Ecosystem exploitation and trophodynamic indicators: A comparison between the Northern Adriatic Sea and Southern New England
Introduction
The ecosystem approach to natural resource management has been espoused (WSSD, 2002, FAO, 2003) and, at present, is recommended for adoption as a major policy initiative in Europe, the US, and elsewhere including the EU Water Framework Directive, Common Fisheries Policy and the European Marine Strategy (CBD, 2004, USOC, 2004, FAO, 2003). The aim of the new approach is to ensure that the planning, development and management of the environment will meet social and economic needs without jeopardizing options for future generations to benefit from the full range of goods and services provided by marine ecosystems; i.e. to ensure sustainable development (FAO, 2003, Pickitch et al., 2004). In this context, ecosystem-based management (EBM) aims to conserve the structure and function of ecosystems in order to maintain ecosystem services (CBD, 2004).
One of the main challenges for EBM is the implementation of this more holistic approach, in which the ecosystem represents the management unit (Raffaelli, 2006). Ecosystem considerations in a marine scientific and management context have been extant for more than a century (e.g. Baird, 1873), but how to make them operational has remained a key challenge. Research needs to be extended to encompass not only the structures of the ecosystem (classically studied components such as populations, species, communities, habitats) but also the processes related to the functioning of the ecological systems (production, consumption, respiration, energy flow and cycling). Ultimately, we need to seek general relationships among patterns and processes at multiple spatial scales (e.g. Zajac, 1999, Hyrenbach et al., 2000).
The relationship between marine ecosystem structure and function has become increasingly prominent in the last decade (Duffy, 2006, Raffaelli, 2006). Yet moving from knowledge of ecosystem structure and function to understanding the relationships between them has been more challenging. Shifting from the assessment of the human-use effects on ecosystem structure towards the assessment of the modifications that these structural changes induce in the processes of perturbed ecosystems requires caution due to the uncertainty, long feedback times and highly nonlinear ecosystem responses to external perturbations (Holling et al., 1995). For example, understanding how changes in biodiversity affect ecosystem function requires integrating diversity within trophic levels (horizontal diversity) and across trophic levels (vertical diversity; including food chain length and omnivory). As another example, the relative importance of top-down or bottom-up trophic controls in continental shelf ecosystems has important implications for how ecosystems respond to perturbations (e.g. Frank et al., 2007). The need to improve our knowledge about the relationships between structure and function is critical for adopting effective EBM strategies and policies.
One way to facilitate a better understanding of the relationship between ecosystem structure and function (and responses to perturbations thereupon) is to engage in comparative ecosystem studies (Hunt and Megrey, 2005, Moloney et al., 2005, Coll et al., 2007). Comparison between similar or comparable ecosystems (i.e. systems with similar latitudinal location and characterized by similar environmental features/constraints) is a useful analytical approach which can allow us to better understand the mechanisms which drive the functioning of ecological systems. In comparable ecosystems, some features will be shared but others will be unique, and analysis of these similar and contrasting patterns and processes can reveal important drivers in each ecosystem. These comparative analyses provide an opportunity for taking a broader ecosystem perspective and permit the ability to draw generalizations important to successful implementation of EBM.
To better elucidate key marine ecosystem properties and to facilitate implementation of EBM, we examined two comparable marine ecosystems; the Northern Adriatic Sea (NAS) and Southern New England (SNE). The reason we chose the NAS and SNE ecosystems are that they both represent relatively shallow, continental shelf ecosystems with a high benthic biomass. Additionally, both have had a notable history of extracting living marine resources, share some physio-chemical features, and have had enough scientific studies to generate adequate databases required for this study. Our objectives in this work were to present summaries of systemic metrics from both ecosystems and to compare those metrics between the two ecosystems.
Section snippets
Ecosystem and model descriptions
The upper portion of the Adriatic Sea (NAS) (Fig. 1) constitutes the widest continental shelf in the Mediterranean Sea and, in the context of the generally oligotrophic conditions of the basin, represents a unique habitat (Pinardi et al., 2006). The NAS is a shallow (<35 m) semi-enclosed basin (14,178 km2), characterized by strong riverine outflows, mainly from the Po River, with high loads of organic matter and nutrients (Revelante and Gilmartin, 1983, Turley, 1999). The NAS is influenced by
Results
Both ecosystems were dominated by invertebrates in terms of biomass and production (Table 4). Ranking the major compartments in relation to their contribution to the total system biomass showed that for both ecosystems the highest rank is attained by the benthos (64% and 48% for NAS and SNE, respectively). Differences were seen in the secondary ranking, nekton for NAS and plankton for SNE (Table 4). These observations were reflected in the Benthos:Plankton and Nekton:Plankton ratios, which were
Contrasts between NAS and SNE
In general terms, results from the structure and trophic flow analysis of the two ecosystems studied here demonstrated congruence with previous studies carried out in both ecosystems. The South New England (SNE) ecosystem is confirmed as one of the most productive marine areas on the planet (Bax, 1991, Cohen et al., 1982, Grosslein et al., 1980, Sissenwine et al., 1984); whereas, the Northern Adriatic Sea (NAS) system is confirmed as one of the most productive areas within the Mediterranean
Acknowledgments
We thank the CNR (Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche – Short term mobility program) for providing a travel fellowship to F.P. which initiated this collaboration. We thank S. Gaichas and anonymous reviewers of prior versions of the article which improved its quality and content.
