%0 Journal Article %J Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers %D 2020 %T Deep-sea temperate-tropical faunal transition across uniform environmental gradients %A Tim O'Hara %A Williams, Alan %A Woolley, Skipton N.C. %A Nau, Amy W. %A Nicholas J. Bax %K abyss %K Australia %K benthos %K continental margins %K megafauna %K Tasman Sea %X

The biogeography of the deep-sea benthic fauna is uncertain due to the vast size and incomplete exploration of these environments. While shallow water assemblages are differentiated into tropical, temperate and polar faunas, it is unknown whether these units extend to lower depths. Here we use model-based statistics to analyse megafaunal benthic samples along a 2,300 km transect off the eastern Australian continental margin. We show that a temperate-tropical transition between 33-31˚S occurs at both lower bathyal (~2500 m) and abyssal (~4000 m) depths. This transition occurs despite almost uniform temperature, salinity and dissolved oxygen concentrations occurring across latitudes at these depths. Conversely, the patterns are consistent with the flux of organic matter to the seafloor, which varies from being relatively high in the productive temperate off SE Australia to low levels in more-oligotrophic tropical waters. Biodiversity is not uniform across the deep-sea and regional-scale heterogeneity needs to be incorporated into marine park designs.

%B Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers %V 161 %P 103283 %8 07 Jan 2020 %G eng %U https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0967063720300716 %! Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers %R 10.1016/j.dsr.2020.103283 %0 Journal Article %J Frontiers in Marine Science %D 2020 %T The Fate of Deep-Sea Coral Reefs on Seamounts in a Fishery-Seascape: What Are the Impacts, What Remains, and What Is Protected? %A Williams, Alan %A Althaus, Franziska %A Maguire, Kylie %A Mark Green %A Untiedt, Candice %A Alderslade, Phil %A Malcolm R Clark %A Nicholas J. Bax %A Thomas A Schlacher %K fisheries management %K indicators %K scleractinian coral %K Solenosmilia %K towed-camera %K VME %K vulnerable marine ecosystem %X

Environmental harm to deep-sea coral reefs on seamounts is widely attributed to bottom trawl fishing. Yet, accurate diagnoses of impacts truly caused by trawling are surprisingly rare. Similarly, comprehensive regional assessments of fishing damage rarely exist, impeding evaluations of, and improvements to, conservation measures. Here we report on trawling impacts to deep-sea scleractinian coral reefs in a regional (10–100s of km) fishery seascape off Tasmania (Australia). Our study was based on 148 km of towed camera transects (95 transects on 51 different seamounts with 284,660 separate video annotations and 4,674 “on-seamount” images analysed), and commercial trawling logbook data indexing fishing effort on and around seamounts. We detect trawling damage on 88% (45 of 51) of seamounts. Conversely, intact deep-sea coral reefs persist in refuge areas on about 39% (20 of 51) of the seamounts, and extend onto rocky seabed adjacent to seamounts. Depth significantly shapes the severity of trawl damage. The most profound impacts are evident on shallow seamounts (those peaking in < 950 m depths) where recent and repeated trawling reduced reefs built by scleractinian corals to rubble, forming extensive accumulations around seamount peaks and flanks. At intermediate depths (∼950–1,500 m), trawling damage is highly variable on individual seamounts, ranging from substantial impacts to no detection of coral loss. Deep seamounts (summit depth > 1,500 m) are beyond the typical operating depth of the trawl fishery and exceed the depth range of living deep-sea coral reefs in the region. Accurately diagnosing the nature and extent of direct trawling impacts on seamount scleractinian coral reefs must use stringent criteria to guard against false positive identifications of trawl impact stemming from either (1) misidentifying areas that naturally lacked deep-sea coral reef as areas where coral had been removed, or (2) attributing trawling as the cause of natural processes of reef degradation. The existence of sizeable deep-sea coral reef refuges in a complex mosaic of spatially variable fishing effort suggests that more nuanced approaches to conservation may be warranted than simply protecting untrawled areas, especially when the biological resources with conservation value are rare in a broader seascape context.

%B Frontiers in Marine Science %V 7 %8 25 Sep 2020 %G eng %U https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fmars.2020.567002/full %9 Journal %! Front. Mar. Sci. %R 10.3389/fmars.2020.567002 %0 Journal Article %J Marine Biodiversity Records %D 2020 %T The lower bathyal and abyssal seafloor fauna of eastern Australia %A Tim O'Hara %A Williams, Alan %A Ahyong, Shane T. %A Alderslade, Philip %A Alvestad, T %A Bray, D %A Burghardt, Ingo %A Budaeva, N %A Criscione, F %A Crowther, AL %A Ekins, M %A Eleaume, M %A Farrelly, CA %A Finn, JK %A Georgieva, MN %A Graham, A %A Gomon, M %A Karen Gowlett-Holmes %A Gunton, Laetitia %A Hallan, A %A Hosie, AM %A Hutchings, P %A Kise, H %A Kohler, F %A Konsgrud, JA %A Kupriyanova, Elena %A Lu, CC %A Mackenzie, M %A Mah, C %A MacIntosh, Hugh %A Merrin, KL %A Miskelly, A %A Mitchell, ML %A Moore, K %A Murray, Anna %A O'Loughlin, PM %A Paxton, H %A Pogonoski, J.J. %A Staples, David %A Watson, JE %A Wilson, R.S. %A Zhang, Jinghuai %A Nicholas J. Bax %K Australia %K Biodiversity %K Biogeography %K deep sea %K epifauna %K infauna %K Tasman Sea %K Taxonomy %X

Background: Our knowledge of the benthic fauna at lower bathyal to abyssal (LBA, > 2000 m) depths off Eastern Australia was very limited with only a few samples having been collected from these habitats over the last 150 years. In May–June 2017, the IN2017_V03 expedition of the RV Investigator sampled LBA benthic communities along the lower slope and abyss of Australia’s eastern margin from off mid-Tasmania (42°S) to the Coral Sea (23°S), with particular emphasis on describing and analysing patterns of biodiversity that occur within a newly declared network of offshore marine parks. Methods: The study design was to deploy a 4m (metal) beam trawl and Brenke sled to collect samples on soft sediment substrata at the target seafloor depths of 2500 and 4000m at every 1.5 degrees of latitude along the western boundary of the Tasman Sea from 42° to 23°S, traversing seven Australian Marine Parks. Results: The biological sampling included 35 beam trawls, 28 Brenke sleds, 8 box cores, 20 surface meso-zooplankton tows, and 7 Deep Towed Camera transects. In total, 25,710 specimens were identified to 1084 taxonomic entities, including 847 species-level, 144 genus-level and 69 family-level and 24 higher-level taxa. Of the species-level taxa, only 457 were assigned species-level taxonomic names, which implies that up to 58% of the collected fauna is undescribed. In addition, the ranges of numerous species have been extended to include the western Tasman Sea. Conclusions: The lower bathyal and abyssal fauna of soft sediment seafloors off eastern Australia has been systematically surveyed for the first time. The resultant collections will provide the foundation for much future ecological, biogeographical, phylogenetic and taxonomic research.

%B Marine Biodiversity Records %V 13 %8 18 Sep 2020 %G eng %N 11 %9 Journal %R 10.1186/s41200-020-00194-1 %0 Report %D 2020 %T NESP Marine Biodiversity Hub Annual Progress Report 5 (2019) %A Nicholas J. Bax %A Alan Jordan %A Paul Hedge %A Gracie, S. %X

Letter from the Hub Leader (Professor Nic Bax)

We started 2019 well with a publication in the prestigious international journal Nature on the origins of deep-sea biodiversity from tropical Australia to Antarctica. The article is the first indication that biodiversity in the deep ocean, where the majority of Australian Marine Parks (AMPs) are located, is evolving from polar latitudes and not tropical latitudes where shallower marine biodiversity originates. Tropical deep-water AMPs harbour a museum of old lineages that warrant special consideration. It is gratifying to see this kind of research coming to fruition as it is the result of the Marine Biodiversity Hub’s emphasis on building national information streams and expertise since 2007. Some of the first outputs of the Marine Biodiversity Hub were predictions of national marine biogeography (provincial structure, depth structure and geomorphology) requested by the Environmental Resources Information Network (ERIN). These predictions were based on the restricted information available at the time, including early Russian commercial fish surveys obtained from Vladivostok, but were essential to the design of what has become the AMP network. Twelve years later we have the data that validate those predictions (and AMP design) at the macro level, and which can be used to further improve spatial management of the Australian Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

This is just one example of the national capacity developed by the Marine Biodiversity Hub, as a result of which marine scientists from partner agencies have been able to engage in both significant national programs and international programs and negotiations supporting the Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment (DAWE) and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT)  in areas including the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species, the United Nations (UN) negotiations on Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction, the UN Decade on Ocean Science for Sustainable Development, the Global Ocean Observing System, the Global Climate Observing System, the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network and the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (IOC-UNESCO) Ocean Best Practices portal to name just some. While the National Environmental Science Program (NESP), and earlier Commonwealth Environment Research Facilities (CERF) and National Environmental Research Program (NERP), have built the capacity for Australia’s marine community to engage in these initiatives, international activities are funded externally, increasing the Hub’s influence at no cost to the program, showcasing the NESP program to the world, and bringing back additional ideas and perspectives that improve our capability to support Australian researchers and managers. At the end of 2019, Hub researchers supported the Department in accessing regional input to the CBD post-2020 framework that will develop the global biodiversity goals and metrics for the next decade, and attended the post-2020 marine thematic, including facilitating the workshop on marine restoration and its role in climate mitigation and adaptation, an increasingly active area for the Hub.

While the Marine Biodiversity Hub works at the national scale in driving consistency in measurement, such as through a leadership role on the National Marine Science Committee (NMSC), Marine Monitoring and Baselines working group, or through national inventories of opportunities for marine restoration, work is often started on a regional basis, and through its network into the marine community it becomes nationally relevant. The Integrated Monitoring Framework that provides the basis for the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) Reef 2050 Integrated Monitoring and Reporting Program is now being used to inform monitoring program design across the New South Wales (NSW) marine estate and the Parks Australia Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Improvement (MERI) framework. Similarly, the cumulative impacts framework developed for the GBR now informs the Hub’s Northern Australia Seascape program, Parks Australia’s MERI framework and potentially the cross-Hub Integrated Environmental Assessment. This sequential regional approach used by the Hub, where knowledge gained in one regional implementation is built on in subsequent implementations has proven to be a sound model for Hub research, but it is important to ensure that the national perspective is part of initial planning so that the process developed for each region is relevant nationally. An important synthesis product this year will be applying these regional approaches nationally, to provide an assessment of pressures, assets and the resulting cumulative risk at 1kmP2P resolution all around Australia.

A notable success in 2019 was the Hub working through the Australian Marine Sciences Association (AMSA) to bring together regional Indigenous representatives from the Kimberley to Esperance for the first time in their history to meet with representatives from research agencies operating in Western Australia. This is the culmination of 4 years of learning with Indigenous experts through workshops in New Zealand, Darwin and Adelaide, each building expectations and trust, until finally in Perth last year we were able to understand the breakthroughs in regional collaboration that will be needed to support the expanding engagement in a respectful and sustained manner. A key outcome was to realize that it is not only Indigenous groups that need to coordinate among themselves to develop agreed standards of engagement, but also the research agencies that will need to improve their consistency and standards so that the capacity of Indigenous groups is not swamped by a variety of alternative approaches and protocols. This result was facilitated by the attendance of all major Hub partners who represent the major Western Australian and national research providers.  The outcomes of the 2019 Perth meeting will this year be built upon for the eastern seaboard by a different group working with advice from the Hub deputy director.

This sixth and final year of NESP promises to be an exciting and productive year with many projects releasing their results and the Hub engaging in a series of interactions (which will use new engagement tools and products during the period of COVID-19 travel restrictions). One of the Hub’s early synthesis products is the Shark Action Plan designed to support a strategic and effective approach to the conservation and management of this vulnerable group of species. While the Policy Report has already been developed with the Protected Species and Community Branch, preparing the large amount of data on listing status of the 328 species of sharks and rays present in Australian waters to International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) standard has taken longer. The complete Shark Action Plan will be delivered this year, together with the first population estimate for the Australian population of Southern Right Whales being developed by an international team, and updated information on the status (including newly found populations) and recovery opportunities for seasnakes, hammerhead sharks, and red and spotted handfish. A second synthesis product is the analysis of coral reef surveys from Reef Life Survey. This program was supported in CERF and has since had continued support by the Marine Biodiversity Hub through NERP and NESP. It has had spectacular National and global success, providing the most important biological dataset in the 2016 State of the Environment (SoE) Report and many high profile papers from their global surveys, resulting in the research leader being made an ARC Future Fellow and becoming a member of the IOC/UNESCO Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS). It is surprising that of all the reef monitoring occurring in Australia, this (and the long-term temperate reef survey program that it grew from) are the only reef surveys which discriminate communities at the species level. The synthesis product will compare reefs across Northern Australia (including Ningaloo, GBR and the Coral Sea) to determine which coral species have been affected by bleaching events and which have survived. This species-level approach will be vital to inform ongoing and substantial government investments in coral reef restoration.

Targeting delivery of our scientific products to meet the Department’s needs for effectively administering the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act is an important component of the Hub’s research design and delivery strategies, especially working with the Protected Species and Communities Branch and Parks Australia, and more generally in particularly challenging areas such as developing a framework to address cumulative impacts for jurisdictions (in 2019 for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) and in 2020 for NSW) that are ready to apply them. The Hub has been steadily developing a focus on marine restoration, recognising it as an important option for climate mitigation and adaptation. Carbon sequestration is much higher for coastal communities like mangroves, saltmarsh, seagrass and kelp than terrestrial communities and there are clear biodiversity benefits. The Hub started its restoration research by developing and supporting a national audit of coastal restoration and is now focussing on developing restoration options with direct benefits to marine biodiversity and communities, including Traditional Owners. Identifying where restoration fits into the Department’s legislative requirements under the EPBC Act was the focus of a 2018 research workshop that resulted in a report characterised as “a really good piece of research/writing to inform work in the Department.” A follow-up workshop planned for March 2020 has been postponed due to COVID-19.

It is an ongoing focus of Hub research to map how restoration research will support management of Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) including AMPs, how we can promote international policy in this area (through the CBD post-2020 agenda), and how we can work with Australian communities (including Indigenous) to make coastal restoration a key Australian deliverable to enhance ecosystem services and mitigate biodiversity losses resulting from human activity and climate change.

Finally, I would like to end on a personal note and thank the Department, research users, partners and researchers for the opportunity to lead the Marine Biodiversity Hub since 2007. It has been a privilege to be given the opportunity to impact the way that marine science can be made most accessible and useful to Australian managers and policy makers, and satisfying to understand and effect (with my most able Deputy Director Paul Hedge), the increased value from joint development of marine science questions by Hub researchers and research users. I look forward to hearing of the Marine Biodiversity Hub’s continued successes.

%8 8 Jul 2020 %G eng %0 Generic %D 2020 %T NESP Marine Biodiversity Hub Research Plan - 2020 RPv6 - Project Proposals %A Nicholas J. Bax %A Paul Hedge %K annual research plan %K RPv6 %X

This Research Plan for 2020 (RPv6) has been developed by the Marine Biodiversity Hub, in consultation with the Department of the Environment and Energy and other key stakeholders.

The purpose of the Research Plan is to outline:

This Research Plan also lists key staff and research organisations, and the risks needing to be monitored to ensure success.

Please note:

%8 21 Nov 19 %0 Journal Article %J Molecular Ecology Resources %D 2020 %T One panel to rule them all: DArTcap genotyping for population structure, historical demography, and kinship analyses, and its application to a threatened shark %A Pierre Feutry %A Floriaan Devloo-Delva %A Adrien Tran Lu Y %A Mona, Stefano %A R. Gunasekera %A Grant Johnson %A Richard D. Pillans %A Jaccoud, Damian %A Kilian, Andrzej %A David L Morgan %A Thor Saunders %A Nicholas J. Bax %A PM Kyne %K Close‐Kin Mark‐Recapture %K coalescent simulations %K connectivity %K Glyphis garricki %K RAD %K sequence capture %X

With recent advances in sequencing technology, genomic data are changing how important conservation management decisions are made. Applications such as Close‐Kin Mark‐Recapture demand large amounts of data to estimate population size and structure, and their full potential can only be realised through ongoing improvements in genotyping strategies. Here we introduce DArTcap, a cost‐efficient method that combines DArTseq and sequence capture, and illustrate its use in a high resolution population analysis of Glyphis garricki, a rare, poorly known and threatened euryhaline shark. Clustering analyses and spatial distribution of kin pairs from four different regions across northern Australia and one in Papua New Guinea, representing its entire known range, revealed that each region hosts at least one distinct population. Further structuring is likely within Van Diemen Gulf, the region that included the most rivers sampled, suggesting additional population structuring would be found if other rivers were sampled. Coalescent analyses and spatially explicit modelling suggest that G. garricki experienced a recent range expansion during the opening of the Gulf of Carpentaria following the conclusion of the Last Glacial Maximum. The low migration rates between neighbouring populations of a species that is found only in restricted coastal and riverine habitats show the importance of managing each population separately, including careful monitoring of local and remote anthropogenic activities that may affect their environments. Overall we demonstrated how a carefully chosen SNP panel combined with DArTcap can provide highly accurate kinship inference and also support population structure and historical demography analyses, therefore maximising cost‐effectiveness.

%B Molecular Ecology Resources %V 20 %P 1470 - 1485 %8 04 Nov 2020 %G eng %U https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/17550998/20/6 %N 6 %9 Journal %! Mol Ecol Resour %R 10.1111/1755-0998.13204 %0 Journal Article %J Diversity and Distributions %D 2020 %T Regional-scale patterns of deep seafloor biodiversity for conservation assessment %A Tim O'Hara %A Williams, Alan %A Althaus, Franziska %A Ross, Andrew S. %A Nicholas J. Bax %E Pirotta, Enrico %K benthos %K conservation assessment %K deep sea %K key ecological features %K rank abundance distribution %X

Aim

Mining and petroleum industries are exploring for resources in deep seafloor environments. Lease areas are often spatially aggregated and continuous over hundreds to thousands of kilometres. Sustainable development of these resources requires an understanding of the patterns of biodiversity at similar scales, yet these data are rarely available for the deep sea. Here, we compare biodiversity metrics and assemblage composition of epibenthic megafaunal samples from deep‐sea benthic habitats from the Great Australian Bight (GAB), a petroleum exploration zone off southern Australia, to similar environments off eastern Australia.

Location

The Great Australian Bight (34–36°S, 129–134°E) and south‐eastern (SE) and north‐eastern (NE) Australian continental margins (23–42°S, 149–155°E) in depths of 1,900–5,000 m.

Methods

A species–sample matrix was constructed from invertebrate and fish megafauna collected from beam trawl samples across regions at lower bathyal (1,900–3,200 m) and abyssal (>3,200 m) depths, and analysed using multivariate, rarefaction and model‐based statistics. We modelled rank abundance distributions (RAD) against environmental factors to identify drivers of abundance, richness and evenness.

Results

Multivariate analyses showed regional and bathymetric assemblage structure across the region. There was an almost complete turnover of sponge fauna between the GAB and SE. SE samples had the highest total faunal abundance and species richness. RAD models linked total abundance and species richness to levels of carbon flux. Evenness was associated with seasonality of net primary production.

Conclusions

Significant assemblage structure at regional scales is reported for the first time at lower bathyal and abyssal depths in the southern Indo‐Pacific region along latitudinal and longitudinal gradients. The GAB fauna was distinct from other studied areas. Relatively high species richness, previously reported from the GAB continental shelf, did not occur at lower bathyal or abyssal depths. Instead, the abundance, richness and evenness of the benthic fauna are linked to surface primary production, which is elevated off SE Australia.

%B Diversity and Distributions %V 1 %8 28 Jan 2020 %G eng %U https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ddi.13034 %! Divers Distrib %R 10.1111/ddi.13034 %0 Journal Article %J Frontiers in Marine Science %D 2020 %T True size matters for conservation: deep-sea coral reefs are typically small and estimates of their size are remarkably robust to a method used to define them %A Williams, Alan %A Althaus, Franziska %A Mark Green %A Maguire, Kylie %A Untiedt, Candice %A Mortimer, Nick %A Jackett, Chris J. %A Malcolm R Clark %A Nicholas J. Bax %A Pitcher, Roland %A Thomas A Schlacher %K coral %K deep sea %K fisheries management %K seamount %K Solenosmilia %K towed-camera %K VME %K vulnerable marine ecosystem %X

Protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems (VME) is a critical goal for marine conservation. Yet, in many deep-sea settings, where quantitative data are typically sparse, it is challenging to correctly identify the location and size of VMEs. Here we assess the sensitivity of a method to identify coral reef VMEs based on bottom cover and abundance of the stony coral Solenosmilia variabilis on deep seamounts, using image data from a survey off Tasmania, Australia, in 2018. Whilst there was some detectable influence from varying coral cover and the abundance of live coral heads, the distribution of coral reef VMEs was not substantially shifted by changing these criteria or altering the attributes of a moving window used to spatially aggregate coral patches. Whilst applying stricter criteria for classifying VMEs predictably produced smaller areas of coral reef VME, these differences were not sizeable and were often negligible. Coral reef VMEs formed large contiguous “blankets,” mainly on the peaks and flanks of seamounts, but were absent from the continental slope where S. variabilis occurred at low abundance (cover) and/or had no living colonies. The true size of the Tasmanian coral reef VMEs ranged from 0.02 to 1.16 km2 ; this was relatively large compared to reefs of S. variabilis mapped on New Zealand seamounts, but is small compared to the scales used for regional model predictions of suitable habitat (typically 1 km2 grid cell), and much smaller than the smallest units of management interest (100s–1000s km2 ). A model prediction of the area of suitable habitat for coral reef in the Tasmanian area was much greater than the area of coral reef estimated in this study. That the method to estimate VME size is not overly sensitive to the choice of criteria is highly encouraging in the context of designing spatial conservation measures that are robust, although its broader application, including to other VME indicator taxa, needs to be substantiated by scenario testing in different environments. Importantly, these results should give confidence for stakeholder uptake and form the basis for better predictive VME models at larger spatial scales and beyond single taxa.

%B Frontiers in Marine Science %V 7 %8 3 Apr 2020 %G eng %U https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fmars.2020.00187/full %9 Journal %! Front. Mar. Sci. %R 10.3389/fmars.2020.00187 %0 Journal Article %J Journal of Operational Oceanography %D 2019 %T Challenges for global ocean observation: the needfor increased human capacity %A Miloslavich, Patricia %A Seeyave, Sophie %A Muller-Karger, Frank %A Nicholas J. Bax %A Ali, Elham %A Delgado, Claudia %A Evers-King, Hayley %A Loveday, Benjamin %A Lutz, Vivian %A Newton, Jan %A Nolan, Glenn %A Peralta Brichtova, Ana C. %A Traeger-Chatterjee, Christine %A Urban, Edward %K capacity development %K EOVs %K essential ocean variables %K global ocean observing system %K GOOS %K ocean observations %K sustainable development goal 14 (SDG14) %X

Sustained global ocean observations are needed to recognise, understand, and manage changes in marine biodiversity, resources and habitats, and to implement wise conservation and sustainable development strategies. To meet this need, the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS), a network of observing systems distributed around the world and coordinated by the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) has proposed Essential Ocean Variables (EOVs) that are relevant to both the scientific and the broader community, including resource managers. Building a network that is truly global requires expanding participation beyond scientists from well-resourced countries to a far broader representation of the global community. New approaches are required to provide appropriate training, and resources and technology should follow to enable the application of this training to engage meaningfully in global observing networks and in the use of the data. Investments in technical capacity fulfil international reporting obligations under the UN Sustainable Development Goal 14A. Important opportunities are emerging now for countries to develop research partnerships with the IOC and GOOS to address these obligations. Implementing these partnerships requires new funding models and initiatives that support a sustained research capacity and marine technology transfer.

%B Journal of Operational Oceanography %V 12 %P S137 - S156 %8 27 Sep 2018 %G eng %U https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1755876X.2018.1526463 %N sup2 %! Journal of Operational Oceanography %R 10.1080/1755876X.2018.1526463 %0 Report %D 2019 %T Close-Kin Mark-Recapture population size estimate of Glyphis garricki in the Northern Territory %A Mark Bravington %A Pierre Feutry %A Richard D. Pillans %A Hillary, Rich %A Grant Johnson %A Thor Saunders %A R. Gunasekera %A Nicholas J. Bax %A PM Kyne %K close-kin mark-recapture %K Northern River Shark %K Northern Territory %K population size %K threatened species %K Van Diemen Gulf %X

The Endangered Northern River Shark Glyphis garricki (family Carcharhinidae) is found only in northern Australia and southern Papua New Guinea. It is a euryhaline species inhabiting tidal rivers and estuaries with all life stages (neonates to adults) recorded in rivers, while adults have also been recorded in marine waters. During surveys under the National Environmental Research Program (NERP) and the National Environmental Science Program (NESP), samples were collected in the Northern Territory in the rivers of Van Diemen Gulf (VDG) and the Daly River, and in the Kimberley region of Western Australia, from Cambridge Gulf and King Sound. Previously, the species was only known from a very limited number of records (~40) and these surveys have shown its range to be more widespread than initially documented. It is also likely that the species will be recorded in other rivers and estuaries with suitable habitat as more surveys are undertaken. For the purpose of this report, the VDG encompasses the Alligator Rivers region west to the Adelaide River. Based on recent genetic population structure research, the VDG population appears demographically separate from other known populations in the western part of its range, which in turn are separate to each other.

The aim of this study was to apply Close-Kin Mark-Recapture (CKMR) to G. garricki to estimate population size within the Northern Territory. Samples were collected from six rivers and creeks flowing into VDG (from east to west): East Alligator River, South Alligator River, West Alligator River (collectively, these three rivers make up the ‘Alligator Rivers’), Wildman River, Sampan Creek, and the Adelaide River. While sampling has been conducted across the Australian range of the species (i.e. Daly River, Cambridge Gulf, King Sound), limited sample size outside the VDG prohibited the application of a CKMR model and therefore the focus of this study is the VDG.

%8 4 Dec 2019 %G eng %0 Journal Article %J Nature %D 2019 %T Contrasting processes drive ophiuroid phylodiversity across shallow and deep seafloors %A Tim O'Hara %A Andrew F. Hugall %A Skipton N. C. Woolley %A Guadalupe Bribiesca-Contreras %A Nicholas J. Bax %K Antarctic speciation %K Biogeography %K phylodiversity %X

Our knowledge of the distribution and evolution of deep-sea life is limited, impeding our ability to identify priority areas for conservation. Here we analyse, for the first time, large integrated phylogenomic and distributional datasets of seafloor fauna from sea surface to abyss and equator to pole of the Southern Hemisphere for an entire class of invertebrates (Ophiuroidea). We find that latitudinal diversity gradients are assembled through contrasting evolutionary processes for shallow (0-200m) and deep (> 200m) seas. The shallow-water tropical-temperate realm broadly reflects a tropical diversification-driven process but with exchange in both directions. Diversification rates are reversed for the realm containing the deep sea and Antarctica, being highest at polar and lowest at tropical latitudes, and net exchange is from high to low latitudes. The tropical upper bathyal (200-700m deep), with its rich ancient phylodiversity, is characterised by relatively low diversification and moderate immigration rates. Conversely, the young specialised Antarctic fauna is inferred to be rebounding from regional extinction associated with the rapid cooling of polar waters over the mid-Cenozoic.

Media release - Research reveals new species are evolving fastest in Antarctica - 24 January 2019

%B Nature %8 23 Jan 2019 %G eng %U https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-0886-z %R 10.1038/s41586-019-0886-z %0 Journal Article %J Frontiers in Marine Science %D 2019 %T Coral reef monitoring, reef assessment technologies, and ecosystem-based management %A Obura, David O. %A Aeby, Greta %A Amornthammarong, Natchanon %A Appeltans, Ward %A Nicholas J. Bax %A Bishop, Joe %A Brainard, Russell E. %A Chan, Samuel %A Fletcher, Pamela %A Gordon, Timothy A. C. %A Gramer, Lew %A Gudka, Mishal %A Halas, John %A Hendee, James %A Hodgson, Gregor %A Huang, Danwei %A Jankulak, Mike %A Jones, Albert %A Kimura, Tadashi %A Levy, Joshua %A Miloslavich, Patricia %A Chou, Loke Ming %A Muller-Karger, Frank %A Osuka, Kennedy %A Samoilys, Melita %A Simpson, Stephen D. %A Tun, Karenne %A Wongbusarakum, Supin %K climate change %K Coral reef %K ecological monitoring %K Essential Ocean Variables (EOV) %K GOOS %K social-ecological system %X

Coral reefs are exceptionally biodiverse and human dependence on their ecosystem services is high. Reefs experience significant direct and indirect anthropogenic pressures, and provide a sensitive indicator of coastal ocean health, climate change, and ocean acidification, with associated implications for society. Monitoring coral reef status and trends is essential to better inform science, management and policy, but the projected collapse of reef systems within a few decades makes the provision of accurate and actionable monitoring data urgent. The Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network has been the foundation for global reporting on coral reefs for two decades, and is entering into a new phase with improved operational and data standards incorporating the Essential Ocean Variables (EOVs) (www.goosocean.org/eov) and Framework for Ocean Observing developed by the Global Ocean Observing System. Three EOVs provide a robust description of reef health: hard coral cover and composition, macro-algal canopy cover, and fish diversity and abundance. A data quality model based on comprehensive metadata has been designed to facilitate maximum global coverage of coral reef data, and tangible steps to track capacity building. Improved monitoring of events such as mass bleaching and disease outbreaks, citizen science, and socio-economic monitoring have the potential to greatly improve the relevance of monitoring to managers and stakeholders, and to address the complex and multi- dimensional interactions between reefs and people. A new generation of autonomous vehicles (underwater, surface, and aerial) and satellites are set to revolutionize and vastly expand our understanding of coral reefs. Promising approaches include Structure from Motion image processing, and acoustic techniques. Across all systems, curation of data in linked and open online databases, with an open data culture to maximize benefits from data integration, and empowering users to take action, are priorities. Action in the next decade will be essential to mitigate the impacts on coral reefs from warming temperatures, through local management and informing national and international obligations, particularly in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals, climate action, and the role of coral reefs as a global indicator. Mobilizing data to help drive the needed behavior change is a top priority for coral reef observing systems.

%B Frontiers in Marine Science %V 6 %8 19 Sep 2019 %G eng %U https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fmars.2019.00580/full %! Front. Mar. Sci. %R 10.3389/fmars.2019.0058010.3389/fmars.2019.00580.s001 %0 Journal Article %J Frontiers in Marine Science %D 2019 %T Globally consistent quantitative observations of planktonic ecosystems %A Lombard, Fabien %A Boss, Emmanuel %A Waite, Anya M. %A Vogt, Meike %A Uitz, Julia %A Stemmann, Lars %A Sosik, Heidi M. %A Schulz, Jan %A Romagnan, Jean-Baptiste %A Picheral, Marc %A Pearlman, Jay %A Ohman, Mark D. %A Niehoff, Barbara %A Moller, Klas O. %A Miloslavich, Patricia %A Ana Lara-Lopez %A Kudela, Raphael %A Lopes, Rubens M. %A Kiko, Rainer %A Karp-Boss, Lee %A Jaffe, Jules S. %A Iversen, Morten H. %A Irisson, Jean-Olivier %A Fennel, Katja %A Hauss, Helena %A Guidi, Lionel %A Gorsky, Gaby %A Giering, Sarah L. C. %A Gaube, Peter %A Gallager, Scott %A Dubelaar, George %A Cowen, Robert K. %A Carlotti, çois %A Briseno-Avena, Christian %A Berline, Leo %A Benoit-Bird, Kelly %A Nicholas J. Bax %A Batten, Sonia %A Ayata, Sakina Dorothee %A Artigas, Luis Felipe %A Appeltans, Ward %K autonomous platforms %K ECVs %K EOVs %K global observing %K imaging %K OceanObs %K plankton %X

In this paper we review the technologies available to make globally quantitative observations of particles in general—and plankton in particular—in the world oceans, and for sizes varying from sub-microns to centimeters. Some of these technologies have been available for years while others have only recently emerged. Use of these technologies is critical to improve understanding of the processes that control abundances, distributions and composition of plankton, provide data necessary to constrain and improve ecosystem and biogeochemical models, and forecast changes in marine ecosystems in light of climate change. In this paper we begin by providing the motivation for plankton observations, quantification and diversity qualification on a global scale. We then expand on the state-of-the-art, detailing a variety of relevant and (mostly) mature technologies and measurements, including bulk measurements of plankton, pigment composition, uses of genomic, optical and acoustical methods as well as analysis using particle counters, flow cytometers and quantitative imaging devices. We follow by highlighting the requirements necessary for a plankton observing system, the approach to achieve it and associated challenges. We conclude with ranked action-item recommendations for the next 10 years to move toward our vision of a holistic oceanwide plankton observing system. Particularly, we suggest to begin with a demonstration project on a GO-SHIP line and/or a long-term observation site and expand from there, ensuring that issues associated with methods, observation tools, data analysis, quality assessment and curation are addressed early in the implementation. Global coordination is key for the success of this vision and will bring new insights on processes associated with nutrient regeneration, ocean production, fisheries and carbon sequestration.

%B Frontiers in Marine Science %V 6 %8 25 April 2019 %G eng %U https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fmars.2019.00196/full %! Front. Mar. Sci. %R 10.3389/fmars.2019.00196 %0 Generic %D 2019 %T NESP Marine Biodiversity Hub Annual Progress Report 4 (2018) %A Nicholas J. Bax %A Paul Hedge %A Sarah Gracie %K annual progress report %X

Letter from the Hub Leader, Prof Nic Bax

2018 saw an increase in the rate of delivery of products to the Department. An early delivery was the first estimate of population size and trend for the white shark populations on the east and west coasts, generating considerable media interest and providing a sound basis for the Department to respond to many conflicting proposals on the control and protection of this species. The new and intensive genetic approach – close kin genetics – used for this estimate provided the first statistically valid population estimate for this species worldwide. Its development for rare and threatened species started with the freshwater sawfish in 2012 (insufficient animals could be caught to provide a valid estimate), switched to speartooth shark in 2014 and was extended to grey nurse shark in 2015. Population estimates for all species are now with the Department.

Of course there are many species of sharks and rays in Australia and not all can have the resources expended for a quantitative population estimate. Hub researchers worked closely with the Department in 2018 to develop a comprehensive shark action plan, building on a previous national assessment. The plan indicated that 38 of the 328 shark species in Australia were threatened and in need of protection although the status of a further 30 was uncertain due to lack of data. This is one of the lowest proportions of threatened sharks and rays globally and assisted the Department in developing a process to prioritise action on the threatened species.

It may already be too late to restore populations of the critically endangered handfish populations in their once natural environment, although trials are underway to improve the quantity and quality of artificial spawning habitat. Working with industry, a captive rearing population of the spotted handfish was established in 2018, which successfully produced the first captive-born generation. Meanwhile an emergency response was put into action to remove an egg mass from the red handfish, of which only about 100 fish survive worldwide, in an attempt to establish a captive rearing population for this species. Much more work needs to be done in closing the life-cycle for these two species, but the essential first steps have been taken through a collaboration of researchers, managers and industry, supported by the Hub.

There are insufficient resources to work to recover all listed marine species in Australia, so the Hub has been working with the Department on two initiatives to support these other species. The first stage of an integrated management project was completed in Northern Australia with the aim of managing the landscape which supports many species, and following a national evaluation and prioritisation exercise, including responsibilities under the EPBC Act, restoration activities were started for the listed giant kelp community off Tasmanian and seagrass in the Shark Bay World Heritage Area, two keystone species that support many other vulnerable species.

A major impetus of the Hub has been to help access and promote the many diverse Australian marine data collection initiatives so that they support, at little additional cost to the taxpayer, the ongoing information needs of marine managers in the Department and beyond. An important approach has been promote standardisation of data collection and sharing for the many marine environmental surveys occurring every year in Australian waters. The Hub worked with the National Marine Science Committee to hold the first Marine Baselines and Monitoring Group that is identifying the opportunities for national coordination of marine environmental data collection so that Australia will be able to profit in the future from sustained time series data, the lack of which is regularly identified in State of Environment reports. Hub researchers led over 65 researchers from 30 institutions to develop and publish Standard Operating Procedures for major data collection platforms and collaborated with national infrastructure initiatives to ensure that some of the major data streams used for Marine Park and SOE reporting will come under national archiving and FAIR data initiatives. Global interest in these approaches have led to their inclusion in the Ocean Best Practices repository and current prioritisation for inclusion in the global ocean observing system. Earlier data syntheses by the Hub have now been picked up through major national initiatives supporting improved data accessibility for managers including SeaMap Australia, AusSeabed and the Parks Australia Science Atlas.

Collating and improving access to existing data, while setting the standards for future data collection is very useful but going to sea to collect new information is considerably more fun, and given the paucity of knowledge of what the new Australian Marine Parks contain, equally useful. Marine surveys in the Beagle and Hunter Marine Parks provided a good opportunity to test and refine these national approaches while the year ended with a 27-day voyage to the southern seamounts in and adjacent to the Huon and Tasman Fracture Marine Parks developed collaboratively with Parks Australia, CSIRO and NIWA (New Zealand) and including students and early career researchers from universities and museums around Australia. The presence of Parks Australia on board throughout the voyage allowed an almost unprecedented level of engagement between managers and early career researchers that will provide ongoing benefit for the future baseline and monitoring of Australian Marine Parks. The survey itself generated a larger set of data on coldwater corals on deep-water coral reefs than exists anywhere else in the world, that together with similar, although less intensive, surveys 10 and 20 years ago will result in new understandings of how these vulnerable coldwater coral communities and structured through depth and their potential for recovery from physical disturbances including fishing.

It is a rare privilege these days to receive six-years dedicated funding for a body of research such as marine biodiversity. The value of this approach is witnessed by our increasing engagement with departmental officers as we now have the information and resources to ensure that the data collected by scientists is prepared and delivered in a form that is useful to managers in the Department and beyond. This extended engagement between researchers and the Department has enabled Australia’s marine research organisations to build their scientific capacity and this manifests as increasing expert advice to the Department. Hub researchers support departmental officers in preparing for and representing their scientific priorities in national fora including the National Marine Science Committee, and the review into allocation of ship-time for the Marine National Facility. Hub researchers support, and in some cases represent the government (as scientific experts with DoEE and DFAT) at international negotiations including the Convention for Biological Diversity, the UN dialogue on developing a new implementing agreement for managing biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction, the UN Convention on Migratory Species, and the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species. Hub research is now being used in studies funded by the Australian Government (ARC, DFAT), the German Government, and the Fisheries and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations to develop new bioregional and bathymetry maps for the Indian, South Pacific and Antarctic oceans, and support environmental reporting through the State of Environment Report and the World Ocean Assessment.

In the last two years of the Hub, our researchers are working with the Department and stakeholders to identify and develop synthesis projects that will further focus and deliver our research and the combined expertise of the research collaborations that we have developed into products that are of immediate and of long-term value to the Department and marine stakeholders in general.

 

 

%8 30 Jul 2019 %0 Generic %D 2019 %T NESP Marine Biodiversity Hub - Governance %A Nicholas J. Bax %A Paul Hedge %A Annabel Ozimec %K governance %X

The NESP Marine Biodiversity Hub responsibilities and commitments include to:

The role of the Hub’s governance is to provide the oversight, direction and guidance to ensure the Hub delivers its responsibilities and commitments effectively and efficiently. This will include:

Review and advise the Hub partners on opportunities to broaden the uptake of the Hub’s research and to extend the capacity and continuation of the Hub beyond its NESP contract

%7 v8 %8 31 May 2019 %0 Generic %D 2019 %T NESP Marine Biodiversity Hub Research Plan - 2019 RPv5 - Project Proposals %A Nicholas J. Bax %A Paul Hedge %K annual research plan %K RPv5 %X

This Research Plan for 2019 (RPv5) has been developed by the Marine Biodiversity Hub, in consultation with the Department of the Environment and Energy and other key stakeholders.

The purpose of the Research Plan is to outline:

This Research Plan also lists key staff and research organisations, and the risks needing to be monitored to ensure success.

Please note:

%8 7 Jan 2019 %0 Journal Article %D 2019 %T A response to scientific and societal needs for marine biological observations %A Nicholas J. Bax %A Miloslavich, Patricia %A Muller-Karger, Frank Edgar %A Allain, Valerie %A Appeltans, Ward %A Sonia D. Batten %A Benedetti-Cecchi, Lisandro %A Buttigieg, Pier Luigi %A Chiba, Sanae %A Costa, Daniel Paul %A Duffy, J. Emmett %A Daniel C. Dunn %A Craig R. Johnson %A Kudela, Raphael M. %A Obura, David %A Rebelo, Lisa-Maria %A Shin, Yunne-Jai %A Simmons, Samantha E. %A Tyack, Peter Lloyd %K capacity development %K EOV %K essential ocean variable %K GOOS %K ocean observing %K Sustainable Development Goals %K UN Decade %X

Development of global ocean observing capacity for the biological EOVs is on the cusp of a step-change. Current capacity to automate data collection and processing and to integrate the resulting data streams with complementary data, openly available as FAIR data, is certain to dramatically increase the amount and quality of information and knowledge available to scientists and decision makers into the future. There is little doubt that scientists will continue to expand their understanding of what lives in the ocean, where it lives and how it is changing. However, whether this expanding information stream will inform policy and management or be incorporated into indicators for national reporting is more uncertain. Coordinated data collection including open sharing of data will help produce the consistent evidence-based messages that are valued by managers. The GOOS Biology and Ecosystems Panel is working with other global initiatives to assist this coordination by defining and implementing Essential Ocean Variables. The biological EOVs have been defined, are being updated following community feedback, and their implementation is underway. In 2019, the coverage and precision of a global ocean observing system capable of addressing key questions for the next decade will be quantified, and its potential to support the goals of the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development identified. Developing a global ocean observing system for biology and ecosystems requires parallel efforts in improving evidence-based monitoring of progress against international agreements and the open data, reporting and governance structures that would facilitate the uptake of improved information by decision makers.

%V 6 %8 17 Jul 2019 %G eng %U https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2019.00395/full %R 10.3389/fmars.2019.00395 %0 Journal Article %J Frontiers in Marine Science %D 2019 %T A suite of field manuals for marine sampling to monitor Australian waters %A Rachel Przeslawski %A Scott D Foster %A Jacquomo Monk %A Neville Barrett %A Phil J. Bouchet %A Andrew Carroll %A Tim J. Langlois %A Vanessa L Lucieer %A Joel Williams %A Nicholas J. Bax %K Autonomous underwater vehicle %K box core %K BRUVs %K grab %K monitoring %K Multibeam sonar %K sled %K Spatially Balanced Design %K standard protocols %K towed video %X

One of the main challenges in assessing marine biodiversity is the lack of consistent approaches to monitor it. This threatens to undermine ocean best practice in marine monitoring, as it impedes a reduction in the bias and variance of sampled data and restricts the confidence in the advice that can be given. In particular, there is potential for confounding between the monitoring methods, their measured ecological properties, and the questions they seek to answer. Australia has developed significant long-term marine monitoring and observing programs and has one of the largest marine estates, including the world’s largest representative network of marine parks. This new network will require ongoing monitoring and evaluation, beyond what direct funding can support, which needs to be integrated in a standardized way with other national programs to develop sufficient monitoring capacity. The aim of this paper is to describe the process undertaken in developing a suite of field manuals that provide Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for marine sampling in Australian waters so that data are comparable over time and space, thereby supporting a robust, cost-effective, and objective national monitoring program. We encourage readers to refer to the complete manuals of interest at www.nespmarine.edu.au/field-manuals. We generally limit SOP development to benthic or demersal sampling, (multibeam, autonomous underwater vehicles, baited remoted underwater video (BRUV), towed imagery, grabs and box corers, sleds and trawls), with a few exceptions (e.g., pelagic BRUVs). Collaboration was a key characteristic of our approach so rather than single groups trying to impose their standards, more than 70 individuals from over 30 organizations contributed to the first version of this field manual package. We also discuss the challenges that arose while developing these national SOPs, the associated solutions that were implemented, and the plans for ensuring their long-term maintenance and national and international uptake. We anticipate that this paper will contribute to international collaborations by evoking valuable suggestions and sharing of lessons learnt from other national initiatives so that we might work toward a global ocean best practice for biological and geoscientific monitoring of the marine environment.

%B Frontiers in Marine Science %V 6 %8 5 Apr 2019 %G eng %U https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fmars.2019.00177/full %! Front. Mar. Sci. %R 10.3389/fmars.2019.00177 %0 Journal Article %J Frontiers in Marine Science %D 2018 %T Advancing marine biological observations and data requirements of the complementary essential ocean variables (EOVs) and essential biodiversity variables (EBVs) frameworks %A Muller-Karger, Frank E. %A Miloslavich, Patricia %A Nicholas J. Bax %A Simmons, Samantha %A Costello, Mark J. %A Sousa Pinto, Isabel %A Canonico, Gabrielle %A Turner, Woody %A Gill, Michael %A Montes, Enrique %A Best, Benjamin D. %A Pearlman, Jay %A Halpin, Patrick %A Daniel C. Dunn %A Benson, Abigail %A Martin, Corinne S. %A Weatherdon, Lauren V. %A Appeltans, Ward %A Provoost, Pieter %A Klein, Eduardo %A Kelble, Christopher R. %A Miller, Robert J. %A Chavez, Francisco P. %A Iken, Katrin %A Chiba, Sanae %A Obura, David %A Navarro, Laetitia M. %A Pereira, Henrique M. %A Allain, Valerie %A Sonia D. Batten %A Benedetti-Cecchi, Lisandro %A Duffy, J. Emmett %A Kudela, Raphael M. %A Rebelo, Lisa-Maria %A Shin, Yunne %A Geller, Gary %K essential biodiversity variables %K essential ocean variables %K global ocean observing system %K GOOS %K marine biological observations %X

Measurements of the status and trends of key indicators for the ocean and marine life are required to inform policy and management in the context of growing human uses of marine resources, coastal development, and climate change. Two synergistic efforts identify specific priority variables for monitoring: Essential Ocean Variables (EOVs) through the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS), and Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs) from the Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON) (see Data Sheet 1 in Supplementary Materials for a glossary of acronyms). Both systems support reporting against internationally agreed conventions and treaties. GOOS, established under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC), plays a leading role in coordinating global monitoring of the ocean and in the definition of EOVs. GEO BON is a global biodiversity observation network that coordinates observations to enhance management of the world's biodiversity and promote both the awareness and accounting of ecosystem services. Convergence and agreement between these two efforts are required to streamline existing and new marine observation programs to advance scientific knowledge effectively and to support the sustainable use and management of ocean spaces and resources. In this context, the Marine Biodiversity Observation Network (MBON), a thematic component of GEO BON, is collaborating with GOOS, the Ocean Biogeographic Information System (OBIS), and the Integrated Marine Biosphere Research (IMBeR) project to ensure that EBVs and EOVs are complementary, representing alternative uses of a common set of scientific measurements. This work is informed by the Joint Technical Commission for Oceanography and Marine Meteorology (JCOMM), an intergovernmental body of technical experts that helps international coordination on best practices for observing, data management and services, combined with capacity development expertise. Characterizing biodiversity and understanding its drivers will require incorporation of observations from traditional and molecular taxonomy, animal tagging and tracking efforts, ocean biogeochemistry, and ocean observatory initiatives including the deep ocean and seafloor. The partnership between large-scale ocean observing and product distribution initiatives (MBON, OBIS, JCOMM, and GOOS) is an expedited, effective way to support international policy-level assessments (e.g., the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services or IPBES), along with the implementation of international development goals (e.g., the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals).

%B Frontiers in Marine Science %V 5 %8 27 Jun 2018 %G eng %U https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fmars.2018.00211/full %! Front. Mar. Sci. %R 10.3389/fmars.2018.00211 %0 Generic %D 2018 %T Assessing the size of Australia's white shark populations %A Nicholas J. Bax %X

A unique combination of acoustic tagging and genetic and statistical advances has produced the first evidence-based population estimates for Australia’s white sharks. Providing reliable information on the size and trend of Australia’s white shark populations has hitherto been an impossible task. Advances being made in this research ─ building coordinated national sampling regimes to measure key biological parameters using close-kin mark recapture, and conducting electronic tagging and targeted surveys, and combining these in population models ─ will significantly improve our understanding of white shark populations in Australia.

%B A unique combination of acoustic tagging and genetic and statistical advances has produced the first evidence-based population estimates for Australia’s white sharks. %I National Environmental Science Program Marine Biodiversity Hub %C Hobart %8 08 Feb 2018 %U https://www.nespmarine.edu.au/document/assessing-size-australias-white-shark-populations %0 Journal Article %J Global Change Biology %D 2018 %T Essential ocean variables for global sustained observations of biodiversity and ecosystem changes %A Miloslavich, Patricia %A Nicholas J. Bax %A Simmons, Samantha E. %A Klein, Eduardo %A Appeltans, Ward %A Aburto-Oropeza, Octavio %A Andersen Garcia, Melissa %A Sonia D. Batten %A Benedetti-Cecchi, Lisandro %A David Checkley %A Chiba, Sanae %A Duffy, J. Emmett %A Daniel C. Dunn %A Fischer, Albert %A Gunn, John %A Kudela, Raphael %A Marsac, Francis %A Muller-Karger, Frank E. %A Obura, David %A Shin, Yunne-Jai %K driver-pressure-state-impact-response %K essential ocean variables %K framework for ocean observing %K global ocean observing system %K marine biodiversity changes %K Marine Biodiversity Observation Network %K ocean change %X

Sustained observations of marine biodiversity and ecosystems focused on specific conservation and management problems are needed around the world to effectively mitigate or manage changes resulting from anthropogenic pressures. These observations, while complex and expensive, are required by the international scientific, governance and policy communities to provide baselines against which the effects of human pressures and climate change may be measured and reported, and resources allocated to implement solutions. To identify biological and ecological essential ocean variables (EOVs) for implementation within a global ocean observing system that is relevant for science, informs society, and technologically feasible, we used a driver‐pressure‐state‐impact‐response (DPSIR) model. We

  1. examined relevant international agreements to identify societal drivers and pressures on marine resources and ecosystems,
  2. evaluated the temporal and spatial scales of variables measured by 100+ observing programs, and
  3. analysed the impact and scalability of these variables and how they contribute to address societal and scientific issues.

EOVs were related to the status of ecosystem components (phytoplankton and zooplankton biomass and diversity, and abundance and distribution of fish, marine turtles, birds and mammals), and to the extent and health of ecosystems (cover and composition of hard coral, seagrass, mangrove and macroalgal canopy). Benthic invertebrate abundance and distribution and microbe diversity and biomass were identified as emerging EOVs to be developed based on emerging requirements and new technologies. The temporal scale at which any shifts in biological systems will be detected will vary across the EOVs, the properties being monitored and the length of the existing time‐series. Global implementation to deliver useful products will require collaboration of the scientific and policy sectors and a significant commitment to improve human and infrastructure capacity across the globe, including the development of new, more automated observing technologies, and encouraging the application of international standards and best practices.

%B Global Change Biology %8 05 Apr 2018 %G eng %U http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/gcb.14108 %N 6332 %! Glob Change Biol %R 10.1111/gcb.14108 %0 Journal Article %J Frontiers in Marine Science %D 2018 %T Linking capacity development to GOOS monitoring networks to achieve sustained ocean observation %A Nicholas J. Bax %A Appeltans, Ward %A Brainard, Russell %A Duffy, J. Emmett %A Piers K Dunstan %A Hanich, Quentin %A Harden Davies, Harriet %A Hills, Jeremy %A Miloslavich, Patricia %A Muller-Karger, Frank Edgar %A Simmons, Samantha %A Aburto-Oropeza, O. %A Sonia D. Batten %A Benedetti-Cecchi, Lisandro %A David Checkley %A Chiba, Sanae %A Fischer, Albert %A Andersen Garcia, Melissa %A Gunn, John %A Klein, Eduardo %A Kudela, Raphael M. %A Marsac, Francis %A Obura, David %A Shin, Yunne-Jai %A Sloyan, Bernadette %A Tanhua, Toste %A Wilkin, John %K capacity development %K essential ocean variables %K global ocean observing system %K GOOS %K international reporting %K monitoring %K SDG14 %K technology transfer %X

Developing enduring capacity to monitor ocean life requires investing in people and their institutions to build infrastructure, ownership, and long-term support networks. International initiatives can enhance access to scientific data, tools and methodologies, and develop local expertise to use them, but without ongoing engagement may fail to have lasting benefit. Linking capacity development and technology transfer to sustained ocean monitoring is a win-win proposition. Trained local experts will benefit from joining global communities of experts who are building the comprehensive Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS). This two-way exchange will benefit scientists and policy makers in developing and developed countries. The first step toward the GOOS is complete: identification of an initial set of biological Essential Ocean Variables (EOVs) that incorporate the Group on Earth Observations (GEO) Essential Biological Variables (EBVs), and link to the physical and biogeochemical EOVs. EOVs provide a globally consistent approach to monitoring where the costs of monitoring oceans can be shared and where capacity and expertise can be transferred globally. Integrating monitoring with existing international reporting and policy development connects ocean observations with agreements underlying many countries’ commitments and obligations, including under SDG 14, thus catalyzing progress toward sustained use of the ocean. Combining scientific expertise with international capacity development initiatives can help meet the need of developing countries to engage in the agreed United Nations (UN) initiatives including new negotiations for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction, and the needs of the global community to understand how the ocean is changing.

%B Frontiers in Marine Science %V 5 %8 25 Sep 2018 %G eng %U https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fmars.2018.00346/full %! Front. Mar. Sci. %R 10.3389/fmars.2018.00346 %0 Generic %D 2018 %T NESP Marine Biodiversity Hub Research Plan - 2018 RPv4 - Project Proposals %A Nicholas J. Bax %A Paul Hedge %K annual research plan %K RPv4 %X

This Research Plan for 2018 (RPv4) has been developed by the Marine Biodiversity Hub, in consultation with the Department of the Environment and Energy and other key stakeholders.

The purpose of the Research Plan is to outline:

This Research Plan also lists key staff and research organisations, and the risks needing to be monitored to ensure success.

Please note:

%8 17 Jan 2018 %0 Journal Article %J Marine Policy %D 2018 %T Reviewing the EBSA process: Improving on success %A Johnson, David E. %A Frojan, Christopher Barrio %A Turner, Phillip J. %A Weaver, Philip %A Gunn, Vikki %A Daniel C. Dunn %A Halpin, Patrick %A Nicholas J. Bax %A Piers K Dunstan %K CBD %K EBSA %K Ecologically or Biologically Significant Area %K marine environment %K onvention on Biological Diversity %X

This paper reviews key aspects of the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity's Ecologically or Biologically Significant Area (EBSA) process to date, anticipating global marine coverage of that process in so far as is possible by the end of 2018. EBSAs merge marine and coastal physical, biological and biogeographical information held by States, diverse scientific institutions and individual experts to identify inherent value of marine biodiversity, as well as providing a focus for either States or international organisations with sectoral competences to apply potential management measures to protect and sustainably manage biodiversity. In assessing information made available at dedicated EBSA Regional Workshops, several common patterns emerged, both in the data made available and in the gaps in information. The latter include missing information, representation of taxa and features of interest, and specialist expertise. The review exercise detailed here has highlighted the value and efficacy of the EBSA process and the information it has generated, despite some recognised shortcomings. It further suggests that there is potential to strengthen the EBSA portfolio by (i) adding some selected new areas yet to be described, (ii) revisiting existing EBSAs to add both new and existing information, and (iii) reconsidering some areas previously deemed to not meet the EBSA criteria by incorporating both new and existing information. Improving the systematic assessment of areas against the EBSA criteria could be achieved using a combination of (i) spatially precise systematic conservation approaches, supported by (ii) predictive modelling and biogeographic multi-criteria approaches based on expert judgement.

%B Marine Policy %V 88 %P 75 - 85 %8 22 Nov 2017 %G eng %U https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0308597X1730711X %! Marine Policy %R 10.1016/j.marpol.2017.11.014 %0 Journal Article %J BioScience %D 2017 %T Assessing national biodiversity trends for rocky and coral reefs through the Integration of citizen science and scientific monitoring programs %A Rick D Stuart-Smith %A Graham J. Edgar %A Neville Barrett %A Amanda E. Bates %A Baker, Susan C. %A Nicholas J. Bax %A Becerro, Mikel A. %A Just Berkhout %A Julia L. Blanchard %A Danny Brock %A Clark, Graeme J %A Cooper, A T %A Davis, Tom R %A Day, Paul B %A Duffy, J. Emmett %A Thomas H. Holmes %A Howe, Steffan %A Alan Jordan %A Stuart J. Kininmonth %A Nathan A. Knott %A Lefcheck, Jonathan S. %A Scott D Ling %A Parr, Amanda %A Strain, Elisabeth M. A. %A H Sweatman %A Russell J. Thomson %X

Reporting progress against targets for international biodiversity agreements is hindered by a shortage of suitable biodiversity data. We describe a cost-effective system involving Reef Life Survey citizen scientists in the systematic collection of quantitative data covering multiple phyla that can underpin numerous marine biodiversity indicators at high spatial and temporal resolution. We then summarize the findings of a continental- and decadal-scale State of the Environment assessment for rocky and coral reefs based on indicators of ecosystem state relating to fishing, ocean warming, and invasive species and describing the distribution of threatened species. Fishing impacts are widespread, whereas substantial warming-related change affected some regions between 2005 and 2015. Invasive species are concentrated near harbors in southeastern Australia, and the threatened-species index is highest for the Great Australian Bight and Tasman Sea. Our approach can be applied globally to improve reporting against biodiversity targets and enhance public and policymakers’ understanding of marine biodiversity trends.
 

%B BioScience %8 01 Feb 2017 %G eng %U https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/67/2/134/2965789/Assessing-National-Biodiversity-Trends-for-Rocky %! BioScience %R 10.1093/biosci/biw180 %0 Journal Article %J Marine Policy %D 2017 %T An integrated monitoring framework for the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area %A Paul Hedge %A Molloy, F. %A Sweatman, H. %A Hayes, K.R. %A Jeffrey M Dambacher %A Chandler, J. %A Nicholas J. Bax %A Gooch, M. %A K. Anthony %A Elliot, B. %K adaptive management %K Coral reef %K Decision making %K environmental monitoring %K marine reserve %X

Monitoring provides important feedback on how social and environmental systems are tracking and whether or not human activities, including management activities, are having an impact. This paper describes an approach applied to develop an integrated monitoring framework to inform adaptive management of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, a complex, multi-jurisdictional, multi-sectoral marine system of international importance. It identifies the gaps and opportunities to integrate the existing long-term, short-term and compliance-related monitoring and reporting initiatives to provide the information for more effective and efficient (adaptive) management of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. And as importantly it aligns expectations among different agencies about how monitoring will inform management. Fifty two high priority values, processes and pressures for management were identified along with 65 existing monitoring programs. Developing the monitoring framework was useful in several ways. First it brought together scientists, policy-makers, managers, and other interested stakeholders with different agendas, philosophies and incentives and established a common purpose, lexicon and language for an integrated monitoring program. Second, it highlighted the importance and usefulness of qualitative conceptual models as a framework for focused discussion around a set of hypotheses with relevance for management. Third, the process started an important conversation about defining and setting a realistic number of monitoring priorities for management. Finally, it has provided direction for how to build on existing initiatives to develop an integrated monitoring program for a globally significant world heritage area.


