Indices typically provide measures of the structure, function or some particular characteristics of marine communities that show a predictable response to anthropogenic disturbances. In addition, there is a growing trend to develop novel indices that consider the resources required to make an ecosystem function ( Rigo et al., 2020, 2021), the ecological complexity ( Paoli et al., 2016) or the environmental DNA ( Pawlowski et al., 2018). To address this need, diverse biotic indices have been developed based on different target organisms or habitats deemed particularly sensitive to alterations of the surrounding environment ( Birk et al., 2012). Change is now affecting so many compartments and levels of the ecosystems that, while easily perceived, the phenomenon is challenging to quantify ( Sala et al., 2000). Marine habitats, under increasing human pressure, are declining at an accelerating rate ( Claudet and Fraschetti, 2010). Over the last decades, the need for assessment of the state of the natural environment has become a primary concern. Differences between the two EU directives, in terms of either requirements or goals, have long been discussed but the present study highlights for the first time that they are congruent in their assessment of the environmental status of marine ecosystems. The use of RESQUE provided insights to interpret the differences between water quality, defined according to the WFD, and habitat quality, defined according to the MSFD. All indices were consistent with each other in confirming the good status of Capo Carbonara MPA. This approach was applied here to different habitats for the first time. We used the graphical approach RESQUE (REsilience and QUality of Ecosystem), which enabled us to obtain a single and comprehensive measure of the status of the environment by integrating several metrics. ![]() The aim was to assess whether the indices were consistent in defining the environmental status in the MPA investigated. In this study, thanks to the availability of a large dataset encompassing a wide array of descriptors, we compared the performance of 11 biotic indices relative to three habitats/biotic components (reefs, seagrass, and fish) of the Marine Protected Area (MPA) of Capo Carbonara (SE Sardinia, Italy). The borderline between water quality and habitat quality is hard to trace and so far most assessments have involved the use of a few indices and were mainly related to a single BQE or qualitative descriptor. The WFD adopts four Biological Quality Elements (BQEs), whereas the MSFD recommends a set of eleven qualitative descriptors. Diverse biotic indices have accordingly been developed to assess water and habitat quality. The European Commission, in particular, has set ambitious targets for member states with two major directives, the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), both designed to protect the marine environment in EU waters. In the last decades, climate change and human pressures have increasingly and dramatically impacted the ocean worldwide, calling for urgent actions to safeguard coastal marine ecosystems. 6National Biodiversity Future Center (NBFC), Palermo, Italy.5Department of Chemical, Physical, Mathematical and Natural Sciences, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy.4National Research Council, Institute for the Study of Anthropic Impact and Sustainability in the Marine Environment (CNR-IAS), Genoa, Italy.3Department of Integrative Marine Ecology (EMI), Genoa Marine Centre (GMC), Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn–National Institute of Marine Biology, Ecology and Biotechnology, Genoa, Italy.2Capo Carbonara Marine Protected Area, Cagliari, Italy.1Seascape Ecology Laboratory (SEL), Distav, Department of Earth, Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Genoa, Genova, Italy. ![]() Alice Oprandi 1*†, Fabrizio Atzori 2†, Annalisa Azzola 1†, Carlo Nike Bianchi 1,3†, Nicoletta Cadoni 2, Lara Carosso 2, Elena Desiderà 3†, Francesca Frau 2, Maria Leonor Garcia Gutiérrez 2, Paolo Guidetti 3,4†, Carla Morri 1,3†, Luigi Piazzi 5†, Federica Poli 3† and Monica Montefalcone 1,6†
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |