LR Harris, AL Skowno, K. Sink, L. van Niekerk, S. Holness, M. Monyeki, P. Majiedt
{"title":"基于指标的跨领域沿海生物多样性评估方法","authors":"LR Harris, AL Skowno, K. Sink, L. van Niekerk, S. Holness, M. Monyeki, P. Majiedt","doi":"10.2989/1814232X.2022.2104373","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Ecosystem status assessments are generally separated into realm-specific analyses (terrestrial, freshwater, estuarine or marine), but without integrating these into a coherent assessment of coastal biodiversity across the land–sea interface. Trends in assessment indicators in coastal versus non-coastal areas have also rarely been considered. In this study we aimed to compile the first cross-realm national biodiversity assessment for the South African coast using three key indicators. The ecological condition, ecosystem threat status, and ecosystem protection level of coastal ecosystem types (n = 186) were determined and compared with those of non-coastal ecosystem types (n = 444). Nearly half (46.9%) of the South African coastal habitat has been degraded compared with 20% of non-coastal areas. Proportionately, there are three-times (60%) as many threatened coastal ecosystem types (or 55% by area) as there are threatened non-coastal ecosystem types (19%, 6% by area). Despite the impacted state of coastal biodiversity, protection levels are generally higher in the coastal zone (87% of ecosystem types have some protection) compared with non-coastal areas (75%), although fewer coastal ecosystem types have met their biodiversity targets (24%, vs 28% for non-coastal ecosystem types). These results illustrate the importance of using a cross-realm approach for status assessments, management and conservation of coastal biodiversity. The assessment methods described are flexible and widely applicable to other regions.","PeriodicalId":7719,"journal":{"name":"African Journal of Marine Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An indicator-based approach for cross-realm coastal biodiversity assessments\",\"authors\":\"LR Harris, AL Skowno, K. Sink, L. van Niekerk, S. Holness, M. Monyeki, P. Majiedt\",\"doi\":\"10.2989/1814232X.2022.2104373\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Ecosystem status assessments are generally separated into realm-specific analyses (terrestrial, freshwater, estuarine or marine), but without integrating these into a coherent assessment of coastal biodiversity across the land–sea interface. Trends in assessment indicators in coastal versus non-coastal areas have also rarely been considered. In this study we aimed to compile the first cross-realm national biodiversity assessment for the South African coast using three key indicators. The ecological condition, ecosystem threat status, and ecosystem protection level of coastal ecosystem types (n = 186) were determined and compared with those of non-coastal ecosystem types (n = 444). Nearly half (46.9%) of the South African coastal habitat has been degraded compared with 20% of non-coastal areas. Proportionately, there are three-times (60%) as many threatened coastal ecosystem types (or 55% by area) as there are threatened non-coastal ecosystem types (19%, 6% by area). Despite the impacted state of coastal biodiversity, protection levels are generally higher in the coastal zone (87% of ecosystem types have some protection) compared with non-coastal areas (75%), although fewer coastal ecosystem types have met their biodiversity targets (24%, vs 28% for non-coastal ecosystem types). These results illustrate the importance of using a cross-realm approach for status assessments, management and conservation of coastal biodiversity. The assessment methods described are flexible and widely applicable to other regions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":7719,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"African Journal of Marine Science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"African Journal of Marine Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2989/1814232X.2022.2104373\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MARINE & FRESHWATER BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"African Journal of Marine Science","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2989/1814232X.2022.2104373","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MARINE & FRESHWATER BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
An indicator-based approach for cross-realm coastal biodiversity assessments
Ecosystem status assessments are generally separated into realm-specific analyses (terrestrial, freshwater, estuarine or marine), but without integrating these into a coherent assessment of coastal biodiversity across the land–sea interface. Trends in assessment indicators in coastal versus non-coastal areas have also rarely been considered. In this study we aimed to compile the first cross-realm national biodiversity assessment for the South African coast using three key indicators. The ecological condition, ecosystem threat status, and ecosystem protection level of coastal ecosystem types (n = 186) were determined and compared with those of non-coastal ecosystem types (n = 444). Nearly half (46.9%) of the South African coastal habitat has been degraded compared with 20% of non-coastal areas. Proportionately, there are three-times (60%) as many threatened coastal ecosystem types (or 55% by area) as there are threatened non-coastal ecosystem types (19%, 6% by area). Despite the impacted state of coastal biodiversity, protection levels are generally higher in the coastal zone (87% of ecosystem types have some protection) compared with non-coastal areas (75%), although fewer coastal ecosystem types have met their biodiversity targets (24%, vs 28% for non-coastal ecosystem types). These results illustrate the importance of using a cross-realm approach for status assessments, management and conservation of coastal biodiversity. The assessment methods described are flexible and widely applicable to other regions.
期刊介绍:
The African (formerly South African) Journal of Marine Science provides an international forum for the publication of original scientific contributions or critical reviews, involving oceanic, shelf or estuarine waters, inclusive of oceanography, studies of organisms and their habitats, and aquaculture. Papers on the conservation and management of living resources, relevant social science and governance, or new techniques, are all welcomed, as are those that integrate different disciplines. Priority will be given to rigorous, question-driven research, rather than descriptive research. Contributions from African waters, including the Southern Ocean, are particularly encouraged, although not to the exclusion of those from elsewhere that have relevance to the African context. Submissions may take the form of a paper or a short communication. The journal aims to achieve a balanced representation of subject areas but also publishes proceedings of symposia in dedicated issues, as well as guest-edited suites on thematic topics in regular issues.