Search results

25 páginas, 9 figuras, 3 tablas. ; Zenetos, A. et al. ; More than 60 marine non-indigenous species (NIS) have been removed from previous lists and 84 species have been added, bringing the total to 986 alien species in the Mediterranean [775 in the eastern Mediterranean (EMED), 249 in the central Mediterranean (CMED), 190 in the Adriatic Sea (ADRIA) and 308 in the western Mediterranean (WMED)]. There were 48 new entries since 2011 which can be interpreted as approximately one new entry every two weeks. The number of alien species continues to increase, by 2-3 species per year for macrophytes, molluscs and polychaetes, 3-4 species per year for crustaceans, and 6 species per year for fish. The dominant group among alien species is molluscs (with 215 species), followed by crustaceans (159) and polychaetes (132). Macrophytes are the leading group of NIS in the ADRIA and the WMED, reaching 26-30% of all aliens, whereas in the EMED they barely constitute 10% of the introductions. In the EMED, molluscs are the most species-rich group, followed by crustaceans, fish and polychaetes. More than half (54%) of the marine alien species in the Mediterranean were probably introduced by corridors (mainly Suez). Shipping is blamed directly for the introduction of only 12 species, whereas it is assumed to be the most likely pathway of introduction (via ballasts or fouling) of another 300 species. For approximately 100 species shipping is a probable pathway along with the Suez Canal and/or aquaculture. Approximately 20 species have been introduced with certainty via aquaculture, while >50 species (mostly macroalgae), occurring in the vicinity of oyster farms, are assumed to be introduced accidentally as contaminants of imported species. A total of 18 species are assumed to have been introduced by the aquarium trade. Lessepsian species decline westwards, while the reverse pattern is evident for ship-mediated species and for those introduced with aquaculture. There is an increasing trend in new introductions via the Suez Canal and via shipping. ; The research leading to these results was partly supported by funding from the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme ([FP7/2007-2013]) under grant agreement n° 287600 - PERSEUS project (Policy-oriented marine Environmental Research for the Southern European Seas). MAMIAS has been developed for the Regional Activity Centre for Specially Protected Areas of the UNEP/ Mediterranean Action Plan under contracts No 67, 68, 69, 70 and 71 /2011/RAC/RPA. ; Peer reviewed

Recognising the need for data gathering at taxon level besides the taxa of commercial interest and those listed as endangered in the Protocol of the Barcelona Convention, but still exploited by Man, the present study attempts to gather and review the available scientific information on molluscs of minor commercial importance in order to assist in the adequate management and protection of their populations. Forty one species (18 gastropods, 13 bivalves, and 10 cephalopods) of minor commercial interest are treated in the present work with details on their biogeographic distribution, exploitation and conservation status in Hellas. Apart from a few species (e.g., Pinna nobilis, Lithophaga lithophaga, Donacilla cornea), and these only at a local scale, there is no population assessment in Hellenic seas. The existing legislation for eleven of these species is not enforced in practice, and seems insufficient to guarantee their conservation. It is suggested that targeted collection data, networked nationally and internationally, should be promoted so this invaluable source of biodiversity information can be accessed for conservation and planning purposes.

The number of alien species arriving within new regions has increased at unprecedented rates. Managing the pathways through which alien species arrive and spread is important to reduce the threat of biological invasions. Harmonising information on pathways across individual sectors and user groups is therefore critical to underpin policy and action. The European Alien Species Information Network (EASIN) has been developed to easily facilitate open access to data of alien species in Europe. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Pathway Classification framework has become a global standard for the classification of pathways. We followed a structured approach to assign pathway information within EASIN for a subset of alien species in Europe, which covered 4169 species, spanning taxonomic groups and environments. We document constraints and challenges associated with implementing the CBD Pathway Classification framework and propose potential amendments to increase clarity. This study is unique in the scope of taxonomic coverage and also in the inclusion of primary (independent introductions to Europe) and secondary (means of dispersal for species expansion within Europe, after their initial introduction) modes of introduction. In addition, we summarise the patterns of introduction pathways within this subset of alien species within the context of Europe. Based on the analyses, we confirm that the CBD Pathway Classification framework offers a robust, hierarchical system suitable for the classification of alien species introduction and spread across a wide range of taxonomic groups and environments. However, simple modifications could improve interpretation of the pathway categories ensuring consistent application across databases and information systems at local, national, regional, continental and global scales. Improving consistency would also help in the development of pathway action plans, as required by EU legislation. ; European Commission ENV.B.2/SER/2015/0037rl ; COST Action CA17122 ; Czech Ministry of ...

