Practical implementation of ecosystem monitoring for the ecosystem approach to management

Ecosystem services in connected catchment to coast ecosystems: Monitoring to detect emerging trends

There is an increasing need for long-term monitoring of ecosystems and their services to inform on-ground management. The supply of many ecosystem services relies on connections that span multiple ecosystems. Monitoring the underlying condition of interconnected ecosystems is therefore required to track effectiveness of past interventions and identify impending change. Here we test the performance of indicators of ecosystem services with the aim of identifying the time-scales over which indicators of ecosystem services responded to change. We chose a case-study of a catchment in Northern Australia, where water resource development is a threat to the river flows that support vegetation growth and the life-cycle of coastal fishery species. We developed a novel approach to performance testing that drew on state-space modelling to capture ecological dynamics, and structural equation modelling to capture covariation in indicator time series. We first quantified covariation among three ecological indicators that had time-series data: pasture biomass, vegetation greenness and barramundi catch per unit effort. Higher values of all indicators occurred in years with greater river flow. We then predicted the emergence times for each indicator, as the time taken for a trend in an indicator to emerge from the background of natural variation. Emergence times were > 10 years in all cases, quantified at 80 % and higher confidence levels. Past trends and current status of ecosystem service flows are often used by decision makers to directly inform near-term actions, particularly for provisioning services (such as barramundi catch) due to their important contribution to regional economies. We found that ecological indicators could be used to assess historical performance over decadal timespans, but not as short-term indicators of recent change. More generally, we offer an approach to performance testing of indicators. This approach could be useful for quantifying timescales of ecosystem response in systems where cross-ecosystem connections are important.

Key factors to consider in the use of environmental DNA metabarcoding to monitor terrestrial ecological restoration

Ecological restoration of terrestrial environments is a globally important process to combat the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Holistic monitoring of restored biota and active management of restoration is necessary to improve restoration processes and outcomes, and provide evidence to stakeholders that targets are being achieved. Increasingly, environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding is used as a restoration monitoring tool because it is able to generate biodiversity data rapidly, accurately, non-destructively, and reliably, on a wide breadth of organisms from soil microbes to mammals. The overall objective of this review is to discuss the key factors to consider in the use of environmental DNA for monitoring of restored terrestrial ecosystems, hopefully improving monitoring, and ultimately, restoration outcomes. We identified that the majority of eDNA based studies of ecosystem restoration are currently conducted in Europe, North America, and Australia, and that almost half of total studies were published in 2021-22. Soil was the most popular sample substrate, soil microbial communities the most targeted taxa, and forests the most studied ecosystem. We suggest there is no 'one size fits all' approach to restoration monitoring using eDNA, and discuss survey design. Factors to consider include substrate selection, sample collection and storage, assay selection, and data interpretation, all of which require careful planning to obtain reliable, and accurate information that can be used for restoration monitoring and decision making. We explore future directions for research and argue that eDNA metabarcoding can be a useful tool in the restoration monitoring 'toolkit', but requires informed application and greater accessibility to data by a wide spectrum of stakeholders.

The First Political-Ecological Database and Its Use in Episode Analysis

Biodiversity loss is a consequence of socio-ecological processes. Observations on anthropogenic actions toward ecosystems coupled to observations on ecosystem metrics are needed to help understand these processes so that ecosystem management policies can be derived and implemented to curb such destruction. Such data needs to be maintained in searchable data portals. To this end, this article delivers a first-of-its-kind relational database of observations on coupled anthropogenic and ecosystem actions. This Ecosystem Management Actions Taxonomy (EMAT) database is founded on a taxonomy designed to support models of political-ecological processes. Structured query language scripts for building and querying these databases are described. The use of episodes in the construction of political-ecological theory is also introduced. These are frequently occurring sequences of political-ecological actions. Those episodes that test positive for causality can aid in improving a political-ecological theory by driving modifications to an attendant computational model so that it generates them. Two relational databases of political-ecological actions are described that are built from online news articles and published data on species abundance. The first concerns the management of the East African cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) population, and the second is focused on the management of rhinoceroses (Ceratotherium simum) in South Africa. The cheetah database is used to study the political drivers of cheetah habitat loss, and the rhino database is used study the political drivers of rhino poaching. An EMAT database is a fundamental breakthrough because is provides a language for conservation science to identify the objects and phenomena that it is about. Therefore, maintaining political-ecological data in EMAT databases will advance conservation science and consequently, improve management policies that are based on that science.

