Utilizing benthic habitat maps to inform biodiversity monitoring in marine protected areas

Abstract

1. The designation of marine protected areas (MPAs) requires the development of a monitoring design to assess the effectiveness of the closure in meeting its conservation objectives. Natural variability should be considered in the design, ideally determined using baseline information collected at the scale of the closure.2. Monitoring benthos informs on general ecosystem state. Benthic habitat maps are widely used as surrogates of benthos in marine spatial planning, and could potentially be used to inform monitoring by minimizing confounding habitat effects.3. Here, epibenthic diversity was assessed in the St. Anns Bank MPA in Atlantic Canada, the first assessment of benthic patterns at the scale of this closure.Epibenthic assemblages were determined using a photographic camera system along a single transect (~100-150 m in length) at 44 locations in 2013 and 2014 (with 10 or 11 images per location, providing a total of 438 images), prior to the designation of the MPA. Epibenthic patterns were correlated with a previously developed benthic habitat (benthoscape) map to determine the potential of using benthoscape classes as units for monitoring. 4. Hierarchical agglomerative clustering of epibenthic assemblages and similarity profile analysis revealed five clusters of assemblages in the MPA (P < 0.01), each of which were associated with specific indicator taxa. Some clusters of assemblages correlated well with distinct benthoscape classes representing either hard/coarse (gravel) or soft sediment (sand and mud), whereas clusters associated with mixed sediment segregated spatially. The within-cluster variability in assemblages between locations was lower overall than within the management zones, but differed between clusters. 5.Similarities were detected with previous coarser-scale assessments of epibenthic diversity in the St. Anns Bank MPA, but this study revealed a more complex benthic structure than previously thought. A monitoring design should thus consider this natural variability to reliably monitor change and aid in determining the effectiveness of the MPA.

What global biogeochemical consequences will marine animal–sediment interactions have during climate change?

“…Highresolution bathymetric measurements can resolve seafloor topography, and extraction of information based on the strength of acoustic seafloor backscatter signals can support inferences on seafloor substrata and habitat characteristics (Figure 1b; Brown et al, 2011;Lamarche and Lurton, 2018). These remotely sensed acoustic data sets have demonstrated considerable potential to map seabed substrate (e.g., Diesing et al, 2014;Misiuk et al, 2018), single species distributions (e.g., Galparsoro et al, 2009;Brown et al, 2012), macrofaunal assemblage patterns (e.g., Lacharité and Brown, 2019), and seabed landscapes sometimes referred to as "seascape" (e.g., Boström et al, 2011;Shaw et al, 2014) or "benthoscape" maps (Zajac, 2008;Brown et al, 2012). The next step in the evolution of these methods is to develop models to extrapolate biogeochemical processes at the fine/millimeter-tocentimeter scale (Figure 1a) to broader spatial scales (Figure 1b), utilizing spatial data to improve estimates Smeaton and Austin, 2019;Gogina et al, 2020), which is limited primarily by the paucity of remotely sensed acoustic data sets, with less than 9% of the ocean floor currently mapped by these modern, remote sensing systems (Mayer et al, 2018).…”

Beta diversity differs among hydrothermal vent systems: Implications for conservation

“…Once established, β-diversity analysis can support monitoring approaches such as protected area effectiveness assessments (e.g. [ 119 ]) or to establish baselines for long-term trends within the designated area [ 120 ].…”

The role of benthic habitat mapping for science and managers: A multi-design approach in the Southeast Brazilian Shelf after a major man-induced disaster

“…Remote sensing analysis and helicopter flight direct observation of the tailing plume in the coastal and marine areas were carried out by Federal and State Environmental Agencies. Their results suggest that the tailing plume dispersed and traveled more than 100km northward and southward of the river mouth, and could have affected an area larger than 3,000 km 2 (Lobban and Harrison, 1994;Liu et al, 2001;Janssen et al, 2006;Lecours et al, 2015;Long et al, 2015;Le Bas, 2016;Lecours et al, 2016;Econservation, 2017;IBAMA (Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renovaveis), 2017; Lecours, 2017;Innangi et al, 2019;Kaskela et al, 2019;Lacharitéand Brown, 2019;Lavagnino et al, 2020;Lucatelli et al, 2020;Longhini et al, 2022-Figure 1). Modeling studies also considered that the plume could have affected a coastal area as far as 200 to 300 km from the river mouth and reached beyond the shelf break (Magris et al, 2019).…”

“…In this context, seabed mapping and benthic habitat distribution provides a baseline useful for government and other stakeholders to evaluate and understand the potential ecosystem vulnerability and environmental impacts on marine biodiversity (Brown et al, 2012;Novaczek et al, 2017). Moreover, benthic habitat maps play a major role in cases of specific anthropogenic or natural threats such as dam failure, seabed litter, bottom trawling, climate changes, tropical storms, etc (Buhl-Mortensen and Buhl-Mortensen, 2018;Lacharitéand Brown, 2019;Goodman et al, 2020).…”