Download State of the Baltic Sea - Stockholm Resilience Centre

State of the Baltic Sea
Background Paper
Havs- och vattenmyndighetens rapport 2013:4
Preface
BalticSTERN (Systems Tools and Ecological-economic evaluation – ­
a Research Network) is an international research network with partners in all
countries around the Baltic Sea. The research focuses on costs and benefits
of mitigating eutrophication and meeting environmental targets of the
­HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan. Case studies regarding fisheries management, oil spills and invasive species have also been made, as have long-term
scenarios regarding the development of the Baltic Sea ecosystem.
The BalticSTERN Secretariat at the Stockholm Resilience Centre has the task
to coordinate the network, communicate the results and to write a final report
targeted at Governments, Parliaments and other decision makers. This report
should also discuss the need for policy instruments and could be based also
on results from other available and relevant research.
The final report “The Baltic Sea – Our Common Treasure. Economics of Saving
the Sea” was published in March 2013. This Background Paper State of the ­
Baltic Sea is one of eight Background Papers, where methods and ­results from
BalticSTERN research are described more in detail. In some of the papers the
BalticSTERN case studies are discussed in a wider perspective based on other
relevant research.
Contents
1. Introduction..................................................................... 5
2. The Baltic Sea ecosystem............................................... 6
2.1 Ecosystem description...............................................................6
Marine habitats................................................................................................7
Sensitive area................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Biodiversity................................................................... 9
Threats to Baltic Sea biodiversity..................................................................11
Status of Baltic Sea biodiversity................................................................... 12
3. Environmental problems ­affecting the Baltic Sea............ 13
3.1 Eutrophication..........................................................................13
Effects of eutrophication...............................................................................14
Widespread effects of eutrophication......................................................... 15
Vicious cycle of hypoxia...............................................................................16
3.2 Hazardous substances.............................................................16
Sources of hazardous substances ................................................................ 17
3.3 Shipping and oil spills..............................................................18
3.4 Energy-related activities.........................................................20
3.5 Overfishing.............................................................................20
3.6 Invasive species.......................................................................21
3.7 Marine litter............................................................................ 22
Effects of marine litter...................................................................................23
3.8 Climate Change...................................................................... 23
3.9 Regime shifts..........................................................................24
4. Conclusions.................................................................. 26
References ...................................................................... 27
Reading instructions: The main purpose of this Background Paper is to
­describe the Baltic Sea ecosystem and its state. It gives a background to the
special characteristics of the Sea and describes the environmental state and
the major problems threatening the ecosystem, as well as how they affect the
Baltic Sea’s ability to provide ecosystem goods and services.
4
State of the Baltic Sea
1. Introduction
The Baltic Sea is a complex ecosystem with a multitude of physical, chemical
and biological interactions functioning on various temporal and spatial
scales. The Baltic Sea is under severe stress as a result of the combination of
a large human population in the catchment area, the environmental effects
of anthropogenic activities and its special geographical, climatological and
oceanographical characteristics. The environmental state is thus influenced
by both natural and anthropogenic factors.
The largest environmental problems are eutrophication caused by increas­
ing nutrient loads, overfishing, hazardous substances, risk of chemical and/or
oil spills, marine litter and invasive species. These environmental problems,
together with current and future climate changes are jeopardizing the Baltic
Sea’s ability to provide ecosystem goods and services. These goods and
services potentially generate benefits (Figure 1), which in turn are coupled to
welfare, and thus changes in the ecosystem state can have impacts on human
welfare.
Energy
Aesthetic
value
Science and
education
O2 CO2
Legacy of
the sea
Sediment
retention
H2O
H2O CO2
Inspiration
Recreation
Space and
waterways
Food
Chemical
resources
Resilience
Nutrient
buffering
Genetic
resources
Ornamental
resources
Biological
diversity
Food webs
Biologic
regulation
Habitat
Inedible goods
Regulation of
environmental toxins
Cultural
heritage
Primary production
Figure 1. Ecosystem services provided by the Baltic Sea. (Illustration: J.Lokrantz/Azote)
State of the Baltic Sea
5
2. The Baltic Sea ecosystem
2.1 Ecosystem description
Covering a surface area of 415 000 km2 the Baltic Sea is the largest brackish
water ecosystems in the world. It is composed of seven sub-basins; with varying surface areas, volume, depth and salinity (Figure 2). They are all connected
by straits, through which water flows driven by physical processes. The Sea is
however nontidal. The Baltic Sea is characterized by large areas that are less
than 25 meter deep, interspersed by a number of deeper basins, with a maximum depth of 459 meter at the Landsort deep. At an average depth of just
52 meters, the Baltic Sea is very shallow, with a volume of only 21, 760 km2.
Compared to the small water volume, the catchment area is extensive, covering 1,72 million km2 and including 14 countries, with a total population of approximately 90 million. Young in geological terms, the Baltic Sea was formed
after the last glaciation, approximately 10 000 years ago. It was established as
a brackish ecosystem about 6500–10 000 years before present (BP), stabilizing
to its present level of salinity approximately 2000 years BP. (E.g. Voipio, 1981;
Furman et al., 2004; Zillén et al., 2008, HELCOM, 2010a)
Figure 2. Baltic Sea drainage area (Source: Baltic Nest Institute).
6
State of the Baltic Sea
Compared to the average salinity of world oceans (35 practical salinity units,
psu), the salinity of the Baltic Sea is low; ranging between 1–20 psu, with an
average of 7 psu. Bottom waters are slightly more saline compared to surface
waters. Salinity distribution forms a gradient, with very low levels in the
Bothnian Bay and in the eastern Gulf of Finland, increasing towards the
southern parts of the Baltic Sea and the Danish straits (Figure 3). Water exchange with the North Sea and Atlantic Ocean is very limited by the narrow
and shallow Danish Straits. The deep layers of the Baltic Sea are aerated by
sporadic intrusions of highly saline and oxygen-rich water originating from
the Kattegat. These strong inflows were more frequent prior to the mid 1970s,
but in the last decades, only a few major events of inflows have occurred,
leading to serious stagnation in the central Baltic deep. Freshwater enters the
Baltic Sea from numerous rivers, land runoff and precipitation. In sum there
is a positive water balance, meaning that river runoff and precipitation exceed
evaporation. (E.g. Voipio, 1981; HELCOM, 2010a)
Because of the restricted water exchange with the ocean and relatively
small freshwater input, the water residence time characterizing its renewal is
rather long, 25 – 40 years. In addition, the water column in the open Baltic is
permanently stratified, with a top layer of brackish water that is separated
from the deeper layer of saline water. This so-called halocline limits the
transport of oxygen from surface to bottom waters. The depth of this layer
varies, but in the Baltic Proper and Gulf of Finland, it is usually formed at a
depth of 50–80 meters. (E.g. Larsson et al., 1985; Kautsky & Kautsky, 2000;
Furman et al., 2004; HELCOM, 2007, 2010a)
Marine habitats
The coastal and offshore zone of the Baltic Sea is in principal comprised of
three types of plant and animal habitats: hard and soft bottom and the pelagic
community (i.e. open water). Conditions for life in these habitats are shaped
by many physical, chemical and geological factors.
Hard bottom communities close to the coast, mainly composed of rocky
substratum, are the most species-rich habitats in the Baltic Sea. They are
mainly found in the Northern and North-Eastern Baltic (Bothnia, Swedish
coast and Gulf of Finland). Typically they are comprised of an upper zone of
macroalgae inhabited by a rich fauna. The most common macroalgae is the
keystone species1 bladder wrack (Fucus vesiculosus), but filamentous algae
such as Cladophora glomerata also thrive, especially in nutrient-rich waters.
Fauna include mussels (e.g. blue mussel Mytilus edulis), snails, crustaceans
and fish such as herring (Clupea harangus), sprat (Sprattus sprattus), gobies
(Gobius ssp.) and fresh-water species like common perch (Perca fluviatilis).
The blue mussel is another keystone species, it dominates the substrate with
mussel belts normally starting at a few meters depth and often extending to
30 meters. In the Baltic Proper Mytilus represent more than 90 per cent of the
A keystone species is a species that, relative to its abundance, has a disproportionately large
effect on its environment. It plays a critical role in maintaining the organization and diversity
of its ecological community, and changes in its abundance and distribution thereby affects
many other organisms in the food web.
1
State of the Baltic Sea
7
total animal biomass. Blue mussels are not only an important source of food
for various animals, including birds such as eider (Somateria mollissima), but
also filter the water and thus perform important ecosystem services through
their water filtrating properties. (Jansson & Kautsky, 1977; Kautsky, 1988, 1995;
Furman et al., 2004)
Soft bottoms are the most dominant bottom type, consisting of muddy and
sandy sediment. Covering most of the Baltic Sea seafloor, soft bottoms are
vulnerable to the mechanical stress of wind and wave action. Soft bottom
communities are typically dominated by the Baltic clam (Macoma balthica),
but also include reeds (e.g. Phragmites australis), muskgrass algae (Chara ssp.)
and sea grass beds, although faunal biomass typically declines with increasing
softness of substrate and with depth. In the Baltic the eelgrass (Zostera
marina) forms dense beds in shallow protected bays, but is not found north
of the Baltic Proper. Sea grass beds are important for sediment deposition,
substrate stabilization, as well as through forming habitat for a diversity of
fauna, including birds and fish (e.g. cod, Gadus morhua), thus providing
valuable ecosystem services. (Jansson, 1980; Voipio, 1981; Kautsky, 1988;
HELCOM, 2010a)
The pelagic community, that is species living in the open water, contains
relatively few species, but forms habitat for the main fish species of the Baltic
Sea. The primary producers are different phytoplankton species, which
provide food for zooplankton such as copepods (e.g. Acartia sp, Pseudocalanus
sp, Temora sp), cladocerans and rotifers. These zooplankton in turn provide
food for marine invertebrates and fish species, such as herring and sprat,
which in turn are important food sources for larger predatory fish, seabirds
and seals. (Möllmann et al., 2009; HELCOM, 2010a)
Sensitive area
Due to the slow renewal of water masses, in combination with strong stratification, small water volume and large riverine inputs of different substances,
the Baltic Sea is a highly sensitive area. Direct and indirect effects of high
­nutrient loads, together with hazardous substances remain in the Baltic Sea for
many years, exacerbating the problems already faced by its sensitive species.
