Trabajo presentado en la EGU General Assemby 2014, celebrada del 27 de abril al 2 de mayo de 2014 en Viena (Austria) ; Maritime transport plays an important role in the world trade and economics development. In Europe the "motorways on the sea" concept has been an important issue since the launch of the EU Transport white paper (EC 2001). An enclosed sea such as the Mediterranean is particularly vulnerable to ship-associated pressures due to a high-volume of shipping routes, long history of use, and sensitive shallow and deep-sea habitats. Negative impacts associated to maritime traffic include biodiversity loss, introduction of alien species, pollution, marine litter and underwater noise among others. The monitoring and characterization of the spatio-temporal patterns of marine traffic constitutes an important element for the effective management and assessment of environmental impacts of this activity. Monitoring of real-time ship locations can be achieved through the Automated Identification System (AIS). The AIS is a VHF transmitter that broadcast the ship position, as well as additional information (eg. timestamp, speed, heading, boat type). All ocean-going commercial traffic >300 gross tons, or carrying more than 165 passengers, as well as tug/tows, are required to carry AIS transmitters (IALA 2004). In addition, the rest of the ships are able to carry on these transmitters on a voluntary basis. In this work we present the development of an information system designed to store, manage, analyze and visualize historical AIS data based on open-source components. We analyse such data to assess and map multiple anthropogenic pressures. For example, segmented regression on speed distribution is carried out to identify and map fishing activity, whereas neighbourhood statistics and GIS methods are used to generate underwater noise maps. We will illustrate these products within the context of risk assessment on marine ecosystems at the Western Mediterranean Sea. The information provided in this study can be incorporated into Decision Support Systems (DSS) for supporting the implementation of European and national policies for the assessment of environmental impacts and the interactions among human activities as well ; Peer reviewed
The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in unparalleled global impacts on human mobility. In the ocean, ship-based activities are thought to have been impacted due to severe restrictions on human movements and changes in consumption. Here, we quantify and map global change in marine traffic during the first half of 2020. There were decreases in 70.2% of Exclusive Economic Zones but changes varied spatially and temporally in alignment with confinement measures. Global declines peaked in April, with a reduction in traffic occupancy of 1.4% and decreases found across 54.8% of the sampling units. Passenger vessels presented more marked and longer lasting decreases. A regional assessment in the Western Mediterranean Sea gave further insights regarding the pace of recovery and long-term changes. Our approach provides guidance for large-scale monitoring of the progress and potential effects of COVID-19 on vessel traffic that may subsequently influence the blue economy and ocean health. ; D.M. and J.T. acknowledge support from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (Marie Skłodowska‐Curie grant agreement no. 794938, EuroSea grant agreement no. 862626 and JERICO-S3 grant agreement no. 871153). B.J.G. is supported by NERC Grant NE/V009354/1. K.M. is supported by the Waterloo Foundation, and the Darwin Initiative (Project 26-014) through funding from the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) in the UK. ; Peer reviewed
Marine animals are increasingly instrumented with environmental sensors that provide large volumes of oceanographic data. Here, we conduct an innovative and comprehensive global analysis to determine the potential contribution of animal-borne instruments (ABI) into ocean observing systems (OOSs) and provide a foundation to establish future integrated ocean monitoring programmes. We analyse the current gaps of the long-term Argo observing system (>1.5 million profiles) and assess its spatial overlap with the distribution of marine animals across eight major species groups (tuna and billfishes, sharks and rays, marine turtles, pinnipeds, cetaceans, sirenians, flying seabirds and penguins). We combine distribution ranges of 183 species and satellite tracking observations from >3,000 animals. Our analyses identify potential areas where ABI could complement OOS. Specifically, ABI have the potential to fill gaps in marginal seas, upwelling areas, the upper 10 m of the water column, shelf regions and polewards of 60° latitude. Our approach provides the global baseline required to plan the integration of ABI into global and regional OOS while integrating conservation and ocean monitoring priorities. ; We gratefully acknowledge funding by the BBVA Foundation ('Ayudas Fundación BBVA a Equipos de Investigación Científica 2016') and the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska‐Curie grant agreement no 794938. D.M. acknowledges support from the Spanish Government (grant 'Juan de la Cierva‐Formación' FJCI‐2014‐20064, grant 'José Castillejo' CAS17/00193).