Related information:

Download the report published in 2013 commissioned by the Department of the Environment

%B Marine Policy %V 77 %P 90 - 96 %8 28 Dec 2016 %G eng %U https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0308597X16306121 %! Marine Policy %R 10.1016/j.marpol.2016.12.014 %0 Generic %D 2017 %T NESP Marine Biodiversity Hub Research Plan - 2017 RPv3 - Project Proposals %A Nicholas J. Bax %A Paul Hedge %K annual research plan %K RPv3 %X

This Research Plan for 2017 (RPv3) has been developed by the Marine Biodiversity Hub, in consultation with the Department of the Environment and Energy and other key stakeholders.

The purpose of the Research Plan is to outline:

This Research Plan also lists key staff and research organisations, and the risks needing to be monitored to ensure success.

Please note:

%8 13 Jan 2017 %0 Journal Article %J ICES Journal of Marine Science %D 2017 %T A new wave of marine evidence-based management: emerging challenges and solutions to transform monitoring, evaluating, and reporting %A P F E Addison %A Collins, D J %A Trebilco, R %A Howe, S %A Nicholas J. Bax %A Paul Hedge %A Jones, G %A Miloslavich, Patricia %A Roelfsema, C %A Sams, M %A Rick D Stuart-Smith %A Scanes, P %A von Baumgarten, P %A McQuatters-Gollop, A %K adaptive management %K Biodiversity %K collaboration %K environment %K environmental impact assessment %K fisheries %K modelling %K monitoring %K socio-economic %X

Sustainable management and conservation of the world’s oceans requires effective monitoring, evaluation, and reporting (MER). Despite the growing political and social imperative for these activities, there are some persistent and emerging challenges that marine practitioners face in undertaking these activities. In 2015, a diverse group of marine practitioners came together to discuss the emerging challenges associated with marine MER, and potential solutions to address these challenges. Three emerging challenges were identified: (i) the need to incorporate environmental, social and economic dimensions in evaluation and reporting; (ii) the implications of big data, creating challenges in data management and interpretation; and (iii) dealing with uncertainty throughout MER activities. We point to key solutions to address these challenges across MER activities: (i) integrating models into marine management systems to help understand, interpret, and manage the environmental and socio-economic dimensions of uncertain and complex marine systems; (ii) utilizing big data sources and new technologies to collect, process, store, and analyze data; and (iii) applying approaches to evaluate, account for, and report on the multiple sources and types of uncertainty. These solutions point towards a potential for a new wave of evidence-based marine management, through more innovative monitoring, rigorous evaluation and transparent reporting. Effective collaboration and institutional support across the science–management–policy interface will be crucial to deal with emerging challenges, and implement the tools and approaches embedded within these solutions.

%B ICES Journal of Marine Science %V 75 %P 941 - 952 %8 13 Dec 2017 %G eng %U https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/75/3/941/4739744 %N 3 %R 10.1093/icesjms/fsx216 %0 Journal Article %J Biological Conservation %D 2016 %T Forecasting marine invasions under climate change: Biotic interactions and demographic processes matter %A Camille Mellin %A Lurgi, M. %A Matthews, S. %A MacNeil, M.A. %A M Julian Caley %A Nicholas J. Bax %A Rachel Przeslawski %A D. A. Fordham %K Acanthaster planci; Alien species; Climate change; Crown-of-thorns seastar %K Biotic interactions %K Exotic species %K Marine biodiversity %K Metapopulation model %K Non-indigenous species %K range shift %X

Biological invasions are one of the most significant threats to marine biodiversity, and can be facilitated and amplified by climate change. Among all aspects of invasion biology, biotic interactions between invaders and native species are of particular importance. They strongly influence the invasion velocity as well as species responses to climate-induced stressors. Yet the effects of biotic interactions and other important demographic processes remain overlooked among most studies of climate-mediated invasions. We critically assessed current modelling techniques for forecasting marine invasions under climate change, with a particular focus on their ability to account for important biotic interactions and demographic processes. We show that coupled range dynamics models currently represent the most comprehensive and promising approach for modelling and managing marine invasions under climate change. We show, using the crown-of-thorns seastar (Acanthaster planci), why model architectures that account for biotic interactions and demographic and spatial processes (and their interaction) are required to provide ecologically realistic predictions of the distribution and abundance of invader species, both under present-day conditions and into the future. We suggest potential solutions to inform data-poor situations, such as Bayesian parameter estimation and meta-analysis, and identify strategic and targeted gaps in marine invasion research.
 

%B Biological Conservation %8 15 Nov 2016 %G eng %U http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0006320716307686 %! Biological Conservation %R 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.11.008 %0 Journal Article %J Molecular Ecology %D 2016 %T Inferring contemporary and historical genetic connectivity from juveniles %A Pierre Feutry %A Berry, Oliver %A PM Kyne %A Richard D. Pillans %A R. M. Hillary %A Grewe, Peter M. %A Marthick, James R. %A Grant Johnson %A R. Gunasekera %A Nicholas J. Bax %A Mark Bravington %X

Measuring population connectivity is a critical task in conservation biology. While genetic markers can provide reliable long-term historical estimates of population connectivity, scientists are still limited in their ability to determine contemporary patterns of gene flow, the most practical time frame for management. Here, we tackled this issue by developing a new approach that only requires juvenile sampling at a single time period. To demonstrate the usefulness of our method, we used the Speartooth shark (Glyphis glyphis), a critically endangered species of river sharks found only in tropical northern Australia and southern Papua New Guinea. Contemporary adult and juvenile shark movements, estimated with the spatial distribution of kin pairs across and within three river systems, was contrasted with historical long-term connectivity patterns, estimated from mitogenomes and genome-wide SNP data. We found strong support for river fidelity in juveniles with the within-cohort relationship analysis. Male breeding movements were highlighted with the cross-cohort relationship analysis and female reproductive philopatry to the river systems was revealed by the mitogenomic analysis. We show that accounting for juvenile river fidelity and female philopatry is important in population structure analysis and that targeting sampling in nurseries and juveniles aggregation should be included in the genomic toolbox of threatened species management.
 

%B Molecular Ecology %8 19 Nov 2016 %G eng %U http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/mec.13929 %! Mol Ecol %R 10.1111/mec.13929 %0 Generic %D 2016 %T NESP Marine Biodiversity Hub Research Plan - 2016 RPv2 - Project Proposals %A Nicholas J. Bax %A Paul Hedge %K annual research plan %K RPv2 %X

This Research Plan for 2016 (RPv2) has been developed by the Marine Biodiversity Hub, in consultation with the Department of the Environment and Energy and other key stakeholders.

The purpose of the Research Plan is to outline:

This Research Plan also lists key staff and research organisations, and the risks needing to be monitored to ensure success.

Please note:

%8 24 Mar 2016 %0 Report %D 2016 %T Towards an IMCRA 5 %A Tim O'Hara %A Daniel C Gledhill %A Scott L Nichol %A Rachel Przeslawski %A Paul Hedge %A Nicholas J. Bax %X

Australia is a world leader in spatial conservation planning. The IBRA (terrestrial) and IMCRA (marine) bioregionalisation programs were significant conservation management achievements. However, such initiatives require periodic review and updating in order to incorporate new data and tools. While IBRA is in its seventh version, the IMCRA marine bioregionalisation is in its second substantial version. It was last updated in 2006 (IMCRA v4.0) with the recommendation that it not be updated before 2010.  Triggers identified for updating IMCRA v4.0 were: 1) substantial new biodiversity or process data; 2) jurisdictional need, and 3) international obligations. Areas that could be addressed to improve the utility of IMCRA were: conceptual classification models; improved data coverage, and improved ecosystem understanding, including the role of surrogates. New biodiversity data collated since 2006 have identified numerous inconsistencies in the formation of existing marine bioregions, particularly for inshore areas and island territories. There has been a considerable accumulation of national biological and environmental datasets and the development of new analytical tools. Our understanding of processes that structure biodiversity at large scales has also changed, with an increased emphasis on the importance of depth, carbon flux and connectivity. Some of this new knowledge, including identification of Key Ecological Features, was used in designing the Commonwealth Marine Reserve (CMR) network, but the data were never added to IMCRA. New observations have refined our understanding of when surrogates are useful.  New genetic datasets have provided a novel conceptual model that distinguishes long term evolutionary change and shorter term ecological processes. These scientific advances justify revising IMCRA. It would be useful to have a revised IMCRA available to inform reviews of marine reserves and reserve networks and marine bioregional plans, for example the South-east CMR Network Management Plan is expected to be reviewed in 2023 when it expires. Up to date and improved versions of IMCRA also have the potential to inform ongoing environmental impact assessments of new or planned activities. 
In working towards a best-practice bioregionalisation, a number of challenges remain. This includes filling large remaining biological data gaps, finalising national datasets of important environmental variables, and extending analytical techniques so that they can rigorously incorporate biological data from mixed sampling regimes (e.g. most museum data), historical (genetic) information and connectivity (dispersal) data.

 

%8 11 Nov 2016 %G eng %0 Journal Article %J Ocean & Coastal Management %D 2016 %T Using ecologically or biologically significant marine areas (EBSAs) to implement marine spatial planning %A Piers K Dunstan %A Nicholas J. Bax %A Jeffrey M Dambacher %A Keith R. Hayes %A Paul Hedge %A Smith, David C. %A Smith, Anthony D.M. %X

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) agreed in 2008 on the need to identify Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas (EBSAs) in the world's oceans to focus future conservation and management efforts. From 2010 to 2014, 9 workshops had described 204 areas meeting the EBSA criteria in approximately 68% of the world's oceans. The workshops comprised experts nominated by more than 100 governments and a similar number of regional and global non government and intergovernmental organizations, supported by a technical team that collated data and provided mapping expertise. Despite this progress, there is uncertainty about how to use EBSA in Marine Spatial Planning (MSP). We review a suite of the existing MSP, Ecosystem Based Management, fisheries and conservation frameworks to determine their common elements and suggest how they can be synthesized. We propose an adaptive hierarchical approach that takes key elements from existing frameworks and show how EBSA can be used to support this approach within national jurisdictions and in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The adaptive hierarchical process encourages early implementation of MSP/EBM using available scientific knowledge and governance and supports the gradual progress to more complex and information rich structures as needed and appropriate. The EBSA process provides a sound basis for developing the scientific advice to support national and international management of the world's oceans by identifying marine systems and the criteria for which they are valued by regional experts.

%B Ocean & Coastal Management %V 121 %P 116 - 127 %8 12 Jan 2016 %G eng %U https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0964569115300703 %! Ocean & Coastal Management %R 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.11.021 %0 Generic %D 2015 %T Aerial survey monitors right whales off southern Australia - Fact sheet %A Nicholas J. Bax %X

A long-term aerial survey of right whales of southern Australia is charting the recovery of the species and providing a basis for monitoring the effects of environmental change.

Southern right whales, Eubalaena australis, were hunted almost to extinction in the Southern Hemisphere during the 19th Century. Signs of recovery have been apparent since the 1950s, particularly since the mid-1970s when their harvest was ceased. The rate of recovery has been monitored off southern Australia since 1993 in an annual survey led by WA Museum.
 

%8 01 Oct 2015 %G eng %0 Journal Article %J Nature %D 2015 %T Biodiversity: sharks and rays in peril too %A PM Kyne %A Nicholas J. Bax %A N K Dulvy %K Conservation biology %K fisheries %K Research data %X

Your status report on fauna biodiversity (Nature 516, 158–161; 2014) overlooks a group that is causing serious concern among conservationists — sharks, rays and chimaeras. These are particularly vulnerable to fishing and by-catch, in part because they mature late and produce few young.

An estimated 24% of this group, known as chondrichthyan fish, are threatened with extinction under the Red List criteria of the International Union for Conservation of Nature. This exceeds the percentage for birds and is comparable to that for mammals. There are insufficient data to determine status in 47% of chondrichthyan fish, and models predict that many of these could also be under threat, given their similar life history and morphology to the listed chondrichthyans.

Extinction of ocean fish is hard to verify. There is as yet no documented global extinction of a chondrichthyan, but many populations are locally or regionally extinct (such as sawfishes (Pristidae family); see N. K. Dulvy et al. Aquat. Conserv. http://doi.org/zkc; 2014). Some critically endangered species, including the Pondicherry shark (Carcharhinus hemiodon) in the Indo-West Pacific, have not been recorded in decades and may already be extinct.
 


 

%B Nature %V 518 %P 167 - 167 %8 12 Feb 2015 %G eng %U http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/518167e %N 7538 %! Nature %R 10.1038/518167e %0 Generic %D 2015 %T Defining the connectivity of Australia’s hammerhead sharks - Fact sheet %A Nicholas J. Bax %X

Defining the boundaries of hammerhead shark populations will bring scientists closer to assessing the status of these unique and susceptible species.  

Hammerhead sharks are known to swim large distances, including across the open ocean. Sharks from Australia may therefore mix with sharks from Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and islands of the Pacific.
Understanding these connections is central to providing information on the status of hammerhead shark populations to support Australian and international conservation and management initiatives.

A project led by the Australian Institute of Marine Science will use tagging and genetic sampling to see how hammerhead sharks are connected.

The project findings will be combined with biological, ecological and fisheries data to assess the stock structure and population status of hammerhead sharks in Australian waters.

The project is part of the National Environmental Science Programme (NESP) Marine Biodiversity Hub, an Australian Government initiative that aims to improve the knowledge of key marine species and ecosystems to underpin their management and protection.

%8 01 Oct 2015 %G eng %0 Journal Article %J Science of The Total Environment %D 2015 %T Designing Environmental Research for Impact %A Campbell, C.A. %A Lefroy, E.C. %A Caddy-Retalic, S. %A Nicholas J. Bax %A Doherty, P.J. %A Douglas, M.M. %A Johnson, D. %A Possingham, H.P. %A Specht, A. %A Tarte, D. %A West, J. %K Collaborative %K Flexible %K Knowledge brokering %K Knowledge management %K Multi-institutional %K Participatory %K Research strategy %K Transdisciplinary %X

Transdisciplinary research, involving close collaboration between researchers and the users of research, has been a feature of environmental problem solving for several decades, often spurred by the need to find negotiated outcomes to intractable problems. In 2005, the Australian government allocated funding to its environment portfolio for public good research, which resulted in consecutive four-year programmes (Commonwealth Environmental Research Facilities, National Environmental Research Program). In April 2014, representatives of the funders, researchers and research users associated with these programmes met to reflect on eight years of experience with these collaborative research models.

