Suchergebnisse

The occurrence of regime shifts in marine ecosystems has important implications for environmental legislation that requires setting reference levels and targets of quantitative restoration outcomes. The Baltic Sea ecosystem has undergone large changes in the 20(th) century related to anthropogenic pressures and climate variability, which have caused ecosystem reorganization. Here, we compiled historical information and identified relationships in our dataset using multivariate statistics and modeling across 31 biotic and abiotic variables from 1925 to 2005 in the Central Baltic Sea. We identified a series of ecosystem regime shifts in the 1930s, 1970s, and at the end of the 1980s/beginning of the 1990s. In the long term, the Central Baltic Sea showed a regime shift from a benthic to pelagic-dominated state. Historically, benthic components played a significant role in trophic transfer, while in the more recent productive system pelagic-benthic coupling was weak and pelagic components dominated. Our analysis shows that for the entire time period, productivity, climate, and hydrography mainly affected the functioning of the food web, whereas fishing became important more recently. Eutrophication had far-reaching direct and indirect impacts from a long-term perspective and changed not only the trophic state of the system but also affected higher trophic levels. Our study also suggests a switch in regulatory drivers from salinity to oxygen. The "reference ecosystem" identified in our analysis may guide the establishment of an ecosystem state baseline and threshold values for ecosystem state indicators of the Central Baltic Sea. ; Peer reviewed

The occurrence of regime shifts in marine ecosystems has important implications for environmental legislation that requires setting reference levels and targets of quantitative restoration outcomes. The Baltic Sea ecosystem has undergone large changes in the 20 th century related to anthropogenic pressures and climate variability, which have caused ecosystem reorganization. Here, we compiled historical information and identified relationships in our dataset using multivariate statistics and modeling across 31 biotic and abiotic variables from 1925 to 2005 in the Central Baltic Sea. We identified a series of ecosystem regime shifts in the 1930s, 1970s, and at the end of the 1980s/beginning of the 1990s. In the long term, the Central Baltic Sea showed a regime shift from a benthic to pelagic-dominated state. Historically, benthic components played a significant role in trophic transfer, while in the more recent productive system pelagic–benthic coupling was weak and pelagic components dominated. Our analysis shows that for the entire time period, productivity, climate, and hydrography mainly affected the functioning of the food web, whereas fishing became important more recently. Eutrophication had far-reaching direct and indirect impacts from a long-term perspective and changed not only the trophic state of the system but also affected higher trophic levels. Our study also suggests a switch in regulatory drivers from salinity to oxygen. The "reference ecosystem" identified in our analysis may guide the establishment of an ecosystem state baseline and threshold values for ecosystem state indicators of the Central Baltic Sea.

Marine environmental legislation is increasingly expressing a need to consider the quality of pelagic habitats. This paper uses the European Union marine strategy framework to explore the concept of good environmental status (GES) of pelagic habitat with the aim to build a wider understanding of the issue. Pelagic ecosystems have static, persistent and ephemeral features, with manageable human activities primarily impacting the persistent features. The paper explores defining the meaning of "good", setting boundaries to assess pelagic habitat and the challenges of considering habitat biodiversity in a moving medium. It concludes that for pelagic habitats to be in GES and able to provide goods and services to humans, three conditions should be met: (i) all species present under current environmental conditions should be able to find the pelagic habitats essential to close their life cycles; (ii) biogeochemical regulation is maintained at normal levels; (iii) critical physical dynamics and movements of biota and water masses at multiple scales are not obstructed. Reference points for acceptable levels of each condition and how these may change over time in line with prevailing oceanographic conditions, should be discussed by knowledge brokers, managers and stakeholders. Managers should think about a habitat hydrography rather than a habitat geography. Setting the bounds of the habitats requires a consideration of dimension, scale and gradients. It is likely that to deal with the challenges caused by a dynamic environment and the relevance of differing spatial and temporal scales, we will need to integrate multidisciplinary empirical data sets with spatial and temporal models to assess and monitor progress towards, or displacement from GES of the pelagic habitat.

Marine environmental legislation is increasingly expressing a need to consider the quality of pelagic habitats. This paper uses the European Union marine strategy framework to explore the concept of good environmental status (GES) of pelagic habitat with the aim to build a wider understanding of the issue. Pelagic ecosystems have static, persistent and ephemeral features, with manageable human activities primarily impacting the persistent features. The paper explores defining the meaning of "good", setting boundaries to assess pelagic habitat and the challenges of considering habitat biodiversity in a moving medium. It concludes that for pelagic habitats to be in GES and able to provide goods and services to humans, three conditions should be met: (i) all species present under current environmental conditions should be able to find the pelagic habitats essential to close their life cycles; (ii) biogeochemical regulation is maintained at normal levels; (iii) critical physical dynamics and movements of biota and water masses at multiple scales are not obstructed. Reference points for acceptable levels of each condition and how these may change over time in line with prevailing oceanographic conditions, should be discussed by knowledge brokers, managers and stakeholders. Managers should think about a habitat hydrography rather than a habitat geography. Setting the bounds of the habitats requires a consideration of dimension, scale and gradients. It is likely that to deal with the challenges caused by a dynamic environment and the relevance of differing spatial and temporal scales, we will need to integrate multidisciplinary empirical data sets with spatial and temporal models to assess and monitor progress towards, or displacement from GES of the pelagic habitat.