BSEP116B Biodiversity in the Baltic Sea - Helcom

More documents

Recommendations

Info

144 >30 psu 18-30 psu 11-18 psu 7.5-11 psu 5-7.5 psu 0-5 psu >30 psu 18-30 psu 11-18 psu 7.5-11 psu 5-7.5 psu 0-5 psu >30 psu 18-30 psu 11-18 psu 7.5-11 psu 5-7.5 psu 0-5 psu >30 psu 18-30 psu 11-18 psu 7.5-11 psu 5-7.5 psu 0-5 psu >30 psu 18-30 psu 11-18 psu 7.5-11 psu 5-7.5 psu 0-5 psu >30 psu 18-30 psu 11-18 psu 7.5-11 psu 5-7.5 psu 0-5 psu >30 psu 18-30 psu 11-18 psu 7.5-11 psu 5-7.5 psu 0-5 psu >30 psu 18-30 psu 11-18 psu 7.5-11 psu 5-7.5 psu 0-5 psu >30 psu 18-30 psu 11-18 psu 7.5-11 psu 5-7.5 psu 0-5 psu >30 psu 18-30 psu 11-18 psu 7.5-11 psu 5-7.5 psu 0-5 psu BALTIC SEA PROTECTED AREAS 0 20 40 60 80 Mud, non-photic zone Mud, euphotic zone Hard clay, non-photic zone Hard clay, euphotic zone Sand, non- photic zone Sand, euphotic zone Hard bottom, non -photic zone Hard bottom, euphotic zone B edrock, non -photic zone B edrock, euphotic zone Figure 7.5. Proportion of the 60 benthic marine landscapes represented within BSPAs (horizontal axis). Salinity categories are grouped according to substrate type and photic depths (vertical axis). Source: Piekäinen & Korpinen 2008. Replication can be assessed by determining the number of spatially separated patches of each protected feature within the network, e.g., individual seagrass meadows or rocky reefs. Because the overall distribution of habitats and species is still % poorly known in the Baltic Sea, this cannot be fully assessed at present. Based on the information in the BSPA database, 62 of the total of 207 species reported within the BSPA network are found in ten or more BSPAs. Of these 62 species, 60 are birds and two are mammals. However, half of the 207 species are reported from fewer than three sites within the BSPA network. Thus, according to the database, many species lack spatial replication. To fully assess the replication in the BSPA network, reliable information on algae, amphibians, vascular plants and invertebrates is needed. In the BALANCE project, a spatial GIS analysis was carried out to determine the number of spatially separate replicates of different marine landscapes covered by the BSPA network. The results of the analysis showed that replication of the benthic marine landscape patches is very variable, ranging from zero to hundreds of replicates for different landscape types. The majority of the poorly replicated landscape types were bedrock and hard clay landscapes. The shallow euphotic bedrock landscapes had no or only one replicate, as was the case for non-photic bedrock, and most euphotic and non-photic hard clay landscapes. As BSPAs are generally rather large, the within-site replication of landscape patches is relatively high while the number of sites hosting the replicates and thereby the between-site replication is often low. However, the ecologically meaningful minimum number of replicates and the minimum size for a replicate are strongly dependent on species characteristics. Connectivity To ensure good connectivity, the BSPA network should offer sufficient opportunities for dispersal and migration of species within and between MPAs. Connectivity depends mainly on the dispersal distance of the individual species (including larvae and juveniles) and the distance between preferred habitats for those species. Evaluating connectivity is somewhat problematic as the network aims to protect a wide range of species which have very different ranges of dispersal and mobility, both between species and at different stages in their life. Many bivalve larvae (e.g., mussels and cockles) have dispersal distances as long as 100 km, while for swimming crustaceans and