As winters are cold and periods of ice cover long, the physical, chemical and
biological decomposition of hazardous substances are slow. The hazardous
substances thus remain in the Baltic Sea environment for many years, and
therefor there is a possibility that the substances concentrate (i.e. bioaccumulate) in the fauna. (HELCOM, 2010a, b)
Other factors adding to the sensitivity are the relatively low species diversity of Baltic Sea food webs. Low diversity (or simplicity) refers to few eco­
logical interactions in the food web due to low number of species, compared
to most other marine ecosystems found worldwide. The simple Baltic Sea
food webs are thus more vulnerable to environmental changes. Changes at
one end of the chain, such as through the effects of hazardous substances or
overfishing affecting top predators, may easily spread through the entire
chain (so called cascading effects) and may have unpredictable effects on the
other components of the food web and ecosystem. (E.g. Österblom et al.,
8
State of the Baltic Sea
2007; Casini et al., 2008; Möllmann et al., 2008, 2009; MacKenzie et al., 2012)
Changes in salinity can also have profound effects on organisms that meet
their physiological limits in the Baltic Sea. Thus such changes make the Baltic
Sea ecosystem and biodiversity sensitive to variations in the environmental
conditions, a fact that will be further explained in the sections on overfishing
and regime shifts. (HELCOM, 2009, 2010a)
2.2 Biodiversity
Biodiversity (short for biological diversity) is commonly used to describe the
number, variety and variability of living organisms, and biodiversity commonly includes genetic diversity, species diversity and ecosystem diversity.
Species composition in the brackish Baltic Sea includes species with both
freshwater (limnic) and marine origin. The low salinity constitutes a stressful
environment, affecting species number and distribution, and the Baltic Sea
has generally been thought to have a low biodiversity compared to other
oceans. The primary reason being that few species are originally adapted to
brackish conditions, but also due to the Sea´s recent geological origin and
harsh climate. Species of marine origin invaded the Baltic Sea from the Atlantic
approximately 4–8000 years ago (Pereyra et al., 2009, HELCOM 2010a). The
sub basins differ regarding species diversity, composition and biomass. Both
limnic and marine species meet their physiological limits in the Baltic, manifested in the limited body size and slower growth of many species with
­marine origin. (HELCOM 2009, 2010a)
In general, Baltic Sea biodiversity have been argued to follow the salinity
gradient, as it is the main environmental factor defining structural and
functional characteristics of aquatic biota. In the Baltic, biodiversity has been
shown to increase towards the south, with a 20–40 times higher biomass of
both fauna and flora in the Baltic Proper compared to that of the Bothnian
Bay (Figure 3). (E.g. Jansson & Kautsky, 1977; de Jong, 1974) However, recent
research (Ojaveer et al., 2010; Telesh et al., 2011) challenges the viewpoint of
the Baltic Sea as an ocean with low biodiversity, showing that not only does
the Sea hosts some 6000 species2, but furthermore that phyto- and zooplankton in the Baltic exhibit an unexpected high diversity (>4000 taxa), not least
in the Gulf of Finland where over 1500 of the 1700 known Baltic species of
phytoplankton are found. The diversity of bottom dwelling animals and algae
are still comparably low, but pelagic species diversity (dominated by protists)
is strikingly high. In addition, these diversity peaks in the horohalinicum,
further challenging Remane’s concept. (Ojaveer et al., 2010; Telesh et al., 2011)
Only a handful of species dominate the ecosystem in biomass and abundance, with the consequence that a single or a few species essentially uphold
important ecosystem functions. (HELCOM, 2010a; Ojaveer et al., 2010) In
These include approximately 1 700 species of phytoplankton (e.g. diatoms, dinoflagellates,
cyanobacteria, chlorophytes), 440 phytobenthos (i.e. macroalgae), 1200 zooplankton (e.g. ciliates and rotifers,) 570 meiozoobenthos (e.g. copepods), 1475 macrozoobenthos (e.g. mollusks
and crustacean), 380 vertebrate parasites, about 200 fish, some 80 species of birds, three species
of seals and the harbor porpoise, the only cetacean species reproducing in the Baltic Sea. The
majority of these are however unknown to the public, and few can be seen by the human eye.
2
State of the Baltic Sea
9
addition to the blue mussel and bladderwrack, additional examples of Baltic
keystone species are the macrophyte eelgrass and Fucus radicans. F. radicans,
related to the bladderwrack Fucus vesiculosus, is a recently described species
of brown macroalga, which has formed in in the Baltic Sea during the last
400 years through rapid speciation, and is the only known endemic phytobenthic species (Pereyra et al., 2009; Johannesson, 2011) Despite the relatively
low number of species, the Baltic Sea is as productive as the adjacent North
Sea that has about ten times more species (Elmgren & Hill, 1997).
Figure 3. Distribution limits of some marine (dark blue) and freshwater (light blue) species due
to salinity, as well as bottom salinity. (Based on Fuhrman et al. 2004 and HELCOM 2010a)
There are several aspects of diversity, including functional diversity and
­genetic diversity. Different species differ in attributes, which affect different
ecosystem properties. A functional group can be explained as a group of
­species characterized by common traits or roles in the ecosystem, applying
to functions such as feeding behavior, or capacity to conduct certain biogeochemical processes. It could also apply to occupations of a specific niche,
where one species for example performs optimally in the temperature-interval X–Y degrees, salinity x–y psu, is resistant to climate variability and so on,
while another might have a different optimum, and furthermore be very
­sensitive to changes. Therefore, a minor change in species biomass and/or
10
State of the Baltic Sea
­ ccurrence may influence the ecosystem function, with the loss of a single
o
species potentially having a higher impact compared to areas with high functional diversity. (HELCOM, 2009; Diaz & Cabido, 2001; Worm et al., 2006)
Due to its permanent low salinity and geographic semi-isolation from the
fully marine Atlantic, the Baltic Sea marine habitat is ecologically marginal.
Research show that, possibly as a consequence of isolation, bottlenecks and
selection on adaptive traits, Baltic populations of dominant marine species
are locally adapted, have lost genetic variation and are relatively isolated. Some
populations have additionally evolved high degrees of clonality. (Pereyra et
al., 2009; Johannesson et al., 2006, 2011) Genetic variations within a species
are of importance for an individual species capacity to establish, recover and
adapt to new conditions, such as those after a disturbance. Due to the lower
genetic diversity of Baltic Sea populations, natural selection and thus adaptation through evolutionary change, is limited, consequently rendering this
marginal ecosystem vulnerable to environmental stress. (Johannesson, 2011;
Johannesson et al., 2006) The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005)
pointed out that environmental changes could lead to extinction of species or
species communities. Species having one or more of the following features:
limited climatic ranges, restricted habitat requirements, reduced mobility, low
genetic diversity, or isolated and/or small populations are vulnerable and
more prone to these extinctions. Many Baltic Sea species fulfill these criteria,
thus falling into the category of vulnerable species. By housing unique genes,
genotypes and populations, Baltic Sea species at the same time constitute
important genetic resources. The evolution of F. radicans shows that, although
Baltic species are vulnerable, the Baltic Sea has, possibly due to its environmental conditions where selection for adaptation is strong, accommodated
rapid speciation (Pereyra et al., 2009). According to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA, 2009) 88 per cent of the biotopes found in
the Baltic Sea are listed as endangered, rendering the Baltic Sea as one of the
most threatened marine ecosystems worldwide.
Threats to Baltic Sea biodiversity
There are numerous disturbances threatening Baltic Sea biodiversity, as it is
affected by essentially all human activities at sea, coastline and in the catchment area; for example by fisheries, maritime activities, eutrophication, hazardous substances and climate change. Important to note is that biodiversity
is affected by the multitude of these pressures, and by the cumulative and
synergistic impact they have. The ecological interactions of the relatively
­simple food webs render them vulnerable to external pressures. (HELCOM,
2009, 2010a) Some of these pressures are presented in coming sections of this
Background Paper. In order to maintain biodiversity, and thus the ecosystem
services it provides, it is important to protect not only individual plants and
animals, but also their fundamental conditions for growth and evolution.
State of the Baltic Sea
11
Status of Baltic Sea biodiversity
Linked to climate-driven variations in hydrography, the abundance and distribution of pelagic and littoral species and communities in the Baltic Sea has
changed during the past century. These types of changes have also occurred
during the last decades due to increased anthropogenic pressures. Classifications of the biodiversity status have shown that large areas have an unaccept­
able biodiversity status, and that a total of 59 species are considered threatened and/or declining in such a way that their future sustainability depends
on protective measures. These include all marine mammals, and many species
of fish, as well as key species such as bladderwrack and eelgrass. In recent history there has also been a few cases of extinction, the best-known example
being the Atlantic surgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus). (HELCOM, 2009, 2010a,)
In recent years there has been some alarming reports regarding the status
of wintering waterbirds. A recent study shows that since the 1990s, the total
population size of 11 of 20 investigated species of Baltic waterbirds has
decreased substantially. Seven of which have declined seriously; by more than
30 per cent over the last 16 years. The estimated total number of wintering
waterbirds for the period 2007–2009 was 4.41 million compared to 7.44
million during 1992–1993; a reduction equivalent to 41 per cent. Naturally
there are variations depending on species and habitats occupied, as well as
between different parts of the Baltic Sea. Some species, e.g. herbivorous
waterbirds such as mallards (also known as Wild Duck, Anas platyrhynchos)
show a positive status. This is possible related to the general improvement of
water quality as a consequence of actions to combat eutrophication. Other
species, such as the common eider (Somateria mollissima), and the common
scoter (Melanitta nigra) has decreased with 51 and 47 per cent respectively.
