30.09.2014

State of the soft-bottom macrofauna community // Benthic Quality Index

Kerstin Schiele, Alexander Darr, Michael Zettler, Torsten Berg, Mats Blomqvist, Darius Daunys, Vadims Jermakovs, Alf Josefson, Samuli Korpinen, Jonne Kotta, Henrik Nygård, Mario von Weber, Jan Warzocha

Project Manager: Lena Avellan

CORESET II 2/2014 workshop

29.-30. September 2014, Gothenburg

Stage of development Indicator type

Core - indicator State of the soft-bottom macrofauna community

Primary importance Secondary

importance

BSAP

Segment and

Objective

Natural Distribution and occurrence of plants and animals (Eutrophication)

Thriving communities of plants and animals (Nature Conservation)

MSFD

Descriptors and

Criteria

• 1.6 Habitat condition

• 6.2 Condition of the benthic community

Other relevant legislation ecological status of the coastal

(e.g. WFD) and transitional waters

Legislative linkage:

State of the soft-bottom macrofauna community

Main parameters:

• Species’ sensitivity

• Species richness (number of species S)

• Abundance (number of individuals of a certain species Ni, total number of individuals Ntot)

Quality of a sampling site based on macrozoobenthic community composition & sensitivity

Leonardsson et al. 2009

State of the soft-bottom macrofauna community

Including data from

• DK

• EST

• FIN

• GER ( IOW, LUNG, LLUR)

• LAT

• LIT

• POL

• SE

Schiele et al. in prep.

Adapting the

assessment to

environmental

gradients :

• Salinity

• Depth

HELCOM basins

(4 main regions)

State of the soft-bottom macrofauna community

subsetno of

samples

mean no of

species S

(min/max)

mean no of

individuals

(min/max)

mean Es50

(min/max)

number of

species with

ES50 0.05

value

ES50 0.05

based on >=

100 records

[%]

ES50 0.05

based on >=

300 records

[%]

mean % of

individuals

used for

BQI

salinity

range [psu]depth range [m] region

sampler

size [m²]

meshsize

[mm]

1 1708 26 (2/ 54) 199 (3/ 949) 14.25 (2.0/ 28.0) 188 51 27 98.6 ≥ 30 south ca. 0.1 1

2 1900 21 (1/ 68) 417 (1/ 7746) 11.41 (1.0/ 26.8) 190 48 19 98.6 18- 30 shallower than 20 m south ca. 0.1 1

3 2114 15 (1/ 62) 185 (1/ 2954) 9.38 (1.0/ 25.0) 140 44 20 99.0 18 -30 deeper than 20 m south ca. 0.1 1

4 3052 13 (1/ 68) 394 (1/ 11472) 7.71 (1.0/ 23.3) 147 47 25 99.3 10 - 18 south ca. 0.1 1

5 2337 3 (1/ 11) 54 (1/ 1021) 2.69 (1.0/ 9.4) 18 67 33 99.2 5 - 18 deeper than 60 m central ca. 0.1 1

6 2370 6 (1/ 19) 225 (1/ 3030) 4.79 (1.0/ 12.6) 34 56 44 99.8 5 - 18 shallower than 60 m central ca. 0.1 1

7 657 6 (1/ 12) 350 (1/ 12453) 5.19 (1.0/ 10.2) 16 75 38 99.1 5 - 18 shallower than 60 m central ca. 0.1 0.5

8 1100 11 (1/ 37) 415 (1/ 3905) 6.89 (1.0/ 15.9) 67 40 18 99.2 7.5 - 10 south ca. 0.1 1

9 782 3 (1/ 13) 81 (1/ 1033) 2.75 (1.0/ 7.2) 13 54 23 99.6 7.5 - 10 east ca. 0.1 1

10 798 3 (1/ 8) 299 (1/ 1358) 2.31 (1.0/ 6.0) 8 75 38 99.9 7.5 - 10 north ca. 0.1 1

11 958 8 (1/ 21) 256 (2/ 6896) 6.08 (1.0/ 11.4) 30 60 37 99.8 5 - 7.5 south ca. 0.1 1

12 941 3 (1/ 12) 96 (1/ 2447) 2.84 (1.0/ 9.8) 14 50 36 98.4 5 - 7.5 east ca. 0.1 1

13 582 6 (1/ 15) 284 (1/ 2280) 4.37 (1.0/ 9.3) 17 59 24 98.5 5 - 7.5 east ca. 0.1 0.5

14 2686 5 (1/ 17) 58 (1/ 2393) 4.4 (1.0/12.0) 30 77 43 99.4 5 - 7.5 east ca. 0.02 0.25

15 3305 3 (1/ 11) 262 (1/ 2619) 2.47 (1.0/ 10.0) 14 93 50 99.8 5 - 7.5 north ca. 0.1 1

16 191 4 (1/ 14) 81 (1/ 575) 3.57 (1.0/ 11.0) 8 25 na 96.8 3 - 5 east ca. 0.1 1

17 164 8 (1/ 14) 271 (1/ 669) 5.79 (1.0/ 9.1) 14 43 na 99.3 3 - 5 east ca. 0.1 0.5

18 1678 2 (1/ 10) 107 (1/ 2526) 2.1 (1.0/ 7.4) 10 80 50 99.9 3 - 5 north ca. 0.1 1

19 2155 2 (1/ 10) 81 (1/ 754) 2.11 (1.0/ 10.0) 14 50 36 98.0 0.05 - 3 north ca. 0.1 1

subsetno of

samples

mean no of

species S

(min/max)

mean no of

individuals

(min/max)

mean Es50

(min/max)

number of

species with

ES50 0.05

value

ES50 0.05

based on >=

100 records

[%]

ES50 0.05

based on >=

300 records

[%]

mean % of

individuals

used for

BQI

salinity

range [psu]depth range [m] region

sampler

size [m²]

meshsize

[mm]

1 1708 26 (2/ 54) 199 (3/ 949) 14.25 (2.0/ 28.0) 188 51 27 98.6 ≥ 30 south ca. 0.1 1

2 1900 21 (1/ 68) 417 (1/ 7746) 11.41 (1.0/ 26.8) 190 48 19 98.6 18- 30 shallower than 20 m south ca. 0.1 1

3 2114 15 (1/ 62) 185 (1/ 2954) 9.38 (1.0/ 25.0) 140 44 20 99.0 18 -30 deeper than 20 m south ca. 0.1 1

4 3052 13 (1/ 68) 394 (1/ 11472) 7.71 (1.0/ 23.3) 147 47 25 99.3 10 - 18 south ca. 0.1 1

5 2337 3 (1/ 11) 54 (1/ 1021) 2.69 (1.0/ 9.4) 18 67 33 99.2 5 - 18 deeper than 60 m central ca. 0.1 1

6 2370 6 (1/ 19) 225 (1/ 3030) 4.79 (1.0/ 12.6) 34 56 44 99.8 5 - 18 shallower than 60 m central ca. 0.1 1

7 657 6 (1/ 12) 350 (1/ 12453) 5.19 (1.0/ 10.2) 16 75 38 99.1 5 - 18 shallower than 60 m central ca. 0.1 0.5

8 1100 11 (1/ 37) 415 (1/ 3905) 6.89 (1.0/ 15.9) 67 40 18 99.2 7.5 - 10 south ca. 0.1 1

9 782 3 (1/ 13) 81 (1/ 1033) 2.75 (1.0/ 7.2) 13 54 23 99.6 7.5 - 10 east ca. 0.1 1

10 798 3 (1/ 8) 299 (1/ 1358) 2.31 (1.0/ 6.0) 8 75 38 99.9 7.5 - 10 north ca. 0.1 1

11 958 8 (1/ 21) 256 (2/ 6896) 6.08 (1.0/ 11.4) 30 60 37 99.8 5 - 7.5 south ca. 0.1 1

12 941 3 (1/ 12) 96 (1/ 2447) 2.84 (1.0/ 9.8) 14 50 36 98.4 5 - 7.5 east ca. 0.1 1

13 582 6 (1/ 15) 284 (1/ 2280) 4.37 (1.0/ 9.3) 17 59 24 98.5 5 - 7.5 east ca. 0.1 0.5

14 2686 5 (1/ 17) 58 (1/ 2393) 4.4 (1.0/12.0) 30 77 43 99.4 5 - 7.5 east ca. 0.02 0.25

15 3305 3 (1/ 11) 262 (1/ 2619) 2.47 (1.0/ 10.0) 14 93 50 99.8 5 - 7.5 north ca. 0.1 1

16 191 4 (1/ 14) 81 (1/ 575) 3.57 (1.0/ 11.0) 8 25 na 96.8 3 - 5 east ca. 0.1 1

17 164 8 (1/ 14) 271 (1/ 669) 5.79 (1.0/ 9.1) 14 43 na 99.3 3 - 5 east ca. 0.1 0.5

18 1678 2 (1/ 10) 107 (1/ 2526) 2.1 (1.0/ 7.4) 10 80 50 99.9 3 - 5 north ca. 0.1 1

19 2155 2 (1/ 10) 81 (1/ 754) 2.11 (1.0/ 10.0) 14 50 36 98.0 0.05 - 3 north ca. 0.1 1

State of the soft-bottom macrofauna community

Species’ sensitivity

19 subsets according to salinity, depth, region, gear (mesh size/grab size)

species specific sensitivity scores for 329 species

calculated but not agreed yet, strong differences to SE scores in place

Application of BQI for the entire Baltic Sea (separately for each subset)

validated for DE only, problems in SE, no info in other countries yet

State of the soft-bottom macrofauna community

Distribution of BQI values

a) upper 50 % of values (50 % - 100 %) b) lower 50 % (0 % - 49 %)

Schiele et al. in prep.

