An Overview of Marine Biodiversity in United States Waters

Abstract

Marine biodiversity of the United States (U.S.) is extensively documented, but data assembled by the United States National Committee for the Census of Marine Life demonstrate that even the most complete taxonomic inventories are based on records scattered in space and time. The best-known taxa are those of commercial importance. Body size is directly correlated with knowledge of a species, and knowledge also diminishes with distance from shore and depth. Measures of biodiversity other than species diversity, such as ecosystem and genetic diversity, are poorly documented. Threats to marine biodiversity in the U.S. are the same as those for most of the world: overexploitation of living resources; reduced water quality; coastal development; shipping; invasive species; rising temperature and concentrations of carbon dioxide in the surface ocean, and other changes that may be consequences of global change, including shifting currents; increased number and size of hypoxic or anoxic areas; and increased number and duration of harmful algal blooms. More information must be obtained through field and laboratory research and monitoring that involve innovative sampling techniques (such as genetics and acoustics), but data that already exist must be made accessible. And all data must have a temporal component so trends can be identified. As data are compiled, techniques must be developed to make certain that scales are compatible, to combine and reconcile data collected for various purposes with disparate gear, and to automate taxonomic changes. Information on biotic and abiotic elements of the environment must be interactively linked. Impediments to assembling existing data and collecting new data on marine biodiversity include logistical problems as well as shortages in finances and taxonomic expertise.

Spatio-temporal assessments of biodiversity in the high seas

“…Data deficiency is a significant challenge in assessing marine biodiversity (Fautin et al 2010, Webb et al 2010, even for relatively well-studied marine mammals (Schipper et al 2008). There has been little work to develop fully synthetic approaches to the design and management of marine protected areas (Halpern 2003, Halpern et al 2007).…”

“…At the scale of the local species assemblage, a variety of biodiversity indices have been proposed, assessed and criticized (Lande 1996, Rice 2003. One of the essential issues surrounding these biodiversity indices is biased sampling efforts and sample sizes, both spatially and temporally (Fautin et al 2010, Webb et al 2010, also see Stockwell & Peterson 2002 for effects of sample size of species distribution models).…”

Ascidians as models for studying invasion success

“…", and "what effects do they cause in invaded habitats?" However, our knowledge of a majority of marine species is woefully inadequate (e.g., Fautin et al 2010). Owing to the lack of systematic, biogeographical, and/or historical data, we cannot develop a simple list of which species are non-indigenous in many regions of world's seas (Carlton 2009;Geller et al 2010).…”

A Catalogue of Marine Biodiversity Indicators

“…All this has inspired recent attempts to take advantage of the existing knowledge and past efforts to develop robust assessment tools and optimize their use in fulfilling stakeholders' environmental commitments (e.g., Cardoso et al, 2010;Fautin et al, 2010;Zampoukas et al, 2012;Liquete et al, 2013;Pereira et al, 2013;Tittensor et al, 2014;Berg et al, 2015).…”

“…Efficient adoption of the existing knowledge not only accelerates the developmental process per se (e.g., Fautin et al, 2010;Teixeira et al, 2012;Borja et al, 2015) but also implies that data associated with indicator development and subsequent monitoring should be available to some extent. This can be valuable when baselines and spatio-temporal trends need to be established locally, regionally or even globally (Muxika et al, 2007;Duffy et al, 2013;Probst and Stelzenmüller, 2015;Borja et al, 2016b).…”