45
Storm impacts on the seabed in protected and fished areas Dr Emma Sheehan, Dani Bridger, Sophie Cousens, Sarah Nancollas, Luke Holmes, Prof Martin Attrill © Richard Austin Pig Shed Trust SWIFA & SWFPO @Dr_Emma_Sheehan

Emma Sheehan 2015 Storms and the Seabed MPAs

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Storm impacts on the seabed in protected and fished areasE.V., Sheehan, Bridger, D., Nancollas, S., Cousens, S., Holmes, L. & Attrill, M.J. Marine Institute, Marine Biology and Ecology Research Centre, Plymouth University, Plymouth, PL4 8AA, UKThe recovery of the Lyme Bay reefs (south west UK) have been annually monitored since they were protected from towed demersal fishing in 2008. Marine Protected Areas (MPA) are thought to be more resilient against natural disturbance. NERC, Pig Shed Trust, SWIFA and SWFPO funded a survey to compare protected and non-protected reefs following the storms with data from the previous summer.The benthic community in the MPA was significantly affected by the storms. The number of species and individuals decreased. The population of many indicator taxa decreased such as branching sponges, sea squirts Phallusia mammillata, scallops Pecten maximus. Taxa that were not affected were those best adapted for disturbance such as common starfish Asterias rubens, gobies and hermit crabs Pagurus spp. Clearly some species were more resilient than others. While pink sea fans Eunicella verrucosa were still present, many were fouled and had black bases, but of most concern was that only two of the habitat building Ross corals Pentapora foliacea were observed in approximately 12,000 m of video transects.The opportunity now exists to assess whether recovery from storm disturbance is quicker than from human disturbance to assist with future climate change management and mitigation.

Citation preview

  • Storm impacts on the seabed in protected

    and fished areasDr Emma Sheehan, Dani Bridger, Sophie Cousens, Sarah Nancollas, Luke

    Holmes, Prof Martin Attrill

    Richard Austin

    Pig Shed Trust

    SWIFA & SWFPO

    @Dr_Emma_Sheehan

  • Impacts to the seabed

    - Port Wrinkle and Wembury banks of kelp

    - Reports from fishermen that pots had been moved

    - Keith Hiscock (2014) after the storms: Collation of

    observations

  • 2008-2013 Before baseline

    - Assess the impact of the storm

    - Test the hypothesis that protected reefs are more

    resilient to disturbance events than areas that are

    open to fishing (see Tett et al 2013)

    2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

  • Last minute funding

    Natural Environment Research

    Council

    Pig Shed Trust

    SWIFA

    SWFPO

  • Talk content

    - Importance of biogenic reef services

    - Storm impact results

    - Relevance for conservation and management

  • Importance of temperate

    biogenic reefs

  • Nursery/Protection

  • Feeding habitat/egg case

  • Spat settlement

  • Stabilise sediments

    Sheehan et al 2013 Mar. Poll. Bull

  • Lyme Bay Statutory Instrument

    Lyme RegisPlymouth

  • Lyme Bay SI 11th July 2008Statutory Instruments 2008 No. 1584

    Sea Fisheries, England. Conservation

    The Lyme Bay Designated Area (Fishing Restrictions)

    Order 2008

    206 km2

  • 2008 -2014

    Sheehan, et al Mar Poll Bull (2013)

  • Methods

    Flying Towed Array HD

    (1)

    - Relatively non-destructive

    - Cost and time effective (8x 200 m transects per

    day)

    - Able to fly over variable seabed relief Sheehan, Stevens, Attrill (2010) PLOS ONE

  • Natural Seaton Festival

    2013

  • Natural Seaton Festival

    2013

  • Natural Seaton Festival

    2013

  • Storms 2013 -2014

    Richard Austin

  • Storms 2013 -2014

    Richard Austin

  • Storms 2013 -2014

    Richard Austin

  • West Bay Wave Buoy

    Channel Coastal Observatory

    Year

    Wa

    ve

    he

    igh

    t (m

    )

    0

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    Maximum wave height

    Average wave height

    2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

    Wave h

    eig

    ht

    (m)

    ----- Maximum wave height

    ----- Average wave height

  • Three components:

    1. Comparison between MPA and

    Open areas

    2. Resilience of benthos in different

    aged MPAs

    3. Storm impacts on sediment veneers

  • Three components:

    1. Comparison between MPA and

    Open areas predictive model

    Waiting for wave model data to

    complete the paper. Sorry..!

  • Three components:

    1. Comparison between MPA and

    Open areas

    Waiting for wave model data to

    complete the paper. Sorry..!

  • Results

  • First observations

  • First observations

  • Diversity (non seasonal)

    Time

    2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Storm

    Taxon r

    ichness (

    mean m

    S

    ED

    )

    5

    10

    15

    20

    25

    30

    35

    MPA

    Control

  • Abundance (non seasonal)

    Time

    2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Storm

    Abund

    ance (

    mean m

    S

    ED

    )

    0

    20

    40

    60

    80

    100

    120

    140

    MPA

    Control

  • Branching sponges

    Time

    2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Storm

    Abundance (

    mean m

    S

    ED

    )

    0.0

    0.1

    0.2

    0.3

    0.4

    0.5

    0.6

    0.7

    MPA

    Control

  • Pentapora foliacea

    Time

    2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Storm

    Abundance (

    mean m

    S

    ED

    )

    0.0

    0.1

    0.2

    0.3

    0.4

    0.5

    MPA

    Control

  • Pecten maximus

    Time

    2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Storm

    Abundance (

    mean m

    S

    ED

    )

    0.0

    0.2

    0.4

    0.6

    0.8

    1.0

    1.2

    MPA

    Control

  • Eunicella verrucosa

    Time

    2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Storm

    Abundance (

    mean m

    S

    ED

    )

    0.0

    0.2

    0.4

    0.6

    0.8

    1.0

    1.2

    1.4

    1.6

    MPA

    Control

  • % E. verrucosa necrosis

    Time

    Before After

    % n

    ecr o

    sis

    0

    20

    40

    60

    80

    100

  • % E. verrucosa epiphytes

    Time

    Before After

    % e

    pip

    hyte

    s

    0

    20

    40

    60

    80

    100

  • Asterias rubens

    Time

    2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Storm

    Abundance (

    mean m

    S

    ED

    )

    0.0

    0.5

    1.0

    1.5

    2.0

    2.5

    MPA

    Control

  • Gobies

    Time

    2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Storm

    Abundance (

    mean m

    S

    ED

    )

    0.00

    0.05

    0.10

    0.15

    0.20

    0.25

    0.30

    0.35

    MPA

    Control

  • Pagurus spp.

    Time

    2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Storm

    Abundance (

    mean m

    S

    ED

    )

    0

    2

    4

    6

    8

    10

    12

    14

    16

    MPA

    Control

  • Relevance for conservation,

    management and fisheries

    Resilience hypothesis

    Significantly greater changes inside the MPA as the

    species in open controls were better adapted to

    disturbance but they are maintaining an unfavourable

    system for delivering a range of ecosystem services.

  • Thoughts

    - Why did the storms cause

    so much damage to the

    seabed?

    - Why did the MPA not

    stand up better to the

    storms

    - Resistance Recovery?

  • Conclusions- The box had not been

    protected long enough to

    be resilient against storms

    - Open areas were resilient

    against storms but were

    only maintaining an

    undesirable state

    - Important to compare

    recovery from storms with

    recovery from bottom

    towed fishing

  • Acknowledgements

    - Funders: NERC, Pig Shed Trust,

    SWIFA, SWFPO, Defra, Natural

    England

    - Thank you to the people who

    helped to protect LB reefs

    - Robert King (Blue Turtle skipper),

    John Walker and Kieran Perree

    (Miss Pattie skippers past and

    present

    -Richard Austin for providing images

    - Statistical support from Marti

    Anderson and Bob Clarke

    [email protected]