m@rble ELectronic conference on MARine Biodiversity in Europe

summaries theme 2

Summaries of theme 2, as they are posted here, are compiled by the session's chairman, Mark Costello.

implementation and application of biodiversity research in management, conservation and science

The discussion during week two concentrated on how to apply biodiversity science. In contrast to discussions that may have occurred 10 years ago, there was consensus that the Convention on Biological Diversity definition of biodiversity, covering the population (genetic), species and ecosystem levels was a workable concept both politically and scientifically. While ‘species’ were the most practical measure of biodiversity, its protection and management had to focus on habitats. While, management often worked over larger areas (seascapes) composed of several habitats, ecologists tended to work within habitats. Studying biodiversity now meant that ecologists needed to work at different spatial scales, from seascapes to habitats. The concept of biotopes (a habitat with a reoccurring assemblage of species) was not discussed but it provides a useful approach to combining the species and physical habitat for management purposes.

Rapid habitat and biotope mapping, such as by acoustic surveys, video or scuba diving, was becoming a more established method in marine surveys. Less well established were automated species identification tools, already available for some diatoms and dinoflagellates. Such rapid surveillance methods at the habitat and species level could make biodiversity assessment much more cost effective and provide standardization that facilitates analysis over great spatial and temporal scales. Good taxonomy was an essential part of quality control in all approaches to biodiversity assessment.

Modern taxonomy needs to avail of electronic systems that aid species identification, and disseminate information on species via the internet. A top priority to enable good science and management of biodiversity is to make information on species rapidly accessible via the internet. This would include correct names, descriptions, distribution, ecological and economic information. A global approach is needed here to make best use of the limited expertise in taxonomy. The availability of this information will reduce time wasted by taxonomists and ecologists in checking the literature and giving species the wrong names, and also improve efficiency and quality control in biodiversity science.

The following summary has been written by the session chairman to try and capture the key points raised in discussion. The original messages should be studied to get the full information and exact wording by the contributors.

Summary of discussion on “Biodiversity: concept or political issues?”:

• It is possible and appropriate to measure biodiversity at population, species and ecosystem levels (Filip Volckaert)
• Species richness is only one measure and the Convention of Biological Diversity definition of biodiversity is now the most appropriate one to use (John Gray)
• Species lists are a fundamental element of biodiversity measures and biodiversity management, as they are valuable in their own right and characterize the communities, habitats (biotopes) and ecosystems (Ferdinando Boero)
• European Union should learn from the success of the USA National Science Foundation ‘PEET’ research program; an consider such “partnerships for the enhancement of taxonomy” (Ferdinando Boero)
• We do not have to determine how many species there are to protect species; rapid mapping of habitats is a first priority as then protecting these habitats will protect biodiversity (John Gray)
• The challenge is how to develop integrated measures of biodiversity; this requires interdisciplinary collaboration (e.g. between ecologists and economists) and some translation centres so information is more accessible to non-scientists in different languages (Nikolai Shadrin)
• Habitats do not tell us enough about biodiversity, so we cannot study, monitor and protect biodiversity without knowing what species are present (Ferdinando Boero)

Summary discussion on “Producers versus users of biodiversity information”:

• Scientists tend to work on local spatial scales but managers on larger ones; how can this sciences be extrapolated to the management units? One way is using ‘indicators of ecosystem health’. However, public health is measured from the health of individuals and it may not be possible to measure ecosystems health in the same way (John Gray)
• Marine conservation is slavishly following terrestrial approaches without rethinking what is best for marine systems (Richard Warwick)
• There is a disconnect between biodiversity researchers and resource users; the latter are more concerned with ecosystem health as this affects their resource (quantity and quality). Thus more research into the link between biodiversity and ecosystem health is critical (Antoine Gremone)
• We cannot understand, predict or manage biodiversity if we do not know its components; i.e. what species are there and what they are doing (Ferdinando Boero)
• We should be more concerned with protecting the 97% of the ocean outside protected areas than the 3% within them (John Gray)

Summary discussion on “Tools for biomonitoring”:

• Tracking the long-term genetic makeup of selected marine species, such as invasive species, should assist in understanding the causes of shifts in species distribution patterns (Filip Volckaert)
• Data on biodiversity function (e.g. generation time, growth rate, reproduction rate) should be inventoried and made accessible via databases to modelers (Wulf Greve)
• An EU (MAST3) project (ADIAC) has developed rapid automated computerized methods to identify diatoms. Such tools could be developed for at least other phytoplankton that can be slide mounted (Hans du Buf); and a system is available for dinoflagellates (DiCANN) (Phil Culverhouse)
• Automated tools for taxonomy are the way to go in the future – faster and more consistent than people (Phil Culverhouse), and the EU must fund this work (Hans du Buf). For further reading see report on ‘Workshop on automatic categorisation of marine biological material for ecosystem research and monitoring (1996)’ available at http://newlyn.cis.plym.ac.uk/dicann/papers/vigo.pdf
• Notable monitoring approaches include long term photographic surveys and the Continuous Plankton Recorder. We cannot monitor genetics directly but we can monitor populations and species distributions as a surrogate. (Ferdinando Boero)
• Computerized identification systems can help taxonomy, and free up experts time for other research (Hans du Buf)
• Bathymetric and acoustic surveys can predict benthic habitats and from there, biotope distribution and diversity (Carlo Franzosini)
• One USA group has automated field instruments that can identify species, and European researchers could also develop such tools (Phil Culverhouse)
• Species lists and habitat mapping are just the foundation of information for biodiversity management. Information systems need to include human impacts on species, trophic relationships, physio-chemical limits, etc. (Bill Trusewich)

Summary discussion on “Producers versus users of biodiversity information”:

Scientists tend to work on local spatial scales but managers on larger ones; how can this sciences be extrapolated to the management units? One way is using ‘indicators of ecosystem health’. However, public health is measured from the health of individuals and it may not be possible to measure ecosystems health in the same way (John Gray)

Marine conservation is slavishly following terrestrial approaches without rethinking what is best for marine systems (Richard Warwick)

There is a disconnect between biodiversity researchers and resource users; the latter are more concerned with ecosystem health as this affects their resource (quantity and quality). Thus more research into the link between biodiversity and ecosystem health is critical (Antoine Gremone)

We cannot understand, predict or manage biodiversity if we do not know its components; i.e. what species are there and what they are doing (Ferdinando Boero)

We should be more concerned with protecting the 97% of the ocean outside protected areas than the 3% within them (John Gray)

Summary discussion on “Information systems in marine biodiversity research”:

• We urgently need databases with all published species information in order to make progress in biological research. Another priority is the need to develop electronic tools for describing unknown species (Magda Vincx)
• Databases of biodiversity knowledge (taxonomic, molecular, etc.), and access to distributed databases must be priorities (Alexey Zapevlin)
• Many databases will disappear with their creators. We need a global approach to species information systems (Tim Deprez)
• Bibliographies are the building block of knowledge, including taxonomy and systematics. Species descriptions, especially from old and obscure journals, need to be made available on-line (Ferdinando Boero). It is remarkable that there is not more effort in this area (Edward Vanden Berghe)
• A single system is unlikely to be possible but it may not be necessary. Most effort is in data entering and quality assurance. What is needed is more communication between people, and interoperability between databases (Edward Vanden Berghe)