Funding: BBVA Foundation ("Ayudas Fundación BBVA a Equipos de Investigación Científica 2016") and the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 794938; Spanish Government (grant "Juan de la Cierva-Formación" FJCI-2014-20064, grant "José Castillejo" CAS17/00193) (D.M.). ; Marine animals are increasingly instrumented with environmental sensors that provide large volumes of oceanographic data. Here, we conduct an innovative and comprehensive global analysis to determine the potential contribution of animal‐borne instruments (ABI) into ocean observing systems (OOSs) and provide a foundation to establish future integrated ocean monitoring programmes. We analyse the current gaps of the long‐term Argo observing system (>1.5 million profiles) and assess its spatial overlap with the distribution of marine animals across eight major species groups (tuna and billfishes, sharks and rays, marine turtles, pinnipeds, cetaceans, sirenians, flying seabirds and penguins). We combine distribution ranges of 183 species and satellite tracking observations from >3,000 animals. Our analyses identify potential areas where ABI could complement OOS. Specifically, ABI have the potential to fill gaps in marginal seas, upwelling areas, the upper 10 m of the water column, shelf regions and polewards of 60° latitude. Our approach provides the global baseline required to plan the integration of ABI into global and regional OOS while integrating conservation and ocean monitoring priorities. ; Publisher PDF ; Peer reviewed
The Mediterranean region is of fundamental importance to Europe given its strategic position. The responsibility for its overall ecosystem integrity is shared by European Union Member States (EU-MS) and other Mediterranean countries. A juxtaposition of overlapping governance instruments occurred recently in the region, with the implementation of both the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) for EU-MS and the Ecosystem Approach Strategy (ECAP) for all Mediterranean countries, including EU-MS. Both MSFD and ECAP are structured around vision-driven processes to achieve Good Environmental Status and a Healthy Environment, respectively. These processes have clear ecosystem-based, integrated policy objectives to guarantee the preservation and integrity of Mediterranean marine ecosystem goods and services. However, adoption of these instruments, especially those related to the new EUMS directives on marine policy, could result in a governance gap in addition to the well-known economic gap between the EU and the non-EU political blocs. We identify two complementary requirements for effective implementation of both MSFD and ECAP that could work together to reduce this gap, to ensure a better alignment between MSFD and ECAP and better planning for stakeholder engagement. These are key issues for the future success of these instruments in a Mediterranean region where discrepancies between societal and ecological objectives may pose a challenge to these processes.
12 páginas, 5 tablas, 1 figura ; The European Union Marine Strategy Framework Directive requires the Good Environmental Status of marine environments in Europe's regional seas; yet, maritime activities, including sources of marine degradation, are diversifying and intensifying in an increasingly globalized world. Marine spatial planning is emerging as a tool for rationalizing competing uses of the marine environment while guarding its quality. A directive guiding the development of such plans by European Union member states is currently being formulated. There is an undeniable need for marine spatial planning. However, we argue that considerable care must be taken with marine spatial planning, as the spatial and temporal scales of maritime activities and of Good Environmental Status may be mismatched. We identify four principles for careful and explicit consideration to align the requirements of the two directives and enable marine spatial planning to support the achievement of Good Environmental Status in Europe's regional seas. ; This work was part of the EU-funded FP7 Knowledge-based Sustainable Management for Europe's Seas (KnowSeas-226675) project. The KnowSeas project is affiliated with LOICZ and LWEC. ; Peer reviewed
The Mediterranean region is of fundamental importance to Europe given its strategic position. The responsibility for its overall ecosystem integrity is shared by European Union Member States (EU-MS) and other Mediterranean countries. A juxtaposition of overlapping governance instruments occurred recently in the region, with the implementation of both the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) for EU-MS and the Ecosystem Approach Strategy (ECAP) for all Mediterranean countries, including EU-MS. Both MSFD and ECAP are structured around vision-driven processes to achieve Good Environmental Status and a Healthy Environment, respectively. These processes have clear ecosystem-based, integrated policy objectives to guarantee the preservation and integrity of Mediterranean marine ecosystem goods and services. However, adoption of these instruments, especially those related to the new EU-MS directives on marine policy, could result in a governance gap in addition to the well-known economic gap between the EU and the non-EU political blocs. We identify two complementary requirements for effective implementation of both MSFD and ECAP that could work together to reduce this gap, to ensure a better alignment between MSFD and ECAP and better planning for stakeholder engagement. These are key issues for the future success of these instruments in a Mediterranean region where discrepancies between societal and ecological objectives may pose a challenge to these processes.
