Download ECOBAR Benthic indicators for monitoring the ecosystem of the

ECOBAR
Benthic indicators for monitoring
the ecosystem of the Barents Sea
Paul E. Renaud, Akvaplan-niva
Partners: APN, NIVA, UNIS, NPI, SAMS
Advisory Board: NERI, PINRO, COOGER, NOAA
NFR #190247 2009-2011
© www.akvaplan.niva.no
Goal
To synthesize new and recently published data from
the Barents Sea to identify and validate benthic
indicators of ecosystem status.
• Benthic indicator species and reference levels for
contaminants and biomarkers
• Evaluate traditional and novel indicators of biodiversity and
ecosystem processes for benthic monitoring activities
• Assess applicability of indicators for identifying effects of
climate and projected development scenarios
© www.akvaplan.niva.no
Work Package 1: Development of a set of
benthic indicator species and reference levels
for contaminants and biomarkers
Selection of key species
Based on abundance, availability, stability, sensitivity, bioaccumulation
potential
Reference levels/seasonal variability of contaminants
Reference levels/seasonal variability of effect parameters
Baseline levels of biological parameters (e.g. condition indexes, energy
reserves etc.) and biomarkers validated in European monitoring
programmes
Analyses
Function
Biomarker
Metabolism
EROD activity
CYP1A
GST
Oxidative stress
TOSC
Catalase
Glutathione peroxidase
Lipid peroxidation (MDA)
Glutathione oxidized/reduced
Biomarkers of stress
Lysosomal membrane stability
Lipofuscin/neutral lipids
Energy allocation
CEA
Contaminants
Body burden
PAH metabolites
Contaminants in liver and
muscle
Results
Nahrgang, J., L. Camus, P. Gonzalez, A. Goksøyr, J.S. Christiansen, H. Hop, “PAH
biomarker responses in polar cod (Boreogadus saida) exposed to benzo(a)pyrene”,
Aquat. Toxicol., 94:309-319, 2009a.
Nahrgang, J., L., Camus, M.G. Carls, P. Gonzalez, M. Jönsson, I.C. Taban, R.K.
Bechmann, J.S. Christiansen, H. Hop, “Biomarker responses in polar cod
(Boreogadus saida) exposed to the water soluble fraction of crude oil”, Aquat.
Toxicol., doi10.1016/j.aquatox.2009.11.003, 2009b.
Nahrgang, J., L., Camus, P., Gonzalez, M. Jönsson, J.S., Christiansen, H. Hop,
“Biomarker responses in polar cod (Boreogadus saida) exposed to dietary crude
oil”, Aquat. Toxicol., doi.org/10.1016/j.aquatox.2009.09.018, 2010a.
Nahrgang, J., M. Jönsson, L. Camus, “EROD activity in liver and gills of polar cod
(Boreogadus saida) exposed to waterborne and dietary crude oil”, Mar. Environ.
Res., doi:10.1016/j.marenvres.2010.02.003, 2010b.
Nahrgang, J., L. Camus, F. Broms, J.S. Christiansen, H. Hop, “Seasonal baseline levels
of physiological and biochemical parameters in polar cod (Boreogadus saida):
implications for environmental monitoring”, Mar. Pollut. Bull.,
doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.03.004, 2010c.
Work package 2: Community-based benthic
indicators for the Barents Sea
• How do benthic fauna respond to natural variability
in time and space?
– Community-level ’baseline’
• What benthic characteristics can be used as
indicators of ecosystem status
– Variable, sensitive to impacts, ecologically relevant
• Can indicators currently in use be transferred to
Arctic systems?
© www.akvaplan.niva.no
Results
•
Wlodarska-Kowalczuk, M, P Renaud, JM Weslawski, S Cochrane, SG Denisenko. 2010. Arctic open
sea shelf vs. semi-enclosed marine inlets: macrobenthic diversity of Barents Sea and west Spitsbergen
fjords. Arctic Frontiers, Tromsø, Norway, 22-26 January 2010. (ms in prep)
•
Jørgensen, LL, PE Renaud, S Cochrane (submitted) Improving benthic monitoring by combining trawl
and grab surveys
•
Andrade, H, PE Renaud (in prep) Polychaete/amphipod ratio as an indicator of environmental impact
related to offshore oil and gas production along the Norwegian Coast (to be submitted late 2010)
•
Olsgard, F, E Oug, B Rygg, A Fleddum (in prep) Biological traits analysis in the study of environmental
gradients and ecosystem functioning of marine soft-bottom species assemblages.
•
Cochrane, S, TH Pearson, S Dahle, M Greenacre, J Costelloe, B Gulliksen (submitted) Benthic fauna,
functional traits and sediment profile imagery along a Polar Front transect in the Barents Sea.