The reasons for these declines are not yet fully understood, but possible
reasons are decreased quality of food (mainly blue mussels) as well as short­
ages of vitamin B. (TemaNord, 2011)
Biodiversity plays a vital role in the functioning of the Baltic marine
ecosystem, including its role in delivering valuable ecosystem goods and
services, and in adding insurance when faced with future changes. Biodiversity of seafloor communities has for example been shown to be vital for healthy
marine ecosystems, not least through their role in the food web, through
habitat engineering and by affecting nutrient cycles and primary productivity.
(Lohrer et al., 2004) A recent study, performed in the northern Baltic Sea,
show that hypoxic disturbance degrades the structure and function of
seafloor communities and sediment nutrient cycling (Villnäs et al., 2012). The
preservation of Baltic Sea biodiversity, both at the genetic level, level of
individual species and functional groups, as well as the level of habitats and
ecosystems, through proper management and conservation is thus of fundamental importance for successful adaptations to our rapidly changing environments. (Johannesson & André, 2006; Johannesson et al., 2011; Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment, 2005)
12
State of the Baltic Sea
3. Environmental problems ­affecting the Baltic Sea
3.1 Eutrophication
Nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus are essential for primary production, and directly and indirectly result in higher food availability for all consumers. Eutrophication is defined as an increased input of nutrients causing
an accelerated growth of planktonic algae and higher plant forms, thus
­increasing total primary production of organic matter.
The Baltic Sea drainage area is highly populated, and human activities such
as agriculture, municipal sewage, industries and atmospheric deposition, in
combination with nitrogen fixation, have resulted in excessive nitrogen and
phosphorus loads coming from both within and outside the catchment area.
Humans began to influence the coastal ecosystems of the region in prehistoric
times, for example with discharge of wastewater into the Baltic Sea.
The establishment of small industries and trade, the development and
intensification of agriculture and other changes in land-use, in combination
with changing climate, are some factors that permitted a gradual increase in
the size of the human population during the 18th and 19th centuries. For a long
time, crop growing only had a moderate impact on the marine environment,
but as increasing areas of land were used for cultivation, the effects of pollution began to show. The expansion of agriculture led to extensive drainage of
wetlands and lakes, which together with growing use of agricultural fertilizers
lead to increased transport of nutrients to the Sea. The growing population
and industrialization also led to increases in wastewater discharge. Higher
loads of nutrients stimulated increased production of phytoplankton and fish.
These first signs of marine pollution were observed during the 19th century,
but the Baltic Sea remained classified as an oligotrophic sea (i.e. nutrient
poor) with clear water, oxygenated deep waters and favorable conditions for
cod reproduction during the 19th century. (Wulff et al., 2007; Österblom et
al., 2007)
Since the turn of the 20th century, terrestrial loads of nitrogen and phosphorus doubled and tripled, respectively, accentuated after the Second World
War as a result of the introduction of artificial fertilizers (Gren et al., 2000;
Savchuk et al. 2008). According to recent reconstructions, the Baltic Sea has
received about 100 million tonnes of nitrogen and 4.5 million tonnes of
phosphorus from the land and atmosphere since the 1850, over half of it
during the past fifty years (Savchuk et al., 2012b). In result, nutrient pools in
the Baltic Sea basins may have increased two- threefold, while the annual
rates of important biogeochemical processes, for instance primary production of organic carbon, increased even more (Emeis et al., 2000 Savchuk et
al., 2008; Gustafsson et al., 2012).
Baltic Sea eutrophication is thus the result of decades of excessive nutrients
loads, and driven by human activities the process is amplified by natural
factors such as slow water renewal and strong stratification. In summary,
Baltic Sea eutrophication stem from point- and diffuse sources on land,
reaching the Baltic Sea through waterways and leakage, as well as from
atmospheric deposition.
State of the Baltic Sea
13
Effects of eutrophication
Summer blooms of cyanobacteria are a natural phenomenon of the Baltic
Sea, and have been recorded as early as 1885, but as the average biomass production has increased by a factor of 2,5, so has the various impacts on the
ecosystem. In the 1950s the effects of eutrophication became clearly evident
both close to the large cities, but also in offshore areas with blooms and a
­decrease in summer water transparency. As eutrophication has both ecological
and social consequences, it is one of the major environmental problems in
the Baltic Sea. It has resulted in a deterioration of the ecosystem, with effects
including increase in filamentous algae, withdrawal of perennial fucoid algae,
increased frequency of toxic algal blooms and changes in fish population
(See figure 4). (Wulff et al., 2001; Larson et al., 1985; HELCOM, 2009)
Figure 4 illustrates changes in the Baltic Sea ecosystem during the 20th
Century; increased algal blooms and surface accumulations of plankton has
lead to murkier and less transparent waters, followed by increased sedimentation of organic material to the sea floor. Decomposition of the organic matter
consumes oxygen, and if the oxygen is not replenished, e.g. through inflow of
oxygen-rich water through the Danish straits, ultimately hypoxia or even
anoxia (i.e. low concentrations and absence of oxygen respectively) will occur.
The oxygen deficit in turn leads to changes in benthic communities; as
long-living, deep-burrowing and slow-growing animals no longer survive,
they are replaced by small and fast-growing species that live on the sediment
surface and can tolerate low concentrations of oxygen. Larger animals such as
fish are also sensitive to low oxygen concentrations and, if unable to move to
more oxygenated areas, ultimately suffocate. One species severely affected is
cod (Gadus morhua), as its spawning requires both high salinity and high
oxygen concentrations in order for the cod fry to develop – conditions that in
the last decades have been rare in the Baltic Sea. If the state of the ecosystem
further deteriorates and oxygen concentrations further decrease, only bacteria
and fungi can survive, and the bottom area thus turns into a so-called “dead
zone”, void of higher organisms. (Kautsky, 1991; Conley et al., 2011, Savchuk et
al., 2008, 2011)
Increase in biomass of phytoplankton and filamentous algae has lead to
light deprivation for aquatic vegetation, such as meadows of eelgrass and
perennial fucoid algae, reducing their biomass, depth and geographic distribution. As species such as eelgrass and bladder wrack provide substrate for
feed, reproduction, and shelter for associated fauna, loss of submerged
vegetation is likely to markedly influence the coastal Baltic ecosystem, and
thereby coastal fish catches. Eutrophication has also lead to increased frequency and intensity of harmful algal blooms, the most conspicuous composed of potentially toxic cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) that cover large parts
of the Baltic Proper in late summer, posing a health risk to humans and
domestic animals swimming in the Baltic Sea. When the algae drift ashore
they create banks of foul-smelling detritus, limiting recreational and economic use of the beaches and the Sea. (E.g. Kautsky et al., 1986, 1992; Wulff et al.,
2008; HELCOM, 2010a)
14
State of the Baltic Sea
Seal
Seal
Ecological compartments
mpartmentts
Cod
Cod
Regime shift
Cod to sprat
Sprat
Sprat
Zooplankton
Zooplankon
Fucus
Phytoplankon
Phytoplankton
Fucus
Filamentous algae
Regime shift
Oligotrophic to eutrophic
Nutrients
Sea bottom
Year 1900
Nutrients
Oxygenated
Hypoxic/Anoxic
1950
1980
Sea bottom (Hypoxic/Anoxic)
2000
Timeduring the 20th Century. The illustration shows
Figure 4. Changes in the Baltic Sea ecosystem
changes in major ecological compartments and their interactions, as well as regime shifts in the
ecosystem. (Illustration by J. Lokrantz/Azote)
Widespread effects of eutrophication
Eutrophied coastal seas occur worldwide, with a resulting exponential expansion of hypoxia and “dead zones” (Diaz & Rosenberg, 2008). According to
HELCOM (2010a) all the open waters of the Baltic Sea, with the exclusion of
the Bothnian Bay, are affected by eutrophication. Regarding coastal areas, the
only areas not affected by eutrophication are restricted to the Gulf of Bothnia.
Although hypoxia is a natural property of the Baltic Sea, its extent and intensity have increased with anthropogenic eutrophication. In the Baltic Proper,
hypoxia covered approximately 3000 km2 in 1906 and had by the 1930s
­increased to nearly 19 000 km2 (Savchuk et al., 2008 and references therein).
Prior to 1950, hypoxia was mostly confined to the spatially restricted deepest
areas, but in the two decades following the 1950s, the size and extent of low
oxygen regions grew. They expanded into shallower bottoms of the deep
­basins of the central Baltic Sea, with loss of habitat and spawning areas, eli­
mination of benthic animals and altered food chains as a consequence. These
widespread effects of eutrophication and consequent hypoxia has made the
Baltic home to the world’s largest “dead zone”, with large areas affected by
long-term hypoxia (i.e. concentrations of oxygen below 2 ml l-1) (e.g. Conley
et al., 2009b; Diaz & Rosenberg, 2008; Savchuk et al., 2008). Already in the
1970s, a record area of 70,000 km2 (corresponding to an area larger than
­Lithuania) impacted by hypoxia was reported, as well as increasing occurrence
of hypoxia in the coastal areas. (Conley et al., 2011, Savchuk et al., 2008, 2011)
State of the Baltic Sea
Filamentous
algae
15
Interactions
Vicious cycle of hypoxia
During periods of hypoxia, there is not enough oxygen for mineralization
of organic matter, and the process of denitrification induces a reduction of
­nitrate both in the sediments and water column. After the total exhaustion
of oxygen, the anoxia settles in, resulting in formation of toxic hydrogen
­sulphide (H2S), characterized by the foul odour of rotten eggs. In anoxic
­environments, phosphorus bound in the sediments is released back into the
water as phosphate. This pulse of phosphorus from the sediment to overlying
waters is called internal loading and, together with denitrification, is a part of
a vicious cycle (Vahtera et al., 2007; Savchuk, 2010). With the DIN availability
reduced due to denitrification, the excess of released phosphate intensifies
blooms of nitrogen-fixing cyanobacteria and other algae benefitting from
fixed nitrogen. When the remnants of these blooms sink and decompose, they
consume oxygen, thus ultimately expanding the “dead zone” and further contributing to the negative spiral of eutrophication and hypoxia. The amounts
of phosphate accumulated in the Baltic Sea, and alternating between its waters and sediments, is an order of magnitude larger than anthropogenic inputs. Therefore the magnitude of plankton blooms is not directly determined
by the magnitude of the external loads, but depend also on internal loading
(Conley et al., 2009; Savchuk, 2010). The ability to combat and quickly reverse
eutrophication is further compromised by the cyanobacterial nitrogen fixation, which to a great degree compensates for nitrogen removal due to both
natural denitrification and deliberate nitrogen land load reductions. In addition, a long-term decrease in silicate concentrations is apparent in most parts
of the Baltic. Silicate has been shown to limit growth of diatoms in the Gulf
of Riga in spring, thus changing the structure of the phytoplankton community rather than limiting the total production. (ICES, 2008; HELCOM 2010a)
3.2 Hazardous substances
Compared to eutrophication, which has a long history of research, information is scarcer on hazardous substances and their effect on the Baltic Sea environment. During the last decades, this area has been identified as important
and thus further researched. Presently one of the four segments targeted by
the HELCOM BSAP is hazardous substances, with a zero-emission target
for all hazardous substances in the whole Baltic Sea catchment by 2021.
