Biodiversity Conservation and Ecosystem Health

National Marine Science Plan

Biodiversity Conservation and Ecosystem Health

Pelagic Ecosystems

Background

Pelagic ecosystems link coastal, neritic and oceanic biodiversity and underpin the productivity and sustainability of that biodiversity. For Australia’s fully marine systems, the dynamics of pelagic marine ecosystems control delivery of nutrients and energy, in space and time, from terrestrial and estuarine inputs, from oceans external to Australia and from the deep sea; they determine the retention and recycling of nutrients in the pelagos, transport/export of energy to the benthos and the transport of energy from areas of production to other areas. They are the context therefore to sustaining ecosystem services on which Australia depends (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Map showing Australia’s marine jurisdiction. (Red line shows the boundary to the area of the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources)

Ecosystem dynamics and change sets the context for developing management strategies to sustain ecosystem services. Pelagic ecosystems are naturally dynamic, varying seasonally, annually and at other frequencies arising from Earth system dynamics, e.g. El Nino. Moreover, long term trends in a number of ecosystem attributes are occurring with expected futures including a warming ocean, increased acidity and greater frequencies and intensities of storms, along with other regionally-specific trends and perturbations.

Pelagic species will potentially respond to environmental changes by

• tolerating the changes, although this may result in poorer performance and alter the relative importance of the species in the ecosystem
• moving geographically to remain in the ocean conditions most conducive to their survival, and/or
• adapting to new conditions through natural selection, resulting in improved performance under the new conditions.

For ecosystems, the response of biotawill be critical in maintaining ecosystem structure and function. The species pool overall and within functional components will govern the response of the ecosystems. For example, some species in a functional component may decline in abundance while others may increase thereby potentially enabling relative stability in that function. Maintenance of refugia and/or networks of suitable conditions for species may be important in the long-term maintenance of ecosystems.

Adaptation of industries and activities to these futures and mitigation of possible impacts requires a capability to assess

• the dynamics of pelagic ecosystems,
• how these ecosystemswill respond to future changes to the Earth system,
• the degree to which ecosystem components of greatest interest will be sensitive to Earth system change, and
• whether these ecosystems will be more or less sensitive to the industries/activities interacting with the them.

This capability requires knowledge of the structure and function of ecosystems along with the key drivers that influence the key functional components. Three questions need to be addressed to achieve this capability:

1.What are the functional components of pelagic ecosystems and how might those components change in the future, taking account of the potential species pool of each component andthe responses of taxa to environmental change?

2.What are the key drivers and processes that give rise to the dynamics of the functional components?

3.What is the spatial connectivity of the different functional components in the ecosystem?

The overall capability is determined by linking these questions in dynamic models of the ecosystems that are able to provide accurate representations of the structure and dynamics of the pelagic ecosystems suitable for assessing current and future scenarios for these ecosystems.

Research priorities will be determined by the degree to which dynamic models have been developed to provide the context for assessing current status and trends of ecosystems and possible mitigation and adaptation options for future scenarios, i.e. what is the state of readiness of the models and what are the priories for improving either their state of readiness or their performance. Here we identify the state of readiness of these dynamic models as follows (check available classifications):

fragmented: information on some or all functional components may be available but no framework model is available

conceptual: a model framework has been assembled but a dynamic model based on local information is not available

rudimentary: a dynamic model is available with parameters mostly derived from local studies

partial: a dynamic model is available but only based on part of the ecosystem e.g. BGC

mature:an end-to-end ecosystem model is available with observations being used to validate, tune and/or initialise assessments and/or data can be assimilated into the model, and provides the basis for identifying key uncertainties for future research.

A mature model does not need to represent the ecologies of all species in an ecosystem. Such a model would be expected to characterise the primary dynamics of the ecosystem thereby facilitating further or more detailed exploration of key functional components and scenarios.

