one area depends on these interactions or is a consequence of the local and regional physico-chemical environment. Models also require boiling down biodiversity to a restricted number of tractable units and should involve adaptation and the evolutionary constraints on species in order to represent better the biological features of marine ecosystems.

There are thus clearly a number of major problems in developing a theory of marine biodiversity, which can only be solved by making the field attractive for researchers. This is even more true when we consider that the definition of biodiversity used in policy making also involves genetic and habitat diversity. The links between the three components have been subject of research for many decades but not within this context and not in an overall picture.

Many scientists in the past have dismissed the political biodiversity concept as a non-concept scientifically, which would then require translation of scientific concepts to policy making and vice versa. The same is true for the concept of ecosystem health, which is widely used in policy making and still needs scientific underpinning as well. There remains a gulf between academics concerned with the development of biodiversity theory and those concerned with the practice of marine conservation: this gulf needs to be bridged. Within M@rble, most participants were convinced that the Biodiversity Convention is the right framework for both the politics and the science and that most of the application of marine biodiversity science would be within the convention. There are however other conventions, such as the Barcelona, Oslo and Paris conventions, and the different regulations of fisheries, mariculture and shipping that also require biodiversity information. Species are the focus and also one of the most practical measures of biodiversity but their conservation requires a knowledge of genetics on the one hand and habitats on the other. Ecological research as well will increasingly require inter-habitat comparisons. One major obstacle is the technology required for studying larger scales rapidly and economically. The technology for mapping the sea floor has greatly expanded over the last decade but is still not used enough in scientific research. Image analysis and flow cytometry can provide methods for rapid determination and another top priority is to make information on species identification available through the Internet. Species lists and taxonomic keys do exist for many areas and recently efforts to bring them together have been made, but much more needs to be done.

It is clear that marine biodiversity research is urgently needed to get the facts right, to understand them and put them in context and to use them for solving many problems concerning the protection of the marine environment and the species that it contains. Moreover, science has an obligation to the public to make the facts known. Dissemination and education should be part of any project as only public support will in the long term assure funding for the research. Internet, television, public aquaria and museums are obvious ways to reach the public but only a concerted effort from the scientific community can make this work. The funding of marine biodiversity research should not necessarily come from public funds only. Industry and private charities may be addressed as well. Major industries (tourism, fisheries, shipping, oil and gas exploitation) make use of the seas and have an impact on biodiversity.

Europe has a great potential for marine biodiversity research. There is a network of marine research stations MARS whose member institutes have studied the marine environment for more than a century and that has long standing relationships with hundreds of university research groups all over Europe. Europe still has a large (though decreasing) taxonomic expertise that should be involved in the overall effort to study better marine biodiversity. Major museums of natural history in Europe also have formed networks that are essential for an integrated study of marine biodiversity. The situation is complex and will require a major initiative for infrastructure development at the European level.

Europe must expand its view and apply its expertise outside the continent and work together with colleagues from the US and Canada (through the NAML network and the Census of Marine Life programme), the Far East and especially connect with scientists and scientific institutions in the tropical regions of the world.