Suchergebnisse

Animals are a major link between the water column (pelagic) and the bottom (benthic) habitats in most shallow systems. This coupling is dominated by active processes such as suspension-feeding in which the organism actively uses energy to pump water that is then filtered to remove suspended particles that are consumed while undigested remains are deposited on the bottom. As a result of this feeding on and metabolism of particles, the animals excrete dissolved inorganic and organic waste back into the water column, and thus, become major components in the cycling and feedback of essential elements. With relatively high weight specific filtration rates of 1- 10 liters/hour/gram dry tissue and a propensity to form large aggregated populations (beds, reefs, schools and swarms), these organisms can play an important role in regulating water column processes Although estuarine bivalve molluscs such as oysters and mussels dominate the suspension-feeder literature, other groups including plankton and nekton that are found in estuarine as well as other aquatic systems are also potentially important removers of suspended particles. Thus, a significant part of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop focused on suspension-feeders as controllers of plankton abundance, biomass and diversity, system metabolism, nutrient cycling and scale dependency. Systems dominated by suspension-feeders are typically impacted by human activities including recreation, aquaculture, human and industrial pollution, and bilge water from shipping. Suspension-feeders are often impacted by fisheries and over-exploitation. These impacts commonly result in changes in ecosystem structure either through the food chain concentration of harmful substances or diseases, the introduction of alien species of suspension-feeders, or the instability of suspension-feeders systems through species

A comparative analysis of two risk assessment (RA) frameworks developed to support the implementation of the international Ballast Water Management Convention (BWMC) and European Regulation on Invasive Alien Species (IAS) was performed. This analysis revealed both differences and similarities between the IMO Risk Assessment Guidelines (IMO, 2007) and EU Regulation supplement on RA of IAS (EU, 2018) in RA approaches, key principles, RA components and categories of IAS impacts recommended for assessment. The results of this analysis were used to produce a common procedure for the evaluation of the bioinvasion risk and impact assessment methods intended to support international, regional and/or national policy on IAS. The procedure includes a scoring scheme to assess compliance with the key principles, RA components and categories of bioinvasion impacts taken into account by the methods. In these methods the categories of impacts on human health and economy are underrepresented comparing with impacts on environment.

A comparative analysis of two risk assessment (RA) frameworks developed to support the implementation of the international Ballast Water Management Convention (BWMC) and European Regulation on Invasive Alien Species (IAS) was performed. This analysis revealed both differences and similarities between the IMO Risk Assessment Guidelines (IMO, 2007) and EU Regulation supplement on RA of IAS (EU, 2018) in RA approaches, key principles, RA components and categories of IAS impacts recommended for assessment. The results of this analysis were used to produce a common procedure for the evaluation of the bioinvasion risk and impact assessment methods intended to support international, regional and/or national policy on IAS. The procedure includes a scoring scheme to assess compliance with the key principles, RA components and categories of bioinvasion impacts taken into account by the methods. In these methods the categories of impacts on human health and economy are underrepresented comparing with impacts on environment.

A comparative analysis of two risk assessment (RA) frameworks developed to support the implementation of the international Ballast Water Management Convention (BWMC) and European Regulation on Invasive Alien Species (IAS) was performed. This analysis revealed both differences and similarities between the IMO Risk Assessment Guidelines (IMO, 2007) and EU Regulation supplement on RA of IAS (EU, 2018) in RA approaches, key principles, RA components and categories of IAS impacts recommended for assessment. The results of this analysis were used to produce a common procedure for the evaluation of the bioinvasion risk and impact assessment methods intended to support international, regional and/or national policy on IAS. The procedure includes a scoring scheme to assess compliance with the key principles, RA components and categories of bioinvasion impacts taken into account by the methods. In these methods the categories of impacts on human health and economy are underrepresented comparing with impacts on environment.

A comparative analysis of two risk assessment (RA) frameworks developed to support the implementation of the international Ballast Water Management Convention (BWMC) and European Regulation on Invasive Alien Species (IAS) was performed. This analysis revealed both differences and similarities between the IMO Risk Assessment Guidelines (IMO, 2007) and EU Regulation supplement on RA of IAS (EU, 2018) in RA approaches, key principles, RA components and categories of IAS impacts recommended for assessment. The results of this analysis were used to produce a common procedure for the evaluation of the bioinvasion risk and impact assessment methods intended to support international, regional and/or national policy on IAS. The procedure includes a scoring scheme to assess compliance with the key principles, RA components and categories of bioinvasion impacts taken into account by the methods. In these methods the categories of impacts on human health and economy are underrepresented comparing with impacts on environment.

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.