This capability is not targeting the development of a single end-to-end ecosystem model for the areas of interest to Australia. The strategy would be to develop an ensemble of models that link to Earth System models. The ensemble of models would then facilitate downscaling of the larger scale models to biological, spatial and temporal scales of interest. The ensemble would naturally be divided regionally and a number of models may be developed within a region to deal with different kinds of processes. Ideally, each model could be coupled or linked to other models, be subsets of those models, or be bounded by other models. Moreover, the outputs of the models would ideally be available for use in assessments or in providing context for modelling and assessments for sectoral management and science. The figure in the attachment illustrates these relationships.

Brief Review of Capability

The following table provides a summary review of the status of pelagic ecosystem models around Australia:

Antarctic and Subantarctic / Conceptual models on ecosystem structure (Melbourne-Thomas et al), a partial model of biogeochemistry and production for for Kerguelen region as well as whole of Southern Ocean; simple predator-krill models are available but driven by knowledge from Antarctic Peninsula and Atlantic sector; a NetLogo and Atlantis models almost ready for trials (rudimentary heading for mature; Bedford etal, Fulton etal).
South-East Australia / Conceptual models exist (by Dambacher et al for KEFs), mature Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) models exist for small sections of this region (Bulman et al), mature Atlantis model (Atlantis-SPF; Fulton) also exists (other Atlantis models exist for the region too but more demersally focused; Fulton et al 2014).
Great Australia Bight / Conceptual models exist (by Dambacher et al for KEFs), mature EwE model exists (Goldsworthy et al), an Atlantis model is being currently calibrated (rudimentary heading for mature; Fulton et al)
South-West Australia / Conceptual models exist (by Dambacher et al for KEFs), a couple of small scale rudimentary EwE models (mainly for demersal species; Lozano-Montes) exists and Atlantis model is under calibration (Lozano-Montes)
North-West Australia / Conceptual models exist (by Dambacher et al for KEFs), rudimentary-mature models exist for Gascoyne and Pilbara both InVitro (Fulton et al, Gray et al ) and EwE (Bulman, Hector-Lozano and Fulton), but in terms of pelagic components more rudimentary and simplified than for demersal stocks and habitats.
Northern Australia including Gulf of Carpentaria / Conceptual models exist (by Dambacher et al for KEFs), Gulf of Carpentaria has a mature EwE model (Bustamante et al, Okey et al), again more demersally focused, plus a MICE model (focused on prawns, Plaganyi et al) and numerous multispecies models. Biggest gap in dynamic models is across NT.
North-East Australia (incl GBR) / Conceptual models exist (by Dambacher et al for KEFs), mature Atlantis model exists for the Coral Sea (Hutton) and offshore waters down the east coast, MICE and EwE models exists for ETBF region (Hillary, Griffiths). Mature EwE models also complete for GBR (Gribble, Gerkhe), Atlantis models under development (Fulton et al).
Whole of Australia (Earth System, BGC etc) / Partial models exist (BGC, Matear et al) with project proposals in place for an Australia wide for a size-based model to be developed.

Purpose

This white paper will

1)Summarise the nature of pelagic ecosystems in Australia

a)Generalised structure and key drivers,

b)the global context of these ecosystems, and

c)the general types of changes in structure and function expected over the next 100 years

2)Review the current state of models of pelagic ecosystems in Australia.

3)Outline the priorities for research over the next 20 years.

Task

In the first instance I am requesting that we develop a series of fact sheets by region, by functional componentsand one on the status of our pelagic ecosystem modelling capability.

Regions:

•Antarctic and Subantarctic

•South-East Australia

•Great Australia Bight

•South-West Australia

•North-West Australia

•Northern Australia including Gulf of Carpentaria

•North-East Australia (incl GBR)

•Whole of Australia (Earth System, BGC etc)

Functional components:

•Microbes (this could be broken up according to expected functional representation in models - I will be guided by the experts here)

•Zooplankton (as for microbes)

•Krill

•Planktivorous fish

•Piscivorous fish (including small sharks)

•Migratory fish - tuna, billfish

•Migratory fish - sharks

•Whales

•Seals & sea lions

•Flying birds

•Penguins

You don't have to fill out a whole fact sheet but only parts that you are comfortable with.