­(HELCOM, 2010a)
Hazardous substances are substances that cause adverse effects on the
ecosystem, and include both natural and synthetic compounds. Examples are
persistent organic pollutants (POPs), such as PCB, DDT and dioxins, which
can be toxic even at low concentrations. Heavy metals such as mercury, lead,
and cadmium are generally toxic at higher concentrations. Pollution through
hazardous substances constitutes a serious threat to the Baltic Sea environment and contamination by the above-mentioned substances has led to
detrimental effects on biodiversity. Some of these substances harm the flora
and fauna by affecting the immune and hormone systems, thus impairing the
general health and reproduction status. Due to bioaccumulating properties
they magnify through the food chain to higher species at higher trophic
16
State of the Baltic Sea
levels, and pose a threat also for humans who consume fish caught in the
Baltic Sea. The long residence times of hazardous substances, in combination
with the introduction of new compounds, pose a grave threat for the state
of the future Baltic and health of future generations. (Bignert et al., 1998;
HELCOM, 2010a, b, c)
Sources of hazardous substances
Since the late 19th century, when industrialization in the Baltic Sea region
­began, the Baltic Sea has been exposed to an extensive use of chemicals. Pollution through a range of hazardous substances has continued, and stem from
point sources, land-based diffuse sources and atmospheric deposition. These
categories include sources from industry, agriculture with its use of pesticides
and pharmaceuticals, sludge, marine dump sites and waste deposition in
landfills, a range of household consumer products including pharmaceupticals which might be discharged from waste water treatment plants, emissions
from traffic, shipping, energy production, incineration of wastes, as well as
emissions from buildings and construction materials. In addition, chemical
munitions and warfare agents have been found throughout the Baltic Sea as
a remnant of World War II (WWII). (HELCOM 1994, 2010a, b)
As emissions can be transported via the atmosphere over long distances,
it is important to recognize that although they are deposited over the Baltic
Sea and its catchment area, a large fraction originate from sources outside the
Baltic Sea region. This is true not only for heavy metals, but also for POPs
such as dioxins, which are formed as by-products or impurities of several
different industrial processes, as well as from most combustion processes.
It is estimated that 60 per cent of cadmium, 84 per cent of lead and 79 per
cent of mercury originate from distant sources (mainly the UK, France,
Belgium and the Czeck Republic). (HELCOM, 2010b, c)
Pollution by DDT, PCB and heavy metals are well-known examples of
Baltic Sea contaminants, not least because their negative effects on species
such as eagles, seals and guillemots. In the example of the white-tailed eagle
(Haliaeetus albicilla), reproduction was reduced by 80 per cent in the 1970s
due to impaired reproductive ability as a result of high concentrations of
DDTs and PCBs. The population was reduced to one-fifth of pre-1950 levels.
In the 1980’s, as a result of increased awareness of their detrimental effects,
several POPs including DDT were banned in industrialized countries. This
led to improvements in the health of Baltic Sea wildlife, leading to recovery of
some top-predators including seals and eagle populations. The eagles reached
pre-1950 levels in the mid-1990s and populations have shown increases by an
average of 7,5 per cent annually between 1990–2010. (Helander, 2003; Herrmann et al., 2011, HELCOM 2010b)
Presently, contaminants such as polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
dioxins, tributyltin (TBT), brominated flame retardants (PBDEs), perfluorinated compouds (e.g. perflourooctane sulfonate, PFOS) and radioactive
compounds are also released into and detected in the Baltic Sea. Despite
enhanced management and technology, which has led to improvements in
the Baltic Sea regarding the status of pollution during the last decades, the
State of the Baltic Sea
17
Baltic Sea area is still highly contaminated by hazardous substances. Only a
few coastal sites and western Kattegat are presently undisturbed by hazardous
substances. Concentrations of heavy metals in the Baltic Sea have been shown
to be 20 times higher compared to the North Atlantic. These high levels stem
from the fact that the hazardous substances are resistant to natural breakdown processes, making them extremely stable and long-lived. In combination with bioaccumulation in the tissues of animals and humans, hazardous
substances constitute a large environmental problem. Levels of dioxins are
so high that several fish species (e.g. herring and salmon) exceed the limits
determined by the European Union for safe human consumption.
­(HELCOM, 2010a, b)
After WWII large quantities of chemical munitions and warfare agents
were dumped in the Baltic Sea; at least 50 000 tonnes of chemical munitions
containing some 13 000 tonnes of warfare agents have been found, mainly
southeast of Gotland, east of Bornholm and south of Little Belt (HELCOM,
1994; MERCW, 2005; Fabisial & Olejnik, 2012) The munitions dumped
include artillery ammunition, grenades, aerial bombs and barrels with
chemical warfare agents (CWA), which are gaseous, liquid or solid substances
for anti-personnel use (such as e.g. mustard gas, nerve- and suffocating
agents). There is however evidence that CWA is present in many other places
due to wild dumping and displacement by sea currents and fishery activities,
as well as continued dumping during the Cold War. Some of the material are
buried deep in the bottom and remain intact, while some munitions and
canisters are corroded, thus releasing CWA to the water. Munitions are
regularly netted by Baltic Sea fishermen, leading to both displacement and
acute risks; with roughly 700 bombs caught in fishermen nets during the past
decades. (HELCOM, 1994, 2012; MERCW, 2005) Almost all warfare agents are
broken down at varying rates into less toxic, water-soluble substances.
Although knowledge of the ecological effects of CWA to the marine environment is limited, recent studies have shown elevated arsenic concentrations in
dumpsites and significantly higher frequencies of histological lesions (i.e.
abnormalities in the tissues) in cod and blue mussels, showing that CWA
affect Baltic Sea biota and may potentially be carcinogenic. (Sanderson et al.,
2009) It is still unclear how large the risks are and further analysis is needed
to assess human health risks from eating fish caught in and around dumpsites.
3.3 Shipping and oil spills
The Baltic Sea is one of the most heavily trafficked seas in the world as a
­result of intensifying international co-operation and economic growth. Today
the Baltic hosts approximately 15 per cent of the world’s total maritime transports, with around 2000 ships (mainly cargo ships) at Sea at any one time.
A steady increase during the last decades is expected to continue, with both
larger numbers and sizes of ships, and shipping traffic is expected to double
in the next 20 years. 20 per cent of ships are tankers, carrying as much as
166 million tonnes of oil. (HELCOM, 2010a, d) Alongside heavy emissions,
leading to atmospheric deposition and thereby adding to the before mentioned problems with eutrophication and related issues, the increased risk
18
State of the Baltic Sea
of accidental alien species introduction and accidents involving oil and other
substances poses a serious risk to the Baltic Sea environment. Some experts
consider this only second to eutrophication in terms of current issues important for the protection of the Baltic Sea. Each year, there are 120–140 shipping
accidents, the majority due to groundings and collisions. Of these, some seven
per cent result in some type of pollution, and each year the Baltic experience
one major shipping accident resulting in an oil spill larger than 100 tonnes.
Heavy shipping results in a number of additional negative effects on the
­marine environment, including underwater noise and the release of anti-­
fouling chemicals. Some of the main shipping routes in the Baltic pass
through sensitive areas, where seabirds such as razorbills (Alca torda), lesser
black-backed gulls (Larus fuscus) and common murre/guillemot (Uria aalge)
breed and feed. (E.g. HELCOM, 2010c, d; Huhtala et al., 2009; WWF, 2011)
Oil spills can damage the environment in numerous ways, including
harming wildlife. Birds and marine mammals are harmed in a number of
ways; when oil coat their feathers and furs they experience problems moving
and thus become easy prey, and since the oil also reduces or destroys the
ability to insulate and waterproof it also leads to hypothermia, difficulties to
keep buoyant and consequently risks of sinking or drowning. Additionally oil
contaminates food and water, thereby affecting long- and short-term aspects
of health, including reproduction and egg mortality. As oil also disguise scent,
marine mammals, such as seals relying on scent to identify their pups, might
not be able to identify each other, and thus oil spills can also lead to rejection,
abandonment and starvation of seal pups. Oil spills can further cause reductions in phyto- and zooplankton biomass, thus reducing food availability for
species in higher trophic levels, thus inducing cascading effects on the food
web. (HELCOM, 2010c, d; UNEP, 2012)
It is important to keep in mind that there are no clear relationships between
the amount of spilled oil and the impact on wildlife, as even smaller spills at
the wrong time/season can cause much more harm in a sensitive area com­
pared to another, or even the same area, at another time of the year. As
described above, oil spills can have numerous harmful effects, affecting
ecosystem services including primary production, food web dynamics,
habitat and biodiversity, and thus ecosystem resilience. These services provide
food and aesthetic values, which is the base for some recreational activities, as
people value the mere existence of the ecosystem and species as such (see BG
Paper Oil spills management). Another consideration is that the appreciation
of affected waterfront properties and summerhouses will diminish as a consequence of oiled shorelines. In summary, oil spills might jeopardize a large
range of benefits derived from the Sea, and thus the wellbeing of people
around the Baltic.
