Download final1-final_mc_report

1. FINAL PUBLISHABLE SUMMARY REPORT
Understanding how the plants and animals that live in the seafloor vary in their spatial patterns
of diversity and abundance is fundamental to improving knowledge of ecological processes
that underpin communities, as well as advance the modelling of species distributions under
realistic assumptions. Such critical knowledge, which was gathered during this project, informs
both our fundamental understanding of ecosystem processes and community ecology,
ecological monitoring, as well as the role of biodiversity in maintaining ecosystem functioning
in coastal ecosystems.
1200 macrobenthic samples were collected (Objective 1) in Manukau, Tauranga, and
Kaipara Harbour, New Zealand, following a pre-determined sampling scheme (Fig. 1). We
identified over 145 species, mostly bivalves, polychaetes, and crustaceans living beneath the
surface of the intertidal sands, and counted 73813 individuals. In addition, 960 Chlorophyll a
samples as a proxy for food availability were analysed, 960 sediment samples to caption habitat
variability were processed, and 960 photo-quadrats of the sampling locations were used to
describe cover of seasgrass (Zostera), shellhash, and bare sand.
Fig. 1. Sampling design (top panel), encompassing 400 sampling stations, which are positioned to match a number
of spatial lags ranging from 0.3 m to 1000 m. Illustrated are the abundances of Macomona liliana (scaled dots; 040 ind./core) at Kaipara Harbour. The background displays a seascape of median grain size (darker grey indicates
coarser sands; values range between 170-250 µm). Bottom panels show a sampling area at low tide.
Using recent multivariate spatial models (Moran’s Eigenvector Mapping; MEM), we found
that benthic communities were distinctly spatially structured at four spatial scales (see Fig. 2),
but there was no clear separation of the importance of environmental vs. biotic factors at these
scales (Objective 2). A broad selection of environmental variables contributed to the largescale variation, whereas a much-limited set explained part of the fine-scale community
structure. Our results emphasize there is no prevailing scale to which environmental factors
drive biodiversity and stress the importance of dissecting variation across scale to advance an
understanding of processes structuring species communities and inform conservation
measures.
Fig 2. Range of spatial autocorrelation of each significant positive MEM variable. Broad: MEM variables with a
range > 100 m; Meso: MEM variables with a range < 100 m and > 50 m; Small: MEM variables with a range <
50 m and > 15 m; Fine: MEM variables with a range < 15 m.
Also, we used recently developed so-called Joint Species Distribution Models (Objective 3),
to accommodate both spatial correlations within and between locations and give full inference
about model parameters and the characteristics of unobserved spatially structured factors. Key
is that such models enable to separate shared habitat preferences from co-occurrence patterns
due to interactions, such as competition. We demonstrated the utility of these models in
defining the role of species interactions across large spatial scales. Our results show the
presence of species interactions beyond scales generally amenable to manipulative studies and
provide a new approach allowing conservation research and measures to acknowledge and
assess important ecological phenomena.
Furthermore, it is well recognized that the functional performance of individual species
is affected by abundance and distribution, but the implication for multiple species that share
traits influencing functional redundancy and resilience to stressors has not been resolved.
Therefore, we assessed the degree of sharing of specific functional traits in these communities.
We defined functional groups, based on biological traits that relate to how macrofauna modify
sediment biogeochemistry and stability, and their resilience to disturbance. Results (Fig. 3)
show clear spatial gradients and boundaries of abundance and distributions separating function.
Our findings emphasise the importance of not only within functional group species richness,
but also abundance and occurrence as a framework to investigate functional diversity and
resilience of benthic seafloor communities.
Fig. 3. Left spatial distribution of functional groups based on interpolated (log-transformed) abundances (filled
contours; darker shading denotes higher abundances; range 0 to 2.1) and functional group richness (scaled points;
larger points indicate higher richness; the largest number of co-occurring species within a functional group is 6
species. Right: correlograms, based on functional group abundance, illustrate (a) a gradient, (b) a large patch and
(c) multiple patches. Filled symbols denote significant Moran’s I values.
2. USE AND DISSEMINATION OF FOREGROUND
Section A (public) – DISSEMINATION MEASURES
Publications
A number of publications are currently in preparation or under review and will
therefore only be available after the project has ended.
