Preprint volume - SIBM

Pre-print Volume – Invited presentation
Topic 1: BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION SCIENCE: CONTRIBUTING TO MANAGEMENT
there are ‘hotspots’ of biotope richness. Much more survey work is needed by
experienced marine biologists.
Species. If we are to bridge the gap between policy statements about protecting
threatened species and meaningful ways to identify what those marine species are,
more work is needed to develop criteria that reflect our levels of knowledge of marine
species. Marine is different to terrestrial and marine biologists should develop our own
criteria to identify species that are rare and threatened so that our lists are meaningful
for marine conservation. Understanding which species need to be protected also
requires knowledge of life history traits and what those traits tell us about vulnerability
to human activities. Surrogate methodologies are also important to understanding
which are vulnerable species and molecular genetics offers a route to understanding
those species that are isolated from other populations of the same species. The
pragmatic criteria that have been developed to identify which are rare and scarce
species developed by Sanderson et al. (2006) need to be developed and the Nationally
Important Marine Features criteria in Connor et al. (2002) provide a model for criteria
designed with marine species in mind. We have extensively researched concepts of
‘sensitivity’ (Hiscock & Tyler-Walters, 2006) but many more species, especially key
structural or functional species and vulnerable species, need to be researched.
Furthermore and as with habitats, we need to know where those species occur and that
means in situ survey by experienced marine biologists.
Design. Representativity and Replication can be designed into a site series whether or
not there is comprehensive survey coverage. At Level 3 of the EUNIS classification,
the location of different biotopes can be mapped using broadscale data on bottom type
and knowledge of physical conditions such as wave exposure and light penetration so
that examples of each type can be included in MPAs. However, representing level 3
biotopes will not ensure that there is adequate representation of those biotopes that are
rare or sensitive to particular human activities. Those rare and sensitive biotopes would
deserve a higher proportionate coverage within MPAs than widespread and robust
biotopes. Inevitably, locations will be sought that have special features and, to fill the
gap in knowledge of what is where, more survey will be needed. Incorporating
concepts of viability, resistance, resilience and of functioning requires much more
research and policy advisors may be asking too much of current scientific knowledge.
Whilst there seems little evidence of direct connections of limited-mobility benthic
species between MPAs (any more than across the whole marine environment), there
are gaps in our understanding of larval behavior that need to be addressed especially
with regard to designing MPA’s and interpreting monitoring data. For some species,
information on life history traits is available which will reveal larval longevity and
therefore likely dispersal capability (see, for instance, Jones & Carpenter, 2009 for
‘important’ species in Britain). More-and-more information will become available on
isolation of populations of species as molecular techniques are used. Whether or not
there is any direct connection between separate MPA’s in relation to recruitment of
limited-mobility species needs to be established by science before the proposition of
networks for other than highly mobile species is proven.
Nevertheless, we must use the information available to identify MPAs now and do not
need to wait for outstanding science questions to be answered. This means adopting a
dual approach to design and management of MPAs using knowledge and data that we
have, coupled with a programme of monitoring and survey work to refine the site series
and management methods.
41 st S.I.B.M. CONGRESS Rapallo (GE), 7-11 June 2010
28