Search results

"The central question of the book is as follows: to what extent does the community present a challenge in the life of the individual? Well-known international philosophers, historians, anthropologists, political scientists, theologians and sociologists attempted to find explications by intercultural comparison."--Page [4] of cover

In a world of declining biodiversity, monitoring is becoming crucial. Molecular methods, such as metabarcoding, have the potential to rapidly expand our knowledge of biodiversity, supporting assessment, management, and conservation. In the marine environment, where hard substrata are more difficult to access than soft bottoms for quantitative ecological studies, Artificial Substrate Units (ASUs) allow for standardized sampling. We deployed ASUs within five regional seas (Baltic Sea, Northeast Atlantic Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, Black Sea, and Red Sea) for 12–26 months to measure the diversity and community composition of macroinvertebrates. We identified invertebrates using a traditional approach based on morphological characters, and by metabarcoding of the mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase I (COI) gene. We compared community composition and diversity metrics obtained using the two methods. Diversity was significantly correlated between data types. Metabarcoding of ASUs allowed for robust comparisons of community composition and diversity, but not all groups were successfully sequenced. All locations were significantly different in taxonomic composition as measured with both kinds of data. We recovered previously known regional biogeographical patterns in both datasets (e.g., low species diversity in the Black and Baltic Seas, affinity between the Bay of Biscay and the Mediterranean). We conclude that the two approaches provide complementary information and that metabarcoding shows great promise for marine monitoring. However, until its pitfalls are addressed, the use of metabarcoding in monitoring of rocky benthic assemblages should be used in addition to classical approaches rather than instead of them. ; This manuscript is a result of the DEVOTES (DEVelopment Of innovative Tools for understanding marine biodiversity and assessing good Environmental Status) project, funded by the European Union under the 7th Framework Programme, "The Ocean of Tomorrow" Theme (grant agreement no. 308392), www.devotes-project.eu. S Carvalho and JK Pearman were funded through the Saudi Aramco—KAUST Center for Marine Environmental Observations (SAKMEO). MC Uyarra was partially funded through the Spanish programme for Talent and Employability in R+D+I "Torres Quevedo." Funding for publication was provided to AEC by Albion College. We thank the ICM-Brain and Spine Institute in Paris, France (especially Y Marie and D Bouteiller) for sequencing, U Langner for Figure 1, and everyone who helped with the deployment and recovery of the ASUs and initial laboratory processing. We thank the editor and reviewers for their revisions, which improved earlier versions of the manuscript.

Summary based on the state-of-the-art for the deep Mediterranean Sea with the final aim of identifying knowledge and gaps, descriptor by descriptor (such as lack of data, indicators, thresholds). This document is an analysis of all scientific publications, national and international reports and grey literature available on the implementation of the MSFD to the deep Mediterranean Sea. ; N/A

14 pages, 6 figures, 1 table, supplementary material https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2021.626843/full#supplementary-material ; Restoration is considered an effective strategy to accelerate the recovery of biological communities at local scale. However, the effects of restoration actions in the marine ecosystems are still unpredictable. We performed a global analysis of published literature to identify the factors increasing the probability of restoration success in coastal and marine systems. Our results confirm that the majority of active restoration initiatives are still concentrated in the northern hemisphere and that most of information gathered from restoration efforts derives from a relatively small subset of species. The analysis also indicates that many studies are still experimental in nature, covering small spatial and temporal scales. Despite the limits of assessing restoration effectiveness in absence of a standardized definition of success, the context (degree of human impact, ecosystem type, habitat) of where the restoration activity is undertaken is of greater relevance to a successful outcome than how (method) the restoration is carried out. Contrary to expectations, we found that restoration is not necessarily more successful closer to protected areas (PA) and in areas of moderate human impact. This result can be motivated by the limits in assessing the success of interventions and by the tendency of selecting areas in more obvious need of restoration, where the potential of actively restoring a degraded site is more evident. Restoration sites prioritization considering human uses and conservation status present in the region is of vital importance to obtain the intended outcomes and galvanize further actions. ; Research funded by the EU project MERCES of the European Union's Horizon 2020 research (Grant agreement No. 689518, http://www.merces-project.eu). ; Research funded by the EU project MERCES of the European Union's Horizon 2020 research (Grant agreement No. 689518, http://www.merces-project.eu) ; Peer reviewed