International audience ; The meticulous revision by taxonomic experts of established alien species in the Mediterranean resulted in a major revision of the list proposed by Galil et al. (2016), with 73 species to be excluded (35 species categorised as non-established and 37 as not true aliens), and 72 species added to the list. Consequently, by year 2016 the total number of established alien species in the Mediterranean reached 613, which is a 28% increase over the preceding four years. If we also consider casual species (208 species), the total number of alien species in the Mediterranean is 821. This is attributed to: new findings, change in establishment status of species previously known on the basis of few and scattered records, and results of phylogenetic studies in some cosmopolitan species. However, the true number of alien species reported here is considered to be an underestimation, as it does not include phytoplanktonic organisms, Fora-minifera, cryptogenic and species known on the basis of questionable records that might turn out to be true aliens. EASIN and INVASIVESNET can play a major role in the future revision/update of the present list, which currently serves for assessing indicators that are necessary for policy, and for management of alien species in the Mediterranean Sea. An increasing trend in new arrivals since 1950, which culminated in the 2001e2010 period, appeared to decline after 2010. Whether this negative trend is an indication of improvement, or is an artefact, remains to be seen. The current list provides a reliable updated database from which to continue monitoring the arrival and spread of invasive species in the Mediterranean, as well as to provide counsel to governmental agencies with respect to management and control. Current geographical, taxonomical and impact data gaps can be reduced only by instituting harmonised standards and methodologies for monitoring alien populations in all countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea.

International audience ; The meticulous revision by taxonomic experts of established alien species in the Mediterranean resulted in a major revision of the list proposed by Galil et al. (2016), with 73 species to be excluded (35 species categorised as non-established and 37 as not true aliens), and 72 species added to the list. Consequently, by year 2016 the total number of established alien species in the Mediterranean reached 613, which is a 28% increase over the preceding four years. If we also consider casual species (208 species), the total number of alien species in the Mediterranean is 821. This is attributed to: new findings, change in establishment status of species previously known on the basis of few and scattered records, and results of phylogenetic studies in some cosmopolitan species. However, the true number of alien species reported here is considered to be an underestimation, as it does not include phytoplanktonic organisms, Fora-minifera, cryptogenic and species known on the basis of questionable records that might turn out to be true aliens. EASIN and INVASIVESNET can play a major role in the future revision/update of the present list, which currently serves for assessing indicators that are necessary for policy, and for management of alien species in the Mediterranean Sea. An increasing trend in new arrivals since 1950, which culminated in the 2001e2010 period, appeared to decline after 2010. Whether this negative trend is an indication of improvement, or is an artefact, remains to be seen. The current list provides a reliable updated database from which to continue monitoring the arrival and spread of invasive species in the Mediterranean, as well as to provide counsel to governmental agencies with respect to management and control. Current geographical, taxonomical and impact data gaps can be reduced only by instituting harmonised standards and methodologies for monitoring alien populations in all countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea.

International audience ; The meticulous revision by taxonomic experts of established alien species in the Mediterranean resulted in a major revision of the list proposed by Galil et al. (2016), with 73 species to be excluded (35 species categorised as non-established and 37 as not true aliens), and 72 species added to the list. Consequently, by year 2016 the total number of established alien species in the Mediterranean reached 613, which is a 28% increase over the preceding four years. If we also consider casual species (208 species), the total number of alien species in the Mediterranean is 821. This is attributed to: new findings, change in establishment status of species previously known on the basis of few and scattered records, and results of phylogenetic studies in some cosmopolitan species. However, the true number of alien species reported here is considered to be an underestimation, as it does not include phytoplanktonic organisms, Fora-minifera, cryptogenic and species known on the basis of questionable records that might turn out to be true aliens. EASIN and INVASIVESNET can play a major role in the future revision/update of the present list, which currently serves for assessing indicators that are necessary for policy, and for management of alien species in the Mediterranean Sea. An increasing trend in new arrivals since 1950, which culminated in the 2001e2010 period, appeared to decline after 2010. Whether this negative trend is an indication of improvement, or is an artefact, remains to be seen. The current list provides a reliable updated database from which to continue monitoring the arrival and spread of invasive species in the Mediterranean, as well as to provide counsel to governmental agencies with respect to management and control. Current geographical, taxonomical and impact data gaps can be reduced only by instituting harmonised standards and methodologies for monitoring alien populations in all countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea.