•
Carroll, ML, WG Ambrose, B Levin, S Ryan, A Rattner, G Heckes, M Greenacre (in press) Climatic
regulation of Clinocardium ciliatum (bivalvia) growth in the northwestern Barents Sea. Paleogeography,
Paleoclimatology, and Paleoecology
•
Carroll, ML, WG Ambrose, B Levin, G Heckes, H Hop, W Locke, P Renaud (in prep) Pan-Svalbard
growth rate variability in the Arctic bivalve Serripes groenlandicus: a decadal-scale proxy for
environmental variability and ecosystem response (to be submitted late 2010)
© www.akvaplan.niva.no
Fjord and open Barents Sea community
structures are different
untransformed
4th-root transformed
Open Barents Sea
Wlodarska-Kowalczuk et al. in prep
© www.akvaplan.niva.no
Other results, and preliminary conclusions
• No clear indicator species for shelf vs. fjord systems
• Species diversity higher in open Barent Sea compared to
fjords, and inner and outer fjords also different
• High proportion (32-37%) of rare species in both systems
 Shelf, inner fjord, and outer fjord regions should be
monitored and managed as distinct systems
 Rare species offer insight into community stability and
monitoring regimes must adequately estimate species rarity
© www.akvaplan.niva.no
The polychaete/amphipod ratio
as an indicator of human impact
in Norwegian coastal waters
Fields used:
• Region I: Ekofisk
2/4B&K
• Region IV: Statfjord A
and Snorre TPL
• Region VI: Heidrun
• Region IX: Snøhvit and
Finnmark (recent
production)
Region IV: Highly-impacted areas
Statfjord A
Snorre TPL
1477
1330
 Distance-related impacts to 2000+ m
 Improving conditions
 Stable reference levels
1755
Andrade and Renaud, in prep
Region IX: Un-impacted areas
Finnmark
 Barents Sea at baseline levels
Snøhvit
Andrade and Renaud, in prep
Work package 3:
Drivers
Socioeconomics and governance
Political
Impacts
Industrial
Develop.
Rescale
D
Macroeconomic
(per sector)
D
Res.
Mgmt.
Climate
Change
?
Rescale
Benthic
D
Environ.
Rescale
Rescale
Indicators
SCENARIOS
Pressures
Scenarios: Assumptions
Political Drivers
Scenario 1:
Cooperative Ecosystem
Management in the
Barents
Scenario 2:
Continuing Trends
- Harmonious
- International
international
agreements as in
agreements
place today
- Russia joins OSPAR - Current level of
- Strong cooperation
cooperation between
between Norway and
Norway & Russia
Russia
- Current incentives for
- Strengthened
low carbon/alternative
incentives for low
energy (moderate in
carbon/alternative
Norway, non-existent
energy (Norway &
in Russia)
Russia)
Scenario 3:
Fortifying the Borders
- Unilateral approach to
environmental policy
- No cooperation
between Norway &
Russia
- The Border Agreement
collapses because of
geopolitical disputes
- Strengthened
incentives for low
carbon/alternative
energy (Norway only)
Scenarios: Assumptions
Macro-economic Change
Scenario 1:
Cooperative Ecosystem
Management in the
Barents
Scenario 2:
Continuing Trends
Scenario 3:
Fortifying the Borders
Global
-
Continuing increase in oil price
- Variable gas price
Regional
- Expansion of oil and
gas development
(Norway & Russia;
both within good
environmental
standards)
- Mixed energy
economy (Norway &
Russia)
- Continuing exploration; - Expansion of oil and
short-term oil and gas
gas development
development focused
(Norway & Russia;
Snohvit/Goliat.
within good
Shtokman field online
environmental
2016 within good
standards for Norway
environmental
only)
standards
- Intensive alternative
- Limited alternative
energy production
energy (<20%)
(Norway only)
(Norway only)
Scenarios: Assumptions
Climate Change
Scenario 1:
Cooperative Ecosystem
Management in the
Barents
- Arctic min. summer
sea ice extent reverts
to a positive trend
Scenario 2:
Continuing Trends
Scenario 3:
Fortifying the Borders
- Arctic min. summer
- Arctic min. summer sea
sea ice extent follows
ice extent declines
current declining trend
more rapidly than
current trend
- Significant acidification (Ph=7.8)
- Barents Sea sea temperature trend stabilizes
Indicators examined
•
•
•
•
•
PAH levels in sediments and benthic fauna
Biomarkers (10-14 general and PAH-related)
Infaunal abundance and biomass
Epifaunal abunadnce and biomass
Species diversity
– Shannon-Wiener
– Species richness
•
•
•
•
Species rarity
Functional Traits
Bivalve growth patterns
Polychaete/amphipod ratio
© www.akvaplan.niva.no
Scenario 2: Continuing Trends: Examples of outcomes
Political
Drivers
OSPAR
Barents
Sea
Integrated
Mgt Plan
Relationship to
Scenario
OSPAR membership stays
the same. Gradual
implementation of MPAs and
Ecological Quality
Objectives (ECO-QO).
