The European Water Framework Directive (WFD; 2000/60/EG) and the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD; 2008/56/EC) were umbrella legislations for fresh and marine waters. It is a challenge for the scientific community to translate the principles of these directives into realistic and accurate approaches. Both directives have the same concept, comparing the current state of an area with that which would be expected under minimal or sustainable human use of that area and in case of degradation, intervening to bring it back to the desired good status. However, each directive used specific principles to fill it in. For the WFD, this was executed during the last decade, and many results of it were already published. This process delivered valuable knowledge on which the implementation of the MSFD can be founded.Therefore, the ICES Benthos Ecology Working Group aimed to stress and discuss some issues, with focus on benthic macro-invertebrates, related to the fulfillment of the principles of both directives. This through the description of (1) how the principles are theoretically filled in by both directives

Latitudinal clines in species diversity in limnic and terrestrial habitats have been noted for well over a century and are consistent across many taxonomic groups. However, studies in marine systems over the past 2 to 3 decades have yielded equivocal results. We conducted initial analyses of the MarBEF (EU Network of Excellence for Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function) database to test for trends in local and regional diversity over the latitudinal extent of European continental-shelf waters (36°to 81°N). Soft-sediment benthic macrofauna exhibit little evidence of a latitudinal cline in local (α-) diversity measures. Relationships with water depth were relatively strong and complex. Statistically significant latitudinal trends were small and positive, suggesting a modest increase in diversity with latitude once water-depth covariates were removed. These results are consistent regardless of whether subsets of the database were used, replicates were pooled, or component taxonomical groups were evaluated separately. Local and regional diversity measures were significantly and positively correlated. Scientific cooperation through data-sharing is a powerful tool with which to address fundamental ecological and evolutionary questions relating to large-scale patterns and processes.

No abstract

The pan-European MacroBen database was used to compare the AZTI Marine Biotic Index (AMBI) and the Benthic Quality Index (BQI ES ), 2 biotic indices which rely on 2 distinct assessments of species sensitivity/tolerance (i.e. AMBI EG and BQI E[S 50 ] 0.05 ) and which up to now have only been compared on restricted data sets. A total of 12 409 stations were selected from the database. This subset (indicator database) was later divided into 4 marine and 1 estuarine subareas. We computed E(S 50 ) 0.05 in 643 taxa, which accounted for 91.8% of the total abundances in the whole marine indicator database. AMBI EG and E(S 50 ) 0.05 correlated poorly. Marked heterogeneities in E(S 50 ) 0.05 between the marine and estuarine North Sea and between the 4 marine subareas suggest that sensitivity/tolerance levels vary among geographical areas. High values of AMBI were always associated with low values of BQI ES , which underlines the coherence of these 2 indices in identifying stations with a bad ecological status (ES). Conversely, low values of AMBI were sometimes associated with low values of BQI ES resulting in the attribution of a good ES by AMBI and a bad ES by BQI ES . This was caused by the dominance of species classified as sensitive by AMBI and tolerant by BQI ES . Some of these species are known to be sensitive to natural disturbance, which highlights the tendency of BQI ES to automatically classify dominant species as tolerant. Both indices thus present weaknesses in their way of assessing sensitivity/tolerance levels (i.e. existence of a single sensitivity/tolerance list for AMBI and the tight relationship between dominance and tolerance for BQI ES ). Future studies should focus on the (1) clarification of the sensitivity/tolerance levels of the species identified as problematic, and (2)

No abstract