Restoration is considered an effective strategy to accelerate the recovery of biological communities at local scale. However, the effects of restoration actions in the marine ecosystems are still unpredictable. We performed a global analysis of published literature to identify the factors increasing the probability of restoration success in coastal and marine systems. Our results confirm that the majority of active restoration initiatives are still concentrated in the northern hemisphere and that most of information gathered from restoration efforts derives from a relatively small subset of species. The analysis also indicates that many studies are still experimental in nature, covering small spatial and temporal scales. Despite the limits of assessing restoration effectiveness in absence of a standardized definition of success, the context (degree of human impact, ecosystem type, habitat) of where the restoration activity is undertaken is of greater relevance to a successful outcome than how (method) the restoration is carried out. Contrary to expectations, we found that restoration is not necessarily more successful closer to protected areas (PA) and in areas of moderate human impact. This result can be motivated by the limits in assessing the success of interventions and by the tendency of selecting areas in more obvious need of restoration, where the potential of actively restoring a degraded site is more evident. Restoration sites prioritization considering human uses and conservation status present in the region is of vital importance to obtain the intended outcomes and galvanize further actions ; Research funded by the EU project MERCES of the European Union's Horizon 2020 research (Grant agreement No. 689518

49th European Marine Biology Symposium (EMBS) -- SEP 08-12, 2014 -- Saint Petersburg, RUSSIA ; WOS: 000364937700002 ; The degree of development and operability of the indicators for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) using Descriptor 1 (D1) Biological Diversity was assessed. To this end, an overview of the relevance and degree of operability of the underlying parameters across 20 European countries was compiled by analysing national directives, legislation, regulations, and publicly available reports. Marked differences were found between countries in the degree of ecological relevance as well as in the degree of implementation and operability of the parameters chosen to indicate biological diversity. The best scoring EU countries were France, Germany, Greece and Spain, while the worst scoring countries were Italy and Slovenia. No country achieved maximum scores for the implementation of MSFD D1. The non-EU countries Norway and Turkey score as highly as the top-scoring EU countries. On the positive side, the chosen parameters for D1 indicators were generally identified as being an ecologically relevant reflection of Biological Diversity. On the negative side however, less than half of the chosen parameters are currently operational. It appears that at a pan-European level, no consistent and harmonized approach currently exists for the description and assessment of marine biological diversity. The implementation of the MSFD Descriptor 1 for Europe as a whole can therefore at best be marked as moderately successful. ; Russian Acad Sci, Zool Inst ; COST Action ES1003 EMBOS on the Development and Implementation of a Pan-European Marine Biodiversity Observatory System; MARES Grant under the Erasmus Mundus framework [FPA 2011- 0016]; SZN PhD fellowship; Portuguese PhD FCT grant [SFRH/BD/84933/2012] ; Meetings to prepare this paper were made possible by funding through COST Action ES1003 EMBOS on the Development and Implementation of a Pan-European Marine Biodiversity Observatory System. Carlos Castellanos Perez Bolde acknowledges MARES Grant FPA 2011- 0016 under the Erasmus Mundus framework, Marlene Jahnke has been supported by a SZN PhD fellowship, and Joao N. Franco by Portuguese PhD FCT grant SFRH/BD/84933/2012.

13 páginas, 1 figura, 2 tablas. ; The degree of development and operability of the indicators for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) using Descriptor 1 (D1) Biological Diversity was assessed. To this end, an overview of the relevance and degree of operability of the underlying parameters across 20 European countries was compiled by analysing national directives, legislation, regulations, and publicly available reports. Marked differences were found between countries in the degree of ecological relevance as well as in the degree of implementation and operability of the parameters chosen to indicate biological diversity. The best scoring EU countries were France, Germany, Greece and Spain, while the worst scoring countries were Italy and Slovenia. No country achieved maximum scores for the implementation of MSFD D1. The non-EU countries Norway and Turkey score as highly as the top-scoring EU countries. On the positive side, the chosen parameters for D1 indicators were generally identified as being an ecologically relevant reflection of Biological Diversity. On the negative side however, less than half of the chosen parameters are currently operational. It appears that at a pan-European level, no consistent and harmonized approach currently exists for the description and assessment of marine biological diversity. The implementation of the MSFD Descriptor 1 for Europe as a whole can therefore at best be marked as moderately successful. ; Meetings to prepare this paper were made possible by funding through COST Action ES1003 EMBOS on the Development and Implementation of a Pan-European Marine Biodiversity Observatory System. Carlos Castellanos Perez Bolde acknowledges MARES Grant FPA 2011–0016 under the Erasmus Mundus framework, Marlene Jahnke has been supported by a SZN PhD fellowship, and Joa˜o N. Franco by Portuguese PhD FCT grant SFRH/BD/84933/2012. ; Peer reviewed