What's hot and what's not: Making sense of biodiversity 'hotspots'

Conserving biogeographic regions with especially high biodiversity, known as biodiversity 'hotspots', is intuitive because finite resources can be focussed towards manageable units. Yet, biodiversity, environmental conditions and their relationship are more complex with multidimensional properties. Assessments which ignore this risk failing to detect change, identify its direction or gauge the scale of appropriate intervention. Conflicting concepts which assume assemblages as either sharply delineated communities or loosely collected species have also hampered progress in the way we assess and conserve biodiversity. We focus on the marine benthos where delineating manageable areas for conservation is an attractive prospect because it holds most marine species and constitutes the largest single ecosystem on earth by area. Using two large UK marine benthic faunal datasets, we present a spatially gridded data sampling design to account for survey effects which would otherwise be the principal drivers of diversity estimates. We then assess γ-diversity (regional richness) with diversity partitioned between α (local richness) and β (dissimilarity), and their change in relation to covariates to test whether defining and conserving biodiversity hotspots is an effective conservation strategy in light of the prevailing forces structuring those assemblages. α-, β- and γ-diversity hotspots were largely inconsistent with each metric relating uniquely to the covariates, and loosely collected species generally prevailed with relatively few distinct assemblages. Hotspots could therefore be an unreliable means to direct conservation efforts if based on only a component part of diversity. When assessed alongside environmental gradients, α-, β- and γ-diversity provide a multidimensional but still intuitive perspective of biodiversity change that can direct conservation towards key drivers and the appropriate scale for intervention. Our study also highlights possible temporal declines in species richness over 30 years and thus the need for future integrated monitoring to reveal the causal drivers of biodiversity change.

Methodological elements for optimising the spatial monitoring design to support regional benthic ecosystem assessments

Benthic habitat condition assessments are a requirement under various environmental directives. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), for example, challenges member states in a European sea region to perform comparable assessments of good environmental status and improve coherence of their monitoring programmes by 2020. Currently, North Sea countries operate independent monitoring programmes using nationally defined assessment areas. Lack of an agreed OSPAR or EU scale monitoring method and programme has been identified as a priority science need. This paper proposes a method for the development of a coherent and efficient spatial sampling design for benthic habitats on regional level and gives advice on optimal monitoring effort to get more accurate assessments. We use ecologically relevant assessment areas (strata) across national borders and test spatial sample allocation methods. Furthermore, we investigate the number of samples needed in each stratum to reduce the variance for estimating mean number of taxa and abundance. The stratification needs to take into account the spatial heterogeneity of the entire ecosystem. The total sample effort is optimal when sample allocation takes into account the size and benthic variability within those strata. Change point analysis helps to find a balance between sampling effort and precision of the benthic parameter estimate. A joint sampling design for the North Sea could be generated by combining current efforts, and where needed adapting existing national programmes. This serves a coordinated, region-wide, benthic condition status assessment and strengthens regional cooperation to fulfil multiple monitoring tasks, with a scientifically underpinned common approach.

Improving the implementation of marine monitoring in the northeast Atlantic

Marine monitoring in the northeast Atlantic is delivered within identifiable monitoring themes, established through time and defined by the geographical area and policy drivers they serve, the sampling methodologies they use, their assessment methodologies, their funding and governance structures and the people or organisations involved in their implementation. Within a monitoring theme, essential components for effective monitoring are governance, strategy and work plan, sampling protocols, quality assurance, and data and assessment structures. This simple framework is used to analyse two monitoring theme case studies; national ecosystem health monitoring, and regional fish stock monitoring. Such essential component analyses, within marine monitoring themes, can help improve monitoring implementation by identifying gaps and overlaps. Once monitoring themes are recognised, explicitly defined and streamlined, travel towards integrated monitoring may be made easier as the current lack of clarity in thematic marine monitoring implementation is one barrier to integration at both national and regional scales.

The influence of resilience-based management on coral reef monitoring: A systematic review

With rapid changes taking place on coral reefs, managers and scientists are faced with prioritising interventions that might avoid undesirable losses in ecosystem health. The property of resilience captures how reefs react and respond to stressors and environmental changes. Therefore, in principle, management goals are more likely to be realised if resilience theory is used to inform decision making and help set realistic expectations for reef outcomes. Indeed, a new approach to reef management has been termed ‘resilience-based management’ (RBM). Yet, resilience concepts have often been criticised for being vague, difficult to operationalise, and beset by multiple definitions. Here, we evaluate how the advent of RBM has changed one aspect of reef management: assessment and monitoring. We compare the metrics used in conventional monitoring programs with those developed through resilience assessments and find that the latter have a stronger focus on ecological processes and exposure to environmental drivers. In contrast, monitoring tends to focus on metrics of reef state and has greater taxonomic resolution, which provides comprehensive information on the nature of changes but does not predict the future responses of reefs in part because it is difficult to extrapolate statistical trends of complex ecological systems. In addition, metrics measured by resilience studies are more diverse, owing in part to the reliance of state metrics as proxies of processes given the difficulty in quantifying key ecological processes directly. We conclude by describing practical ways of improving resilience assessments, and avenues for future research.