I have developed a draft for the Subantarctic and Antarctic to help give you some idea on what is needed.

Attachment

Figure illustrating the relationship between different models ranging from Earth System models through end-to-end ecosystem models through MICE models (Models of Intermediate Complexity for Ecosystem assessments) through sectoral specific models such as population models for stock assessments. Shadow boxes represent ensemble models characterising different processes or structures. Example is for the Indian Sector of the Southern Ocean.

Fact Sheet: Antarctic and Subantarctic Pelagic Ecosystems

Researchers

Who does the work in Australia (institutions plus key researchers & provide email addresses for contacts):

Institutions

• Australian Antarctic Division (Constable, Andrews-Goff, Bell, Bestley, Cox, Davidson, de la Mare, Deagle, Double, Emmerson, Jarman, Kawaguchi, Meiners, Melbourne-Thomas, Miller, Raymond, Southwell, Sumner, Westwood, Wotherspoon, Ziegler)
• CSIRO (Fulton, Rintoul, Tilbrook, Trull)
• Geosciences Australia (Post, Smith)
• Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies (Boyd, Bowie, Hill, Hindell, Johnson, Lannuzel, Lea, McMinn, Phillips, Strutton, Swadling, Wotherspoon)
• Macquarie University (Harcourt)
• Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre (6 new staff)

International partners:

• Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, France (Elaume, Pruvost)
• Université Pierre et Marie Curie, France (Koubbi)
• NIPR, Japan (Odate, Takahashi)
• Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology (Moteki)

Key contacts

• Andrew Constable
• et al

State of Research

Maturity (brief history of pelagic ecosystem research & key references, reports [please send PDFs and Endnote citations]):

•Biogeochemical models available for Kerguelen region as well as whole of Southern Ocean

•Simple predator-krill models

•Field programs oriented towards krill-based foodweb, lower trophic levels on SR3, marine mammals & birds

•Need a whole of system approach to the three questions underpinning model development

•NetLogo and Atlantis models almost ready for trials

•Overal status of the capability is conceptual

Figure: structure of the end-to-end ecosystem model being developed for the Indian Sector of the Southern Ocean (Fulton et al, in prep)

The state of knowledge of the different function components for representation in ecosystem models is summarised in relation to the three primary questions (0 (red) = little local information; 1 (yellow) = partial information; 2 (green) = sufficient local information to characterise this requirement):

Functional
Component / Key processesdrivers / Connectivity
Microbes / 2 / 1 / 1
Zooplankton, small nekton / 1 / 1 / 0
Large fish and squid / 1 / 0 / 0
Marine mammals & birds / 2 / 1 / 1

Success of the research (how it rates internationally (ERA or like metrics) if these metrics are available)

•End-to-end modelling in the Indian Sector by Australian researchers is one of the leading models for Southern Ocean ecosystems. It is part of the international IMBER program, Integrating Climate and Ecosystem Dynamics of the Southern Ocean (ICED).

Current funding (who funds this work currently)

•CRC

•AAS

•ARC

•IMOS

End-users

Who are the end users who benefit/will benefit from this research (directly or indirectly).

•AFMA and fishing industry - krill, toothfish, icefish fisheries

•Australian Government for CCAMLR, CEP, IWC - regional management and conservation

•Australian Government for IPCC and future adaptation -consequences of future change on biodiversity e.g. ocean acidification, warming etc.

Current uptake of research (Evidence indicating end-user engagement - if available).

