This paper examines the potential relationships between the ecosystem services provided by the coastal and marine environment and the designation of marine protected areas. The hypothesis is that relationships exist between the provision of ecosystem services and the features protected by marine protected areas. It is considered that protection will maintain these features in good ecological condition and in some cases will restore ecological functioning with positive effects on the delivery of ecosystem services, as pressures upon the protected features are reduced. As the number of marine protected area designations grows, system-wide effects to communities from improvements in delivery of a range of ecosystem services may be realised. This paper provides a comparative analysis of the jurisdictional marine protected area policies proposed by the English, Welsh and Scottish Governments. It presents structured assessment matrices developed from the literature and expert opinion, of ecosystem service provision by marine protected habitats and species and applies the findings to a range of existing UK marine protected areas to demonstrate its relevance. The approach and case study findings are discussed within the wider context of marine ecosystem services and marine protected area management.

Summary 1.We investigated the effects of changes in taxonomic resolution on analyses of patterns of multivariate variation at different spatial scales for the highly diverse fauna inhabiting holdfasts of the kelp Ecklonia radiata . 2. Multivariate analyses were performed using several transformations to examine differences in spatial patterns of variation from metres up to hundreds of kilometres for composition vs. relative abundance in assemblages. 3. The greatest variability in assemblages occurred at the smallest spatial scale, from plant to plant, pointing to the existence of important small-scale processes. The proportional amount of variation at the smallest spatial scale decreased with decreasing taxonomic resolution (i.e. from species through to phyla). For composition, the next-greatest source of variation was at the largest spatial scale (hundreds of kilometres), while for relative abundance, the next-greatest source of variation was at the level of sites (hundreds of metres to kilometres). 4. For abundance data, location-level variation became less important and site-level variation became more important with decreasing taxonomic resolution, while for compositional data, the opposite pattern occurred. This suggests that variation in the presence of species or taxa at a particular location along the coast is driven by large-scale processes, while variation in relative abundances within locations is driven by mediumscale processes. 5. The lack of significant variation in the proportional abundances of phyla at large spatial scales suggests that some consistency of pattern may emerge at larger scales (spatial and/or taxonomic), even in the presence of high small-scale variability. These findings strengthen the idea that substantial local variation need not preclude the existence of broad-scale organization in ecological patterns and biodiversity.

No abstract

No abstract

Seagrass habitats provide a range of goods and benefits to coastal communities by supporting ecosystem functioning, food provisioning, and cultural values. However, they are at risk worldwide from anthropogenic activities, climate change impacts and limited resources, which hamper efforts to protect them. Effective conservation planning requires prioritisation of sites based on multiple factors, including their relative value and vulnerability (VU). The current study examines the efficacy of combining two well-established approaches – ecosystem service assessments and habitat VU analyses – to test a method for determining conservation priority for selected seagrass meadows in Southeast Asia. Seven seagrass meadows around Southeast Asia were selected and scored by the authors based on (1) the cumulative contribution of 12 ecosystem services (ES) and the condition of the meadows, (2) VU from 16 anthropogenic threats, which were each ranked against five factors (spatial scale, frequency, functional impact, resistance and recovery time) and (3) the combination of the two approaches to create a single numerical index. Prioritisation of sites differed when meadows were scored solely for the ES they provide, compared to how vulnerable they are to anthropogenic threats. The new combined analysis brought the two metrics together to give conservation priority to sites where management intervention will yield maximum conservation benefits from conservation effort, and resulted in the prioritisation of three sites: Barrang Lompo (Indonesia), Cape Bolinao (Philippines) and Beting Tanjung Kupang (Malaysia). This method is easy to use and does not require great technical expertise. It is also auditable, allowing for clear and transparent understanding of decision-making process.