State of the Baltic Sea
19
3.4 Energy-related activities
Apart from shipping, and the closely related developments in harbors, a number of energy-related activities take place in the Baltic Sea region. Although
there are currently only a few large wind farms in operation in the Baltic Sea,
wind power, including offshore wind farms, is the most rapidly expanding
field for energy production in and around the Baltic Sea. Although not a
source of direct chemical and biological pollution, there are discussions about
the environmental and aesthetical effects of wind farms, including competition for space.
Two Baltic oil platforms operate today (in Polish and Russian exclusive
economical zones, respectively). In addition there are several gas pipelines
being built in the Baltic Sea (e.g. Nord Stream from Russia to Germany).
Although there has not been any report of significant environmental problems coupled with these activities, possible growth in oil and gas extraction
activities may be a potential source of environmental concern.
3.5 Overfishing
Baltic Sea fisheries have been conducted along the Baltic coast since well
­before the Middle Ages, forming an essential complement to game caught by
hunter-gatherers. Since the 1500s, fishing has been an important economic
and social activity, and species such as cod (Gadus morhua), herring (Clupea
harengus), sprat (Sprattus sprattus), salmon (Salmo salar) and sea trout
­(Salmo trutta) have been valuable catch ever since. (MacKenzie et al., 2002)
As the Baltic Sea drainage area is highly populated, humans have naturally
influenced fish stocks through their fishing activities. Until the middle of the
20th century, fishing was carried out on a fairly small scale, but construction
of hydroelectric power stations, reservoirs and regulation of the main Baltic
watercourses negatively affected natural reproduction of migratory fish,
including salmon, sea trout and eel (Anguilla anguilla). At the same time,
technical advances in fishing methods and materials, including open sea
fishery and trawling, paved the way for substantial increases in landings.
Baltic Sea fisheries gradually increased, with higher numbers and sizes of
trawlers, as well as developments in the handling and transportation of fish.
(MacKenzie et al., 2002; SLU, 1973) According to statistics, some 850 000–
990 000 tonnes of fish (all species included) were caught yearly in the Baltic
between 1974–1984. Landings of cod, the most important species economically, peaked in the middle of the 1980s, reaching extremely high levels, with
344 000 – 442 000 tonnes caught per year. These extreme levels are explained
by a combination of favourable hydrographical conditions (favouring successful reproduction and survival, as well as a large biological production of
food), and the low predation pressure exerted by seals (as populations were
reduced due to hunting and hazardous substances). The cod stocks collapsed
in the 1980s (see Figure 4 and section on regime shifts), leading to economic
difficulties for the fishing community and the refining industry. Recording of
cod landings started in the 1950s, and saw its lowest levels in 2000 – 2007,
with 63 000–105 000 tonnes yearly, far below previous landings. (MacKenzie
et al., 2012; Casini et al., 2008; ICES, 2008; HELCOM, 2010c)
20
State of the Baltic Sea
Today, the stocks of cod and many other fish species are small compared to
20th century levels, and some remain low and unsustainable. The stocks are
negatively impacted by a combination of factors, including indirect pressures
such as eutrophication, contamination from hazardous substances, oil spills,
invasive species and climate change. High fishing pressure and damaging
fishing practices in combination with high-levels of by-catch and illegal,
unregulated and unreported fishing (referred to as IUU) exert more direct
pressure, and the synergistic effects of these pressures have led to present-day
overexploitation of many commercially valuable fish stocks. For some species,
such as cod, the populations have even been considered outside biologically
safe limits (Österblom et al., 2007; ICES, 2008). However, there are some
indications that the cod stock increased in the last years due to low exploitation rates and increased reqruitment (Eero et al., 2012). Another important
factor that has affected commercially important fish communities is the
so-called regime shift that took place in the late 1980s (see section 3.X on
regime shifts). High fishing pressure by cod in combination with climate
change, eutrophication and the lack of salt- and oxygen-rich water inflows
from the North Sea reduced the water volume suitable for cod reproduction,
led to large-scale changes in the fish community; decreases in the biomass of
cod (a high trophic level, commercially high valued and favoured fish), which
was replaced by a low trophic level and commercially low valued fish (sprat).
(Österblom et al., 2007; Casini et al. 2008, 2009)
The realization that poor political management has exacerbated the poor
status of fish stocks has led countries around the Baltic Sea, as well as the
European Union, to initiate discussions regarding the reforms of several
policies, including the EU Common Fishery Policy (CFP). Reaching new
agreements can hopefully help safeguard sustainable management of EU and
Baltic Sea fish communities. If fish stocks were allowed to recover, it would
not only strengthen the environment, but also boost the fishing economy. It is
estimated that recovered European fish stocks would make fisheries dependent on them five times more profitable. (WWF, 2012)
3.6 Invasive species
There is evidence of a rapid expansion of invasive (also called alien or nonindigenous) species in the Baltic Sea since the 1990s. These terms are used for
species that, often due to human activity, intentionally or accidentally have
spread across a major geographical barrier. The brackish water of the Sea
­provides a possibility for both fresh and salt-water invasions (Paavola et al.,
2005). Between the 19th and 20th century, approximately 120 such species have
been recorded in the Baltic Sea and roughly 80 of these have reproductive
populations. Species new to the Baltic Sea ecosystem include mussels (e.g.
Mytilopsis leuco-phaeata), barnacles (Balanus improvisus), polyps (Cordylophora caspia) and water fleas (Cercopagis pengoi). Potential harmful invaders such as toxic dinoflagellates (Pfiesteria piscicida), American comb jelly
(Mnemiopsis leidyi) and Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) have also been
­identified (see Main report Chapter 8 for more information about the case
study on the Asian clam). The dominant vectors of invasion in the aquatic
State of the Baltic Sea
21
e­ nvironment include introductions via ballast water, hull fouling and aquaculture. The survival of the introduced species depends on the biological
characteristics of the species and of the environmental conditions faced. High
biodiversity is known to enhance invasion resistance and as the Baltic Sea
ecosystem has a relatively low biodiversity, this could perhaps explain the
high invasion success of many invasive species. (Leppäkoski et al., 2002;
­Leppäkoski, 2005; Baltic Sea Alien Species Database, 2012)
Invasive species are increasingly recognized as serious threats to aquatic
ecosystem and biodiversity. As invasive species have been claimed to be the
second biggest factor of biodiversity loss in general (Vitousek et al., 1997;
UNEP, 2006), it is reasonable to expect that biodiversity-related ecosystem
services of the Baltic Sea will also be affected. These species can have dele­
terious effects on native species by for example exerting predation pressure,
compete for food or space, hybridize or spread diseases and parasites. These
changes often lead to negative consequences on human economy as these
species can damage fisheries, tourism and aquaculture (Ojaveer et al., 2002;
Almqvist, 2006). Some invasive “engineering” species may also change the
habitat itself, leading to larger shifts in the ecosystem. Examples of invasive
“engineering” species include the Bay barnacle (Balanus improvises) and
Conrad’s false mussel (Mytilopsis leucophaeata), which both cause biofouling
in addition to changes in regulating and supporting services of the Baltic Sea.
On the other hand, the invasive American polychaete worm Marenzellaria,
which invaded the Baltic Sea in 1985, seem to enhance the denitrification
cycle and improve bottom-water oxygen conditions due to its bioirrigation,
thus helping to counteract eutrophication-related problems. (Wallentinus
& Nyberg, 2007; Norkko et al., 2011).
3.7 Marine litter
The United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) describes marine litter
as “any persistent, manufactured or processed solid material discarded, disposed
of or abandoned in the marine and coastal environment” (UNEP, 2012). The
problem of marine litter is recognized and considered to be one of the major
threats to oceans worldwide, with estimations showing that the total input of
marine litter into the worlds oceans are approximately 6.4 million tonnes
­annually. This litter causes a wide spectrum of environmental, economic, safety,
health and cultural impacts. (UNEP, 2012) Items such as plastics (e.g. bags,
bottles and toys), fishing gears, paper and cardboard (e.g. paper and tetra
packs), glass, clothes, metals (e.g. cans, caps and spray cans), or any other item
made by, or used by people, find their way to the Baltic Sea via beaches, sewage,
coastal urban areas and rivers, or through storms or wind. The very slow rate
of degradation of most marine litter items, mainly plastics, together with the
continuously growing quantity of the litter and debris disposed, is leading to
a gradual increase in marine litter found at sea and on the shores. Generally,
up to 70 per cent of marine litter that enters the sea sinks to the bottom,
whereas 15 per cent is found on beaches and the remaining 15 per cent floats
on the water surface. (UNEP, 2006; HELCOM, 2007b)
22
State of the Baltic Sea
Marine litter can range from large or medium-sized particles visible to the
human eye, to invisible microscopic particles that form when the litter
degrades. Microparticles also derive from other sources such as plastic pellets
used as raw material, different kind of scrubbers for cosmetic use and clean­
ing or wearing of roads and rubber tire. The problems of marine litter in the
Baltic Sea are not comprehensively studied, but existing studies show that the
amount of litter varies between countries, although generally plastic items
were the most common type (50–63 per cent) of all litter found. Some studies
show that the amount of marine litter found on the coastline ranges between
700 and 1200 pieces per 100 m coast. However, in most cases the average
amount of litter found on the coasts varied between 6 and 16 pieces of litter per
100 m of coast.”Other studies show that each cubic meter of water can contain
hundreds of thousands of pieces of microscopic plastic particles (e.g. 104 000
pieces per m3 in the Gulf of Bothnia). (Norén et al., 2009; HELCOM, 2007b)
Effects of marine litter
Harm to the marine environment as a result of marine littering includes
­ingestion and entanglement of marine fauna such as seals, fish and seabirds.
