Progress in Marine Ecosystem Classification, Mapping and Targets: Testing the Boundaries Kerry Sink 1, Natasha Karenyi 1,2 and Tamsyn Livingstone 3 1 South African National Biodiversity Institute 2 University of Cape Town 3 Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife
16 Pelagic habitats Pelagic habitat maps Mean & variability in ocean variables (productivity, nutrients, SST, depth, fronts & eddies) Lagabrielle 2009
Unconsolidated Mixed Consolidated Deep
Black Rock, isimangaliso Wetland Park Protea Seamount, South east Atlantic Protea Banks KZN Pondoland shelf edge Leven Canyon, KZN
KZN & Eastern Cape South Coast & False Bay Atlantic
BIOREGIONS (inshore) BIOREGIONS (offshore) Namaqua South-western Cape Agulhas Natal Delagoa Atlantic Indo-Pacific South-west Indian West Indian Prince Edward Islands TIDAL ZONES Supratidal Tidal Subtidal TOPOGRAPHIC ZONES Riverine Terrestrial/ Marine interface Estuarine Marine Shelf Slope Abyss DEPTH STRATA SUBSTRATUM TYPES ECOSYSTEMS Plains 1. Back beach 2. Beach 3. Subtidal plain 4. Sediment slope 5. Abyssal plain Coastal fringe (has zones) Unconsolidated Intertidal (has zones) Mixed Shallow photic Deep photic Sub photic Upper slope Consolidated Lower slope Abyss 1 2 3 4 5 Peaks 1. Dune 2. n/a 3. Subtidal dune 4. Submerged delta 5. Abyssal delta Plains 1. Mixed back beach 2. Mixed shore 3. Scattered reef 4. Mixed slope 5. Mixed abyssal plain Plains 1. Rocky coast 2. Rocky shore 3. Rocky ledge 4. Rocky slope 5. Abyssal rock Peaks 1. Coastal cliff 2. Intertidal cliff 3. Reef 4. Slope reef 5. Seamount Valleys 1. River 2. Estuary 3. n/a 4. Canyon 5. Trench HABITATS (examples) DEPTH STRATUM: Intertidal (2) SUBSTRATUM TYPE: Consolidated DEPTH STRATUM: Deep photic (3) SUBSTRATUM TYPE: Consolidated DEPTH STRATUM: Sub photic (3) SUBSTRATUM TYPE: Unconsolidated ECOSYTEM: Plains - Rocky shore ECOSYTEM: Peaks Reef ECOSYTEM: Peaks Subtidal dune HABITATS: sheltered, semi-exposed, exposed, very exposed HABITATS: kelp reef, coral reef HABITAT: East Coast dunes BIOTOPES (examples) e.g. zooanthid/barnacle community e.g. sponge/hard coral community SPECIES (examples) Seaweeds Invertebrates Fish Birds Marine mammals
COASTAL OFFSHORE Coast type 500m Coastline -5m Inshore Shelf inland inner outer -30m Shelf break or 350 m Separate pelagic classification Lagabrielle et al. 2010 Offshore benthic Shelf edge Upper bathyal Deepsea Lower bathyal Abyss terrestrial connectivity broad-scale topography substrate & geology depth wave exposure (coastal) biogeography 14 broad ecosystem types -500m -1300m -3500m 120 benthic ecosystem types
Coastal & offshore habitats Coastal 37 coast types, 17 inshore, 3 islands,1 lagoon (58) Offshore benthic 23 rocky, 39 unconsolidated shelf, shelf edge & deepsea (62)
Progress since 2012 2013 Linda Harris Phd 2013 (NNMU) coastal mapping 2014 Karenyi (UCT/SANBI) unconsolidated sediments African Coelacanth Ecosystem Program Projects & theses o 2015 Heyns (SAEON)- Tsitsikamma (shallow versus deep reefs) o 2015 Harris, Livingstone (EKZNW)- testing national versus provincial maps 2014/5 Atkinson (SAEON) Benthic trawl experiment 2014 SeaKeys citizen science work 2015 DAFF /De Wett New bathy data 2015 Sink (SANBI) Childs bank Survey 2015 New information from Phakisa (cold water corals, seamounts, bathymetry) 2015 Sink- Natal canyon survey Sponge beds, 130-160m, isimangaliso
Linda Harris 2013
