Evaluating changes in marine communities that provide ecosystem services through comparative assessments of community indicators

Type Article
Date 2015-12
Language English
Author(s) Kleisner Kristin M.1, 2, Coll Marta3, Lynam Christopher P.4, Bundy Alida5, Shannon Lynne6, 7, Shin Yunne-Jai3, 6, 7, Boldt Jennifer L.8, Borges Maria F.9, Diallo Ibrahima10, Fox Clive11, Gascuel Didier12, Heymans Johanna J.13, Juan Jorda Maria J.14, 15, Jouffre Didier16, Large Scott I.2, Marshall Kristin N.17, Ojaveer Henn18, Piroddi Chiara19, Tam Jorge20, Torres Maria A.21, 22, Travers-Trolet MorganeORCID23, Tsagarakis Konstantinos24, Van Der Meeren Gro I.25, 26, Zador Stephani27
Affiliation(s) 1 : Univ British Columbia, Sea Around Us Project, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada.
2 : NOAA, Natl Marine Fisheries Serv, Northeast Fisheries Sci Ctr, Woods Hole, MA 02543 USA.
3 : Ctr Rech Halieut Mediterraneenne & Trop, Inst Rech Dev, UMR EME 212, F-34203 Sete, France.
4 : Cefas, Lowestoft Lab, Lowestoft NR33 0HT, Suffolk, England.
5 : Bedford Inst Oceanog, Populat Ecol Div, Dartmouth, NS B2Y 4A2, Canada.
6 : Univ Cape Town, Marine Res Inst, ZA-7701 Cape Town, South Africa.
7 : Univ Cape Town, Dept Biol Sci, ZA-7701 Cape Town, South Africa.
8 : Fisheries & Oceans Canada, Pacific Biol Stn, Nanaimo, BC V9T 6N7, Canada.
9 : IPMA, P-1449006 Lisbon, Portugal.
10 : CNSHB, Conakry, Guinea.
11 : Scottish Marine Inst, Oban PA37 1QA, Argyll, Scotland.
12 : Univ Europeenne Bretagne, Agrocampus Ouest, UMR Ecol & Sante Ecosyst 985, F-35042 Rennes, France.
13 : Scottish Marine Inst, Scottish Assoc Marine Sci, Oban PA37 1QA, Argyll, Scotland.
14 : Herrera Kaia, Marine Res Div, AZTI Tecnalia, E-20110 Pasaia, Gipuzkoa, Spain.
15 : Simon Fraser Univ, Earth Ocean Res Grp, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada.
16 : Labep AO IRD IFAN, Inst Rech Dev, UMR ECOSYM 238, Dakar, Senegal.
17 : Univ Washington, Sch Aquat & Fishery Sci, Seattle, WA 98195 USA.
18 : Univ Tartu, Estonian Marine Inst, EE-80012 Parnu, Estonia.
19 : Joint Res Ctr, Inst Environm & Sustainabil, Water Resources Unit, Ispra, Italy.
20 : Inst Mar Peru IMARPE, Esquina Gamarra & Gral, Lima, Peru.
21 : Ctr Oceanog Cadiz, IEO, E-11006 Cadiz, Spain.
22 : Swedish Univ Agr Sci, Inst Coastal Res, Dept Aquat Resources, SE-74242 Skolgatan, Oregrund, Sweden.
23 : IFREMER Fisheries Lab, F-62321 Boulogne, France.
24 : Inst Marine Biol Resources & Inland Waters, Hellenic Ctr Marine Res, Athens 16610, Greece.
25 : Hjort Ctr Marine Ecosyst Dynam, NO-5817 Bergen, Norway.
26 : Inst Marine Sci, NO-5817 Bergen, Norway.
27 : NOAA, Natl Marine Fisheries Serv, Alaska Fisheries Sci Ctr, Seattle, WA 98115 USA.
Source Ecosystem Services (2212-0416) (Elsevier Science Bv), 2015-12 , Vol. 16 , P. 413-429
DOI 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.02.002
WOS© Times Cited 16
Note DEVOTES (DEVelopment of innovative Tools for understanding marine biodiversity and assessing good Environmental Status) funded by EU FP7 (grant Agreement n°308392) French project EMIBIOS (FRB, contract n°APP-SCEN-2010-II)
Keyword(s) Ecological indicator, Comparative approach, Community metric, IndiSeas, Fishing impacts
Abstract Fisheries provide critical provisioning services, especially given increasing human population. Understanding where marine communities are declining provides an indication of ecosystems of concern and highlights potential conflicts between seafood provisioning from wild fisheries and other ecosystem services. Here we use the nonparametric statistic, Kendall׳s tau, to assess trends in biomass of exploited marine species across a range of ecosystems. The proportion of ‘Non-Declining Exploited Species’ (NDES) is compared among ecosystems and to three community-level indicators that provide a gauge of the ability of a marine ecosystem to function both in provisioning and as a regulating service: survey-based mean trophic level, proportion of predatory fish, and mean life span. In some ecosystems, NDES corresponds to states and temporal trajectories of the community indicators, indicating deteriorating conditions in both the exploited community and in the overall community. However differences illustrate the necessity of using multiple ecological indicators to reflect the state of the ecosystem. For each ecosystem, we discuss patterns in NDES with respect to the community-level indicators and present results in the context of ecosystem-specific drivers. We conclude that using NDES requires context-specific supporting information in order to provide guidance within a management framework.
Full Text
File Pages Size Access
17 3 MB Access on demand
23 132 KB Access on demand
Author's final draft 58 2 MB Open access
Top of the page

How to cite 

Kleisner Kristin M., Coll Marta, Lynam Christopher P., Bundy Alida, Shannon Lynne, Shin Yunne-Jai, Boldt Jennifer L., Borges Maria F., Diallo Ibrahima, Fox Clive, Gascuel Didier, Heymans Johanna J., Juan Jorda Maria J., Jouffre Didier, Large Scott I., Marshall Kristin N., Ojaveer Henn, Piroddi Chiara, Tam Jorge, Torres Maria A., Travers-Trolet Morgane, Tsagarakis Konstantinos, Van Der Meeren Gro I., Zador Stephani (2015). Evaluating changes in marine communities that provide ecosystem services through comparative assessments of community indicators. Ecosystem Services, 16, 413-429. Publisher's official version : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.02.002 , Open Access version : https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00254/36555/