Marine litter can resemble food such as jellyfish or fish egg, and when digested
get caught in the animals feeding appendices, causing a slow death through
injuries and famine. Microscopic particles are in the same size range as the
food for many marine filter and detritus feeders, and when digested these
particles can probably lead to physhical injuries. As some hazardous substances may adsorb to these particles, they may enhance accumulation of
­toxic substances in the food web. Larger objects can cause habitat destruction
by affecting water quality and causing physical damage, for example when
dragged along the seabed by currents, thus scraping and tearing up fragile
and vital habitats, as well as smothering seabed animals. Besides this, marine
debris can contribute to the transfer and movement of invasive species.
­Marine litter can also damage marine industries and the aesthetic quality of
coastal environments through contamination of beaches and harbors, damages
to fishing boats and gears, fouled propellers and broken engines affecting the
shipping industry, clogging of cooling water intakes of industries, as well as
potentially injuring humans, pets and grazing cattle. These effects naturally
cause serious economic losses to various sectors and authorities. Examples
from Sweden and Poland show that merely cleaning beaches and removing
litter from harbor waters can cost millions of Euro annually. (HELCOM,
2007a, b; UNEP, 2006; SEPA, 2010; Barnes, 2002)
3.8 Climate Change
Another concern when considering the status of the Baltic Sea ecosystem is
climate change, identified as one of the dominant drivers of change globally.
Measurements show that between the years 1900–2005, the global temperature
rose with 0.78 °C and scenarios of climate change, developed by the Inter­
governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), project an increase in global
mean surface temperature of 2.4 – 6.4 °C above preindustrial levels by 2100.
Generally, increases in frequency of intense rainfall and rising sea levels,
State of the Baltic Sea
23
­ ecreases in snow cover and sea ice, more frequent and intense heat waves as
d
well as widespread ocean acidification are considered to be associated with
global warming and climate changes. (IPCC, 2007)
Changes have already been detected concerning the increase in sea surface
temperature (SST) in the Baltic Sea. The Baltic Sea´s annual mean SST has
increased approximately 0.7 °C during the last 20 years. (BACC, 2008) In
addition, model studies indicate increases in air temperature of 3–5 °C by
2100 (e.g. Meier et al., 2012, Neumann et al., 2012). The sea surface salinity has
decreased during the last two decades due to low inflow of marine salt water
through the Sound and Belt areas. Changes in precipitation are also expected,
affecting the freshwater load to the Baltic and thus salinity. Projections for the
Baltic Sea during the 21st century suggest that, compared to present climate,
higher water temperatures, spatial changes in precipitation, lower sea surface
salinity and oxygen concentrations and reduced ice-cover is probable.
Temperature will be higher and salinity lower than any time since 1850
(BACC, 2008; Meier et al., 2012; Gustafsson et al., 2012), with salinity decreas­
ing in the order of 2–2,5 psu by the end of the 21st century (Neumann et al.,
2012). These changes are likely to have significant impacts on the marine
ecosystem, and (despite high uncertainties) climate change can be expected
to increase phytoplankton biomass and eutrophication, reduce water trans­
parency and reinforce oxygen depletion, although that these problems are
largely depending on the future nutrient loads. Projections show that, as a
result of the increase in net precipitation over certain parts of the catchment
area, river runoff will increase between 15 and 22 per cent. (Neumann et al.,
2012; Meier et al., 2012) Although cod biomass is mainly controlled by fishing
mortality, new research indicates that in the latter part of the 21st century, a
combination of climate change and eutrophication may result in decline of
cod biomass. (MacKenzie et al., 2012; Niiranen et al., 2012) Changes in factors
such as salinity and temperature are important abiotic parameters structuring
the species composition of food webs and biodiversity in the Baltic Sea. Future
climate change and its interactions with multiple anthropogenic forcing are
thus likely to have major impacts on the ecosystem structure and function.
3.9 Regime shifts
Elevated nutrient concentrations have, in combination with a large inflow of
salt water in the 1950s, which mobilized accumulated phosphorus from the
deep sediments, led to an increased organic production. Österblom et al.
(2007) suggested that this regime shift, from an oligotrophic to a more eutrophicated state was triggered in 1951. An ecosystem regime shift is an infrequent,
large-scale reorganization, marking an abrupt transition between different
states of a complex system, affecting ecosystem structure and function and
occurring at multiple trophic levels (e.g. Scheffer & Carpenter, 2003; Collie
et al., 2004). In the late 1980s, the Baltic subsequently underwent ecological
regime shifts (see Figure 4); in the Central Baltic Sea the food web structure
changed from a cod- to a sprat-dominated state, induced among other things
by overfishing, eutrophication and changes in climate leading to hydrographic changes. (Österblom et al., 2007, 2008; Möllmann et al., 2008, 2009; Casini
et al., 2008)
24
State of the Baltic Sea
The ecological background to the latter regime shift is that, due to increased
hunting of seals (as these were considered competitors to commercial
fisheries) the predation pressure from seals on cod decreased, and the seals
no longer controlled the cod population. In combination with increases in
primary productions and thus food (as explained earlier in the section on
eutrophication), the conditions for cod were very favourable, leading to large
increases in the cod populations and a cod dominated state. The fishing
industry markedly intensified its cod fishing in the mid 1970s, and a decade
later, the cod stocks collapsed. The reduced cod stocks in turn led to lowered
predation of its main prey, the clupeid fish sprat (Sprattus sprattus). As a
consequence, sprat populations increased dramatically, leading to a spratdominated state. This has been suggested to stabilize the cod stock at a low
level, as sprat predate on cod eggs and larvae and compete with juvenile cod
for phytoplankton-eating zooplankton. Besides changes in temperature and
salinity, through so-called trophic cascades, the increased sprat stock has thus
changed the quantity and quality of zooplankton. In the 1980s a sub-shift in
zooplankton species occurred, with a shift in dominance of different copepods: from Pseudocalanus ssp, the main food supply for cod larvae, to Acartia
and Temora ssp, which besides Pseudocalanus is food for sprat (Österblom et
al., 2007,2008; Möllmann et al., 2008, 2009; Casini et al., 2008; ICES, 2008).
Recent research suggests that these shifts have changed the Baltic Sea eco­
system from being mainly regulated by bottom-up control, to presently being
partly regulated by top-down control, and have been viewed as a third regime
shift in the Baltic Sea ecosystem. Sprat also competes with herring (Clupea
harengus) for zooplankton, and the increased competition for food has led to
herring and sprat becoming smaller and leaner, that is containing less calories.
Research has shown that these changes in food quality have affected the
condition of certain sea birds, such as guillemots (Uria aalge). (Österblom et
al., 2008) Although there is more sprat available, they provide less nutrition,
and some researchers are suggesting existence of “junk-food” in marine
ecosystems. Furthermore, when sprat (a low trophic level and low value fish
mainly used for fishmeal and fish oil production) replaced cod (a commer­
cially high valued and favored table fish fetching high market prices) it
naturally had effects on the profitability of Baltic Sea fisheries. (Alheit et al.,
2005; Österblom et al., 2007, 2008; ICES, 2008)
Thus natural changes in combination with human exploitation in the Baltic
Sea has led to large-scale changes, so called regime-shifts, altering not only
ecosystem functioning, as changes in the interactions strengths between
species in different levels of the food-change change are suggested to occur,
but also social-economic aspects for the countries surrounding the Baltic Sea.
State of the Baltic Sea
25
4. Conclusions
The Baltic Sea is a complex ecosystem influenced by both natural and
anthropo­genic factors. It is under severe stress as a result of environmental
problems such as eutrophication, hazardous substances, overfishing, risk of
oil spills, marine litter and invasive species. In combination with current and
future ­climate changes, the Baltic Sea’s ability to provide ecosystem goods and
­services are jeopardized. Research show that by the end of the 21st century,
abiotic conditions will change; with an increases in water temperature, precipitation and thus runoff, lower salinity and reduced oxygen concentrations.
These changes will cause physiological stress for organisms and may thus
change the distribution and abundance of species inhabiting the Baltic, including increased phytoplankton concentrations. Future climate change and
its interactions with multiple anthropogenic forcing are thus likely to have
major impacts on ecosystem structure and function.
The Baltic Sea provides a number of ecosystem goods and services,
generat­ing benefits, which in turn are coupled to welfare. Deterioration ­of
the ecosystems and their provisioning of benefits might thus have negative
impacts on human welfare by negatively affecting the socio-economy in the
countries surrounding the Baltic Sea.
26
State of the Baltic Sea
References
Alheit J, Möllmann C, Dutz J, Kornilovs G, Loewe P, Mohrholz V, Wasmund
N, 2005. Synchronous ecological regime shifts in the central Baltic and the
North Sea in the late 1980s. ICES J Mar Sci 62: 1205−1215
BACC Author Team, 2008. Assessment of Climate Change for the Baltic Sea
Basin (BACC), Regional Climate Studies. Springer Verlag, Heidelberg
Baltic Sea Alien Species Database. 2012. http://www.corpi.ku.lt/nemo/
Barnes, D.K. 2002. Biodiversity: invasions by marine life on plastic debris.
­Nature 416:808–809.
Bignert, A., Olsson, M., Persson, W., Jensen, S., Zakrisson, S., Litz, N.K., Eriksson, U., Hagberg, L., Alsberg. T. 1998. Temporal trends of organochlorines in
northern europe, 1967–1995. Relation to global fractionation, leakage from sediments and international measures. Environmental pollution 99: 177–198.