12 páginas, 4 figuras, 4 tablas ; The Mediterranean region is of fundamental importance to Europe given its strategic position. The responsibility for its overall ecosystem integrity is shared by European Union Member States (EU-MS) and other Mediterranean countries. A juxtaposition of overlapping governance instruments occurred recently in the region, with the implementation of both the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) for EU-MS and the Ecosystem Approach Strategy (ECAP) for all Mediterranean countries, including EU-MS. Both MSFD and ECAP are structured around vision-driven processes to achieve Good Environmental Status and a Healthy Environment, respectively. These processes have clear ecosystem-based, integrated policy objectives to guarantee the preservation and integrity of Mediterranean marine ecosystem goods and services. However, adoption of these instruments, especially those related to the new EUMS directives on marine policy, could result in a governance gap in addition to the well-known economic gap between the EU and the non-EU political blocs. We identify two complementary requirements for effective implementation of both MSFD and ECAP that could work together to reduce this gap, to ensure a better alignment between MSFD and ECAP and better planning for stakeholder engagement. These are key issues for the future success of these instruments in a Mediterranean region where discrepancies between societal and ecological objectives may pose a challenge to these processes. ; We acknowledge the KnowSeas project (grant number 226675) for supporting this work, the KnowSeas internal reviewers for improving the paper, and those anonymous referees for their meaningful comments. Special thanks to Michael Angelids for his invaluable comments on the earliest draft manuscript concerning the United Nations Environment Programme Mediterranean Action Plan vision. ; Peer reviewed
Funding and support for the November 2019 Network Development Workshop was provided by the Integrated Marine Observing System (IMOS) and the Australia Research Council's Special Research Initiative for Antarctic Gateway Partnership (SR140300001) through the University of Tasmania's Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies. IMOS is a national collaborative research infrastructure, supported by the Australian Government and operated by a consortium of institutions as an unincorporated joint venture, with the University of Tasmania as Lead Agent. This research contributes to the Australian Research Council Discovery Project DP180101667 and DP210103091. SBe was supported under the Australian Research Council DECRA DE180100828. IJ was supported by Macquarie University's co-Funded Fellowship Program with external partners: Office of Naval Research (N00014-18-1-2405); the Integrated Marine Observing System – Animal Tracking Facility; the Ocean Tracking Network; Taronga Conservation Society; Birds Canada; and Innovasea/Vemco. AS was supported by a 2020 Pew Fellowship in Marine Conservation. DM was supported by the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement (No. 794938). ; Marine animals equipped with biological and physical electronic sensors have produced long-term data streams on key marine environmental variables, hydrography, animal behavior and ecology. These data are an essential component of the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS). The Animal Borne Ocean Sensors (AniBOS) network aims to coordinate the long-term collection and delivery of marine data streams, providing a complementary capability to other GOOS networks that monitor Essential Ocean Variables (EOVs), essential climate variables (ECVs) and essential biodiversity variables (EBVs). AniBOS augments observations of temperature and salinity within the upper ocean, in areas that are under-sampled, providing information that is urgently needed for an improved understanding of climate and ocean variability and for forecasting. Additionally, measurements of chlorophyll fluorescence and dissolved oxygen concentrations are emerging. The observations AniBOS provides are used widely across the research, modeling and operational oceanographic communities. High latitude, shallow coastal shelves and tropical seas have historically been sampled poorly with traditional observing platforms for many reasons including sea ice presence, limited satellite coverage and logistical costs. Animal-borne sensors are helping to fill that gap by collecting and transmitting in near real time an average of 500 temperature-salinity-depth profiles per animal annually and, when instruments are recovered (∼30% of instruments deployed annually, n = 103 ± 34), up to 1,000 profiles per month in these regions. Increased observations from under-sampled regions greatly improve the accuracy and confidence in estimates of ocean state and improve studies of climate variability by delivering data that refine climate prediction estimates at regional and global scales. The GOOS Observations Coordination Group (OCG) reviews, advises on and coordinates activities across the global ocean observing networks to strengthen the effective implementation of the system. AniBOS was formally recognized in 2020 as a GOOS network. This improves our ability to observe the ocean's structure and animals that live in them more comprehensively, concomitantly improving our understanding of global ocean and climate processes for societal benefit consistent with the UN Sustainability Goals 13 and 14: Climate and Life below Water. Working within the GOOS OCG framework ensures that AniBOS is an essential component of an integrated Global Ocean Observing System. ; Publisher PDF ; Peer reviewed
The global lockdown to mitigate COVID-19 pandemic health risks has altered human interactions with nature. Here, we report immediate impacts of changes in human activities on wildlife and environmental threats during the early lockdown months of 2020, based on 877 qualitative reports and 332 quantitative assessments from 89 different studies. Hundreds of reports of unusual species observations from around the world suggest that animals quickly responded to the reductions in human presence. However, negative effects of lockdown on conservation also emerged, as confinement resulted in some park officials being unable to perform conservation, restoration and enforcement tasks, resulting in local increases in illegal activities such as hunting. Overall, there is a complex mixture of positive and negative effects of the pandemic lockdown on nature, all of which have the potential to lead to cascading responses which in turn impact wildlife and nature conservation. While the net effect of the lockdown will need to be assessed over years as data becomes available and persistent effects emerge, immediate responses were detected across the world. Thus, initial qualitative and quantitative data arising from this serendipitous global quasi-experimental perturbation highlights the dual role that humans play in threatening and protecting species and ecosystems. Pathways to favorably tilt this delicate balance include reducing impacts and increasing conservation effectiveness. ; The Canada Research Chairs program provided funding for the core writing team. Field research funding was provided by A.G. Leventis Foundation; Agence Nationale de la Recherche, [grant number ANR-18-32–0010CE-01 (JCJC PEPPER)]; Agencia Estatal de Investigaci; Agência Regional para o Desenvolvimento da Investigação Tecnologia e Inovação (ARDITI), [grant number M1420-09-5369-FSE-000002]; Alan Peterson; ArcticNet; Arkadaşlar; Army Corp of Engineers; Artificial Reef Program; Australia's Integrated Marine Observing System (IMOS), National Collaborative; Research Infrastructure Strategy (NCRIS), University of Tasmania; Australian Institute of Marine Science; Australian Research Council, [grant number LP140100222]; Bai Xian Asia Institute; Batubay Özkan; BC Hydro Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program; Ben-Gurion University of the Negev; Bertarelli Foundation; Bertarelli Programme in Marine Science; Bilge Bahar; Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; Biology Society of South Australia; Boston University; Burak Över; California State Assembly member Patrick O'Donnell; California State University Council on Ocean Affairs, Science & Technology; California State University Long Beach; Canada Foundation for Innovation (Major Science Initiative Fund and funding to Oceans Network Canada), [grant number MSI 30199 for ONC]; Cape Eleuthera Foundation; Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales; Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique; Charles Darwin Foundation, [grant number 2398]; Colombian Institute for the Development of Science and Technology (COLCIENCIAS), [grant number 811–2018]; Colombian Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, [grant number 0041–2020]; Columbia Basin Trust; Commission for Environmental Cooperation; Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Cultural practices and environmental certification of beaches, Universidad de la Costa, Colombia, [grant