Linda Harris 2013
Depth HWM LWM 30 50 150 200 350 500 m Seascapes Seascape 1 (Beach and Inshore North) Seascape 2 (Beach and Inshore South + 1 shallow sandy inner shelf Port Nolloth ) Seascape 4 (Sandy Shelf South) Seascape 7 (Muddy Shelf Middle) Seascape 5 (Sandy Outer Shelf) Seascape 8 (Org-enrich Outer Shelf) Seascape 3 (Beach and Inshore Central ) Seascape 6 (Muddy Shelf North) MECC habitats SB Diss. beach SB Diss-Int beach SB Int. beach Namaqua Inshore SWC Inshore Namaqua Muddy Inner Shelf Namaqua Sandy Inner Shelf SWC Sandy Inner Shelf Outer Shelf SB Sandy Shelf Edge SB Muddy Shelf Edge Biotopes Sandy Beach Sandy Inner Shelf Muddy River-influenced Middle Shelf Sand Outer Shelf Mud Organicallyenriched Middle Shelf Shelf Edge Sandy Middle Shelf Karenyi et al. in review
Surrogate comparison: unconsolidated sediment Physical Expert-derived Biological and physical 89-92 % 93-94 % 98 %
Species-area curve targets 100% of species 75% data from benthic macrofauna survey target 2-15% 100% of area By comparison veg type targets range from 16% to 36% of the original extent of each veg type
Species-Area Relationship based habitat-specific targets Habitat Target % Southern Benguela Sandy Coast Muddy River- Influenced Middle Shelf Muddy Organicallyenriched Middle Shelf 7.8, (5.4-12.6) 0.9, (0.6-1.9) 7.7, (5.7-10.4) Sandy Middle Shelf 7.9, (5.9-9.8) Sandy Outer Shelf 8.5, (7.3-9.8) Sandy and Muddy Shelf Edge 12.4, (10.0-14.8)
Mapula Makwela and Makalobe Mabotja ACEP MSc students Work underway ACEP students Karenyi post doc rocky shores & DEA rocky shore surveys New ACEP projects (Phakisa link) Sink- Deep Secrets- cold water corals, potential seeps and Agulhas shelf edge/ slope Barlow sister project in adjacent area Kerwath Agulhas canyons, deep reefs, muds and fluvial fans Green uthukela banks, KZN priority areas
Broad ecosystem group Offshore pelagic Seamount Deepsea sediment Rocky shelf edge Unconsolidated shelf edge Rocky shelf Unconsolidated shelf Sandy inshore Rocky inshore Lagoon Island Mixed shore Rocky coast Sandy coast CR En Vu LT 0 5 10 15 20 Number of habitat types per threat catego
This presentation summarises the approach taken in the mapping and classification of marine ecosystems in South Africa and the first work in setting quantitative biodiversity targets for unconsolidated marine ecosystem types. The inaccessible, three dimensional, dynamic ocean environment poses many challenges which have been addressed through a range of approaches including biophysical seascape and biotope classifications, research to understand marine biodiversity surrogates, citizen science to map reefs and the use of species area curves to develop the first local biodiversity targets. The data-informed, expert-derived classification and map used in 2011 was reasonably well supported since fish, macrofauna and eipfauna data showed support for the divisions involved and yielded better results that a purely physical data based approach. Progress since 2012 is reviewed and proposed methods, data sources and research opportunities to advance this work are identified. These include new approaches in habitat mapping, testing surrogacy through collaborative research cruises, co-operative work with offshore industries, and inclusion of data from the fisheries and petroleum government agencies. Priority habitat types for further work are discussed.