Byström, C. 1872. ”Berättelser om fisket i åtskilliga sjöar och vattendrag inom
Medelpad och Ångermanland af Westernorrlands län”. Published 1973 in “Information från Sötvattenslaboratoriet Drottningholm” (Swedish University of
Agricultural Sciences, Department of Aquatic Resources), No. 5.
Casini, M., Lövgren, J., Hjelm, J., Cardinale, M., Molinero, J-C, Kornilovs, G.
2008. Multi-level trophic cascades in a heavily exploited open marine ecosystem.
Proc. R. Soc. B 275, 1793–1801.
Casini, M., Hjelm, J., Molinero, J-C., Lövgren, J., Cardinale, M., Bartolino V.,
Belgrano, A., K ornilovs, G. 2009. Trophic cascades promote threshold-like
shifts in pelagic marine ecosystems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106: 197–202
Collie J., Richardson K., Steele J., 2004. Regime shifts: Can ecological theory
­illuminate the mechanisms? Progress in Oceanography 60, 281–302
Conley, D.J., C. Humborg, L. Rahm, O. P. Savchuk, F. Wulff. 2002. Hypoxia in
the Baltic Sea and basin-scale changes in phosphorus biogeochemistry. ­Environ.
Sci. Technol., 36: 5315–5320.
Conley, D.J., Bonsdorff, E., Carstensen, J., Destouni, G., Gustafsson, B., Hansson,
l-A., Rabalais, N.N., Voss, M. Zillén, L. 2009. Tackling Hypoxia in the ­Baltic
Sea: Is Engineering a Solution? Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 3407–3411
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es8027633,
Conley, D. J., S. Björck, E. Bonsdorff, J. Carstensen, G. Destouni, B. G. Gustafsson, S. Hietanen, M. Kortekaas, H. Kuosa, H. E. M. Meier, B. Müller-Karulis, K.
Nordberg, A. Norkko, G. Nürnberg, H. Pitkänen, N. N. Rabalais, R. Rosenberg,
O. P. Savchuk, C. P. Slomp, M. Voss, F. Wulff, L. Zillén, 2009, Hypoxia-­Related
Processes in the Baltic Sea, Environmental Science & Technology
State of the Baltic Sea
27
Daily, G.C. 1997. Nature´s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems,
Island Press.
Diaz, S. & Cabido, M. 2001. Vive la différence: plant functional diversity ­matters
to ecosystem processes, Trends in Ecology, 16:646–655.
Diaz, R. & Rosenberg, R. 2008. Spreading dead zones and consequences for marine ecosystems, Science, 321, 926–929.
de Jong, V.N.. 1974. Classification of brackish coastal inland waters. Hydrobiol
Bull 8.29–39
Eero, M, Köster F.W., Vinther M. 2012. Why is the Eastern Baltic cod recovering?
Marine Policy. 36 (2012) 235–240.
Elmgren, R. & Hill, Cathy. 1997. Ecosystem function at low biodiversity – the
Baltic example, in Marine Biodiversity, Patterns and Processes, Ed. Ormand
R.F.G., Gage, J.D., Angel, M.A. Cambridge University Press.
Emeis, K.-C., Stuck, U., Leipe, T., Pollehne, F., Kunzendorf, H. Christiansen, C.
2000. Changes in the C, N, P, burial rates in some Baltic Sea sediments over the
last 150 years – relevance to P regeneration rates and the phosphorus cycle, Mar.
Geol., 167:43–59.
Fabisiak, J. & Olejnik, A. 2012. Sunken chemical ammunition in the Baltic Sea –
Research and risk assessment – CHEMSEA scientific programme
Fisher, B., Turner, R.K., Morling, P., 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem
services for decision making, Ecological Economics 68: 643–653.
Furman, E.R., P. Välipakka, H. Salemaa, and R. Munsterhjelm. 2004. Baltic Sea,
Environment and Ecology. University of Helsinki, Maj and Tor Nessling
­Foundation, Ministry of Environment, Finnish Environment Institute and
Southeast Regional Environment Centre. [online] URL
http://www.environment.fi/balticsea.
Gren, I-M., Turner, K., Wulff, F. 2000, Managing a Sea – The Ecological
­Economics of the Baltic, Earthscan, Publications Ltd., London.
Gustafsson, B.G., Schenk, F., Blenckner, T., Eilola, K., Meier, M.H.E., MüllerKarulis, B., Neumann, T., Ruoho-Airola, T., Savchuk, O.P., Zorita, E., 2012.
­Reconstructing the development of Baltic Sea eutrophication 1850–2006. Ambio
41:534–548
Helander, B. 2003. The white-tailed Sea Eagle in Sweden—reproduction,
­numbers and trends. In: Sea Eagle 2000. Helander, B., Marquiss, M. and
­Bowerman, B. (eds). Åtta.45 Tryckeri AB, Stockholm, pp. 57–66.
28
State of the Baltic Sea
HELCOM. 1994. Report on chemical munitions dumped in the Baltic Sea.
­Report to the 16th meeting of the Helsinki Commission from the Ad-Hoc
Working Group on Dumped Chemical Munition, January 1994.
HELCOM. 2007A. HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan (adopted by the HELCOM Ministerial meeting, Krakow, Poland 15th November 2007)
HELCOM. 2007B. Assessment of the Marine Litter problem in the Baltic region
and priorities for response.
HELCOM. 2009. Biodiversity in the Baltic Sea – An integrated thematic assessment on biodiversity and nature conservation in the Baltic, Sea. Balt. Sea
­Environ. Proc. No. 116B.
HELCOM. 2010a. Ecosystem Health of the Baltic Sea 2003–2007: HELCOM
­Initial Holistic Assessment, Balt. Sea Environ. Proc. No. 122.
HELCOM. 2010b. Hazardous substances in the Baltic Sea – An integrated thematic assessment of hazardous substances in the Baltic Sea. Balt. Sea Environ.
Proc. No. 120B.
HELCOM. 2010c. Maritime Activities in the Baltic Sea – An integrated thematic
assessment on maritime activities and response to pollution at sea in the Baltic
Sea Region. Balt. Sea Environ. Proc. No. 123
HELCOM. 2010d. Maritime Activities in the Baltic Sea – An integrated
­thematic assessment on maritime activities and response to pollution at sea
in the Baltic Sea Region. Balt. Sea Environ. Proc. No. 123
HELCOM. 2012. Fact sheets on Fucus vesiculosus. http://www.helcom.fi/­
environment2/biodiv/endangered/Algae/en_GB/­Fucus_vesiculosus/
Herrmann, C., O. Krone, T. Stjernberg, B. Helander. 2011. Population Develop­
ment of Baltic Bird Species: White-tailed Sea Eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla).
­HELCOM Indicator Fact Sheets 2011. Online.
http://www.helcom.fi/BSAP ­assessment/ifs/ifs2011/en GB/White-tailedSeaEagle/
Huhtala, A., Ahtiainen, H., Ekholm, P., Fleming-Lehtinen, V., Heikkilä, J.,
Heiskanen, A-S, Helin, J., Helle, I., Hyytiäinen, K., Hällfors, H., Iho, A., Koikkalainen, K., Kuikka, S., Lehtiniemi, M., Mannio, J., Mehtonen, J., Miettinen,
A., Mäntyniemi, S., Peltonen, H., Pouta, E., Pylkkö, M., Salmiovirta, M., Verta,
M., Vesterinen, J., Viitasalo, M., Viitasalo-Frösen, S., Väisänen, S.. 2009.
The economics of the state of the Baltic Sea -Pre-study assessing the feasibility
of a cost-benefit analysis of protecting the Baltic Sea ecosystem. Publication of
The Advisory Board for Sectoral Research 2:2009.
State of the Baltic Sea
29
ICES. 2008. Report of the Working Group on Integrated Assessments of the
Baltic Sea (WGIAB), 25–29 March 2008, Öregrund, Sweden, CM 2008/
BCC:04 145 pp.
Jansson, A-M. & Kautsky, N. 1977. Quantitative survey of hard bottom communities in a Baltic an: Biology of Benthic Organisms, 11th European Symposium of Marine Biology, Galway, en, pp 359–366. Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Jansson B-O.. 1980. Natural systems of the Baltic Sea. Ambio 9: 128–136.
Jansson, B.-O. & Jansson, A.M. 2002. The Baltic Sea: reversibly unstable or
­irreversibly stable? In: Gundersen, L.H., Pritchard, L.P. (Eds.), Resilience and
Behaviour of Large-Scale Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington DC, pp. 71–108.
Johannesson, K. & André, C. 2006. Life on the margin: genetic isolation and diversity loss in a peripheral marine ecosystem, the Baltic Sea, Molecular ­Ecology
(2006) 15, 2013–2029 doi: 10.1111/j.1365–294X.2006.02919.x
Johannesson, K., Smolarz, K., Grahn, M., Andre, C. 2011. The Future of Baltic
Sea Populations: Local Extinction or Evolutionary Rescue? Ambio (2011)
40:179–190 DOI 10.1007/s13280-010-0129-x
Kautsky, H. 1988. Factors structuring phytobenthic communities in the Baltic
Sea, Doctoral thesis at the University of Stockholm, Dep. of Zoology.
Kautsky, H. 1991. Influence of Eutrophication on the Distribution of Phyto­
benthic Plants and Animals . 76 (3):423–432
Kautsky H., Kautsky L., Kautsky N., Kautsky U., Lindblad C. 1992. Studies on
the Fucus vesiculosus community in the Baltic Sea. Acta Phytogeogr. Suec. 78,
33–48.
Kautsky, H. 1995. Quantitative distribution of sublittoral plant and animal
­communities in the Baltic Sea gradient. 23–31 in Eleftheriou, A., A. Ansell, A.
& C. Smith, J Biology and Ecology of Shallow Coastal Waters. 28th EMBS,
Crete 23–28th Sept 1993, Olsen & Olsen
Kautsky, L. & Kautsky, N., 2000. The Baltic Sea, including Bothnian Sea and
Bothnian Bay. In: Sheppard, C. (Ed.), Seas at the Millennium: An Environmental Evaluation. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 121–133.
