Ecosystem Services

Recommendations

Info

Figure 13: Dense eelgrass meadow far north in Balsfjord at 69°N Source: Photo: Frithjof Moy. There are many attempts to calculate monetary value of ecological functions. Waycott et al. (2009) estimated that seagrass meadows worldwide cycle nutrients equal to USD 1.9 trillion per year. Submersed rooted macrophytes, like eelgrass, link the nutrients in sediments with the overlying water. Flindt et al. (1999) compared nutrient dynamic in bare bottom sediment with eelgrass covered sediment, and the most pronounced difference between the two systems were the nitrate profiles. In the bare bottom system, the constant level of nitrate down to 10mm depth indicates the depth of the oxic zone, whereas within the eelgrass bed, the penetration in the sediment reached down to 72mm depth. Also the pool of nitrate in the vegetated sediment was four to eight times higher than in the bare bottom system. In addition, the ammonia profiles showed much faster depletion of ammonia in the water column in the vegetated system than in the bare sediment system. Also high ammonia pool in the sediment of the bare bottom system, most likely reflects the oxygen limitation of the nitrification. With phosphorus, the bare bottom sediment showed values of 100–200 mg PO 4 3- -P per m 2 higher than the eelgrass system. 58 Ecosystem Services
4.3.3 Biological control By high primary production, nutrient cycling and providing a three dimensional structure, eelgrass in many ways provide biological control. Orth et al. (1984) reviewed studies relating predator-prey relationships to different features of the seagrass system and summarized that the abundance of many species, both epifauna and infauna, is positively correlated with two distinct aspects of eelgrass morphology: 1) the root-rhizome mat, and 2) the plant canopy. Harrison (1982) showed that growth of a microalgae (Platymonas sp.) and many marine bacteria were inhibited by water-soluble extracts of eelgrass leaves, and by that altering the activity of microorganisms directly and indirectly affecting amphipod grazers. Allen and Williams (2003) found that eelgrass controlled the growth and reproduction of an invasive mussel through food limitation. On the other hand, Boström et al. (2014) summarized studies in Skagerrak and the southern Baltic showing that loss of eelgrass and reduction of crustacean mesograzer were linked and partly explained by the overfishing of cod and subsequent dominance of intermediate fish predators and macroalgae (Baden et al. 2003, 2010, Bobsien 2006, Jephson et al. 2008, Moksnes et al. 2008). 4.4 Provisioning services 4.4.1 Resource utilization and bioprospecting Eelgrass is not used as food source due to its high amount of cellulose, which most animals including humans, cannot digest. But eelgrass eco-systems have a wide variety of ecological functions in which living tissues and detritus may be a food source for many marine animals. Today, harvest of eelgrass is of no value. However it has for centuries, perhaps back to the age of the Vikings, been used as building material for roof covering (see Figure 15), filling and isolation material, for cattle feed and soil amendment. Traditionally, eelgrass flushed on shore was collected, rinsed and dried before use and even exported (Jensen 2012). No medicament is known from eelgrass but since intact leaves decay very slowly and are widely selected and used as roof materials, it may be a good resource for screening natural antibiotics and some studies have shown effective compounds with nematicidal and antibacterial activity from eelgrass extracts (Harrison 1982, Choi et al. 2009, Liu et al. 2010, Newmaster et al. 2011, Wang et al. 2012). Ecosystem Services 59
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 and 38: 3. Ecosystem services of kelp fores
Page 39 and 40: and Vance 2015), the spread of inva
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: 4.3.2 Primary production, food webs
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?