Kraan C, Greenfield BL, Dormann CF & Thrush SF. 2015. Scale-dependent biodiversity
composition in cryptic coastal sandflat communities. Public Library of Science ONE
10: e0142411.
Thrush SF, Kraan C, Hewitt JE & Loher AM. Habitat complexity and marine soft-substrate
systems. In: Tokeshi M (ed). Habitat Complexity in Aquatic Systems: Ecological
Perspectives. Springer. Accepted.
Greenfield BL, Kraan C*, Pilditch CA & Thrush SF. 2016. Mapping functional groups can
provide insight into ecosystem functioning and potential resilience of intertidal sand
flats. Marine Ecology Progress Series 548, 1-10. *corresponding author
Lohrer AM, Thrush SF, Hewitt JE & Kraan C. 2015. The up-scaling of ecosystem functions in
a heterogeneous world. Scientific Reports 5, 10349.
Pratt DR, Pilditch CA, Lohrer AM, Thrush SF & Kraan C. 2015. Spatial distributions of
grazing activity and microphytobenthos reveal scale-dependent relationships across a
sedimentary gradient. Estuaries & Coasts 38, 722-734.
Calabrese JM, Certain G, Kraan C & Dormann CF. 2014. Stacking species distribution models
and adjusting bias by linking them to macroecological models. Global Ecology &
Biogeography 23, 99-112.
Thrush SF, Hewitt JE, Parkes S, Lohrer AM, Pilditch C, Woodin SA, Wethey DS, Chiantore
M, Asnaghi V, de Juan S, Kraan C, Rodil I, Savage C & van Colen C. 2014.
Experimenting with ecosystem interaction networks in search of threshold potentials
in real world marine ecosystems. Ecology 95, 1451-1457.
Scientific communications
Thrush S, Hewitt J, Pilditch C, Douglas E, Lohrer AM, O’Meara T & Kraan C. 2015. Infaunal
bivalves and their role in biodiversity and ecosystem function relationships at the
landscape scale. Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation. Portland, USA.
Douglas E, Pilditch C, Kraan C, Schipper L, Lohrer AM & Thrush SF. 2015. Biodiversityecosystem function relationships drive coastal denitrification – evidence from a real
world ecosystem. Estuarine & Coastal Science Association. London, UK.
Andresen H, Thrush SF & Kraan C. 2015. Adult-juvenile associations in bivalves disentangled
from environment. European Marine Biology Symposium. Helgoland, Germany.
Pratt D, Pilditch C, Lohrer AM, Thrush SF & Kraan C. 2015. Deposit feeding activity and
microphyte biomass relationships across a benthic sediment gradient. European
Marine Biology Symposium. Helgoland, Germany.
Douglas E, Pilditch C, Kraan C, Schipper L, Lohrer AM & Thrush SF. 2015. Macrobenthic
community composition drives denitrifier response to nutrient loading. European
Marine Biology Symposium. Helgoland, Germany.
Douglas E, Pilditch C, Kraan C, Schipper L, Lohrer AM & Thrush SF. 2015. Macrobenthic
community composition drives denitrifier response to nutrient loading. New Zealand
Marine Science Society conference. Auckland, New Zealand.
Kraan C, Greenfield BL, Dormann CF & Thrush SF. 2014. Spatial structuring of biodiversity.
Ecological Society of Australia. Alice Springs, Australia.
Kraan C, Finley AO, Thrush SF, Piersma T & Dormann CF. 2014. Putting biotic interactions
into distribution analysis. Ecological Society of America. Sacramento, USA.
Kraan C, Finley AO, Thrush SF, Piersma T & Dormann CF. 2014. Conservation strategies
should encompass species interactions and spatial autocorrelation. Australian Marine
Science Association. Canberra, Australia.
Hines L, Pilditch C, Kraan C, Lohrer D & Thrush SF. 2014. The effect of enhanced nutrient
levels on coastal ecosystem functions. Golden Key International Summit, Boston,
USA.
Thrush S, Hewitt J, Parks S, Lohrer D, Pilditch C, van Colen C, Woodin S, Wethey D,
Chiantore M, Asnaghi V & Kraan C. Integrating causal and exploratory techniques to
indicate threshold potentials in real world ecosystem dynamics. 2013. Coastal and
Estuarine Research Federation. San Diego, USA.