This structured reflection concluded that successful multi-institutional transdisciplinary research is necessarily a joint enterprise between funding agencies, researchers and the end users of research. The design and governance of research programmes need to explicitly recognise shared accountabilities among the participants, while respecting the different perspectives of each group. Experience shows that traditional incentive systems for academic researchers, current trends in public sector management, and loose organisation of many end users, work against sustained transdisciplinary research on intractable problems, which require continuity and adaptive learning by all three parties. The likelihood of research influencing and improving environmental policy and management is maximised when researchers, funders and research users have shared goals; there is sufficient continuity of personnel to build trust and sustain dialogue throughout the research process from issue scoping to application of findings; and there is sufficient flexibility in the funding, structure and operation of transdisciplinary research initiatives to enable the enterprise to assimilate and respond to new knowledge and situations.


 

%B Science of The Total Environment %8 15 Nov 2015 %G eng %U http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0048969714016830 %! Science of The Total Environment %R 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.11.089 %0 Generic %D 2015 %T Fostering the repair of Australia’s saltmarshes and shellfish reefs - Fact sheet %A Nicholas J. Bax %X

Scientists are charting the challenges and benefits of repairing nearshore ecosystems to inspire and guide the resurgence of these wellsprings of marine health and productivity.

Shellfish reefs and saltmarshes are vital to the health of Australia’s bays and estuaries, supporting marine life and fish production, regulating water quality and curbing coastal erosion. But these valuable nearshore eco-systems are in serious decline due to coastal development and activities such as intensive agriculture. Reparation efforts have begun in some locations, with the promise of significant benefits. Further projects, however, hinge on increasing awareness and joint investment among governments, businesses and the community.
 

%8 01 Oct 2015 %G eng %0 Report %D 2015 %T A hierarchical risk assessment framework for ecosystem based management %A Piers K Dunstan %A Jeffrey M Dambacher %A Nicholas J. Bax %A Tony Smith %A Elizabeth A. Fulton %A Paul Hedge %A Alistair J Hobday %A Scott D Foster %X

There is general agreement that assessment of risk in the marine environment needs to move toward an ecosystem approach to account for the single and cumulative impacts from multiple sectors that operate within the world’s oceans.


Despite there being fewer marine activities than in terrestrial environments, marine systems are challenging to manage on an ecosystem basis as a result of their complexity, high degree of connectivity and difficulties associated with observing ocean processes, flora and fauna. These challenges can make it difficult for researchers to know how to make best-use of available scientific information to inform policy makers about options for ecosystem management. A broad range of scientific tools and approaches have emerged to attempt to meet these differing needs and together these challenges and choices have stymied decision makers.
There is a clear need to develop a process that can assist governments and other decision makers to reduce the uncertainty around the risks of significant impacts in ecosystem based management. An important consideration in developing a framework for risk-based approach to ecosystem management is clarifying the terminology associated with the assessment, this is particularly important for facilitating collaboration between researchers and policy makers.


We suggest that a productive way to approach this would be to use a hierarchical approach where a range of tools can be used to identify activities that have a high risk of significant impact. We use values (eg conservation, resource or community) that have been described through an expert process to identify the relevant subsystem for management. The first level builds a conceptual model of the relevant subsystem and identifies the pressures that act on that subsystem. The second level uses mathematical qualitative models to refine the understanding of the system and to reduce the uncertainty around the system structure. The final level uses quantitative and qualitative models to identify specific thresholds, management trigger points and scenarios. Each level reduces the uncertainty in decisions but increase the costs and time taken.


The hierarchical framework proposed in this paper provides scientists and policy makers with guidance and a common lexicon for assessing cumulative risks and estimating impacts to marine ecosystems. The framework provides for a cost-effective and consistent approach to assessments, accommodating a broad range of marine environment assessment cases, leading to priorities for action. The approach acknowledges the importance of ecosystem models for estimating cumulative risks and provides a frame for understanding how they can be cost-effectively and consistently applied to estimate impacts and improve understanding.

 

%8 01 Sep 2015 %G eng %0 Journal Article %J Ecological Indicators %D 2015 %T Identifying indicators and essential variables for marine ecosystems %A K.R. Hayes %A Jeffrey M Dambacher %A G.R. Hosack %A Nicholas J. Bax %A Piers K Dunstan %A Elizabeth A. Fulton %A Peter A. Thompson %A Hartog, J.R. %A Alistair J Hobday %A R. W. Bradford %A Scott D Foster %A Paul Hedge %A Smith, D.C. %A Marshall, C.J. %K ecological indicators %K Essential variables %K Monitoring; Ecosystem health %X

Identifying essential biological variables in marine ecosystems is harder than essential ocean variables because choices about the latter are guided by the needs of global oceanic models, and the number of candidate variables to choose from is much smaller. We present a process designed to assist managers identify biological indicators and essential variables for marine ecosystems, and demonstrate its application to Australia's Exclusive Economic Zone. The process begins with a spatially explicit description of key ecological systems and predicts how these systems are impacted by anthropogenic pressures. The process does not require experts to agree on the system's structure or the activities that threaten the ecosystem. Rather it defines a suite of pressure scenarios that accommodate uncertainty in these aspects, and seeks to identify indicators that are predicted to respond in a consistent fashion across these scenarios. When the process is applied at national or regional scales, essential biological variables emerge as the set of consistent indicators that are common to similar but spatially distinct systems.
 

%B Ecological Indicators %V 57 %P 409 - 419 %8 01 Jun 2015 %G eng %U http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1470160X15002265 %! Ecological Indicators %R 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.05.006 %0 Journal Article %J Bulletin of Marine Science %D 2015 %T Lessons learned at the interface of marine ecology and environmental management in Australia %A Johnathan T. Kool %A Sharon A Appleyard %A Nicholas J. Bax %A Ford, John %A Hillman, Karen %A Howe, Steffan %A Emma L Jackson %A Kirkman, Hugh %A Parr, Amanda %A Slawinski, Dirk %A Stafford-Bell, Richard %X

Marine scientists and environmental managers engaged in a roundtable discussion at the Australian Marine Sciences Association conference in July 2014 to identify areas where linkages could be improved between the two groups. Here, we summarize the key themes and outcomes from the discussion, including the need to clearly define management objectives, to identify the scale of the issue, to conduct effective science communication, to address uncertainty, and to perform iterative engagement. We also discuss some of the challenges inherent in establishing new linkages, and provide a set of examples where effective collaborations have been achieved between marine ecologists and environmental managers working in Australia.
 

%B Bulletin of Marine Science %8 01 Jul 2015 %G eng %U http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/umrsmas/bullmar/2015/00000091/00000004/art00006 %! BMS %R 10.5343/bms.2015.1006 %0 Report %D 2015 %T NERP Marine Biodiversity Hub Final Report 2011-2015 %A Nicholas J. Bax %A Paul Hedge %X

This Marine Biodiversity Hub Final Report documents research undertaken between 2011 and 2015 for the Australian Government's National Environmental Research Program.  

The report focuses on approaches, key findings, new knowledge and opportunities, outputs and outcomes, in the following areas:

  1. Protecting conservation values in the Commonwealth marine area
  2. Supporting the recovery of threatened, endangered and protected species
  3. Management of Commonwealth marine reserves and the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area
  4. International extension

 

The overall objective for the NERP Marine Biodiversity Hub was to ‘provide scientific information and advice that will support (the Department of the Environment) in decision making in the marine environment, specifically to:

How can I obtain a copy?

There are three versions of the report available –

  1. printed hard copy - request a copy
  2. pdf version - download at Item link below
  3. click your way through the interactive version - play the videos, investigate by research area, explore by geographic region, or trawl our imagery and maps - http://nerpmarinebiodiversity2015.report/

 

%I University of Tasmania %G eng %0 Generic %D 2015 %T NESP Marine Biodiversity Hub Research Plan - 2015 RPv1 - Project Proposals %A Nicholas J. Bax %A Paul Hedge %K annual research plan %K RPv1 %X

This Research Plan for 2015 (RPv1) has been developed by the Marine Biodiversity Hub, in consultation with the Department of the Environment and Energy and other key stakeholders.

The purpose of the Research Plan is to outline:

This Research Plan also lists key staff and research organisations, and the risks needing to be monitored to ensure success.

Please note:

%8 23 Sep 2015 %0 Report %D 2015 %T Towards a blueprint for monitoring Key Ecological Features in the Commonwealth Marine Area %A Keith R Hayes %A Jeffrey M Dambacher %A Paul Hedge %A David Watts %A Scott D Foster %A Peter A. Thompson %A G.R. Hosack %A Piers K Dunstan %A Nicholas J. Bax %X

The Australian Government Department of the Environment is seeking to strengthen the evidence base to protect, sustainably manage and report on the health of the Commonwealth Marine Area (CMA). The Department is also (but initially in a terrestrial and freshwater context) trying to improve the availability of timely and meaningful information on trends in the state of the environment through a new initiative, called the Essential Environmental Measures for Australia, under the National Plan for Environmental Information (NPEI). This document supports these objectives by providing options for monitoring of, and reporting on, Key Ecological Features (KEFs) to help the Department identify a limited set of Essential Environmental Measures and strengthen the evidence base for reporting on the health of the CMA: it represents the first step towards a blueprint for a sustained approach to environmental monitoring and reporting.


Also view the brochure - Monitoring Australia's oceans: towards a blueprint

%8 01 Nov 2015 %G eng %0 Generic %D 2015 %T Towards a national population assessment for white sharks - Fact sheet %A Nicholas J. Bax %X

A unique combination of acoustic tagging and genetic and statistical analysis is contributing to the first evidence-based estimates of white shark population size and status in Australia.

White sharks are listed as vulnerable under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999 and actions to assist their recovery and long-term viability are prescribed in a national recovery plan for the species. A priority action is to develop an effective means of estimating the size of white shark populations and monitor their status (population trend). This would provide a scientific basis for assessing recovery actions, and for local policies governing human-shark interactions: an issue of significant public concern.

 

%8 01 Oct 2015 %G eng %0 Journal Article %J Marine Policy %D 2014 %T The Convention on Biological Diversity's Ecologically or Biologically Significant Areas: Origins, development, and current status %A Daniel C. Dunn %A Jeff A Ardron %A Nicholas J. Bax %A Bernal, Patricio %A Cleary, Jesse %A I D Cresswell %A Donnelly, Ben %A Piers K Dunstan %A Kristina M. Gjerde %A Johnson, David %A Kaschner, Kristin %A Lascelles, Ben %A Rice, Jake %A von Nordheim, Henning %A Wood, Louisa %A Halpin, Patrick N. %K Areas beyond national jurisdiction %K Convention on Biological Diversity %K EBSA %K Ecologically or Biologically Significant Areas %K High seas %K Marine protected areas %X

In 2008, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted seven criteria to identify Ecologically or Biologically Significant Areas (EBSAs) “…in need of protection, in open ocean waters and deep sea habitats”. This paper reviews the history of the development of the “EBSA process”, which was originally driven by the commitment to establish marine protected areas in areas beyond national jurisdiction, but which has since broadened to encompass the possibility of informing marine spatial planning and other activities, both within and beyond national jurisdiction. Additionally, the paper summarizes ongoing efforts through CBD regional workshops to describe EBSAs and the development of the EBSA Repository, where information on these areas is to be stored. The overlap between the EBSA criteria and biodiversity criteria suites used by various authorities in areas beyond national jurisdiction is illustrated. The EBSA process has reached a critical juncture, whereby a large percentage of the global ocean has been considered by the regional workshops, but the procedure by which these areas can be incorporated into formal management structures has not yet been fully developed. Emerging difficulties regarding the mandate to describe, identify, endorse, or adopt EBSAs, are discussed.

%B Marine Policy %8 01 Jan 2014 %G eng %U http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0308597X13002856 %! Marine Policy %R 10.1016/j.marpol.2013.12.002 %0 Generic %D 2014 %T Marine Biodiversity Hub Annual Work Plan 2014 %A Nicholas J. Bax %K annual research plan %G eng %0 Book Section %B Biodiversity - Science and Solutions for Australia %D 2014 %T Mining and biodiversity IN Biodiversity - Science and Solutions for Australia %A Anderson, Alan %A Cook, Garry %A Nicholas J. Bax %X

 

Chapter 11 Mining and biodiversity - download here or book can be downloaded from  http://www.publish.csiro.au/pid/6967.htm

%B Biodiversity - Science and Solutions for Australia %7 June 2014 %I CSIRO Publishing %P 167-178 %@ 9781486302062 %G eng %U http://www.publish.csiro.au/pid/6967.htm %& 11 %0 Generic %D 2014 %T NERP Marine Biodiversity Hub - Highlights 2013 brochure %A Nicholas J. Bax %X

This brochure includes research highlights for 2013.

A web version of this brochure is also available.

%8 01 Apr 2014 %G eng %0 Journal Article %J Marine Policy %D 2013 %T Better integration of sectoral planning and management approaches for the interlinked ecology of the open oceans %A Natalie C. Ban %A Maxwell, Sara M. %A Daniel C. Dunn %A Alistair J Hobday %A Nicholas J. Bax %A Jeff A Ardron %A Kristina M. Gjerde %A Edward T Game %A Devillers, Rodolphe %A Kaplan, David M. %A Piers K Dunstan %A Halpin, Patrick N. %A Pressey, Robert L. %K Areas beyond national jurisdiction %K Benthic-pelagic interlinkages %K High seas %K Marine conservation %K Marine protected areas %K Sustainable fisheries %X

Open oceans are one of the least protected, least studied and most inadequately managed ecosystems on Earth. Three themes were investigated that differentiate the open ocean (areas beyond national jurisdiction and deep area within exclusive economic zones) from other realms and must be considered when developing planning and management options: ecosystem interactions, especially between benthic and pelagic systems; potential effects of human activities in open oceans on ecological linkages; and policy context and options. A number of key ecological factors differentiate open oceans from coastal systems for planners and managers: (1) many species are widely distributed and, especially for those at higher trophic levels, wide ranging; (2) the sizes and boundaries of biogeographical domains (patterns of co-occurrence of species, habitats and ecosystem processes) vary significantly by depth; (3) habitat types exhibit a wide range of stabilities, from ephemeral (e.g., surface frontal systems) to hyper-stable (e.g., deep sea); and (4) vertical and horizontal linkages are prevalent. Together, these ecological attributes point to interconnectedness between open ocean habitats across large spatial scales. Indeed, human activities – especially fishing, shipping, and potentially deep-sea mining and oil and gas extraction – have effects far beyond the parts of the ocean in which they operate. While managing open oceans in an integrated fashion will be challenging, the ecological characteristics of the system demand it. A promising avenue forward is to integrate aspects of marine spatial planning (MSP), systematic conservation planning (SCP), and adaptive management. These three approaches to planning and management need to be integrated to meet the unique needs of open ocean systems, with MSP providing the means to meet a diversity of stakeholder needs, SCP providing the structured process to determine and prioritise those needs and appropriate responses, and adaptive management providing rigorous monitoring and evaluation to determine whether actions or their modifications meet both ecological and defined stakeholder needs. The flexibility of MSP will be enhanced by the systematic approach of SCP, while the rigorous monitoring of adaptive management will enable continued improvement as new information becomes available and further experience is gained.

