What evidence exists on how changes in marine ecosystem structure and functioning affect ecosystem services delivery? A systematic map protocol

Abstract Background The current biodiversity crisis calls for an urgent need to sustainably manage human uses of nature. The Ecosystem Services (ES) concept defined as « the benefits humans obtain from nature » support decisions aimed at promoting nature conservation. However, marine ecosystems, in particular, endure numerous direct pressures (e.g., habitat loss and degradation, overexploitation, pollution, climate change, and the introduction of non-indigenous species) all of which threaten ecosystem structure, functioning, and the very provision of ES. While marine ecosystems often receive less attention than terrestrial ecosystems in ES literature, it would also appear that there is a heterogeneity of knowledge within marine ecosystems and within the different ES provided. Hence, a systematic map on the existing literature will aim to highlight knowledge clusters and knowledge gaps on how changes in marine ecosystems influence the provision of marine ecosystem services. This will provide an evidence base for possible future reviews, and may help to inform eventual management and policy decision-making. Methods We will search for all evidence documenting how changes in structure and functioning of marine ecosystems affect the delivery of ES, across scientific and grey literature sources. Two bibliographic databases, Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection, will be used with a supplementary search undertaken in Google scholar. Multiple organisational websites related to intergovernmental agencies, supra-national or national structures, and NGOs will also be searched. Searches will be performed with English terms only without any geographic or temporal limitations. Literature screening, against predefined inclusion criteria, will be undertaken on title, abstract, and then full texts. All qualifying literature will be subjected to coding and meta-data extraction. No formal validity appraisal will be undertaken. Indeed, the map will highlight how marine ecosystem changes impact the ES provided. Knowledge gaps will be identified in terms of which ecosystem types, biodiversity components, or ES types are most or least studied and how these categories are correlated. Finally, a database will be provided, we will narratively describe this evidence base with summary figures and tables of pertinent study characteristics.

Download Full-text

Identifying and addressing the anthropogenic drivers of global change in the North Sea: a systematic map protocol

Environmental Evidence ◽

10.1186/s13750-021-00234-y ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 10 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Fabien Moullec ◽

Rémy Asselot ◽

Dominik Auch ◽

Alexandra M. Blöcker ◽

Gregor Börner ◽

...

Keyword(s):

North Sea ◽

Life Support ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Marine Ecosystem ◽

Marine Ecosystems ◽

Systematic Map ◽

Marine Research ◽

The North ◽

The North Sea ◽

Anthropogenic Drivers

Abstract Background Anthropogenic pressures on marine ecosystems have increased over the last 75 years and are expected to intensify in the future with potentially dramatic cascading consequences for human societies. It is therefore crucial to rebuild marine life-support systems and aim for future healthy ecosystems. Nowadays, there is a reasonable understanding of the impacts of human pressure on marine ecosystems; but no studies have drawn an integrative retrospective analysis of the marine research on the topic. A systematic consolidation of the literature is therefore needed to clearly describe the scientific knowledge clusters and gaps as well as to promote a new era of integrative marine science and management. We focus on the five direct anthropogenic drivers of biodiversity loss defined by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES): (1) climate change; (2) direct exploitation; (3) pollution; (4) biological invasions; and (5) sea-use change. Our systematic map’s regional focus lies on the North Sea, which is among the most impacted marine ecosystems around the globe. The goal of the present study is to produce the first comprehensive overview of how marine research on anthropogenic drivers in the North Sea has grown and changed over the past 75 years. Ultimately, this systematic map will highlight the most urgent challenges facing the North Sea research domain. Methods The search will be restricted to peer-reviewed articles, reviews, meta-analyses, book chapters, book reviews, proceeding papers and grey literature using the most relevant search engines for literature published between 1945 and 2020. All authors will participate in the adjustment of the search in order to consider all relevant studies analyzing the effect of the direct anthropogenic drivers on the North Sea marine ecosystem. The references will be screened for relevance according to a predefined set of eligibility/ineligibility criteria by a pool of six trained reviewers. At stage one, each abstract and title will be independently screened by two reviewers. At stage two, potentially relevant references will be screened in full text by two independent reviewers. Subsequently, we will extract a suite of descriptive meta-data and basic information of the relevant references using the SysRev platform. The systematic map database composed will provide the foundation for an interactive geographical evidence map. Moreover, we will summarize our findings with cross-validation plots, heat maps, descriptive statistics, and a publicly available narrative synthesis. The aim of our visualization tools is to ensure that our findings are easily understandable by a broad audience.