some seaweeds the distance is at most 25 km. The network should therefore take into account different aspects of connectivity and not be focused on one element or one species to the detriment of others. The network design should also take into account the different life history stages of species. It has, however, been repeatedly suggested that, if the network is not targeted to a certain species, an average distance of 25 km can be used between MPAs (Botsford et al. 2001, Shanks et al. 2003, Palumbi 2003, Halpern et al. 2006). Because the HELCOM database contains no spatial information on habitat or species distribution and such data are currently not available, an approach using hypothetical straight-line connectivity with a 20 km and a 50 km radius (i.e., 40 km and 100 km connectivity distance) was used in the HELCOM assessment (Figure 7.6). The assessment showed areas of good connectivity but also indicated major gaps, particularly in offshore areas. In the BALANCE project, connectivity was assessed between protected patches of similar benthic marine landscapes, both by using a fixed 25 km distance and by using a species-by-species approach whereby the considered landscapes and distances were set depending on the specific requirements for selected species. With the 25 km distance, the landscape patches within the BSPAs are relatively well-connected to each other for most landscape types. However, the deep-sea landscape types showed very low connectivity. When using the species-specific approach, the analysis showed relatively high connectivity among landscape patches suitable for widespread species with high dispersal abilities such as Baltic telling (Macoma balthica). For short-distance dispersers, however, the BSPA network is not wellconnected. Furthermore, water currents affect dispersal, either inhibiting or enhancing it, and thus the fixed distances in the BALANCE assessment should only be seen as a preliminary ‘rule of thumb’. The BALANCE analysis also showed that because BSPAs, on average, are relatively large, the main part of the connectivity reflects within-site connectivity between landscape patches inside an individual BSPA, whereas between-site connectivity is much weaker. While between-site con- Figure 7.6. Connectivity between the BSPAs (in darker green) with a 20-km (light orange) and a 50-km (dark orange) radius indicating 40 km and 100 km, respectively, connectivity distance between the sites. nectivity is important for long-distance dispersers, the within-site connectivity is important for short-distance dispersers. In addition, as most of the BSPAs are situated in coastal areas, the connectivity is very weak across the deeper offshore areas of the Baltic Sea and the network does not support good connectivity for species inhabiting these areas. 7.3 Current status of the legal protection and management of the BSPA network Establishment of an ecologically coherent and well-managed network of Baltic Sea Protected Areas requires relevant legal protection and management measures. Most existing sites lack implemented management plans or other means of site management, and predominantly aim to protect birds or terrestrial species. Although many sites including in marine areas enjoy some national protection, in most cases it is not clear 145
Page 1:
Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings
Page 4 and 5:
Published by: Helsinki Commission K
Page 6 and 7:
TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE . . . . .
Page 8 and 9:
6.6 Hazardous substances . . . . .
Page 10 and 11:
1 INTRODUCTION 8 1.1 An integrated
Page 12 and 13:
Box 1.1. Biodiversity The term biod
Page 14 and 15:
of saline water from the North Sea
Page 16 and 17:
14 On a global scale, marine ecosys
Page 18 and 19:
Box 1.2. Regime shifts in the Balti
Page 20 and 21:
2 MARINE LANDSCAPES AND HABITATS 18
Page 22 and 23:
From an ecological point of view, a
Page 24 and 25:
Box 2.1.2. The Baltic marine landsc
Page 26 and 27:
• A coherent data set on benthic
Page 28 and 29:
Denmark Estonia Finland Germany Lat
Page 30 and 31:
Mud-sandflat, Greifswald Lagoon, Ge
Page 32 and 33:
3 COMMUNITIES Communities are assem
Page 34 and 35:
32 Spring bloom index 1200 1000 800
Page 36 and 37:
34 Unusual events and new species i
Page 38 and 39:
36 Depth limit (m) the Gulf of Both
Page 40 and 41:
Number of species 16 14 12 10 8 6 4
