Ecosystem Services

Recommendations

Info

wave-exposed areas (Bekkby et al. 2009); whereas S. latissima lives more sheltered (Bekkby and Moy 2011). The distribution of kelp forests in the coastal zones of the Barents Sea, Norwegian Sea, North Sea and Skagerrak have been mapped through the Norwegian Programme for mapping of marine nature types (Bekkby et al. 2013). Gundersen et al. predicted in 2011 the standing and potential distribution and biomass of L. hyperborea and S. latissima for the whole coast of Norway. The standing distribution was 8,000 km 2 , whereas an additional area of 9,000 km 2 were expected to regrow within some decades due to the effects of climatic changes on sea urchins recruitment (Box 1). Similar kelp mapping programs on the Swedish side of Skagerrak do not exist, but some inventories and modelling studies show that there are extensive and well-grown kelp forests in some offshore banks between the coasts of Denmark and Sweden in this area (Naturvårdsverket 2010, 2012). Figure 4: Global distribution of kelp Source: Maximilian Dörrbecker. 3.2 Threats and challenges Smale et al. (2016) state that NE Atlantic kelp forest ecosystems are currently threatened by a range of anthropogenic stressors that operate across multiple spatial scales (Smale et al. 2013, Mineur et al. 2015), including overfishing (Tegner and Dayton 2000, Ling et al. 2009, Moksnes et al. 2008, Korpinen et al. 2007, Östman et al. 2016), increased temperature (Wernberg et al. 2011, 2013), storminess (Byrnes et al. 2011, Smale 36 Ecosystem Services
and Vance 2015), the spread of invasive species (Saunders and Metaxas 2008, Korpinen et al. 2007), elevated nutrient and sediment inputs (Gorgula and Connell 2004, Moy and Christie 2012), and turbidity (Pehlke and Bartsch 2008, Desmond et al. 2015). Anthropogenic stressors can cause shifts from structurally diverse kelp forests to unstructured depauperate habitats characterized by mats of turf-forming algae and sea urchins (Ling et al. 2009, Moy and Christie 2012, Wernberg et al. 2013). Of all different stressors, the largest and most important threat to kelp forests in the Nordic countries has been the green sea urchin Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis which has turned large areas of kelp forests into barren grounds from the county of Møre and Romsdal and as far northeast as the Russian border within the last 45 years (Box 1). Also in Iceland the sea urchins have deforested extensive areas of kelp forests (Hjorleifsson et al. 1995). This phenomenon has been reported as an almost continuous overgrazed belt on inner and moderate wave exposed coasts. However, kelp forests are still dominating in the outer and more wave-exposed part of the coast of Norway (e.g. Norderhaug and Christie 2009). Further, due to increased nutrient concentrations, reduced water transparency (Moy et al. 2008), and most likely also increased temperatures (Syvertsen et al. 2009, Korpinen et al. 2007), S. latissima and other macroalgae in the Bothnian Bay and the Skagerrak-Kattegat region have in some areas been lost or strongly reduced (Dahlgren and Kautsky 2002, Moy et al. 2008) (Box 2, Figure 5). The macroalgae are instead replaced by less productive and supportive habitats, such as filamentous algae, which often end up covering beaches (Malm et al. 2004), with reduced benefits and increased costs for recreational businesses (Hasselström et al. in prep.). Ecosystem Services 37
Page 1: Ecosystem Services In the Coastal Z
Page 4 and 5: Ecosystem Services In the Coastal Z
Page 6 and 7: 5. Ecosystem services of blue musse
Page 9: Preface This report gives an overvi
Page 12 and 13: Baseline Natura 2000 NCM NIVA NOK T
Page 14 and 15: Kelp has a long tradition of being
Page 16 and 17: Traditionally, blue mussels have be
Page 19 and 20: 1. Introduction 1.1 Background Mari
Page 21 and 22: quences of different uses (Meld. St
Page 23 and 24: forests, we have also looked at the
Page 25 and 26: Important supporting ecosystem serv
Page 27 and 28: Skagerrak and Baltic in the south.
Page 29: The approach goes beyond ecosystem
Page 32 and 33: Figure 2: Map of the Nordic countri
Page 34 and 35: the tourism industry. The total val
Page 37: 3. Ecosystem services of kelp fores
Page 41 and 42: Box 2: Eutrophication, climate chan
Page 43 and 44: 3.3 Supporting services 3.3.1 Habit
Page 45 and 46: Scheibling 2012). Detritus settles
Page 47 and 48: Based on the well-known food chains
Page 49 and 50: Box 3: An investigation of CO2 upta
Page 51 and 52: Many studies are also supporting in
Page 53 and 54: 4. Ecosystem services of eelgrass m
Page 55 and 56: Figure 11: Eelgrass meadow with flo
Page 57 and 58: The challenge is to stop or reduce
Page 59 and 60: 4.3.2 Primary production, food webs
Page 61 and 62: 4.3.3 Biological control By high pr
Page 63 and 64: 4.5 Regulating services 4.5.1 Maint
Page 65 and 66: 4.5.5 Coastal defense The eelgrass
Page 67 and 68: 5. Ecosystem services of blue musse
Page 69 and 70: al. 2002, Vuorinen et al. 2002, Lap
Page 71 and 72: of plankton and suspended particles
Page 73 and 74: Figure 18: Blue mussel farmed in a
Page 75 and 76: 5.5 Regulating services 5.5.1 Maint
Page 77 and 78: for consumption and enjoyment of re
Page 79: Box 5: Løgstør - the town of muss
Page 82 and 83: which slowly become flads and later
Page 84 and 85: occur in these types of environment
Page 86 and 87: Figure 22: Shallow, wave sheltered
Page 88 and 89:
6.3.3 Biological control Shallow, w
Page 90 and 91:
On the Swedish east coast the comme
Page 92 and 93:
6.5.3 Eutrophication mitigation Rem
Page 94 and 95:
Within two weeks, the charophyte co
Page 96 and 97:
The contradiction between how the u
Page 98 and 99:
Of the regulating services, kelp an
Page 100 and 101:
7.2 Knowledge gaps Although this st
Page 102 and 103:
huge knowledge gap regarding which
Page 104 and 105:
7.2.4 Shallow bays and inlets Recre
Page 106 and 107:
Baumann HA, Morrison L, Stengel DB.
Page 108 and 109:
Christie H, Norderhaug KM, Fredriks
Page 110 and 111:
FAO. 2014. The State of World Fishe
Page 112 and 113:
HVMFS (Havs- och vattenmyndigheten)
Page 114 and 115:
Karås P. 1996a. Basic abiotic cond
Page 116 and 117:
Lyngby JE, Brix H. 1989. Heavy meta
Page 118 and 119:
Newell RIE. 2004. Ecosystem influen
Page 120 and 121:
Rinde E, Tjomsland T, Hjermann DØ,
Page 122 and 123:
Stål J, Paulsen S, Pihl L, Rönnb
Page 124 and 125:
Wernberg T, Russell BD, Moore PJ, L
Page 126 and 127:
mrd NOK. Siden tareskogene er antat
Page 128 and 129:
størrelse som fiskeoppdrett, men f
Page 130:
Nordic Council of Ministers Ved Str
show all

Ecosystem Services

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?