Download Full-text

Trends and Evolution in the Concept of Marine Ecosystem Services: An Overview

Water ◽

10.3390/w13152060 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 13 (15) ◽

pp. 2060

Author(s):

Elvira Buonocore ◽

Umberto Grande ◽

Pier Paolo Franzese ◽

Giovanni F. Russo

Keyword(s):

Ecosystem Services ◽

Alternative Assessment ◽

Natural Capital ◽

Marine Ecosystem ◽

Management Strategies ◽

Marine Ecosystems ◽

Global Ocean ◽

Coastal Protection ◽

Policy Dialogue ◽

Marine Ecosystem Services

The biotic and abiotic assets of the marine environment form the “marine natural capital” embedded in the global ocean. Marine natural capital provides the flow of “marine ecosystem services” that are directly used or enjoyed by people providing benefits to human well-being. They include provisioning services (e.g., food), regulation and maintenance services (e.g., carbon sequestration and storage, and coastal protection), and cultural services (e.g., tourism and recreational benefits). In recent decades, human activities have increased the pressures on marine ecosystems, often leading to ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss and, in turn, affecting their ability to provide benefits to humans. Therefore, effective management strategies are crucial to the conservation of healthy and diverse marine ecosystems and to ensuring their long-term generation of goods and services. Biophysical, economic, and sociocultural assessments of marine ecosystem services are much needed to convey the importance of natural resources to managers and policy makers supporting the development and implementation of policies oriented for the sustainable management of marine resources. In addition, the accounting of marine ecosystem service values can be usefully complemented by their mapping to enable the identification of priority areas and management strategies and to facilitate science–policy dialogue. Given this premise, this study aims to review trends and evolution in the concept of marine ecosystem services. In particular, the global scientific literature on marine ecosystem services is explored by focusing on the following main aspects: the definition and classification of marine ecosystem services; their loss due to anthropogenic pressures, alternative assessment, and mapping approaches; and the inclusion of marine ecosystem services into policy and decision-making processes.

Download Full-text

What evidence exists on the local impacts of energy systems on marine ecosystem services: a systematic map

Environmental Evidence ◽

10.1186/s13750-016-0075-6 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 5 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Eleni Papathanasopoulou ◽

Ana M. Queirós ◽

Nicola Beaumont ◽

Tara Hooper ◽

Joana Nunes

Keyword(s):

Ecosystem Services ◽

Marine Ecosystem ◽

Energy Systems ◽

Systematic Map ◽

Marine Ecosystem Services ◽

Local Impacts

Download Full-text

The nature and extent of evidence on methodologies for monitoring and evaluating marine spatial management measures in the UK and similar coastal waters: a systematic map

Environmental Evidence ◽

10.1186/s13750-021-00227-x ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 10 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Bethan C. O’Leary ◽

Joshua P. Copping ◽

Nibedita Mukherjee ◽

Sandra L. Dorning ◽

Bryce D. Stewart ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Full Text ◽

Social Economic ◽

Marine Ecosystems ◽

Evidence Base ◽

Systematic Map ◽

Search Results ◽

Principal Evaluations ◽

Management Measures ◽

Spatial Management ◽

The Uk

Abstract Background Anthropogenic degradation of marine ecosystems is widely accepted as a major social-ecological problem. The growing urgency to manage marine ecosystems more effectively has led to increasing application of spatial management measures (marine protected areas [MPAs], sectoral [e.g. fishery] closures and marine spatial planning [marine plans]). Understanding the methodologies used to evaluate the effectiveness of these measures against social, economic, and ecological outcomes is key for designing effective monitoring and evaluation programmes. Methods We used a pre-defined and tested search string focusing on intervention and outcome terms to search for relevant studies across four bibliographic databases, Google Scholar, 39 organisational websites, and one specialist data repository. Searches were conducted in English and restricted to the period 2009 to 2019 to align with current UK marine policy contexts. Relevant studies were restricted to UK-relevant coastal countries, as identified by key stakeholders. Search results were screened for relevance against pre-defined eligibility criteria first at title and abstract level, and then at full text. Articles assessed as not relevant at full text were recorded with reasons for exclusion. Two systematic map databases of meta-data and coded data from relevant primary and secondary studies, respectively, were produced. Review findings Over 19,500 search results were identified, resulting in 391 relevant primary articles, 33 secondary articles and 49 tertiary reviews. Relevant primary articles evaluated spatial management measures across a total of 22 social, economic and ecological outcomes; only 2.8% considered all three disciplines, with most focused exclusively on ecological (67.8%) or social (13.3%) evaluations. Secondary articles predominately focused on ecological evaluations (75.8%). The majority of the primary and secondary evidence base aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of MPAs (85.7% and 90.9% respectively), followed by fisheries closures (12.5%; 3.0%) with only 1.8% of primary, and 6.1% of secondary, articles focused on marine plans or on MPAs and fisheries closures combined. Most evaluations reported within primary articles were conducted for a single site (60.4%) or multiple individual sites (32.5%), with few evaluating networks of sites (6.9%). Secondary articles mostly evaluated multiple individual sites (93.9%). Most (70.3%) primary articles conducted principal evaluations, i.e. basic description of effects; 29.4% explored causation; and 0.3% undertook benefit evaluations. Secondary articles predominately explored causation (66.7%) with the remainder conducting principal evaluations. Australia (27.4%), the USA (18.4%) and the UK (11.3%) were most frequently studied by primary articles, with secondary articles reporting mostly global (66.7%) or European (18.2%) syntheses. Conclusions The systematic map reveals substantial bodies of evidence relating to methods of evaluating MPAs against ecological outcomes. However, key knowledge gaps include evaluation across social and economic outcomes and of overall merit and/or worth (benefit evaluation), as well as of: marine plans; networks of sites; real-time, temporary or seasonal closures; spatial management within offshore waters, and lagoon or estuary environments. Although the evidence base has grown over the past two decades, information to develop comprehensive evaluation frameworks remains insufficient. Greater understanding on how to evaluate the effectiveness of spatial management measures is required to support improved management of global ocean resources and spaces.

Download Full-text

What is the current state of knowledge and distribution of evidence on established policies and programs to regulate international wildlife trade? A systematic map protocol

10.31235/osf.io/fx8ur ◽

2022 ◽

Author(s):

Samantha H Cheng ◽

Janine E. Robinson ◽

Siri L.A. Öckerman ◽

Neil A. Cox ◽

Annette Olsson ◽

...

Keyword(s):

A Priori ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Relevant Information ◽

Evidence Base ◽

Wildlife Trade ◽

Future Research ◽

Systematic Map ◽

Illicit Trade ◽

Policies And Programs ◽

International Wildlife Trade

Background: The international trade of wildlife (animals and plants) provides critical resources for human communities worldwide and contributes to local, national, and international economies. However, increasing demand presents a significant threat to both species and ecosystems as well as wildlife-centered livelihoods. Concerns regarding illicit trade of wildlife and unsustainable harvest has propelled international wildlife trade regulation to the top of political and conservation agendas. Consequently, a broad range of interventions have been established to regulate the trade and address biodiversity decline. To gain a more comprehensive understanding of the impacts of international wildlife trade interventions, this protocol sets out the parameters for a systematic map which will comprehensively collate and describe the extent and distribution of the evidence base. The resulting map aims to provide insight to guide future research and inform practice. Methods: This systematic map will identify, map, and characterize the available evidence on the impacts of established policies and programs to address international wildlife trade. Specifically, the systematic map will describe: (1) the volume and distribution of studies that have examined impacts of various interventions on conservation, biological, and socioeconomic outcomes; (2) research methodologies that have been used to evaluate impacts; (3) distribution of studies on particular taxa and geographical areas; and (4) identify evidence gaps in need of more research. We will search two publication databases and several organizational and topical websites for relevant published articles and grey literature. In addition, a call for literature will be issued among relevant research networks. The titles, abstracts, and full texts of captured studies will be assessed against inclusion criteria. Double screening will be carried out on a subset of studies to ensure consistency. Relevant information from studies will be extracted using an a priori codebook. The resulting map will consist of descriptive statistics, a heat map in the form of a matrix, and a narrative synthesis describing characteristics of included studies.

Download Full-text

Data, models and ecosystem services: the Marine Ecosystems Research Programme

10.7287/peerj.preprints.26749 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Paul J. Somerfield

Keyword(s):

Ecosystem Services ◽

Food Web ◽

Temporal Dynamics ◽

Marine Ecosystem ◽

Research Programme ◽

Marine Ecosystems ◽

Marine Food Webs ◽

Common Framework ◽

Spatio Temporal ◽

Ecosystem Changes

The effects of marine ecosystem changes on ecosystem services are difficult to predict because of our limited understanding of marine food-webs, how they respond to changes in pressures, and how those changes then influence services. Biogeochemical ecosystem models do a good job of representing change in groups of organisms primarily influenced by spatio-temporal dynamics in physics and chemistry, such as phytoplankton and small zooplankton. For groups of organisms higher in the food-web, such as fish, mammals and birds, a variety of different modelling approaches are used. No particular approach attempts to model the entire system, each viewing the food-web from a different perspective. Links to services are rarely explicit. To allow us to respond appropriately to change we need to improve our understanding of, and ability to model, the marine ecosystem as a whole, and links between changes in the marine ecosystem and its ability to deliver services. The Marine Ecosystems Research Programme (www.marine-ecosystems.org.uk) provides mechanisms to bring together existing data, targeted new data, different models, and to link them to ecosystem services within a common framework. A key aim is to project effects of possible policy decisions on ecosystem services which are mediated by ecosystem processes.

Download Full-text

Climate Change Impacts on Polar Marine Ecosystems: Toward Robust Approaches for Managing Risks and Uncertainties

Frontiers in Climate ◽

10.3389/fclim.2021.733755 ◽

2022 ◽

Vol 3 ◽

Author(s):

Geir Ottersen ◽

Andrew J. Constable ◽

Anne B. Hollowed ◽

Kirstin K. Holsman ◽

Jess Melbourne-Thomas ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Climate Change ◽

Southern Ocean ◽

Marine Ecosystem ◽

Climate Change Impacts ◽

Marine Ecosystems ◽

Weight Of Evidence ◽

Future Climate Change ◽

Knowledge Gaps ◽

Intergovernmental Panel ◽

Changing Climate

The Polar Regions chapter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC) provides a comprehensive assessment of climate change impacts on polar marine ecosystems and associated consequences for humans. It also includes identification of confidence for major findings based on agreement across studies and weight of evidence. Sources of uncertainty, from the extent of available datasets, to resolution of projection models, to the complexity and understanding of underlying social-ecological linkages and dynamics, can influence confidence. Here we, marine ecosystem scientists all having experience as lead authors of IPCC reports, examine the evolution of confidence in observed and projected climate-linked changes in polar ecosystems since SROCC. Further synthesis of literature on polar marine ecosystems has been undertaken, especially within IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) Working Group II; for the Southern Ocean also the Marine Ecosystem Assessment for the Southern Ocean (MEASO). These publications incorporate new scientific findings that address some of the knowledge gaps identified in SROCC. While knowledge gaps have been narrowed, we still find that polar region assessments reflect pronounced geographical skewness in knowledge regarding the responses of marine life to changing climate and associated literature. There is also an imbalance in scientific focus; especially research in Antarctica is dominated by physical oceanography and cryosphere science with highly fragmented approaches and only short-term funding to ecology. There are clear indications that the scientific community has made substantial progress in its ability to project ecosystem responses to future climate change through the development of coupled biophysical models of the region facilitated by increased computer power allowing for improved resolution in space and time. Lastly, we point forward—providing recommendations for future advances for IPCC assessments.