References (84)
- et al.
ECOPATH II – a software for balancing steady-state models and calculating network characteristics
Ecological Modelling
(1992) - et al.
Ecopath with Ecosim: methods, capabilities and limitations
Ecological Modelling
(2004) - et al.
An ecological model of the Northern and Central Adriatic Sea: analysis of ecosystem structure and fishing impacts
Journal of Marine Systems
(2007) - et al.
The relevance of ecological pyramids in community assemblages
Ecological Modelling
(2007) - et al.
The ups and downs of trophic control in continental shelf ecosystems
Trends in Ecology and Evolution
(2007) Exergy and ecology
Ecological Modelling
(1992)- et al.
A method for identifying keystone species in food web models
Ecological Modelling
(2006) - et al.
Trophic models of four benthic communities in Tongoy Bay (Chile): comparative analysis and preliminary assessment of management strategies
Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology
(2002) - et al.
A measure of ecosystem maturity
Ecological Modelling
(1999) The changing Mediterranean Sea – a sensitive ecosystem?
Progress in Oceanography
(1999)
The stability of trophic mass-balance models of marine ecosystems a comparative analysis
Ecological Modelling
A trophic study for Tongoy Bay – a system exposed to suspended scallop culture (Northern Chile)
Journal Experimental Marine Biology Ecology
The Adriatic Sea general circulation. Part I: Air–sea interactions and water mass structure
Journal of Physical Oceanography
The Adriatic Sea general circulation. Part II: Baroclinic circulation structure
Journal of Physical Oceanography
The ecological role of water-column microbes in the sea
Marine Ecology Progress Series
A comparison of the fish biomass flow to fish, fisheries, and mammals on six marine ecosystems
ICES Marine Science Symposium
Riflessioni sulla pesca, biodiversità ed aree marine protette
Biologia Marina Mediterranea
Energy budget of Georges Bank
Canadian Special Publication Fishery and Aquatic Science
Trophodynamic indicators for an ecosystem approach to fisheries
ICES Journal of Marine Science
Environmental effects of fishing
Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems
Energetics, patterns of interaction strengths, and stability in real ecosystems
Science
Biodiversity and functioning of seagrass ecosystems
Marine Ecology Progress Series
Outline of oceanography and the plankton of the Adriatic Sea
Reconciling differences in trophic control in mid-latitude marine ecosystems
Ecology Letters
Biocoenoeses benthiques de la Mer Adriatique
Acta Adriatica
“Rapido” trawl-fishing in the Northern Adriatic: preliminary observations on effects on macrobenthic communities
Acta Adriatica
Recent fluctuations in pelagic fish stocks of the northwest Atlantic, Georges Bank region, in relation to species interactions
Rapports et Proces-Verbaux des Reunions du Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la Mer
Engineering resilience versus ecological resilience
Biodiversity in the functioning of ecosystems: an ecological synthesis
Comparison of the biophysical and trophic characteristics of the Bering and Barents Seas
ICES Journal of Marine Science
Marine protected areas and ocean basin management
Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems
Environmental impact of trawling on the sea bed: a review
New Zealand Journal of Marine Freshwater Research
Cited by (35)
Terrestrial food web of the Malpelo Fauna and Flora Sanctuary, Colombia: An analysis from a topological approach
2023, Ecological InformaticsCrowding in the middle of marine food webs: A focus on Raja asterias and other mediterranean batoids
2023, Marine Environmental ResearchSimulations and interpretations of cumulative trophic theory
2022, Ecological ModellingCitation Excerpt :The value of the cumulative trophic curves remains high, and is improved even further by this theoretical, simulated treatment of its features. The commonality of “S” and “hockey stick” -shaped curves is growing with each study that actually looks at cumulative biomass and production (Pranovi and Link, 2009; Pranovi et al., 2012, 2014, 2020; Link et al., 2015, 2020; Libralato et al., 2019), such that these patterns are observed in essentially every marine ecosystem that has been examined. Certainly, additional marine and aquatic ecosystems warrant cumulative curve examinations, as do terrestrial ecosystems, to verify the ubiquity and veracity of this theory and its predictions beyond the large marine ecosystem context.
Comparative production of fisheries yields and ecosystem overfishing in African Large Marine Ecosystems
2020, Environmental DevelopmentCharacterizing marine ecosystems and fishery impacts using a comparative approach and regional food-web models
2020, Deep-Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in OceanographyCitation Excerpt :type of questions than for defining management targets or limits (Plagányi, 2007). In such circumstances, comparative studies are helpful for elucidating common or unique processes and patterns in marine ecosystems (Megrey et al., 2009; Pranovi and Link, 2009). Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE; Christensen and Walters, 2004) has been applied to a number of marine ecosystems and fisheries of the world ocean (Colleter et al., 2015).
Trophic model of a deep-sea ecosystem with methane seeps in the South China Sea
2020, Deep-Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers