Interim report of the HELCOM CORESET project

More documents

Recommendations

Info

20 2.3. Population growth rate of marine mammals 1. Working team: Marine mammal team Author: Tero Härkönen Aknowledged persons: Britt-Marie Bäcklin, Stefan Bräger, Anders Galatius, Kaarina Kauhala, Britta Knefelkamp, Charlotta Moraeus, Anna Roos, Ursula Siebert and Stefanie Werner as well as Members of the HELCOM SEAL EG. 2. Name of core indicator Population growth rate of marine mammals 3. Unit of the core indicator Population growth rate (% per year) 4. Description of proposed indicator Marine mammals are top predators of the marine ecosystem and good indicators for the state of the food webs, hazardous substances and direct human disturbance, such as hunting and habitats loss. Deviations from the maximum rate of population growth during the phase of exponential increase are indicative of that the population is reaching its carrying capacity or is affected by human impacts in form of excessive mortality or impaired fertility. Near or in the carrying capacity, the population fl uctuates but a continuous decline indicates that the population is not in GES. 5. Functional group or habitat type Seals and toothed whales 6. Policy relevance Descriptor 1, criterion 1.2 Population size Descriptor 4, criterion 4.1 Productivity of key species or trophic groups Descriptor 8, criterion 8.2 Effects of contaminants Marine Strategy Framework Directive, and a number of IGO resolutions (e.g., HELCOM, OSPAR, CMS, ASCOBANS etc.) The Baltic Sea Action Plan provides the following target: ““By 2015, improved conservation status of species included in the HELCOM lists of threatened and/or declining species and habitats of the Baltic Sea area, with the fi nal target to reach and ensure favourable conservation status of all species”” 7. Use of the indicator in previous assessments Seal monitoring programs, ASCOBANS, e.g. in the Jastarnia Plan (2002 & 2009). ICES MME: Development of Ecological Quality Objectives (EcoQO:s) 8. Link to anthropogenic pressures The growth rate of the seals and marine mammals has a clear linkage to anthropogenic pressures. 9. Pressure(s) that the indicator refl ect Hunting, by-catches of fi sheries, environmental pollution 10. Spatial considerations The indicator is expected to vary spatially and among species. The assessment units for the indicator depend on species (HELCOM Recommendation 27-28/2): for grey seal it is the entire Baltic Sea, for ringed seal three areas, for harbour seal two areas and for harbour porpoise there are two populations which should be assessed separately. 11. Temporal considerations Indicators can show long-term trends. Annual counts are required. 12. Current monitoring Monitoring coordinated among Baltic Sea countries 13. Proposed or perceived target setting approach with a short justifi cation. Long-term objectives of the 2006 HELCOM seal recommendation: Natural abundance and distribution. Population growth rate should be positive until hampered by natural limitations. Proposal for GES boundary is given below.
Introduction Several international initiatives have suggested means to measure the environmental quality of marine ecosystems. The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Convention) has been ratifi ed by all North Sea countries. This convention lists a number of Ecological Quality Objectives (EcoQOs) for the North Sea, which were developed in collaboration with the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and aim to defi ne a desirable state for the North Sea. EcoQOs have been developed for some components of the ecosystem, e.g. commercial fi sh species, threatened and declining species, and marine mammals. An EcoQO is a measure of real environmental quality in relation to a reference level where anthropogenic infl uence is minimal. The ecological quality elements “population trends” and “utilization of breeding sites”, which have been suggested for marine mammal populations, may serve as suitable tools for evaluating current population status. The term “population trend” is defi ned for this purpose as a change in abundance of a population, increasing or decreasing within a specifi ed area over a certain number of years. The EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) includes status categories for coastal waters as well as environmental and ecological objectives, whereas the EU Habitats Directive (European Commission 1992) specifi cally states that long-term management objectives should not be infl uenced