International audience ; The meticulous revision by taxonomic experts of established alien species in the Mediterranean resulted in a major revision of the list proposed by Galil et al. (2016), with 73 species to be excluded (35 species categorised as non-established and 37 as not true aliens), and 72 species added to the list. Consequently, by year 2016 the total number of established alien species in the Mediterranean reached 613, which is a 28% increase over the preceding four years. If we also consider casual species (208 species), the total number of alien species in the Mediterranean is 821. This is attributed to: new findings, change in establishment status of species previously known on the basis of few and scattered records, and results of phylogenetic studies in some cosmopolitan species. However, the true number of alien species reported here is considered to be an underestimation, as it does not include phytoplanktonic organisms, Fora-minifera, cryptogenic and species known on the basis of questionable records that might turn out to be true aliens. EASIN and INVASIVESNET can play a major role in the future revision/update of the present list, which currently serves for assessing indicators that are necessary for policy, and for management of alien species in the Mediterranean Sea. An increasing trend in new arrivals since 1950, which culminated in the 2001e2010 period, appeared to decline after 2010. Whether this negative trend is an indication of improvement, or is an artefact, remains to be seen. The current list provides a reliable updated database from which to continue monitoring the arrival and spread of invasive species in the Mediterranean, as well as to provide counsel to governmental agencies with respect to management and control. Current geographical, taxonomical and impact data gaps can be reduced only by instituting harmonised standards and methodologies for monitoring alien populations in all countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea.

By 2020, European Union Member States should achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) for 11 environmental quality descriptors for their marine waters to fulfill the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). By the end of 2015, in coordination with the Regional Seas Conventions, each EU Member State was required to develop a marine strategy for their waters, together with other countries within the same marine region or sub-region. Coherent monitoring programs, submitted in 2014, form a key component of this strategy, which then aimed to lead to a Program of Measures (submitted in 2015). The European DEVOTES FP7 project has produced and interrogated a catalog of EU marine monitoring related to MSFD descriptors 1 (biological diversity), 2 [non-indigenous species (NIS)], 4 (food webs), and 6 (seafloor integrity). Here we detail the monitoring activity at the regional and sub-regional level for these descriptors, as well as for 11 biodiversity components, 22 habitats and the 37 anthropogenic pressures addressed. The metadata collated for existing European monitoring networks were subject to a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis. This interrogation has indicated case studies to address the following questions: (a) what are the types of monitoring currently in place? (b) who does what and how? (c) is the monitoring fit-for-purpose for addressing the MSFD requirements? and (d) what are the impediments to better monitoring (e.g., costs, shared responsibilities between countries, overlaps, co-ordination, etc.)? We recommend the future means to overcome the identified impediments and develop more robust monitoring strategies. As such the results are especially relevant to implementing comprehensive and coordinated monitoring networks throughout Europe, for marine policy makers, government agencies and regulatory bodies. It is emphasized that while many of the recommendations given here require better; more extensive and perhaps more costly monitoring, this is required to avoid any legal ...

By 2020, European Union Member States should achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) for 11 environmental quality descriptors for their marine waters to fulfill the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). By the end of 2015, in coordination with the Regional Seas Conventions, each EU Member State was required to develop a marine strategy for their waters, together with other countries within the same marine region or sub-region. Coherent monitoring programs, submitted in 2014, form a key component of this strategy, which then aimed to lead to a Program of Measures (submitted in 2015). The European DEVOTES FP7 project has produced and interrogated a catalog of EU marine monitoring related to MSFD descriptors 1 (biological diversity), 2 [non-indigenous species (NIS)], 4 (food webs), and 6 (seafloor integrity). Here we detail the monitoring activity at the regional and sub-regional level for these descriptors, as well as for 11 biodiversity components, 22 habitats and the 37 anthropogenic pressures addressed. The metadata collated for existing European monitoring networks were subject to a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis. This interrogation has indicated case studies to address the following questions: (a) what are the types of monitoring currently in place? (b) who does what and how? (c) is the monitoring fit-for-purpose for addressing the MSFD requirements? and (d) what are the impediments to better monitoring (e.g., costs, shared responsibilities between countries, overlaps, co-ordination, etc.)? We recommend the future means to overcome the identified impediments and develop more robust monitoring strategies. As such the results are especially relevant to implementing comprehensive and coordinated monitoring networks throughout Europe, for marine policy makers, government agencies and regulatory bodies. [.]