%B Marine Policy %8 27 Dec 2013 %G eng %U http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0308597X13002832 %! Marine Policy %R 10.1016/j.marpol.2013.11.024 %0 Journal Article %J Advances in Marine Biology %D 2013 %T The Coral Sea: Physical Environment, Ecosystem Status and Biodiversity Assets %A Daniela Ceccarelli %A McKinnon, A. David %A Serge Andréfouët %A Allain, Valerie %A Jock W. Young %A Daniel C Gledhill %A Flynn, Adrian %A Nicholas J. Bax %A R J Beaman %A Borsa, Philippe %A Brinkman, Richard %A Rodrigo H. Bustamante %A Campbell, Robert %A Cappo, Mike %A Cravatte, Sophie %A D’Agata, Stephanie %A Dichmont, Catherine M. %A Piers K Dunstan %A Dupouy, Cecile %A Graham J. Edgar %A Farman, Richard %A Furnas, Miles %A Garrigue, Claire %A Hutton, Trevor %A Kulbicki, Michel %A Letourneur, Yves %A Lindsay, Dhugal %A Menkes, Christophe %A Mouillot, David %A Parravicini, Valeriano %A Payri, Claude %A Pelletier, Bernard %A Richer de Forges, Bertrand %A Ridgway, Ken %A Rodier, Martine %A Samadi, Sarah %A Schoeman, David %A Skewes, Tim %A Swearer, Steven %A Vigliola, Laurent %A Wantiez, Laurent %A Williams, Alan %A Williams, Ashley %A Richardson, Anthony J. %K Collaborative research %K connectivity %K Ecosystem function %K Food web %K Pristine ecosystems %K Tropical sea %X

The Coral Sea, located at the southwestern rim of the Pacific Ocean, is the only tropical
marginal sea where human impacts remain relatively minor. Patterns and processes
identified within the region have global relevance as a baseline for understanding
impacts in more disturbed tropical locations. Despite 70 years of documented research,
the Coral Sea has been relatively neglected, with a slower rate of increase in publications
over the past 20 years than total marine research globally. We review current knowledge
of the Coral Sea to provide an overview of regional geology, oceanography, ecology
and fisheries. Interactions between physical features and biological assemblages influence
ecological processes and the direction and strength of connectivity among Coral
Sea ecosystems. To inform management effectively, we will need to fill some major
knowledge gaps, including geographic gaps in sampling and a lack of integration of
research themes, which hinder the understanding of most ecosystem processes.

%B Advances in Marine Biology %I Advances in Marine Biology %V 66 %P 213 - 290 %@ 9780124080966 %G eng %U http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/B9780124080966000043 %R 10.1016/B978-0-12-408096-6.00004-3 %0 Report %D 2013 %T Integrated monitoring framework for the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area %A Paul Hedge %A Fergus Molloy %A H Sweatman %A Jeffrey M Dambacher %A Chandler, J %A Gooch, M %A A Chin %A Nicholas J. Bax %A Terry Walshe %X

This project was commissioned to establish a framework for a standardised and integrated ecological, social and economic monitoring program. In undertaking this project, the team developed and tested practical guidance that would help partners involved in a strategic assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) to establish a framework for integrated monitoring. The Integrated Monitoring Framework (IMF) guidance identifies the steps and provides clear direction to develop efficient and effective monitoring and reporting on the condition of nationally protected matters – Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) – and support adaptive management of these assets. The guidance was applied to the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA) with the intention that the approach could be used to inform the potential development of other integrated monitoring programs in other coastal and marine regions of Australia.

Download the report - An integrated monitoring framework for the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, Department of the Environment, Canberra


Related information

View the related journal article "An integrated monitoring framework for the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area", Marine Policy, 2017

%I Australian Government Department of the Environment %G eng %U http://www.environment.gov.au/sustainability/publications/integrated-monitoring-framework-great-barrier-reef-world-heritage-area %0 Generic %D 2013 %T Marine Biodiversity Hub Annual Work Plan 2013 %A Nicholas J. Bax %K annual research plan %G eng %0 Generic %D 2013 %T NERP Marine Biodiversity Hub - Research Portfolio 2013 brochure %A Nicholas J. Bax %X

This brochure includes an overview by Director Nic Bax and descriptions of current research projects.

A web version of this brochure is also available.

 

%G eng %0 Journal Article %J Climatic Change %D 2013 %T An ocean observation system for monitoring the affects of climate change on the ecology and sustainability of pelagic fisheries in the Pacific Ocean %A Nicol, Simon J. %A Allain, Valerie %A Pilling, Graham M. %A Polovina, Jeff %A Coll, Marta %A Bell, Johann %A Dalzell, Paul %A Sharples, Peter %A Olson, Robert %A Griffiths, Shane %A Jeffrey M Dambacher %A Young, Jock %A Lewis, Antony %A Hampton, John %A Jurado Molina, Jesus %A Hoyle, Simon %A Briand, Karine %A Nicholas J. Bax %A Lehodey, Patrick %A Williams, Peter %K climate change %K monitoring %K ocean observation %K Pacific Ocean %K pelagic fisheries %X

Climate change presents an emerging challenge to the sustainable management of tuna fisheries, and robust information is essential to ensure future sustainability. Climate and harvest affect tuna stocks, populations of non-target, dependent species and the ecosystem. To provide relevant advice we need an improved understanding of oceanic ecosystems and better data to parameterise the models that forecast the impacts of climate change. Currently ocean-wide data collection in the Pacific Ocean is primarily restricted to oceanographic data. However, the fisheries observer programs that operate in the region offer an opportunity to collect the additional information on the mid and upper trophic levels of the ecosystem that is necessary to complement this physical data, including time-series of distribution, abundance, size, composition and biological information on target and non-target species and mid trophic level organisms. These observer programs are in their infancy, with limited temporal and spatial distribution but recent international and national policy decisions have been made to expand their coverage. We identify a number of actions to initiate this monitoring including: consolidating collaborations to ensure the use of best quality data; developing consistency between sub-regional observer programmes to ensure that they meet the objectives of ecosystem monitoring; interrogating of existing time series to determine the most appropriate spatial template for monitoring; and exploring existing ecosystem models to identify suitable indicators of ecosystem status and change. The information obtained should improve capacity to develop fisheries management policies that are resilient and can be adapted to climate change.

%B Climatic Change %V 119 %P 131 - 145 %8 9 Oct 2012 %G eng %U http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-012-0598-y %N 1 %! Climatic Change %R 10.1007/s10584-012-0598-y %0 Journal Article %J Conservation Letters %D 2013 %T Systematic conservation planning: A better recipe for managing the high seas for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use %A Natalie C. Ban %A Nicholas J. Bax %A Kristina M. Gjerde %A Devillers, Rodolphe %A Daniel C. Dunn %A Piers K Dunstan %A Alistair J Hobday %A Maxwell, Sara M. %A Kaplan, David M. %A Pressey, Robert L. %A Jeff A Ardron %A Edward T Game %A Halpin, Patrick N. %K Areas beyond national jurisdiction; deep sea; marine conservation; marine protected areas; marine spatial planning; open ocean; sustainable fisheries. %X
At the UN Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio in June 2012, world
leaders committed to the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological
diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (the high seas). Our analysis of
gaps in high seas management indicates that a paradigm shift to a more system-
atic approach will be needed to safeguard high seas biodiversity from mounting
threats. Experience from terrestrial and coastal areas indicates that a system-
atic approach to conservation planning and management can help to maintain
ecosystem health and productivity while enabling sustainable use. Our anal-
ysis further demonstrates that the current legal regime on the high seas is
insufficient to realize these objectives: management institutions have neither
an adequate mandate for integrated planning nor the ability to effectively co-
ordinate across multiple management regimes. We identify key elements for
future high seas management and posit that a two-pronged approach is most
promising: the development of an improved global legal regime that incorpo-
rates systematic planning as well as the expansion of existing and new regional
agreements and mandates. This combined approach is most likely to achieve
the required ecosystem-based, integrated and science-based management that
world leaders at Rio acknowledged should underpin ocean management.
%B Conservation Letters %8 01 Feb 2013 %G eng %U http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12010/abstract %! CONSERVATION LETTERS %R 10.1111/conl.12010 %0 Journal Article %J PLoS ONE %D 2012 %T Characterising and predicting benthic biodiversity for conservation planning in deepwater environments %A Piers K Dunstan %A Althaus, Franziska %A Williams, Alan %A Nicholas J. Bax %A Bograd, Steven J. %X

Understanding patterns of biodiversity in deep sea systems is increasingly important because human activities are extending further into these areas. However, obtaining data is difficult, limiting the ability of science to inform management decisions. We have used three different methods of quantifying biodiversity to describe patterns of biodiversity in an area that includes two marine reserves in deep water off southern Australia. We used biological data collected during a recent survey, combined with extensive physical data to model, predict and map three different attributes of biodiversity: distributions of common species, beta diversity and rank abundance distributions (RAD). The distribution of each of eight common species was unique, although all the species respond to a depth-correlated physical gradient. Changes in composition (beta diversity) were large, even between sites with very similar environmental conditions. Composition at any one site was highly uncertain, and the suite of species changed dramatically both across and down slope. In contrast, the distributions of the RAD components of biodiversity (community abundance, richness, and evenness) were relatively smooth across the study area, suggesting that assemblage structure (i.e. the distribution of abundances of species) is limited, irrespective of species composition. Seamounts had similar biodiversity based on metrics of species presence, beta diversity, total abundance, richness and evenness to the adjacent continental slope in the same depth ranges. These analyses suggest that conservation objectives need to clearly identify which aspects of biodiversity are valued, and employ an appropriate suite of methods to address these aspects, to ensure that conservation goals are met.

%B PLoS ONE %V 7 %P e36558 %8 01 May 2012 %U http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0036558 %N 5 %! PLoS ONE %R 10.1371/journal.pone.0036558 %0 Book Section %B Seafloor Geomorphology as Benthic Habitat %D 2012 %T Evaluating Geomorphic Features as Surrogates for Benthic Biodiversity on Australia’s Western Continental Margin %A Althaus, Franziska %A Williams, Alan %A Kloser, Rudy J. %A Seiler, Jan %A Nicholas J. Bax %K epifauna %K hierarchical habitat classification %K video data %K Western Australia %X

Australia's western continental margin extends over∼2,000 km, from subtropical to temperate latitudes (∼18–35ºS). The regional oceanography overlying the deep continental shelf and slope area (∼100–1,000 m depths) is profoundly influenced by the southward-flowing Leeuwin current (LC) to depths of ∼300 m, and by a northward-flowing counter-current, the Leeuwin Undercurrent (LUC) below those depths. The LC is characterized by warm, low-salinity, low-productivity waters, whereas the LUC is characterized by colder more oxygenated waters. The role of these features as ecological habitats and their potential as surrogates for biodiversity were examined in the context of a hierarchical habitat classification scheme used by Last et al. to define bioregions for marine management planning in Australian waters. Associations of epibenthic megafauna with habitats along Australia's western margin were evaluated quantitatively summarizing the presence/absence scores of 11 fauna types in the video frames into percentage occurrences of dominant fauna for each sample. The scored fauna types were: sessile fauna absent, bioturbators, anemones, seapen, stalked sponge, ascidians, bryozoa, crinoids, sponges, coral, and coral (reef); all scored at low or high abundance. It is necessary to have information at coarser scales to provide ecologically meaningful context, while information at finer scales provides ecologically meaningful detail.

Book: https://www.elsevier.com/books/seafloor-geomorphology-as-benthic-habitat/harris/978-0-12-385140-6

%B Seafloor Geomorphology as Benthic Habitat %I Elsevier %P 665 - 679 %@ 9780123851406 %G eng %U https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/B9780123851406000487 %& 48 %R 10.1016/B978-0-12-385140-6.00048-7 %0 Journal Article %J Diversity and Distributions %D 2012 %T Identifying hotspots for biodiversity management using rank abundance distributions %A Piers K Dunstan %A Nicholas J. Bax %A Scott D Foster %A Williams, Alan %A Althaus, Franziska %K Biodiversity %K hotspot %K Prediction %K rank abundance distribution %X

Identification of biodiversity hotspots has typically relied on species richness. We extend this approach to include prediction to regional scales of other attributes of biodiversity based on the prediction of Rank Abundance Distributions (RADs). This allows us to identify areas that have high numbers
of rare species and areas that have a rare assemblage structure.

%B Diversity and Distributions %V 18 %P 22 - 32 %8 01 Jan 2012 %G eng %U http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2011.00838.x %N 1 %R 10.1111/j.1472-4642.2011.00838.x %0 Generic %D 2012 %T Marine Biodiversity Hub Annual Work Plan 2012 %A Nicholas J. Bax %K annual research plan %G eng %0 Journal Article %J Journal of Biogeography %D 2011 %T Biogeographical structure and affinities of the marine demersal ichthyofauna of Australia %A Last, Peter R. %A William T White %A Gledhill, Daniel C. %A John J Pogonoski %A Lyne, Vince %A Nicholas J. Bax %K Australia %K bathomes %K Biogeography %K conservation biogeography %K endemism %K faunal provinces %K Indo-Pacific %K marine fishes %K regional marine planning %X

Aim

To investigate the biogeographical structure and affinities of the Australian marine demersal ichthyofauna at the scale of provinces and bathomes for the purposes of regional marine planning.

Location Australia.

Methods

Patterns of distribution in the Australian fish fauna, at both intra‐regional and global scales, were examined using a science‐based, management framework dividing Australia’s marine biodiversity into 16 province‐level biogeographical units. Occurrences of 3734 species in eight depth‐stratified bathomes (from the coast to the mid‐continental slope) within each province were analysed to determine the structure and local affinities of their assemblages and their association with faunas of nearby regions and oceans basins.

Results

Strong geographic and depth‐related structure was evident. Fish assemblages in each province, and in each bathome of each province, were distinct, with the shelf‐break bathome more similar to the adjacent continental shelf bathome than to the upper slope bathome. Data based only on endemic species performed well as a surrogate of the entire dataset, yielding comparable patterns of similarity between provinces and bathomes. Tropical and temperate elements were better discriminated than elements of the Pacific and Indian oceans, with the central western province more similar to the tropical provinces (including those in the east), and the eastern province closer to southern temperate provinces. The fauna shares the closest regional affinities with those of the adjacent south‐west Pacific, western Pacific Rim, and elements of wide‐ranging Indo‐Pacific components. Elements unique to the Pacific and Indian oceans are poorly represented.

Main conclusions

The complex nature of Australia’s marine ichthyofauna is confirmed. A hierarchy of provinces and bathomes, used to ensure that Australia’s developing marine reserve network is both representative and comprehensive, is equally robust when based on all known Australian fish species or on only those species endemic to this continent. Latitude and depth are more important than oceanic influences on the composition of this fauna at these scales.

Wiley full text version via Shareable link https://rdcu.be/b1c55

%B Journal of Biogeography %V 38 %P 1484 - 1496 %8 22 Mar 2011 %G eng %U http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/jbi.2011.38.issue-8 %N 8 %R 10.1111/jbi.2011.38.issue-810.1111/j.1365-2699.2011.02484.x %0 Report %D 2011 %T CERF Marine Biodiversity Hub Final Report 2007-2010 %A Nicholas J. Bax %A Brendan P Brooke %A Daniel C Gledhill %A C Roland Pitcher %A Chris Wilcox %X

Published: March 2011

Media release

%I CERF Marine Biodiversity Hub %0 Report %D 2011 %T CERF Report on Transition and Extension Program %A Nicholas J. Bax %X The Marine Biodiversity Hub (MBH) applied for transition funding to capitalise on investments made as part of the initial Hub funding and on additional work completed by Hub partners during that time. Products from the transition period include increasing the number of phyla available for national biodiversity mapping from one to four, providing uncertainty estimates for national biodiversity maps used in marine bioregional planning, extending statistical methods to apply to additional questions identified by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, SEWPaC (previously Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, DEWHA) and completing a gap analysis of biological and physical data for national biodiversity mapping. These new data and methods will be available to support the implementation of marine regional plans (especially in the Northwest), will test the existing predictive national biodiversity maps, and will provide the scientific basis for a possible IMCRA 5.0. In addition the Hub is proposing an active period of direct engagement with the Department (Marine, ERIN and Heritage), providing expert advice in response to specific Department requests, and bringing together workshops of expert scientists and natural resource managers to address specific questions identified by the Department (MPA monitoring, use of market-based instruments in conservation planning, additional support for managing threatened and endangered species, identification of areas of interest to Heritage listing). Ongoing communication with the Department and other stakeholders will be maximised through the use of an established knowledge broker and the Hub newsletter. ******************************************************************** HARVEST PROGRAM - Development of further products from existing research Taking advantage of existing products and knowledge generated by the Hub to improve uptake in support of improved management Further development of market based instruments (MBIs) to support structural readjustment options Fishers’ adaptation ******************************************************************** EXTENSION PROGRAM – Research aligned to future CERF program directions Extending national data holdings in preparation for future marine biodiversity research to support implementation of marine bioregional plans Extend statistical methods developed for marine biodiversity mapping to support further application to meet Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities needs %I CERF Marine Biodiversity Hub %0 Generic %D 2011 %T Marine Biodiversity Hub Multi-Year Research Plan 2011 - 2014 %A Nicholas J. Bax %K annual research plan %X

This Multi-Year Research Plan (MYRP) has been developed for the NERP Marine Biodiversity Hub by Director Nic Bax in consultation with Hub partners and stakeholders.  It broadly describes the scope of the Hub’s research work program over the period 2011 to 2014.  It will be accompanied by several Annual Work Plans (AWPs), which will define details of the scheduled activities on an annual basis.

The purpose of the Multi-Year Research Plan is to:

The primary audience for the MYRP is the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, environment portfolio agencies, particularly the Department of Sustainability, Environment,  Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC) and the Hub with its researchers. Other interested stakeholders include non-hub researchers, government and non-government organisations and the general public.

Related information: Marine Biodiversity Hub Annual Work Plan 2012
 

Download the Hub's Multi-Year Research Plan - see Item field below

 

%0 Journal Article %J Current Biology %D 2011 %T A Southern Hemisphere bathyal fauna is distributed in latitudinal bands %A Tim O'Hara %A Rowden, Ashley A. %A Nicholas J. Bax %X The large-scale spatial distribution of seafloor fauna is still poorly understood. In particular, the bathyal zone has been identified as the key depth stratum requiring further macroecological research [1], particularly in the Southern Hemisphere [2]. Here we analyze a large biological data set derived from 295 research expeditions, across an equatorto- pole sector of the Indian, Pacific, and Southern oceans, to show that the bathyal ophiuroid fauna is distributed in three broad latitudinal bands and not primarily differentiated by oceanic basins as previously assumed. Adjacent faunas form transitional ecoclines rather than biogeographical breaks. This pattern is similar to that in shallow water despite the order-of-magnitude reduction in the variability of environmental parameters at bathyal depths. A reliable biogeography is fundamental to establishing a representative network of marine reserves across the world’s oceans %B Current Biology %I Current Biology %V 21 %P 226 - 230 %8 01 Feb 2011 %U http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2811%2900003-0 %N 3 %! Current Biology %R 10.1016/j.cub.2011.01.002 %0 Generic %D 2010 %T CERF Hub Factsheet 2010 - Ensuring a future for life in Australia’s oceans %A Nicholas J. Bax %X

The Marine Biodiversity Hub is supporting the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities'(previously Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts DEWHA) marine planning by providing national and regional maps of predicted patterns of marine biodiversity in Australia’s oceans, and an increased range of options for its management. This capability is crucial to conserving and managing Australia’s marine biodiversity and will complement Australia’s National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas (NRSMPA) due to be in place by 2012. Together, the NRSMPA and off-reserve management provide the best option for long-term protection and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in light of competing demands on the marine environment.

Also see our 2012 NERP Marine Biodiversity Hub Factsheet

%0 Journal Article %D 2010 %T Marine biodiversity in the Australian region %A Butler, Alan J. %A T Rees %A Beesley, P. %A Nicholas J. Bax %X

The entire Australian marine jurisdictional area, including offshore and sub-Antarctic islands, is considered in this paper. Most records, however, come from the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) around the continent of Australia itself. The counts of species have been obtained from four primary databases (the Australian Faunal Directory, Codes for Australian Aquatic Biota, Online Zoological Collections of Australian Museums, and the Australian node of the Ocean Biogeographic Information System), but even these are an underestimate of described species. In addition, some partially completed databases for particular taxonomic groups, and specialized databases (for introduced and threatened species) have been used. Experts also provided estimates of the number of known species not yet in the major databases. For only some groups could we obtain an (expert opinion) estimate of undiscovered species. The databases provide patchy information about endemism, levels of threat, and introductions. We conclude that there are about 33,000 marine species (mainly animals) in the major databases, of which 130 are introduced, 58 listed as threatened and an unknown percentage endemic. An estimated 17,000 more named species are either known from the Australian EEZ but not in the present databases, or potentially occur there. It is crudely estimated that there may be as many as 250,000 species (known and yet to be discovered) in the Australian EEZ. For 17 higher taxa, there is sufficient detail for subdivision by Large Marine Domains, for comparison with other National and Regional Implementation Committees of the Census of Marine Life. Taxonomic expertise in Australia is unevenly distributed across taxa, and declining. Comments are given briefly on biodiversity management measures in Australia, including but not limited to marine protected areas.

%I Public Library of Science (PLoS) %V 5 %8 01 Aug 2010 %U http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0011831 %N 8 %R 10.1371/journal.pone.0011831 %0 Generic %D 2010 %T Market Based Instruments Workshop 4 November 2010 - Marine Biodiversity Hub & Future Research for MBIs %A Nicholas J. Bax %I University of Tasmania/CSIRO %0 Generic %D 2010 %T MPA workshop 16 November 2010 - Marine Biodiversity Hub & Future Research for MPAs %A Nicholas J. Bax %I UTAS/CSIRO %0 Report %D 2010 %T Scales of habitat heterogeneity and megabenthos biodiversity on an extensive Australian continental margin (100-1,000m depths) %A Williams, Alan %A Althaus, Franziska %A Piers K Dunstan %A Gary C. B. Poore %A Nicholas J. Bax %A Rudy J Kloser %A Felicity McEnnulty %K Biodiversity conservation %K continental slope %K diversity %K hierarchy %K Leeuwin Current %K rarity %K seabed habitat %K spatial scales %X

The first large systematic collection of benthic invertebrate megafauna from the Australian continental margin (depths > 100 m) revealed high species richness and novelty on the south-western continental slope (∼100–1100 m depth; ∼18° S–35° S). A total of 1979 morphologically defined species was discriminated in seven taxa across all samples: Demospongiae, Decapoda, corals (Octocorallia and Antipatharia), Mollusca, Echinodermata, Ascidiacea, and Pycnogonida. Collectively, 59% were estimated to be new or unnamed species. The distribution pattern of megafaunal communities, analysed with a suite of 17 physical covariates, was most influenced at large spatial scales (>100s km) by bottom temperature, oxygen concentration and latitude, whereas at smaller scales (10s of km), seabed type was most influential. Many covariates are driven by the same physical processes and are correlated (e.g. to depth or latitude), thus it is not possible to ascribe causal relationships to fauna distributions. However, their identification highlights the spatial scales that determine the composition of megafaunal communities. Regional-scale transitions in bottom temperature and oxygen concentration are determined by water masses and currents that interact with the south-western margin seabed in different ways depending on location. The nested, smaller-scale heterogeneity of seabed type, classified simply as ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ terrain, differentiates consolidated attachment sites for sessile fauna from sediments suited to mobile and burrowing fauna. Different physical factors affect the distribution of benthic fauna at different scales. Collectively, these patterns of heterogeneity can be represented in a hierarchical framework that consists of biogeographic provinces, biomes, biogeomorphic features, terrains, and finer scales. The Australian government is using a hierarchical approach to identify bioregions for management purposes; a key aim is to ensure that a National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas (NRSMPA) will meet the requirement of comprehensiveness, adequacy and representativeness. Important findings from this study are that the provincial structure of invertebrate megabenthos broadly aligns with the provincial structure derived earlier from the distribution of fishes, but there are differences in the distribution of individual major taxa at both provincial and megahabitat scales. Representative coverage of rarer taxa or narrowly distributed taxa might not be feasible at the same time as ensuring main fauna groups are adequately represented. The hierarchical scales of heterogeneity of the megabenthos in this area, the differences between taxa, and the high proportion of apparently rare species make it clear that it will be as important to manage the area outside the NRSMPA as to manage the NRSMPA itself. Management will be required at different scales that correspond to the multiscale spatial heterogeneity of continental margin fauna.

%I Marine Ecology %U http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123264322/abstract %0 Journal Article %J Marine Ecology %D 2010 %T Seamount megabenthic assemblages fail to recover from trawling impacts %A Williams, Alan %A Thomas A Schlacher %A Rowden, Ashley A. %A Althaus, Franziska %A Malcolm R Clark %A Bowden, David A. %A Stewart, Robert %A Nicholas J. Bax %A Consalvey, Mireille %A Rudy J Kloser %K benthic megafauna %K conservation management %K deep sea %K diversity %K ecological resilience %K photographic survey %X Because the nature, tempo and trajectories of biological changes that follow the cessation of trawling are unknown for seamounts, it is unclear whether closing them to trawling will lead to a recovery of the fauna and, if so, over what time scales. This paper reports on a ‘test of recovery’ from repeated towed camera surveys on three seamounts off New Zealand in 2001 and 2006 (5 years apart) and three off Australia in 1997 and 2006 (10 years apart). In each region, seamounts where trawling had ceased were compared to adjacent seamounts where trawling was still active, and to seamounts that had never been trawled. If recovery signals existed, the likelihood of detecting them was high because the seamounts were relatively small and topographically simple, and because quantitative survey methods were employed. Multivariate patterns showed no change in the megafaunal assemblage consistent with recovery over a 5–10 year timeframe on seamounts where trawling had ceased. Results based on the number of species and diversity were equivocal, with some cases of increase and decrease on seamounts where trawling had ceased. A few individual taxa were found at significantly higher abundance in the later surveys where trawling had occurred. We suggest this may have resulted from their resistance to the direct impacts of trawling (two chrysogorgid corals and solitary scleractinians), or from protection in natural refuges inaccessible to trawls (unstalked crinoids, two chrysogorgid corals, gorgonians, and urchins). Alternatively, these taxa may represent the earliest stages of seamount recolonisation. They have potential to be dominant for long periods because the pre-trawling composition of benthic assemblages on seamounts includes taxa that grow slowly and/or have an association with ‘thickets’ of a single keystone stony coral (Solenosmilia variabilis) that has generated biogenic habitat over millennia. Resilience of seamount ecosystems dominated by corals is low compared to most other marine systems subject to disturbance by bottom trawling because there are no alternative habitats of the same value for supporting associated species, and because trawling typically removes coral habitat from large areas of individual seamounts. Management to conserve seamount ecosystems needs to account for changing oceanographic conditions (ocean acidification), as well as the direct impacts of human activities such as bottom trawling. Networks of spatial closures that include intact habitats over a range of depths, especially <1500 m, and on clusters and isolated seamounts, may be effective by maintaining the resilience of seamount benthic communities. %B Marine Ecology %I Marine Ecology %V 31 %P 183 - 199 %8 01 Sep 2010 %U http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1439-0485.2010.00385.x/abstract %R 10.1111/j.1439-0485.2010.00385.x %0 Journal Article %J Marine Ecology Progress Series %D 2009 %T Impacts of bottom trawling on deep-coral ecosystems of seamounts are long-lasting %A Althaus, Franziska %A Williams, Alan %A Thomas A Schlacher %A Rudy J Kloser %A Mark Green %A Bruce A Barker %A Nicholas J. Bax %A P Brodie %A Hoenlinger-Schlacher, MA %X trawling impacts, seamounts, deep-sea corals, recovery, conservation, fishing %B Marine Ecology Progress Series %I Marine Ecology Progress Series %V 397 %P 279 - 294 %8 01 Dec 2009 %U http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v397/p279-294 %! Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. %R 10.3354/meps08248 %0 Journal Article %J ICES Journal of Marine Science %D 2009 %T Remarks on “Comment on: Williams et al. (2009) Australia’s deep-water reserve network: implications of false homogeneity for classifying abiotic surrogates of biodiversity, ICES Journal of Marine Science, 66: 214-224” by Peter T. Harris et al %A Williams, Alan %A Nicholas J. Bax %A Rudy J Kloser %X

Australia, benthic habitats, Marine Protected Areas, surrogates

%B ICES Journal of Marine Science %I ICES Journal of Marine Science %V 66 %P 2086 - 2088 %8 01 Dec 2009 %U http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/66/10/2086?maxtoshow=&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&author1=Williams&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&volume=66&firstpage=2086&reso %N 10 %! ICES Journal of Marine Science %R 10.1093/icesjms/fsp212 %0 Journal Article %J ICES Journal of Marine Science %D 2008 %T Australia’s deep-water reserve network: implications of false homogeneity for classifying abiotic surrogates of biodiversity %A Williams, Alan %A Nicholas J. Bax %A Rudy J Kloser %A Althaus, Franziska %A Bruce A Barker %A Keith, G. %X

Australia, benthic habitats, biodiversity surrogates, classification, deep-sea environments, Marine Protected Areas, surrogates

%B ICES Journal of Marine Science %I ICES Journal of Marine Science %V 66 %P 214 - 224 %8 01 Sep 2008 %U http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/66/1/214?etoc %N 1 %! ICES Journal of Marine Science %R 10.1093/icesjms/fsn189 %0 Audiovisual Material %D 2008 %T CERF Marine Biodiversity Hub banner %A Nicholas J. Bax %I CSIRO