by socio-economic considerations, although they may be considered during the implementation of management programmes provided the long-term objectives are not compromised. In line with both the OSPAR Convention and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) in its HELCOM CORESET project is developing a framework using indicators for the Baltic ecosystem. All seals in Europe are also listed under the EU Habitats Directive Annex II (European Commission 1992), and member countries are obliged to monitor the status of seal populations. Consequently, the Coreset core indicator “Population trend” is similar to the EcoQ element with the same name in the ICES and OSPAR frameworks, with the distinction that two latter EcoQ:s include “No decline in population size or pup production exceeding 10% over a period up to 10 years” for populations “minimally affected by anthropogenic impacts”. We suggest this condition to be appropriate also for the Coreset indicator “Population trend” when seal populations are close to natural abundances. The OSPAR and ICES frameworks provide some guidance also for populations far below “natural” or “pristine” abundances. Applying the term “anthropogenic infl uence is minimal” would imply that a population should grow close to its intrinsic rate of increase when not affected by human activities. The theoretical base for this measure is outlined below and compared with empirical data from seal populations. Approach for defi ning GES for populations below carrying capacity Long term maximum growth rates in seals The maximum rate of population growth is limited by several factors in grey seals and ringed seals. Females have at most one pup a year, and fi rst parturition occurs at about 5.5 years of age. It is also evident that not all adult females bear a pup each year, especially not young females (Pomeroy et al. 1999, Bäcklin 2011). An additional limitation for the population growth rate is given by the survival of adults. In most seal species the highest measures of adult survival are about 0.95-0.96, and for grey seals the best estimate available is 0.935 (Harwood and Prime 1978). An additional constraint is the observation that pup and subadult survival is always found to be lower and more variable compared to adult survival in all studied species of seals (Boulva and McLaren 1979, Boyd et al. 1995, Härkönen et al. 2002). These biological constraints impose an upper ceiling of possible rates of long-term population growth for any seal species which can be found by manipulations of the life history matrix. In Figure 2.8 we illustrate how fertility and mortality rates known for grey and ringed seals can combine to produce different longterm population growth rates. It is found that growth rates exceeding 10% (�= 1.10) per year are unlikely in healthy grey seal populations (top stipled line in Fig. 1). Reported values exceeding 10% should be treated sceptically since they imply unrealistic fecundity and longevity rates. Such high growth rates can only occur temporally, and can be caused by e.g. transient age structure effects (Härkönen et al. 1999, Caswell 2000), but are also to be expected in populations infl uenced by considerable immigration. 21
Page 1: Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings
Page 4 and 5: 2 Helsinki Commission Katajanokanla
Page 6 and 7: 4 4.16. Cumulative impact on benthi
Page 8 and 9: 6 descriptions of the indicators. T
Page 10 and 11: 8 The CORESET expert group on biodi
Page 12 and 13: 10 fi sh stocks and change in diet,
Page 14 and 15: 12 Figure 2.3. The prevalence of pr
Page 16 and 17: 14 Seasonal changes in blubber thic
Page 18 and 19: 16 Blubber thickness suggestions Bl
Page 20 and 21: 18 Weaknesses/gaps Monitoring of th
Page 24 and 25: 22 Annual adult survival 1 0,95 0,9
Page 26 and 27: 24 Existing monitoring data Informa
Page 28 and 29: 26 References Bäcklin, B. M. 2011.
Page 30 and 31: 28 Reproduction in the Baltic eagle
Page 32 and 33: 30 Breeding success The proportion
Page 34 and 35: 32 of the real number of nestlings
Page 36 and 37: 34 Gaps and weaknesses Minimum dete
Page 38 and 39: 36 2.5. Abundance of wintering popu
Page 40 and 41: 38 Table 2.10. Pressures affecting
Page 42 and 43: 40 Refrences Skov et al. (2000) Bir
Page 44 and 45: 42 termined by application of the 7
Page 46 and 47: 44 Approach for defi ning GES All s
Page 48 and 49: 46 Sampling It is suggested to incl
Page 50 and 51: 48 2.7. Fish population abundance 2
Page 52 and 53: 50 Coastal Fish - Community Abundan