By 2020, European Union Member States should achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) for 11 environmental quality descriptors for their marine waters to fulfill the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). By the end of 2015, in coordination with the Regional Seas Conventions, each EU Member State was required to develop a marine strategy for their waters, together with other countries within the same marine region or sub-region. Coherent monitoring programs, submitted in 2014, form a key component of this strategy, which then aimed to lead to a Program of Measures (submitted in 2015). The European DEVOTES FP7 project has produced and interrogated a catalog of EU marine monitoring related to MSFD descriptors 1 (biological diversity), 2 [non-indigenous species (NIS)], 4 (food webs), and 6 (seafloor integrity). Here we detail the monitoring activity at the regional and sub-regional level for these descriptors, as well as for 11 biodiversity components, 22 habitats and the 37 anthropogenic pressures addressed. The metadata collated for existing European monitoring networks were subject to a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis. This interrogation has indicated case studies to address the following questions: (a) what are the types of monitoring currently in place? (b) who does what and how? (c) is the monitoring fit-for-purpose for addressing the MSFD requirements? and (d) what are the impediments to better monitoring (e.g., costs, shared responsibilities between countries, overlaps, co-ordination, etc.)? We recommend the future means to overcome the identified impediments and develop more robust monitoring strategies. As such the results are especially relevant to implementing comprehensive and coordinated monitoring networks throughout Europe, for marine policy makers, government agencies and regulatory bodies. [.]

By 2020, European Union Member States should achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) for 11 environmental quality descriptors for their marine waters to fulfill the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). By the end of 2015, in coordination with the Regional Seas Conventions, each EU Member State was required to develop a marine strategy for their waters, together with other countries within the same marine region or sub-region. Coherent monitoring programs, submitted in 2014, form a key component of this strategy, which then aimed to lead to a Program of Measures (submitted in 2015). The European DEVOTES FP7 project has produced and interrogated a catalog of EU marine monitoring related to MSFD descriptors 1 (biological diversity), 2 [non-indigenous species (NIS)], 4 (food webs), and 6 (seafloor integrity). Here we detail the monitoring activity at the regional and sub-regional level for these descriptors, as well as for 11 biodiversity components, 22 habitats and the 37 anthropogenic pressures addressed. The metadata collated for existing European monitoring networks were subject to a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis. This interrogation has indicated case studies to address the following questions: (a) what are the types of monitoring currently in place? (b) who does what and how? (c) is the monitoring fit-for-purpose for addressing the MSFD requirements? and (d) what are the impediments to better monitoring (e.g., costs, shared responsibilities between countries, overlaps, co-ordination, etc.)? We recommend the future means to overcome the identified impediments and develop more robust monitoring strategies. As such the results are especially relevant to implementing comprehensive and coordinated monitoring networks throughout Europe, for marine policy makers, government agencies and regulatory bodies. [.]

By 2020, European Union Member States should achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) for 11 environmental quality descriptors for their marine waters to fulfill the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). By the end of 2015, in coordination with the Regional Seas Conventions, each EU Member State was required to develop a marine strategy for their waters, together with other countries within the same marine region or sub-region. Coherent monitoring programs, submitted in 2014, form a key component of this strategy, which then aimed to lead to a Program of Measures (submitted in 2015). The European DEVOTES FP7 project has produced and interrogated a catalog of EU marine monitoring related to MSFD descriptors 1 (biological diversity), 2 [non-indigenous species (NIS)], 4 (food webs), and 6 (seafloor integrity). Here we detail the monitoring activity at the regional and sub-regional level for these descriptors, as well as for 11 biodiversity components, 22 habitats and the 37 anthropogenic pressures addressed. The metadata collated for existing European monitoring networks were subject to a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis. This interrogation has indicated case studies to address the following questions: (a) what are the types of monitoring currently in place? (b) who does what and how? (c) is the monitoring fit-for-purpose for addressing the MSFD requirements? and (d) what are the impediments to better monitoring (e.g., costs, shared responsibilities between countries, overlaps, co-ordination, etc.)? We recommend the future means to overcome the identified impediments and develop more robust monitoring strategies. As such the results are especially relevant to implementing comprehensive and coordinated monitoring networks throughout Europe, for marine policy makers, government agencies and regulatory bodies. [.]