A strategy for the conservation of biodiversity on mid-ocean ridges from deep-sea mining

Dunn, Daniel C.; Dover, C. L. Van; Etter, Ron J.; Smith, Craig R.; Levin, Lisa A.; Morato, Telmo; Colaço, Ana; Dale, Andrew; Gebruk, Andrey; Gjerde, Kristina M.; Halpin, Patrick N.; Howell, Kerry L.; Johnson, David E.; Pérez, José Ángel Álvarez; Ribeiro, Marta Chantal; Stuckas, Heiko; Weaver, P. P. E.

doi:10.1126/sciadv.aar4313

Cited by 91 publications

(85 citation statements)

References 119 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite progress in conservation actions being undertaken on a precautionary basis as advocated, e.g. by Dunn et al () and O'Leary et al (), there are still extensive gaps in fundamental knowledge of deep‐sea biodiversity and ecosystems, and in the implementation of appropriate designs and strategies for spatial protection, particularly in relation to the connectedness of deep‐sea marine ecosystems; a finding not unique to the UK but apparent at a global scale. Whilst continued exploration efforts, collaborations, and development of innovative analytical techniques and artificial intelligence will probably provide means and opportunities to develop further MPA and fisheries management options, adopting emerging alternative or complimentary conservation options could also be considered for the UK, such as habitat restoration techniques.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

UK deep‐sea conservation: Progress, lessons learned, and actions for the future

Chaniotis

Robson

Lemasson

et al. 2019

Aquatic Conservation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite a relatively long history of scientific interest fuelled by exploratory research cruises, the UK deep sea has only recently emerged as the subject of targeted and proactive conservation. Enabling legislation over the past 10 years has resulted in the designation of marine protected areas and the implementation of fisheries management areas as spatial conservation tools. This paper reflects on progress and lessons learned, recommending actions for the future. Increased investment has been made to improve the evidence base for deep‐sea conservation, including collaborative research surveys and use of emerging technologies. New open data portals and developments in marine habitat classification systems have been two notable steps to furthering understanding of deep‐sea biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in support of conservation action. There are still extensive gaps in fundamental knowledge of deep‐sea ecosystems and of cause and effect. Costs of new technologies and a limited ability to share data in a timely and efficient manner across sectors are barriers to furthering understanding. In addition, whilst the concepts of natural capital and ecosystem services are considered a useful tool to support the achievement of conservation goals, practical application is challenging. Continued collaborative research efforts and engagement with industry to share knowledge and resources could offer cost‐effective solutions to some of these barriers. Further elaboration of the concepts of natural capital and ecosystem services will aid understanding of the costs and benefits associated with human–environment interactions and support informed decision‐making in conserving the deep sea. Whilst multiple challenges arise for deep‐sea conservation, it is critical to continue ongoing conservation efforts, including exploration and collaboration, and to adopt new conservation strategies that are implemented in a systematic and holistic way and to ensure that these are adaptive to growing economic interest in this marine area.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

UK deep‐sea conservation: Progress, lessons learned, and actions for the future

Chaniotis

Robson

Lemasson

et al. 2019

Aquatic Conservation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The GOBI effort at Duke University also focuses on several issues relating to the environmental management of mineral exploitation in the deep sea, including: (a) consideration of the potential for loss of biodiversity that might result from mining activities in the deep sea (Niner et al, ; Van Dover et al, ); (b) development of a framework for science‐based design and design assessment of networks of no‐mine areas (so‐called Areas of Particular Environmental Interest) on mid‐ocean ridges (Dunn et al, ) in support of environmental management efforts of the International Seabed Authority, which has the exclusive mandate to regulate access to the area and its resources consistent with UNCLOS; and (c) deliberation on the need for protection of active hydrothermal vent ecosystems (Van Dover et al, ) to inform regional environmental management plans for polymetallic sulphide deposits. These activities are intended to contribute to protection of the marine environment and strategies for sustainable development of seabed mining.…”

Section: Gobi Efforts To Strengthen Baselinesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Today, GOBI is committed to supporting the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and in particular SDG 14, 3 Aichi Target 11 4 and United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolution 72/249 on the development of an international legally binding instrument under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ). The data collated by GOBI partners have informed the work of the Convention on Migratory Species 5 (Kot, Halpin, Cleary, & Dunn, 2014), the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization report on expanding the purview of the World Heritage Convention to ABNJ (Freestone, Laffoley, Douvere, & Badman, 2016), and efforts to create frameworks for the designation of no-mining areas within regional environmental management plans (Dunn, Van Dover et al, 2018). In this context, GOBI's role is to provide guidance on how biodiversity data and criteria can be interpreted and applied to inform policy and management.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Global Ocean Biodiversity Initiative: Promoting scientific support for global ocean governance

