Benthic break-out group background information and issues for discussion Lena Avellan, Project Manager (CORESET II) CORESET II thematic meeting for benthic- and pelagic indicators 10-12 February 2015 Gdynia, Poland
Benthic indicators • Core indicators: – State of the soft-bottom macrofauna communities – Population structure of long-lived macrozoobenthic species – (Red-listed benthic biotopes) • Pre-core indicators: – Distribution, pattern and extent of benthic biotopes – Cumulative impact on benthic biotopes – Lower depth distribution limit of macrophyte species • Candidate core indicators: – Biomass ratio of opportunistic and perennial macroalgae 2/10/2015 2
State of the soft-bottom macrofauna community Coordinated monitoring Assessment Monitoring strategy GES / assessment (method, frequency, criteria Concept/ spatial resolution) in (currently all GES are design relation to relevant Assessment provisional) indicator parameters Technical guidelines Geographic scale method Data arrangements A ) in place A ) monitoring in place A ) in place HELCOM assessment A ) available and A ) proposed and B) under B ) monitoring needs B ) needs revision, units: described described development revision what needs doing A ) identified B ) available not B ) proposed but needs C ) not available, C ) monitoring not C ) not available, B) Identified not described more supporting data A ) in place what needs - available, what needs - what needs - action described C ) not available, C ) not available, what B ) needs revision, what action level? action level? level? C) not identified, what needs - needs - action level? needs doing what needs - action action level? C ) not available, what level? needs - action level? B – indices B – method to A A A A B (sensitivity, better include coreset II Start of use of terms) different types not of substrate commonly agreed A/B – in B – method to A B – several B -can be B - not A Sensitivity list place, but better include options, not derived tailored to for species CORESET II 2- different types indices yet decided from data, current study should be made 2014 of substrate ? (sensitivity) upon but has not yet (so far: available online not been done based on via HELOCM commonly regional agreed diversity by Villnäs & Norkko) 2/10/2015 3
State of the soft-bottom macrofauna community List of issues that still need to be solved Describe what is hindering solving the issue for the indicator Validation of species sensitivity scores and Should be done by all countries BQI assessment Definition of GES - based on regional diversity so far (Villnäs & Norkko 2011) - No new reference values from this study Assessments Units - WFD / MSFD assessment borders ? • Proposed to use HELCOM Assessment Unit Level 4 to harmonize with WFD assessments • Focus could be placed on the open-sea areas at this stage and consider if national WFD assessments could be directly applied in the Level 4 units Distribution of BQI values a) upper 50 % of values (50 % - 100 %) b) lower 50 % (0 % - 49 %) 2/10/2015 4
Population structure of long-lived macrozoobenthic species Coordinated monitoring Assessment Monitoring strategy (method, GES / assessment criteria Concept/ frequency, spatial resolution) in (currently all GES are design relation to relevant indicator provisional) parameters Technical guidelines Geographic scale Assessment method Data arrangements A ) in place A ) monitoring in place A ) in place HELCOM assessment A ) available and described A ) proposed and described A ) in place B) under development B ) monitoring needs revision B ) needs revision, units: B ) available not described B ) proposed but needs more B ) needs revision, C ) not available, what C ) not available, what C ) monitoring not available, what needs doing A ) identified supporting data what needs doing needs - action level ? what needs - action level? C ) not available, what B) Identified not needs - action level? C ) not available, what needs - C ) not available, needs - action level? described action level? what needs - action C) not identified, what level? needs - action level? B - more direct B - monitoring programmes B - needs detailing C - development of C - theoretical natural B - qualitative comparison C - data handling At the beginning linkages between not always measuring size based on available how many sampling population structures to be developed into from sampling to of CORESET II anthropogenic frequencies of benthic monitoring data, stations are needed generally not known quantitative boundaries - analyzing, flow pressures and organism, if species occur at e.g. Summation of for a region is and method for task manager and storage needs indicator response to adequate densities annual data needed and comparison of results development - be detailed, - task traditional monitoring measurements over assessment units to needs strengthening for task manager, manager samples could be used for >5 year periods be defined - task each species- task HELCOM further analyzes to acquire manager manager needed data - national authorities/HELCOM 2/10/2015 5
Population structure of long-lived macrozoobenthic species Points presented at CORESET II 2-2014 • Regional development in MARMONI-project > indicator available for FI and LV • selected species: Macoma balthica • Finnish approach : linking mean size with oxygen conditions • Automatic software for size determination • Latvian approach : linking median size with BSII • reference condition: historical data (1960th) • Target value by deviation from historical mean • German approach: linking size distribution of Arctica islandica to oxygen depletion and fishery effort • almost no progress due to lack of man power (just started to digitalize historical data) • Polish approach: Sandy bottoms Mytilus edulis measurements (dredge samples); measurements on bivalves in 1960s and 1980s (VV) 150-200samples; same locations in 2004 but still to be digitalized and no man-power available 2/10/2015 6
Population structure of long-lived macrozoobenthic species Conclusion by TML presented at CORESET II 2-2014 a common baltic-wide approach will not be possible as available/suitable target species will vary between the countries and historical data are most likely not available in most countries to estimate reference conditions 2/10/2015 7
Red-listed benthic biotopes Coordinated monitoring Assessment Monitoring strategy (method, Concept/ frequency, spatial resolution) GES / assessment criteria design in relation to relevant indicator (currently all GES are provisional) parameters Technical guidelines Geographic scale Assessment method Data arrangements A ) in place A ) monitoring in place A ) in place HELCOM assessment A ) available and A ) proposed and described B) under B ) monitoring needs revision B ) needs revision, units: described B ) proposed but needs more supporting A ) in place development C ) monitoring not available, what needs doing A ) identified B ) available not data B ) needs revision, C ) not available, what needs - action level? C ) not available, B) Identified not described C ) not available, what needs - action what needs doing what needs - action what needs - action described C ) not available, level? C ) not available, level ? level? C) not identified, what what needs - action what needs - action needs - action level? level? level? B - interpretation C - spatial and temporal B - guidelines for A C - to be B - suggested GES to be verified, A - with the At the beginning of red list results frequency of biodiversity biodiversity elaborated in the needs to be better linked to MSFD reservation that of CORESET II needs elaboration monitoring needs to be sampling of some indicator - task GES criteria and the EU Habitats the Red List - task manager improved in order to benthic biotopes manager Directive assessments - task manager assessment is strictly apply the red list may need further based on a limited criteria, monitoring method elaboration - task amount of data of benthic biotopes needs manager elaboration so that information on both abiotic and biotic parameters are sampled - task manager 2/10/2015 8
Recommend
More recommend