Larsson, U., Elmgren, R., Wulff. F. 1985. Eutrophication and the Baltic Sea:
causes and consequences. Ambio 14: 9–14.
Lohrer AM, Thrush SF, Gibbs MM. 2004. Bioturbators enhance ecosystem
function through complex biogeochemical interactions. Nature 431: 1092–1095.
30
State of the Baltic Sea
Luisetti T., Turner, R.K., Hadley, D., Morese-Jones, S. 2009. Coastal and marine ecosystem services valuation for policy and management, European
­Environmental and Resource Economics Annual Conference, Amsterdam,
June 2009.
MacKenzie, B., Meier, M.H.R., Lindegren, M., Neuenfeldt, S., Eero, M., Blenckner,
T, Tomczak, M.T., Niiranen, S. 2012. Impact of climate change on fish population dynamics in the Baltic Sea: a dynamic downscaling investigation, Ambio,
41: 626–636.
MacKenzie B. R., Alheit J., Conley D. J., Holm P., Kinze C. C. 2002. Ecological
hypotheses for a historical reconstruction of upper trophic level biomass in the
Baltic Sea and Skagerrak, Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 59, p. 173–190.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). 2005. Ecosystem and Human Wellbeing: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, D.C., 137 pp.
Meier, M.H.E., Andersson, H.C., Arheimer, B., Blenckner, T., Chubarenko, B.,
Donnelly, C., Eilola, K., Gustafsson, B.G., Hansson, A., Havenhand, J., Hög­
lund, A., Kuznetsov, I., MacKenzie, B.R., Müller-Karulis, B., Neumann, T.,
­Niiranen, S., Piwowarczyk, J., Raudsepp, U., Reckermann, M., Ruoho-Airola,
T., Savchuk, O.P., Schenk, F., Schimanke, S., Väli, G., Weslawski, J-M and Zorita,
E.. 2012. Comparing reconstructed past variations and future projections of the
Baltic Sea ecosystem - first results from multi-model ensemble simulations,
­Environmental Research Letters Volume 7 Number 3, 034005 doi:
10.1088/1748-9326/7/3/034005
MERCW, 2006. Modelling of ecological risks related to sea-dumped chemical
weapons – Deliverable 2.1. ISBN: 978.951.53.2971.4.
Möllmann, C., Muller-Karulis, B., Kornilovs, G., St Johnm M. A. 2008. Effects
of climate and overfishing on zooplankton dynamics and ecosystem structure:
regime shifts, trophic cascade, and feedback loops in a simple ecosystem. ICES J.
Mar. Sci. 65, 302
Möllmann, C, Diekmann, R, Müller-Karulis, B, Kornilovs, G, Plikshs, M, Axe,
P. 2009. Reorganization of a large marine ecosystem due to atmospheric and
anthropogenic pressure: a discontinuous regime shift in the Central Baltic Sea.
Glob Change Biol 15:1377–1393
Nixon, S. W.1995. Coastal marine eutrophication: a definition, social causes, and
future concerns. Ophelia, 41, 199–219.
Norén, F., Ekendahl, S. Johansson, U. 2009. Mikroskopiska antropogena
­partiklar i svenska hav. N-research report. HELCOM MONAS 12/2009.
­Document 7/7.
State of the Baltic Sea
31
Norkko, J., Reed, D. C., Timmermann, K., Norkko, A., Gustafsson, B. G., Bonsdorff, E., Slomp, C. P., Carstensen, J. and Conley, D. J. 2012. A welcome can of
worms? Hypoxia mitigation by an invasive species. Global Change Biology,
18: 422–434.
Neumann, T., Schwenewski, G. 2005. An ecological model evaluation of two
nutrient abatement strategies for the Baltic Sea, J. Mar. Syst. 56, 195–206.
Neumann, T., Eilola, K., Gustafsson, B. Müller-Karuls, B., Kuznetsov, i., Meier,
M.H.E., Savchuk, O.P. 2012. Extremes of temperature, oxygen and blooms in the
Baltic Sea in a changing climate. Ambio 41: 574–585.
Ojaveer, H., Andres Jaanus, Brian R. MacKenzie, Georg Martin, Sergej Olenin,
Teresa Radziejewska, Irena Telesh, Michael L. Zettler, Anastasija Zaiko. 2010.
Status of Biodiversity in the Baltic Sea, PlosOne, Vol 5 Iss 9.
Paavola, M., Olenin, S. and, Leppäkoski E. 2005. Are invasive species most
­successful in habitats of low native species richness across European brackish
water seas? Estuarine. Coastal Shelf Sci-ence 64: 738–750.
Pereyra, R.T., Bergström, L., Kautsky, L., Johannesson, K. 2009. Rapid speciation in a newly opened postglacial marine environment, the Baltic Sea. BMC
Evolutionary Biology 9:70. Doi:10.1186/1471-2148-9-70
Sanderson, H., Fauser, P., Thomsen, M., Sørensen, P.B. 2009. Human health
risk screening due to consumption of fish contaminated with chemical warfare
agents in the Baltic Sea. Journal of Hazardous Materials, Volume 162, issue 1,
p. 416–422.
Savchuk, O.P., F. Wulff, S. Hille, C. Humborg and F. Pollehne. 2008. The Baltic
Sea a century ago – a reconstruction from model simulations, verified by observations. J. Mar. Syst., 74: 485–494.
Savchuk, O.P. and Wulff, F., 2009, Long-term modeling of large-scale nutrient
cycles in the entire Baltic Sea, Hydrobiologia, 629, 209–224.
Savchuk, O.P. 2010. Large-Scale Dynamics of Hypoxia in the Baltic Sea. In
E.V. Yakushev (ed.), Chemical Structure of Pelagic Redox Interfaces: Observation and Modeling, Hdb Env Chem, DOI 10.1007/698_2010_53, Springer
­Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
Savchuk, O.P., Eilola, K., Gustafsson, B.G., Rodríguez Medina, M., Ruoho-Airola, T. 2012. Long-term reconstruction of nutrient loads to the Baltic Sea, 1850–
2006. Baltic Nest Institute Techn. Rep. Ser. 6, 9 pp. ISBN: 978-91-86655-05-1
Scheffer M. & Carpenter S. R. 2003. Catastrophic regime shifts in ecosystems:
linking theory to observation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18, 648–656.
32
State of the Baltic Sea
Swedish EPA. 2010a. BalticSurvey – a study in the Baltic Sea countries of public
attitudes and use of the sea. Summary of main results. Naturvårdsverket
­Report 6382. Bromma: CM Gruppen
Swedish EPA. 2010b. BalticSurvey – a study in the Baltic Sea countries of public
attitudes and use of the sea. Report on basic findings. Naturvårdsverket Report
6348. Bromma: CM Gruppen.
Telesh, I.V., Schubert, H., Skarlato, S.O. 2012. Revisiting Remane’s concept:
­evidence for high plankton diversity and a protistan species maximum in the
horohalinicum of the Baltic Sea, Mar Ecol Prog Ser 421: 1–11, 2011
TemaNord. 2011. Waterbird Populations and Pressures in the Baltic Sea,
­TemaNord 2011:550, ISBN 978-92-893-2249-2
UNEP. 2005. Marine Litter. An analytical overview. Report of UNEP Regional
Seas Coordinating Office, the Secretariat of the Mediterranean Action Plan
(MAP), the Secretariat of the Basel Convention, the Coordination Office of
the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-Based Activities (GPA) of UNEP.
UNEP/CBD, 2006. Invasive alien species.
http://www.biodiv.org/ programmes/cross-cutting/alien
UNEP, 2012. Global Marine Oil Pollution Information Gateway,
http://oils.gpa.unep.org/facts/wildlife.htm
Villnäs, A., Norkko, J., Lukkari, K., Hewitt, J. Norkko, A. 2012. Consequences of
Increasing Hypoxic Disturbance on Benthic Communities and Ecosystem Functioning. PLoS ONE 7(10): e44920. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0044920
Vitousek, P., Mooney H., Lubchenco, J., Melillo, J. 1997. Human Domination of
Earth’s Ecosystems. Science 25, 277: 494–499.
Voipio, A. (ed). 1981. The Baltic Sea, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Wallentinus, I. and Nyberg, C. 2007. Introduced marine organisms as habitat
modifiers. Marine Pollution Bulletin 55: 323–332.
Walker, B. & Salt, D. 2006. Resilience thinking: sustaining ecosytems and people
in a changing world. Island Press 192 p.
Worm, B., Barbier, E. B., Beaumont N., Duff, J.E., Folke, C., Halpern B.S., Jackson, J.B.C., Lotze, H.K., Micheli, F., Palumbi, S.R., Sala,E., Selkoe, K.A., Stachowicz, J.J., Watson, R. 2006. Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem
Services, Science 314: 787 790.
State of the Baltic Sea
33
WWF. 2011. Baltic Sea Scorecard 2011,Baltic Ecoregion Programme.
Wulff, F., O.P. Savchuk, A. Sokolov, Humborg, C. 2007. Management ­options
and effects on a marine ecosystem: assessing the future of the Baltic. AMBIO 36:
243–249.
Zillén, L., Conley D.J., Andrén T., Andrén E., Björck, S. 2008. Past Occurrences
of Hypoxia in the Baltic Sea and the role of climate variability, environmental
change and human impact. Earth-Science Reviews, 91:77–92.
Österblom, H., Hansson, S., Larsson, U., Hjerne, O., Wulff, F., Elmgren, R.,
Folke, C. 2007. Human induced trophic cascades and ecological regime shifts in
the Baltic Sea, Ecosystems , Ecosystems, 10: 877–889. DOI: 10.1007/s10021-0079069-0
Österblom, H., Olsson, O., Blenckner, T., Furness, R. W. 2008. Junk-food in
marine ecosystems. Oikos, 117: 967–977. doi: 10.1111/j.0030-1299.2008.16501.x
34
State of the Baltic Sea