•HIMI fisheries, conservation and management

•CCAMLR Conservation Measures

Key science gaps/needs/challenges

• whole of system studies, particular relating to the spatial relationships of the different taxonomic componentsand the relative compositions of functional components e.g Kerguelen axis versus SR3 line/Macquarie Axis
• zooplankton and mid-trophic levels are the highest priority in terms of functional components and autecological processes in order to link the better known microbes and marine mammals and birds
• simulations to identify key gaps and uncertainties in the models
• role of sea ice, iron, temperature, seasonality, mixed layer depth, and ocean acidification in driving the ecosystem dynamics (not just krill)

Key outcomes/ national benefit

by 2020

• spatial and future context for managing HIMI fisheries
• leading role in regional management of Indian Sector of Southern Ocean

by 2025

• effective implementation of precautionary ecosystem-based management in East Antarctica
• leading role in outcomes for Indian Sector of Southern Ocean, in relation to emerging interests of Indo-Pacific nations in the region.

by 2035

• sustained approach to building cooperation and collaboration of global interests in the Indian Sector, including environmentally sustainable activities with adaptation strategies for future change.

Priorities

Specific science priorities (including linkages to international efforts, and why Australia needs to do this work, particularly if we are not already world class)

Priorities to 2020

•Spatial delineation of functional components and key autecological processes

•Models linking habitat and biota, particularly related to sea ice and iron supply

•Development of ensemble of models addressing the dynamics of the different functional components

•Design of observing system of essential variables for establishing the dynamic models for use in assessments of status and trends in these ecosystems

Priorities to 2025

•Effective assessments of status and trends in these ecosystems using data from observing systems, with an emphasis on oceanic foodwebs

•Identification of key gaps for assessments of ecosystem states in 2100

Priorities to 2035

•Elaboration of coastal food web models with integrated benthic-pelagic coupling.

Realisation

Key infrastructure and capability requirements/impediments

• Ship-time
• Remote observations fo key biological parameters through gliders, moorings and/or innovative solutions

Funding and coordination requirements/impediments

• Funding for ongoing marine science in the Southern Ocean is required.

List of contributing authors and affiliations

References

Fact Sheet: [xxx] Pelagic Ecosystems

Researchers

Who does the work in Australia (institutions plus key researchers & provide email addresses for contacts):

Institutions

International partners:

Key contacts

State of Research

Maturity (brief history of pelagic ecosystem research & key references, reports [please send PDFs and Endnote citations]):

•

•Overal status of the capability is ???

The state of knowledge of the different function components for representation in ecosystem models is summarised in relation to the three primary questions (0 (red) = little local information; 1 (yellow) = partial information; 2 (green) = sufficient local information to characterise this requirement): [Use cell shading to give colour]

Functional
Component / Key processes & drivers / Connectivity
Microbes
Zooplankton, small nekton
Large fish and squid
Marine mammals & birds

Success of the research (how it rates internationally (ERA or like metrics) if these metrics are available)

Current funding (who funds this work currently)

End-users

Who are the end users who benefit/will benefit from this research (directly or indirectly).

Current uptake of research (Evidence indicating end-user engagement - if available).

Key science gaps/needs/challenges

Key outcomes/ national benefit

by 2020

by 2025

by 2035

Priorities

Specific science priorities (including linkages to international efforts, and why Australia needs to do this work, particularly if we are not already world class)

Priorities to 2020

Priorities to 2025

Priorities to 2035

Realisation

Key infrastructure and capability requirements/impediments

Funding and coordination requirements/impediments

List of contributing authors and affiliations

References

Fact Sheet: [xxx]Functional Component

Researchers

Who does the work in Australia (institutions plus key researchers & provide email addresses for contacts):

Institutions

International partners:

Key contacts

State of Research

Maturity (brief history of pelagic ecosystem research & key references, reports [please send PDFs and Endnote citations]):

•

•Overal status of the capability is ???

Status of the three questions relative to functional components:

Diversity in the functional component:

•

Key autecological processes for the function component:

•

Key drivers or external processes influencing the function component:

•

Spatial connectivity of the functional component: