Pat Hutchings, Emily McLaren, Elena Kupriyanova, Laetitia M Gunton, Nicolas Lavesque, Rachel Przeslawski
{"title":"The taxonomy of Australian polychaetes: current understanding, knowledge gaps and steps forward for management.","authors":"Pat Hutchings, Emily McLaren, Elena Kupriyanova, Laetitia M Gunton, Nicolas Lavesque, Rachel Przeslawski","doi":"10.1016/bs.amb.2025.07.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Amid the current global biodiversity crisis, understanding and conserving marine invertebrates is more urgent than ever. Marine invertebrates are key components of biodiversity in benthic ecosystems, however, in Australia they remain underrepresented in biodiversity data and conservation planning. Australia's coastline extends from the tropics to subpolar environments and the surrounding waters comprise the Australian Territorial Seas and the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Currently there are 60 Australian Federal and 98 State Marine Parks which by law must ensure the sustainable management of their biodiversity. Polychaetes are dominant in benthic communities both in terms of species richness and diversity and play a critical role in the functioning of marine ecosystems. Polychaetes are also sensitive to environmental disturbance and change and must be considered in developing marine park zoning and monitoring plans. Here we review the history of species discovery (1791-2025) in shallow (0-300 m) and deep waters (300-5,000 m) within Australia. We highlight that many species remain undescribed, especially in the deep sea, and vast areas in Australian waters have little or no data on the polychaetes that occur there. Finally, we propose what can be done to ensure that polychaetes are included in management plans, including (1) increased availability of information for benthic ecologists from museums, (2) the development of reference DNA barcode libraries by museums, (3) increased tertiary education opportunities and (4) increased philanthropic funding sources.</p>","PeriodicalId":101401,"journal":{"name":"Advances in marine biology","volume":"101 ","pages":"27-56"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in marine biology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.amb.2025.07.001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/10/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Amid the current global biodiversity crisis, understanding and conserving marine invertebrates is more urgent than ever. Marine invertebrates are key components of biodiversity in benthic ecosystems, however, in Australia they remain underrepresented in biodiversity data and conservation planning. Australia's coastline extends from the tropics to subpolar environments and the surrounding waters comprise the Australian Territorial Seas and the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Currently there are 60 Australian Federal and 98 State Marine Parks which by law must ensure the sustainable management of their biodiversity. Polychaetes are dominant in benthic communities both in terms of species richness and diversity and play a critical role in the functioning of marine ecosystems. Polychaetes are also sensitive to environmental disturbance and change and must be considered in developing marine park zoning and monitoring plans. Here we review the history of species discovery (1791-2025) in shallow (0-300 m) and deep waters (300-5,000 m) within Australia. We highlight that many species remain undescribed, especially in the deep sea, and vast areas in Australian waters have little or no data on the polychaetes that occur there. Finally, we propose what can be done to ensure that polychaetes are included in management plans, including (1) increased availability of information for benthic ecologists from museums, (2) the development of reference DNA barcode libraries by museums, (3) increased tertiary education opportunities and (4) increased philanthropic funding sources.