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