Marine ecosystem indicators are sensitive to ecosystem boundaries and spatial scale

Time series indicators are widely used in ecosystem-based management. A suite of indicators is typically calculated for a static region or multiple subregions and presented in an ecosystem assessment (EA). These are used to guide management decisions or determine environmental status. Yet, few studi...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Kurt C. Heim, Lesley H. Thorne, Joseph D. Warren, Jason S. Link, Janet A. Nye
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Elsevier 2021
Materias:	Ecosystem indicators Problem of scale Spatial scale Ecosystem based management Dynamic Ocean management Marine ecosystems Ecology QH540-549.5
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/d7310c31105d4f85be187c4137ee7483
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:d7310c31105d4f85be187c4137ee7483
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:d7310c31105d4f85be187c4137ee74832021-12-01T04:47:46ZMarine ecosystem indicators are sensitive to ecosystem boundaries and spatial scale1470-160X10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107522https://doaj.org/article/d7310c31105d4f85be187c4137ee74832021-06-01T00:00:00Zhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X21001874https://doaj.org/toc/1470-160XTime series indicators are widely used in ecosystem-based management. A suite of indicators is typically calculated for a static region or multiple subregions and presented in an ecosystem assessment (EA). These are used to guide management decisions or determine environmental status. Yet, few studies have examined how the spatial scale of an EA influences indicator behavior. We explore this question using the Northwest Atlantic continental shelf ecosystem (USA). We systematically divided the ecosystem at six spatial scales (31 unique units), covering spatial extents from 250,000 km2 to 20,000 km2. The same 22 indicators were calculated for each unit, assessed for trends, and evaluated as 31 independent EAs. We found that the detected signals of indicator trends depended on the spatial scale at which the ecosystem was defined. A single EA for the whole region differed by 23% (in terms of the 22 indicator trend tests) relative to ones for spatially nested 120,000 km2 subunits, and by up to 36% for EAs at smaller scales. Indicator trend disagreement occurred because (most common) a localized trend was perceived as widespread, (common) a local trend was obscured by aggregating data over a large region, or (least common) a local trend switched direction when examined at a broader scale. Yet, there was variation among indicators in their scale sensitivity related to trophic level. Indicators of temperature, chlorophyll-a, and zooplankton were spatially coherent: trends portrayed were similar regardless of scale. Mid-trophic level indicators (fish and invertebrates) showed more spatial variation in trends. We also compared trend magnitude and indicator values to spatial extent and found relationships consistent with scaling theory. Indicators at broad scales produced subdued trends and values relative to indicators developed at smaller spatial scales, which often portrayed ‘hotspots’ of local abundance or strong trend. Our results imply that subsequent uses of indicators (e.g., determining environmental status, risk assessments, management decisions) are also sensitive to ecosystem delineation and scale. We suggest that indicators and EAs should be done at multiple spatial scales and complimented with spatially explicit analysis to reflect the hierarchical structure of ecosystems. One scale is not best, but rather we gain a new level of understanding at each scale examined that can contribute to management decisions in a multiscale governance framework characterized by goals and objectives with relevance at different scales.Kurt C. HeimLesley H. ThorneJoseph D. WarrenJason S. LinkJanet A. NyeElsevierarticleEcosystem indicatorsProblem of scaleSpatial scaleEcosystem based managementDynamic Ocean managementMarine ecosystemsEcologyQH540-549.5ENEcological Indicators, Vol 125, Iss , Pp 107522- (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Ecosystem indicators Problem of scale Spatial scale Ecosystem based management Dynamic Ocean management Marine ecosystems Ecology QH540-549.5
spellingShingle	Ecosystem indicators Problem of scale Spatial scale Ecosystem based management Dynamic Ocean management Marine ecosystems Ecology QH540-549.5 Kurt C. Heim Lesley H. Thorne Joseph D. Warren Jason S. Link Janet A. Nye Marine ecosystem indicators are sensitive to ecosystem boundaries and spatial scale
description	Time series indicators are widely used in ecosystem-based management. A suite of indicators is typically calculated for a static region or multiple subregions and presented in an ecosystem assessment (EA). These are used to guide management decisions or determine environmental status. Yet, few studies have examined how the spatial scale of an EA influences indicator behavior. We explore this question using the Northwest Atlantic continental shelf ecosystem (USA). We systematically divided the ecosystem at six spatial scales (31 unique units), covering spatial extents from 250,000 km2 to 20,000 km2. The same 22 indicators were calculated for each unit, assessed for trends, and evaluated as 31 independent EAs. We found that the detected signals of indicator trends depended on the spatial scale at which the ecosystem was defined. A single EA for the whole region differed by 23% (in terms of the 22 indicator trend tests) relative to ones for spatially nested 120,000 km2 subunits, and by up to 36% for EAs at smaller scales. Indicator trend disagreement occurred because (most common) a localized trend was perceived as widespread, (common) a local trend was obscured by aggregating data over a large region, or (least common) a local trend switched direction when examined at a broader scale. Yet, there was variation among indicators in their scale sensitivity related to trophic level. Indicators of temperature, chlorophyll-a, and zooplankton were spatially coherent: trends portrayed were similar regardless of scale. Mid-trophic level indicators (fish and invertebrates) showed more spatial variation in trends. We also compared trend magnitude and indicator values to spatial extent and found relationships consistent with scaling theory. Indicators at broad scales produced subdued trends and values relative to indicators developed at smaller spatial scales, which often portrayed ‘hotspots’ of local abundance or strong trend. Our results imply that subsequent uses of indicators (e.g., determining environmental status, risk assessments, management decisions) are also sensitive to ecosystem delineation and scale. We suggest that indicators and EAs should be done at multiple spatial scales and complimented with spatially explicit analysis to reflect the hierarchical structure of ecosystems. One scale is not best, but rather we gain a new level of understanding at each scale examined that can contribute to management decisions in a multiscale governance framework characterized by goals and objectives with relevance at different scales.
format	article
author	Kurt C. Heim Lesley H. Thorne Joseph D. Warren Jason S. Link Janet A. Nye
author_facet	Kurt C. Heim Lesley H. Thorne Joseph D. Warren Jason S. Link Janet A. Nye
author_sort	Kurt C. Heim
title	Marine ecosystem indicators are sensitive to ecosystem boundaries and spatial scale
title_short	Marine ecosystem indicators are sensitive to ecosystem boundaries and spatial scale
title_full	Marine ecosystem indicators are sensitive to ecosystem boundaries and spatial scale
title_fullStr	Marine ecosystem indicators are sensitive to ecosystem boundaries and spatial scale
title_full_unstemmed	Marine ecosystem indicators are sensitive to ecosystem boundaries and spatial scale
title_sort	marine ecosystem indicators are sensitive to ecosystem boundaries and spatial scale
publisher	Elsevier
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/d7310c31105d4f85be187c4137ee7483
work_keys_str_mv	AT kurtcheim marineecosystemindicatorsaresensitivetoecosystemboundariesandspatialscale AT lesleyhthorne marineecosystemindicatorsaresensitivetoecosystemboundariesandspatialscale AT josephdwarren marineecosystemindicatorsaresensitivetoecosystemboundariesandspatialscale AT jasonslink marineecosystemindicatorsaresensitivetoecosystemboundariesandspatialscale AT janetanye marineecosystemindicatorsaresensitivetoecosystemboundariesandspatialscale
_version_	1718405752854413312

Marine ecosystem indicators are sensitive to ecosystem boundaries and spatial scale

Ejemplares similares