Johnson

Froján

Bax

et al. 2019

Aquatic Conservation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Addressing the challenge of protecting biodiversity in the global ocean requires a sound knowledge and understanding of the complex marine environment. Since 2008 the Global Ocean Biodiversity Initiative (GOBI) has been established as a voluntary dedicated group of marine institutions and scientists working to support conservation and protection of marine biodiversity. A focus has been work to support the Convention on Biological Diversity's Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Area (EBSA) process. GOBI partners have provided expert interpretation of evidence‐based information and sought to compile and collate available information. An effective and coherent global network of marine protected areas must include bioregional representative replicates of features; once described, EBSAs can help focus attention on where and what kind of protective measures may be needed. GOBI is currently undertaking a 5‐year programme of research funded by the German International Climate Initiative, working to strengthen baselines and contribute new data to the EBSA and other processes. This involves developing detailed biogeographies for the Pacific and Indian Oceans, assessing the movement of migratory species, advancing understanding of biodiversity at vents and seeps, developing a model governance system for the Costa Rica Thermal Dome, and incorporating Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas and Important Marine Mammal Areas. GOBI has taken initiatives to build on the results of the Census of Marine Life and ensure best available marine biodiversity information is considered by states and intergovernmental organizations. GOBI support for ocean governance, including data development and expert consultation, will also contribute to the United Nations Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (2021–2030). Future challenges include capacity building and new approaches to incorporate traditional knowledge.

show abstract

“…While there has been much interest in the physiology and ecology of vent species (Van Dover, 2000), research into how biodiversity is maintained in these multispecies communities is sparse, relative to terrestrial and shallow-water systems. The need for deep-sea stewardship has recently been highlighted in a flurry of prominent papers (Boetius & Haeckel, 2018;Dunn et al, 2018;Mengerink et al, 2014;Van Dover et al, 2018). Effective stewardship will demand a better understanding of species coexistence in these environments, in particular given the known and potential impacts of anthropogenic disturbance on vent ecosystems (Du Preez & Fisher, 2018;Mullineaux et al, 2018;Van Dover, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impacts of altered disturbance regimes on community structure and biodiversity mediated by fecundity–tolerance interactions

Miller

Hsing

Roxburgh

et al. 2018

Natural Resource Modeling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present an investigation of the effects of disturbance and fecundity–tolerance strategies on community composition. We develop a theoretical model and apply it to macrofaunal communities at deep‐sea hydrothermal vents. We characterize community outcomes and find that dominance, coexistence, and alternative stable equilibria can all result from the interplay of disturbance regimes and fecundity–tolerance interactions. We show that fecundity–tolerance trade‐offs can permit coexistence under disturbance, but a strict fecundity–tolerance trade‐off is not required for coexistence to arise. We further describe how coexistence depends on habitat availability and disturbance regimes. Generally, our model elaborates on fecundity–tolerance strategies as a new axis of trait variation in coexistence theory. Natural disturbance regimes vary considerably across regions, and anthropogenic disturbance to vent communities will escalate with the advent of deep‐sea mineral extraction. We demonstrate how anthropogenic changes to disturbance regimes may impact species diversity, pushing communities over thresholds leading to local species extinction. Recommendations for Resource Managers Conventional wisdom suggests that disturbance‐adapted communities will not be strongly affected by novel perturbations associated with resource extraction or other human activities. We show that differing fecundity–tolerance strategies can mediate coexistence in disturbance‐prone deep‐sea environments, but that small changes to the disturbance regime can alter community composition and result in species extirpation. Natural disturbance should not be used as a rationale for expected low impacts of anthropogenic disturbance, for example, mining activities in management of deep‐sea mineral extraction. Appropriate impact studies should be performed for all communities where disturbances, such as mining, are planned.

show abstract

A strategy for the conservation of biodiversity on mid-ocean ridges from deep-sea mining

Abstract: An international initiative takes conservation planning into the deep ocean to inform environmental management of deep-sea mining.

Cited by 91 publications

References 119 publications

UK deep‐sea conservation: Progress, lessons learned, and actions for the future

UK deep‐sea conservation: Progress, lessons learned, and actions for the future

The Global Ocean Biodiversity Initiative: Promoting scientific support for global ocean governance

Impacts of altered disturbance regimes on community structure and biodiversity mediated by fecundity–tolerance interactions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About