Page 54 and 55: 52 When a reference data set cannot
Page 56 and 57: 54 well, but were not included in t
Page 58 and 59: 56 Weighting For Nordic Costal mult
Page 60 and 61: 58 12. Current monitoring Monitored
Page 62 and 63: 60 Błeńska M., Osowiecki A., Kra
Page 64 and 65: 62 10. Spatial considerations Fucus
Page 66 and 67: 64 2.15. Trend in the arrival of ne
Page 68 and 69: 66 jectives is to reach “No intro
Page 70 and 71: 68 Sweden Figure 2.23 shows the rat
Page 72 and 73:
70 Strengths and weaknesses of data
Page 74 and 75:
72 need to be revisited in light of
Page 76 and 77:
74 Considering the data set availab
Page 78 and 79:
76 In Denmark, the highest contamin
Page 80 and 81:
78 Status of a compound on internat
Page 82 and 83:
80 A temporal analysis (EU-RAR 2006
Page 84 and 85:
82 Pathways of PFOS to the Baltic e
Page 86 and 87:
84 In regions less affected by anth
Page 88 and 89:
86 3.4. Polychlorinated biphenyls a
Page 90 and 91:
88 actions related to the environme
Page 92 and 93:
90 The CORESET expert group decided
Page 94 and 95:
92 pheric deposition pattern (lowes
Page 96 and 97:
94 3.5. Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (
Page 98 and 99:
96 GES boundaries and matrix Existi
Page 100 and 101:
98 Quality Assurance of PAH metabol
Page 102 and 103:
100 Ariese F, Burgers I, Oudhoff K,
Page 104 and 105:
102 GES boundaries and matrices Exi
Page 106 and 107:
104 3.7. Cesium-137 Authors: Jürge
Page 108 and 109:
106 Figure 3.5. Average surface lev
Page 110 and 111:
108 Temporal trends in concentratio
Page 112 and 113:
110 Other important sources are glo
Page 114 and 115:
112 Conceptual model of the sources
Page 116 and 117:
114 3.8 Tributyltin (TBT) and the i
Page 118 and 119:
116 GES boundaries and matrix Exist
Page 120 and 121:
118 Monitoring the compound Status
Page 122 and 123:
120 Recommendation TBT measurements
Page 124 and 125:
122 3. Frogs have been shown to app
Page 126 and 127:
124 not fi sh (Köhler et al. 2002;
Page 128 and 129:
126 The use of different fi sh spec
Page 130 and 131:
128 Kirchin, M.A. Moore, M.N. Dean,
Page 132 and 133:
130 3.11. Fish Disease Index: Exter
Page 134 and 135:
132 Confounding factors The multifa
Page 136 and 137:
134 analyses ICES data from various
Page 138 and 139:
136 An EAC is the threshold beyond
Page 140 and 141:
138 3.12. Micronucleus test Authors
Page 142 and 143:
140 main nuclei were not counted as
Page 144 and 145:
142 ing national data sets. Note: t
Page 146 and 147:
144 Baršienė J. Rybakovas A. 2006
Page 148 and 149:
146 3.13 A. Reproductive disorders
Page 150 and 151:
148 dead larvae can be induced by s
Page 152 and 153:
150 Strand, J, Dahllöf, I. (2005).
Page 154 and 155:
152 of contaminants in sediments wi
Page 156 and 157:
154 Eriksson Wiklund, A-K., and Sun
Page 158 and 159:
156 4. Candidate indicators for bio
Page 160 and 161:
158 Zooplankton-phytoplankton bioma
Page 162 and 163:
160 4.2. By-catch of marine mammals
Page 164 and 165:
162 4.3. Impacts of anthropogenic u
Page 166 and 167:
164 4.4. Fatty-acid composition of
Page 168 and 169:
166 7. Use of the indicator in prev
Page 170 and 171:
168 10. Spatial considerations Balt
Page 172 and 173:
170 4.10. Large fi sh individuals f
Page 174 and 175:
172 11. Temporal considerations Sam
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
178 A proposal for an approach to a
Page 182 and 183:
180 Technical data Metadata This is
Page 184 and 185:
182 F igure 4.1. Map showing the cu
Page 186 and 187:
184 4.17. Biomass of copepods 1. Wo
Page 188 and 189:
186 4.19. Zooplankton species diver
Page 190 and 191:
188 indirectly impacted by eutrophi
Page 192 and 193:
190 Notes for the GES boundary The
Page 194 and 195:
192 Step 3: Prepare a list of speci
Page 196 and 197:
194 4.22. Phytoplankton diversity 1
Page 198 and 199:
196 4. Policy relevance Nonylphenol
Page 200 and 201:
198 among different studies/measure
Page 202 and 203:
200 4.27. EROD/CYP1A induction The
Page 204 and 205:
202 5.1. Summary of all supplementa
Page 206 and 207:
204 Table 5.1. (continues) Suppleme
Page 208 and 209:
206 5.5. Biopollution level index 1
Page 210 and 211:
208 NIS for aquaculture purposes. O
Page 212 and 213:
210 Balanus improvisus Baltic Katte
Page 214 and 215:
212 Figure 5.3. The scheme for asse
Page 216 and 217:
214 5.6. Organochlorine compounds G
Page 218 and 219:
216 EU Directive 2008/105/ EC Daugh
Page 220 and 221:
218 Table 5.4. Monitoring of HCB, H
Page 222:
www.helcom.fi
show all

Interim report of the HELCOM CORESET project

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?