Page 42 and 43:
Figure 3.2.7. Left panel shows pred
Page 44 and 45:
Implications for the Baltic Sea Act
Page 46 and 47:
Biomass (wet weight, mg per m 2 ) B
Page 48 and 49:
the other hand, is not selected by
Page 50 and 51:
iomass can be used to assess enviro
Page 52 and 53:
Average number of species 20 15 10
Page 54 and 55:
52 Macoma baltica where the influen
Page 56 and 57:
the total BT identified for each ma
Page 58 and 59:
Recruitment (thousands) 8000000 700
Page 60 and 61:
Alien species Several alien fish sp
Page 62 and 63:
4 SPECIES The number of species in
Page 64 and 65:
Table 4.1.1. Results of dedicated a
Page 66 and 67:
Number of stranded porpoises 180 16
Page 68 and 69:
is recommended to survey harbour po
Page 70 and 71:
Number of individuals 12000 10000 8
Page 72 and 73:
Mean blubber thickness (mm) 40 35 3
Page 74 and 75:
Breeding pairs 60000 50000 40000 30
Page 76 and 77:
predation on nests and nesting adul
Page 78 and 79:
sites outside the Baltic, decreased
Page 80 and 81:
Table 4.3.1. Development of the pop
Page 82 and 83:
80 Number of breeding pairs 3000 25
Page 84 and 85:
The strategic goal of the BSAP to h
Page 86 and 87:
for a given site or area. The secon
Page 88 and 89:
Mussel bed reef community, Jasmund,
Page 90 and 91:
Table 5.3. Assessment results of th
Page 92 and 93:
Aerial photo of harbours seals (Pho
Page 94 and 95:
6 HUMAN PRESSURES ON BIODIVERSITY A
Page 96 and 97: Table 6.1.1. Catch range during the
Page 98 and 99: Baltic herring trawling, Bothnian B
Page 100 and 101: 6.1.3 Major international framework
Page 102 and 103: 100 Oil turnover (millions of tonne
Page 104 and 105: NOx emissions and sewage Macrophyte
Page 106 and 107: Communication links There are a num
Page 108 and 109: Figure 6.3.3. Left: concrete-stone
Page 110 and 111: ecommendations would contribute to
Page 112 and 113: Tourist fishing 110 cial fishery fo
Page 114 and 115: 112 Figure 6.5.1. Integrated classi
Page 116 and 117: can be considered as having been a
Page 118 and 119: Although no direct, dramatic mass m
Page 120 and 121: Bearing in mind the complex hydrogr
Page 122 and 123: Box 6.7.1. Invasion status of the B
Page 124 and 125: Table 6.7.1. Examples of ecological
Page 126 and 127: munities that formerly consisted of
Page 128 and 129: 6.8.2 Activities generating noise i
Page 130 and 131: 128 and fish in the Baltic Sea area
Page 132 and 133: 800 700 600 bag of the two German B
Page 134 and 135: Fish swarm on kelp (Laminaria sp.)
Page 136 and 137: tion of ice cover, either through r
Page 138 and 139: 7 STATUS OF THE NETWORK OF MARINE A
Page 140 and 141: Box 7.1. Natura 2000 network of pro
Page 142 and 143: 25 20 on how the criteria on ecolog
Page 144 and 145: estrial, nearshore marine, and offs
Page 148 and 149: Permission needed Restricted Forbid
Page 150 and 151: Figure 7.8.a. MARXAN ’best portfo
Page 152 and 153: The BSPA network is relatively well
Page 154 and 155: Mammals. Among the mammals, the pop
Page 156 and 157: 154 taxonomic groups and communitie
Page 158 and 159: 156 provided by an ecosystem. Use o
Page 160 and 161: 158 Reduction of human pressures Wh
Page 162 and 163: 160 fishing on fish population dyna
Page 164 and 165: 162 Baden, S., Boström, C. (2001).
Page 166 and 167: 164 Season 2001-2002. Acta Zoologic
Page 168 and 169: 166 Gasiūnaitė, Z.R., Cardoso, A.
Page 170 and 171: 168 HELCOM & OSPAR (2003): Joint HE
Page 172 and 173: 170 ICES (2008c). Report of the Bal
Page 174 and 175: 172 area: density-dependent effects
Page 176 and 177: 174 Noer, H., Clausager, I., Asferg
Page 178 and 179: 176 Scheffer M., Carpenter S.R., Fo
Page 180 and 181: 178 by passive acoustic monitoring.
Page 182 and 183: 180 Warzaw, Poland Vilhunen, Jarmo,
Page 184 and 185: 182 6.7 Alien speices Authors: Lepp
Page 186 and 187: ANNEX III: CONSERVATION STATUS OF T
Page 188 and 189: ANNEX IV: HABITAT OR SPECIES DISTRI
Page 190: ANNEX V: STATUS OF BREEDING AND WIN
show all

BSEP116B Biodiversity in the Baltic Sea - Helcom

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?