Marine Non-Indigenous Species (NIS) are animals and plants introduced accidently or deliberately into the European seas, originating from other seas of the globe. About 800 marine non-indigenous species (NIS) currently occur in the European Union national marine waters, several of which have negative impacts on marine ecosystem services and biodiversity. Under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) Descriptor 2 (D2), EU Member States (MSs) need to consider NIS in their marine management strategies. The Descriptor D2 includes one primary criterion (D2C1: new NIS introductions), and two secondary criteria (D2C2 and D2C3). The D2 implementation is characterized by a number of issues and uncertainties which can be applicable to the Descriptor level (e.g. geographical unit of assessment, assessment period, phytoplanktonic, parasitic, oligohaline NIS, etc.), to the primary criterion D2C1 level (e.g. threshold values, cryptogenic, questionable species, etc), and to the secondary criteria D2C2 and D2C3. The current report tackles these issues and provides practical recommendations aiming at a smoother and more efficient implementation of D2 and its criteria at EU level. They constitute a solid operational output which can result in more comparable D2 assessments among MSs and MSFD regions/subregions. When it comes to the policy-side, the current report calls for a number of different categories of NIS to be reported in D2 assessments, pointing the need for the species to be labelled/categorised appropriately in the MSFD reporting by the MSs. These suggestions are proposed to be communicated to the MSFD Working Group of Good Environmental Status (GES) and subsequently to the Marine Strategy Coordination Group (MSCG) of MSFD. Moreover, they can serve as an input for revising the Art. 8 Guidelines.

The threat posed by invasive non-native species worldwide requires a global approach to identify which introduced species are likely to pose an elevated risk of impact to native species and ecosystems. To inform policy, stakeholders and management decisions on global threats to aquatic ecosystems, 195 assessors representing 120 risk assessment areas across all six inhabited continents screened 819 non-native species from 15 groups of aquatic organisms (freshwater, brackish, marine plants and animals) using the Aquatic Species Invasiveness Screening Kit. This multi-lingual decision-support tool for the risk screening of aquatic organisms provides assessors with risk scores for a species under current and future climate change conditions that, following a statistically based calibration, permits the accurate classification of species into high-, medium- and low-risk categories under current and predicted climate conditions. The 1730 screenings undertaken encompassed wide geographical areas (regions, political entities, parts thereof, water bodies, river basins, lake drainage basins, and marine regions), which permitted thresholds to be identified for almost all aquatic organismal groups screened as well as for tropical, temperate and continental climate classes, and for tropical and temperate marine ecoregions. In total, 33 species were identified as posing a 'very high risk' of being or becoming invasive, and the scores of several of these species under current climate increased under future climate conditions, primarily due to their wide thermal tolerances. The risk thresholds determined for taxonomic groups and climate zones provide a basis against which area-specific or climate-based calibrated thresholds may be interpreted. In turn, the risk rankings help decision-makers identify which species require an immediate 'rapid' management action (e.g. eradication, control) to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts, which require a full risk assessment, and which are to be restricted or banned with regard to importation and/or sale as ornamental or aquarium/fishery enhancement

The threat posed by invasive non-native species worldwide requires a global approach to identify which introduced species are likely to pose an elevated risk of impact to native species and ecosystems. To inform policy, stakeholders and management decisions on global threats to aquatic ecosystems, 195 assessors representing 120 risk assessment areas across all six inhabited continents screened 819 non-native species from 15 groups of aquatic organisms (freshwater, brackish, marine plants and animals) using the Aquatic Species Invasiveness Screening Kit. This multi-lingual decision-support tool for the risk screening of aquatic organisms provides assessors with risk scores for a species under current and future climate change conditions that, following a statistically based calibration, permits the accurate classification of species into high-, medium- and low-risk categories under current and predicted climate conditions. The 1730 screenings undertaken encompassed wide geographical areas (regions, political entities, parts thereof, water bodies, river basins, lake drainage basins, and marine regions), which permitted thresholds to be identified for almost all aquatic organismal groups screened as well as for tropical, temperate and continental climate classes, and for tropical and temperate marine ecoregions. In total, 33 species were identified as posing a 'very high risk' of being or becoming invasive, and the scores of several of these species under current climate increased under future climate conditions, primarily due to their wide thermal tolerances. The risk thresholds determined for taxonomic groups and climate zones provide a basis against which area-specific or climate-based calibrated thresholds may be interpreted. In turn, the risk rankings help decision-makers identify which species require an immediate 'rapid' management action (e.g. eradication, control) to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts, which require a full risk assessment, and which are to be restricted or banned with regard to importation and/or sale as ornamental or aquarium/fishery enhancement.