number INV.1106–01–002-15, 2020–21]; Department of Conservation New Zealand; Direction de l'Environnement de Polynésie Française; Disney Conservation Fund; DSI-NRF Centre of; Excellence at the FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology; Ecology Project International; Emin Özgür; Environment and Climate Change Canada; European Community: RTD programme - Species Support to Policies; European Community's Seventh Framework Programme; European Union; European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, Marie Skłodowska-Curie, [grant number 798091, 794938]; Faruk Eczacıbaşı; Faruk Yalçın Zoo; Field research funding was provided by King Abdullah University of Science and Technology; Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program; Fisheries and Oceans Canada; Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, [grant numbers FWC-12164, FWC-14026, FWC-19050]; Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional; Fonds québécois de la recherche nature et technologies; Foundation Segré; Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT Portugal); Galapagos National Park Directorate research, [grant number PC-41-20]; Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, [grant number GBMF9881 and GBMF 8072]; Government of Tristan da Cunha; Habitat; Conservation Trust Foundation; Holsworth Wildlife Research Endowment; Institute of Biology of the Southern Seas, Sevastopol, Russia; Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt; Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE), Brazil; Israeli Academy of Science's Adams Fellowship; King Family Trust; Labex, CORAIL, France; Liber Ero Fellowship; LIFE (European Union), [grant number LIFE16 NAT/BG/000874]; Mar'a de Maeztu Program for Units of Excellence in R&D; Ministry of Science and Innovation, FEDER, SPASIMM,; Spain, [grant number FIS2016–80067-P (AEI/FEDER, UE)]; MOE-Korea, [grant number 2020002990006]; Mohamed bin Zayed Species Conservation Fund; Montreal Space for Life; National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Earth and Space Science Fellowship Program; National Geographic Society, [grant numbers NGS-82515R-20]; National Natural Science Fund of China; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; National Parks Board, Singapore; National Science and Technology Major Project of China; National Science Foundation, [grant number DEB-1832016]; Natural Environment Research Council of the UK; Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), Alliance COVID-19 grant program, [grant numbers ALLRP 550721–20, RGPIN-2014-06229 (year: 2014), RGPIN-2016-05772 (year: 2016)]; Neiser Foundation; Nekton Foundation; Network of Centre of Excellence of Canada: ArcticNet; North Family Foundation; Ocean Tracking Network; Ömer Külahçıoğlu; Oregon State University; Parks Canada Agency (Lake Louise, Yoho, and Kootenay Field Unit); Pew Charitable Trusts; Porsim Kanaf partnership; President's International Fellowship Initiative for postdoctoral researchers Chinese Academy of Sciences, [grant number 2019 PB0143]; Red Sea Research Center; Regional Government of the Azores, [grant number M3.1a/F/025/2015]; Regione Toscana; Rotary Club of Rhinebeck; Save our Seas Foundation; Science & Technology (CSU COAST); Science City Davos, Naturforschende Gesellschaft Davos; Seha İşmen; Sentinelle Nord program from the Canada First Research Excellence Fund; Servizio Foreste e Fauna (Provincia Autonoma di Trento); Sigrid Rausing Trust; Simon Fraser University; Sitka Foundation; Sivil Toplum Geliştirme Merkezi Derneği; South African National Parks (SANParks); South Australian Department for Environment and Water; Southern California Tuna Club (SCTC); Spanish Ministry for the Ecological Transition and the Demographic Challenge; Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness; Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation; State of California; Sternlicht Family Foundation; Suna Reyent; Sunshine Coast Regional Council; Tarea Vida, CEMZOC, Universidad de Oriente, Cuba, [grant number 10523, 2020]; Teck Coal; The Hamilton Waterfront Trust; The Ian Potter Foundation, Coastwest, Western Australian State NRM; The Red Sea Development Company; The Wanderlust Fund; The Whitley Fund; Trans-Anatolian Natural Gas Pipeline; Tula Foundation (Hakai Institute); University of Arizona; University of Pisa; US Fish and Wildlife Service; US Geological Survey; Valencian Regional Government; Vermont Center for Ecostudies; Victorian Fisheries Authority; VMRC Fishing License Fund; and Wildlife Warriors Worldwide.