MPAs are reviewed with non
binding implementation by
individual nations (OSPAR
Recommendation 2003/3).
Binding standards exist for
pollution control.
Progressively developed
over the next decade with
a focus on monitoring and
improving the knowledge
base of the Barents Sea.
The plan is implemented
in the Norwegian sector of
the Barents Sea. Key
actions include benthic
monitoring, protecting
sponge communities from
trawling, and working
through international
mechanisms for invasive
species and pollution.
Effects on Benthic
Environment
Indicator:
Biodiversity
Biomass/abundan
ce (epi)
Indicator:
Biodiversity
Species
Richness
OSPAR members continue
to monitor and implement
ECO-QOs including benthic
measures of health. The
quality of the benthic
environment is maintained.
Information about benthic
environment is improved.
Trend: increase
Effectiveness:
Moderate
Reductions in pollution
and strong likelihood
that developing MPAs
will be in areas of high
epifaunal abundance
strengthen these
communities
Trend: Increase
locally
Effectiveness:
Moderate
Continual improvement in
scientific information and
monitoring is needed to
learn about the status of
benthic habitats including
coral reefs and sponge
beds. Indicators drive
management tools e.g.
spatial management of
activities and ecosystem
management plans.
Trend: Increase in both
Effectiveness: highmoderate
Trend: Increase
locally
Effectiveness:
Moderate- High
Epifauna (coral and
sponge) benefits
considerably
throughout region from
protection from
trawling. Coastal
threats from
spills/accidents could
result in local
decreases
Species richness
maintained or
increased in MPAs
Invasives from
shipping and climate
effects may increase
richness
Scenario 2: Continuing Trends
Macroeconomic
Price of Oil
Relationship to
Scenario
Effects on Benthic
Environment
Indicator:
Biodiversity
Biomass/abund.
(epi)
Indicator:
Biodiversity
Species Richness
Oil price continues to rise due to
pressures from peak oil. Despite
new finds in the Barents region,
the cost of extraction remains
high due to conditions and
environmental regulations, but is
offset by lack of supply, high
social demand and high prices.
There is increased exploration
activities across the region and a
focus on the Goliat field. Norway
exploits the Goliat field (only
major find to date). Both Norway
and Russia increase exploration
in Barents.
Increased oil production
will potentially negatively
impact benthic
environments and
localised impacts on
benthos. Key risk is
from oil spills or pollution
in harsh environment.
Trend: Unknown
Effectiveness: LowModerate
Trend: Decrease
locally
Effectiveness:
Moderate
CO2 emissions follow current
trend. This will cause
significant acidification and Ph
7.8.
Existing CO2 emissions
in the atmosphere (from
past sources) will cause
intensifying acidification
in the global oceans.
Trend: Decrease in
calcifying species
Effectiveness:
unknown
calcifying organisms
are important system
components, but
possible changes are
poorly understood with
existing data
Coastal areas and
shallow banks, areas
most likely to
experience impacts
from spills/accidents,
are areas with greatest
epifaunal communities
Coastal areas that
experience oil spills
will likely show a
reduction in diversity
Climate
Acidification
Trend: Decrease
Effectiveness:
Moderate
Depends on intensity
of acidification. Lower
survival of larvae/
juveniles plus incr.
susceptibility to
predation could
exclude molluscs from
some habitats
Acknowledgments
• NFR Havet og Kysten
• Akvaplan-niva, UNIS, Norwegian Polar Institute
• Anita Evenset, Lionel Camus, Tavis Potts, JoLynn Carroll,
Branka Valcic, Michael Carroll, Sabine Cochrane, Hector
Andrade, Jørgen Berge, Jasmine Nahrgang, Steven
Brooks, Lis L. Jørgensen, Maria Włodarska-Kowalczuk
• Ingela Dahllöf
© www.akvaplan.niva.no
Ecological functions, composition, and structure
of infaunal and epifaunal communities different
Beamtrawl
Grab
Predator
Predator
Detrivore
Filtrator
Detrivore
Filtrator
Porifera
Polychaeta
Crustacea
Crustacea
Echinodermata
Others
Polychaeta
Mollusca
Mollusca
Echino
dermata
Others
Jørgensen et al. submitted
© www.akvaplan.niva.no
Preliminary conclusions
• Potential sensitivity of the two community components to
pelagic and seafloor impacts is likely to be different (feeding
types, motility, habitat structure)
• Grabs and trawls sample very different commuities, and
one is not an adequate surrogate for the other
• Using both grab and trawl sampling should be considered in
monitoring strategies as they are complementary
© www.akvaplan.niva.no