Kraan C, A Finley, C Dormann & S Thrush. 2013. Spatial perspectives in ecology. New
Zealand Marine Science Society conference. Hamilton, New Zealand.
Greenfield BL, C Pilditch, C Kraan, JE Hewitt & Thrush SF. 2013. Resilience of sandflats
indicated by variation in functional group diversity. New Zealand Marine Science
Society conference. Hamilton, New Zealand.
Networking activities
Participated in the workshop: Long-term Monitoring of Species Population Dynamics.
Frankfurt, Germany (2015)
Invited lecture at Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand (2014)
Invited to the workshop: Matrix of Marine Ecosystem Services. Auckland, New Zealand (2014)
Invited lecture at the University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand (2013)
Participating expert during the Miranda BioBlitz (2013).
Training activities
Participated in the workshop “Modelling the distribution of species and communities
accounting for detection using R and BUGS/JAGS”. IMEDEA, Spain (2016).
Participated in the Eco-Stats Symposium/workshop: New opportunities at the interface
between ecology and statistics. Sydney, Australia (2013)
Section B (confidential) - EXPLOITABLE FOREGROUND AND PLANS
FOR EXPLOITATION
NOT APPLICABLE
3. SCIENTIST IN CHARGE QUESTIONNAIRE
RESEARCH TRAINING ASSESSMENT:
What is the size of the hosting research group?
20 persons
How many researchers have you supervised, within the past 10 years? Of which funded by:
EC/Marie Curie actions: 1
EC Other Funding: 2
University fellowships: 0
National public bodies: 15
Industry: 0
Other: 2
Other, please specify: Columbia, Egypt
How many researchers have you supervised within this project?
1
Corresponding to how many person months? 36
Number of publications resulting directly from the research project:
Recruited researcher(s) and yourself: 2
Recruited researcher(s) alone: 5
Recruited researcher(s) with authors other than yourself: 5
Participation of the recruited researcher(s) at conferences (number):
Passive: 1
Active: 10
How do you rate the overall success of the research training?
Very successful
General assessment:
The project was a success regarding attendance at conferences and number of publications. Note
that more publications are currently under review, close to submission, or in preparation.
RESEARCHERS ASSESSMENT:
Rate the overall level of the recruited researcher(s) integration in the research team and the host
organisation with regards to:
participation in meetings/seminars: Good
discussions of results and project-related topics: Excellent
co-operation with other team members: Excellent
co-operation with other researchers of the host institution: Not applicable, since my group represents
the only group currently employing the models that are part of the project
Rate the overall performance of the recruited researcher(s) with regard to:
capacity to develop new skills and to benefit from training: Excellent
productivity (research results/publications/international conference attendance): Excellent
communication skills: Excellent
group leader skills (collaboration with other groups/project management): Excellent
training and/or teaching skills: In New Zealand Excellent, in Freiburg there was no opportunity for
this
Comment:
Skills related to group leadership, training of others, and project management were particularly relevant
during the outgoing phase and executed in an excellent fashion. This was less relevant during the return
phase and therefore hard to rate
RESEARCH TRAINING OUTCOMES:
Has this project provided additional links with other research groups or institutions? Yes
If yes, indicate the number of contacts in each case
Universities 3
Research Centres 1
Industry/private companies 0
Others 0
If Other, please specify:
Rate the importance of the following outcomes of the research training:
results of the research: Important
number of publications: Most important
development of research: Important
establishment of international collaborations: Important
transfer of knowledge/technology: Important
training of students/researchers: Important
further academic qualifications (PhD, habilitation etc.) for fellows: less important
Comments:
It is difficult to judge the research training, since its impact is only clear after the project has
ended. However, the fellow has recently secured a Marie-Curie European Fellowship, which
supports the critical impact these grants have on building an attractive resume and career
prospects.
YOUR OPINION ABOUT THE MARIE CURIE ACTIONS:
Comments:
Did you have previous knowledge of the Marie Curie actions? Yes
If yes, what sort of image do you think that the Marie Curie actions have among the scientific
community in your research area?
Receiving a MC Grant is considered a major achievement and an important accolade to a resume.