Download Full-text

Inventory of Marine Ecosystem Services Valuation Tools

10.31230/osf.io/zc95k ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

SeaPlan

Keyword(s):

Ecosystem Services ◽

Marine Ecosystem ◽

Marine Ecosystems ◽

Ecosystem Services Valuation ◽

Marine Ecosystem Services ◽

Valuation Tools

This resource compiles several examples of tools and software used for valuing marine ecosystems services.

Download Full-text

Observing the ocean interior in support of integrated management

ICES Journal of Marine Science ◽

10.1093/icesjms/fsw132 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 73 (8) ◽

pp. 1947-1954 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Verena M. Trenkel ◽

Nils Olav Handegard ◽

Thomas C. Weber

Keyword(s):

Integrated Management ◽

Marine Ecosystem ◽

Aquatic Organisms ◽

Marine Ecosystems ◽

Ecosystem Structure ◽

Recent Developments ◽

Ecosystem Studies ◽

Science Community ◽

Management Approaches ◽

Passive Acoustic

Abstract Active- and passive-acoustic methods are widely used tools for observing, monitoring, and understanding marine ecosystems. From 25 to 28 May 2015, 214 scientists from 31 nations gathered for an ICES symposium on Marine Ecosystem Acoustics (SoME Acoustics) to discuss three major themes related to acoustic observations of marine ecosystems: (i) recent developments in acoustic and platform technologies; (ii) acoustic characterisation of aquatic organisms, ecosystem structure, and ecosystem processes; and (iii) contribution of acoustics to integrated ecosystem assessments and management. The development of, and access to new instruments, such as broad bandwidth systems, enables insightful ecological studies and innovative management approaches. Unresolved ecological questions and the increasing move towards ecosystem based management pose further challenges to scientists and instrument developers. Considering the SoME Acoustics presentations in the context of three previous ICES symposia on fisheries acoustics, topics increasingly emphasize ecosystem studies and management. The continued expansion of work and progress in marine ecosystem acoustics is due to the cross-disciplinary work of fisheries acousticians, engineers, ecologists, modellers, and others. An analysis of the symposium co-authorship network reveals a highly connected acoustic science community collaborating around the globe.

Download Full-text

Comparative analysis of European wide marine ecosystem shifts: a large-scale approach for developing the basis for ecosystem-based management

Biology Letters ◽

10.1098/rsbl.2010.1213 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 7 (4) ◽

pp. 484-486 ◽

Cited By ~ 14

Author(s):

Christian Möllmann ◽

Alessandra Conversi ◽

Martin Edwards

Keyword(s):

Large Scale ◽

Marine Ecosystem ◽

Management Strategies ◽

Marine Ecosystems ◽

Regime Shifts ◽

Comparative Approach ◽

The Black Sea ◽

Ecosystem Structure ◽

Ecosystem Based Management ◽

The North

Abrupt and rapid ecosystem shifts (where major reorganizations of food-web and community structures occur), commonly termed regime shifts, are changes between contrasting and persisting states of ecosystem structure and function. These shifts have been increasingly reported for exploited marine ecosystems around the world from the North Pacific to the North Atlantic. Understanding the drivers and mechanisms leading to marine ecosystem shifts is crucial in developing adaptive management strategies to achieve sustainable exploitation of marine ecosystems. An international workshop on a comparative approach to analysing these marine ecosystem shifts was held at Hamburg University, Institute for Hydrobiology and Fisheries Science, Germany on 1–3 November 2010. Twenty-seven scientists from 14 countries attended the meeting, representing specialists from seven marine regions, including the Baltic Sea, the North Sea, the Barents Sea, the Black Sea, the Mediterranean Sea, the Bay of Biscay and the Scotian Shelf off the Canadian East coast. The goal of the workshop was to conduct the first large-scale comparison of marine ecosystem regime shifts across multiple regional areas, in order to support the development of ecosystem-based management strategies.

Download Full-text