State of the soft-bottom macrofauna community

Concept/ design

Coordinated monitoring Assessment

Research needs for operationalization (in

relation to needs stated under the

coordinated monitoring and

assessment columns)

Data arrangements

Monitoring strategy (method, frequency, spatial resolution) in relation to relevant indicator parameters Technical guidelines Geographic scale

Assessment method

GES / assessment criteria (currently all GES are provisional)

A ) in place B) under development C ) not available, what needs - action level?

A ) monitoring in place B ) monitoring needs revision C ) monitoring not available, what needs - action level?

A ) in place B ) needs revision, what needs doing C ) not available, what needs - action level?

HELCOM assessment units: A ) identified B) Identified not described C) not identified, what needs - action level?

A ) available and described B ) available not described C ) not available, what needs - action level?

A ) proposed and described B ) proposed but needs more supporting data C ) not available, what needs - action level?

A ) in place B ) needs revision, what needs doing C ) not available, what needs - action level?

B – indices

(sensitivity, use of terms) not commonly agreed

B – method to

better include different types of susbtrate

A A A

A Test how the

offshore benthic data could be assessed by BQI

B

A/B – in place, but indices (sensitivity) not commonly agreed

B – method to

better include different types of susbtrate ?

A B – several options, not yet decided upon

B -can be derived from data, but has not been done

B - not tailored to current study yet (so far: based on regional diversity by Villnäs & Norkko)

Results of currents study should be applied and tested in Baltic states /regional studies

A Sensitivity list for species should be made available online via HELOCM

Sta

rt o

f

core

set

II

now

(action level = who needs to complete the task)

State of the soft-bottom macrofauna community

• HELCOM Assessment Assessment level has to be determined, proposal:

max. unit level 4

• Currently data is available:

coastal areas and offshore areas of the Baltic Sea

State of the soft-bottom macrofauna community

Progress so far:

• dataset of 32.000 samples from DK, EST, FIN, GER, LAT, LIT, PL, SE

• Harmonised species lists

• different mesh size/ grab size separated !

• 19 subsets according to salinity, depth, region, gear (mesh size/grab size)

species specific sensitivity scores for 329 species

• normalised or categorised sensitivity values not feasible!

• Application of BQI for the entire Baltic Sea (separately for each subset)

validated for DE, problems in SE

State of the soft-bottom macrofauna community

Remaining issues:

Validation of species sensitivity scores and BQI assessment

- Should be done by all countries

Definition of GES

- based on regional diversity so far (Villnäs & Norkko 2011)

- No new reference values from this study

Assessments Units

- WFD / MSFD assessment borders ?

SUMMARY

calculated species sensitivity list for 329 species,

specific for different environmental gradients (19 subsets)

basis for future assessments ?

State of the soft-bottom macrofauna community

30.09.2014

Population structure of long-lived macrozoobenthic species

Alexander Darr, Michael Zettler, Karin Fürhaupter, Mats Blomqvist, Samuli

Korpinen, Henrik Nygård, (Vadims Jermakov - MARMONI), Jan Warzocha

CORESET II 2/2014 workshop

29.-30. September 2014, Gothenburg

Stage of development Indicator type

Core - indicator State indicator

Primary importance Secondary

importance

BSAP

Segment and

Objective

Viable populations of species Thriving and balanced communities of plants and

animals (Nature Conservation)

MSFD

Descriptors and

Criteria

• 6.2.3/

• 6.2.4

• (1.3.: Population condition (demography, genetic

structure)

Other relevant legislation ecological status of the coastal

(e.g. WFD) and transitional waters

Legislative linkage:

Population structure of long-lived macrozoobenthic species

Progress so far:

Population structure of long-lived macrozoobenthic species

• Regional development in MARMONI-project:

• available for: Finland and Latvia

• selected species: Macoma balthica

• Finish approach: linking mean size with oxygen conditions

•Automatic software for size determination (FIN)

• Latvian approach: linking median size with BSII

• reference condition: historical data (1960th)

• target value by deviation from historical mean

Progress so far:

Population structure of long-lived macrozoobenthic species

• German approach: linking size distribution of Arctica islandica to oxygen

depletion and fishery effort

• almost no progress due to lack of man power (just started to digitalize

historical data)

Additional data:

Population structure of long-lived macrozoobenthic species

• Poland: several species,

Sandy bottoms: Mytilus edulis measurements (dredge samples);

measurements on bivalves in 1960s and 1980s (VV) 150-200samples;

same locations in 2004

but still have to be digitalized – also no man power available

• no data available from any other country as it is rarely included in

monitoring programs

Conclusions:

Population structure of long-lived macrozoobenthic species

• Indicator development will not be finished within the timeline given by

HELCOM CoreSet 2 and the indicator should be downgraded to „pre-core-

level“ as proposed by expert workshop in Feb 2014

• a common baltic-wide approach will not be possible as available/suitable

target species will vary between the countries

and historical data are most likely not available in most countries to

estimate reference conditions