Dense Desmarestia spp. with filamentous red seaweeds on exposed infralittoral cobbles, pebbles and bedrock

Summary

UK and Ireland classification

Description

Wave-exposed seasonally mobile substrata (pebbles, cobbles) dominated by dense stands of the brown seaweed Desmarestia aculeata and/or Desmarestia ligulata. Infralittoral pebbles and cobbles that are scoured through mobility during storms, but become stable in the summer allowing the growth of such algae as Desmarestia spp. Filamentous red seaweeds such as Bonnemaisonia asparagoides and Brongniartella byssoides are usually present. Stunted individuals of the kelp such as Laminaria hyperborea and Saccharina latissima may be present where bedrock is available. A variety of foliose red seaweeds such as Cryptopleura ramosa, Chondrus crispus, Plocamium cartilagineum, Hypoglossum hypoglossoides and Nitophyllum punctatum may on occasion be present underneath the kelp canopy. Other red algae including Corallina officinalis, Rhodomela confervoides and coralline crusts including Lithothamnion spp. may be present as well as the foliose brown seaweed Dictyota dichotoma and the green Ulva intestinalis. Due to the nature of this biotope the faunal component is very impoverished though the gastropod Steromphala cineraria can be found among the cobbles. The biotope is often a narrow zone on mixed substrata below a stable zone of kelp on bedrock. Where seasonally mobile substrata affect nearby bedrock this biotope may occur in place of the kelp forest. (Information from JNCC, 2015).

Depth range

5-10 m

Additional information

-

Listed By

Sensitivity reviewHow is sensitivity assessed?

Sensitivity characteristics of the habitat and relevant characteristic species

IR.HIR.KSed.Sac, IR.HIR.KSed.SlatSac, IR.HIR.KSed.DesFilR, IR.HIR.KSed.XKScrR are within the sediment-affected or disturbed kelp and seaweed communities (IR.HIR.KSed) habitat complex. As a result of nearby sediment scouring or seasonally unstable infralittoral rock, opportunistic brown seaweeds; Desmarestia spp., Saccharina latissima (formerly Laminaria saccharina) and Saccorhiza polyschides can proliferate. Laminaria hyperborea can be present within the community, however, due to the disturbed nature of IR.HIR.KSed biotopes, it does not become fully established and sporophytes do not typically survive beyond a couple of seasons (Connor et al., 2004).

The understorey community can vary locally due to the disturbed nature of IR.HIR.KSed biotopes and is characterized by scour tolerant or ephemeral red seaweeds, such as Corallina officinalis, Plocamium cartilagineum, Chondrus crispus, Dilsea carnosa, and encrusting coralline algae.  Faunal diversity and abundance are also generally low and typically limited to encrusting bryozoans and/or sponges.  In areas sheltered from sediment scour or sediment, the stability biological diversity increases and Laminaria hyperborea becomes more dominant (Connor et al., 2004).

In undertaking the assessment of the sensitivity of IR.HIR.KSed.DesFilR, an account is taken of knowledge of the biology of all characterizing species/taxa in the biotope. This biotope is structured by the seasonal mobility of the substratum. However, 'indicative species' are particularly important in undertaking the assessment as they characterize the biotope. For this sensitivity assessment, the opportunistic brown seaweeds; Desmarestia spp. are the primary foci of research. Stunted individual kelps e.g. Saccharina latissima and Laminaria hyperborea may occur occasionally where bedrock is available but not in all examples of the biotope. Examples of important species groups are mentioned where appropriate.

Resilience and recovery rates of habitat

Desmarestia spp., Saccorhiza polyschides & Saccharina latissima (formerly Laminaria saccharina) are opportunistic seaweeds which have relatively fast growth rates when compared to other perennial species, and dominate areas subject to recurrent disturbance or in areas where environmental conditions limit competition from Laminaria hyperborea.

Desmarestia spp. and Saccharina latissima are widely distributed in the north Atlantic from Svalbard to Portugal (Birket et al., 1998; Conor et al., 2004; Bekby & Moy 2011; Moy & Christie 2012), Saccorhiza polyschides from mid-Norway to Ghana, and present in parts of the Mediterranean (Lüning, 1990). Desmarestia spp. are a genus of annual seaweeds with a life expectancy of ca 8 months (Gagnon et al., 2013).  Saccorhiza polyschides is also termed as an annual and can reach maturity in 8 months, although sporophytes that do not reach maturity within the first growth season can overwinter and have a life expectancy of 16 months (Birket et al., 1998; Fernández, 2011), during which time fronds can reach a length of 3-4m (D. Birkett, pers. obs in Birkett et al., 1998).  Saccharina lattisma is a perennial kelp which can reach maturity in 15-20 months and has a life expectancy of 2-4 years.

Demarestiales and Laminariales have heteromorphic life strategies (Edwards, 1998). Mature sporophytes broadcast zoospores which settle onto rock and develop into gametophytes, following fertilization these germinate into juvenile sporophytes. Kelp zoospores are expected to have a large dispersal range, but zoospore density and the rate of successful fertilization decreases exponentially with distance from the parental source (Fredriksen et al., 1995). Hence, recruitment following disturbance can be influenced by the proximity of mature kelp beds producing viable zoospores to the disturbed area (Kain, 1979; Fredriksen et al., 1995). The exact mechanism of zoospore release in Desmarestia spp. is unknown but it may occur during a period of senescence (mentioned below)(Gagnon et al., 2013). Saccorhiza polyschides & Saccharina latissima both release zoospores from reproductive structures known as sori, located centrally on the blade (Saccharina latissima & Saccorhiza polyschides), stipe and holdfast/bulb (Saccorhiza polyschides).

Desmarestia spp. and Saccorhiza polyschides sporophytes appear from March-April, beyond which is a period of rapid growth. Desmarestia spp. reach their maximum size by September (ca 60 cm).  Sporophytes then begin to decay (known as the senescence period) and typically die off by late October (Edwards, 1998; Gagnon et al., 2013). Saccorhiza polyschides sporophytes are capable of growing ≤6.2 cm per week (Norton, 1970; Fernández, 2011) and reaching a maximum length of 3-4 m (Birket et al., 1998; Fernández, 2011). The onset of maturity triggers a phase of senescence in which growth ceases and the frond erodes, resulting in the blade becoming progressively smaller and by winter the entire sporophyte can disappear (Birket et al., 1998; Fernández, 2011). Saccharina latissima recruits appear in late winter early spring beyond which is a period of rapid growth, in late summer and autumn growth rates slow and spores are released from autumn to winter (Parke, 1948; Lüning, 1979; Birket et al., 1998). The overall length of the sporophyte may not change during the growing season due to marginal erosion but the growth of the blade has been measured at 1.1 cm/day, with a total length addition of ≥2.25 m per year (Birket et al., 1998).

Light intensity and temperature are key development triggers for Desmarestia spp.  (Edwards, 1998). However, other factors, such as nutrient availability and the abundance of coralline algae may also influence recruitment (Edwards, 1998). Desmarestia spp. sporophytes are typically rare in areas with established kelp canopies but have rapid growth in response to increases in light intensity and changes from red-blue wave lengths, indicating an opportunistic life history when kelp canopies are thinned/cleared (Chapman & Burrows, 1970; Müller & Lüthe, 1981; Edwards, 1998). Edwards (1998) found Desmarestia ligulata recruitment was cued by seasonal changes in day length but the recruitment was increased in areas where kelp canopies were cleared. In kelp clearances, Desmarestia ligulata was capable of rapidly achieving ca 50-90% coverage whereas abundance remained low under kelp canopies at ca <10% coverage. Field and experimental observations of Desmarestia aculeata in Port Erin, UK have found that light intensity is a principal factor in the development of gametophyte and sporophyte development, and hence recruitment processes (Kain, 1966; Chapman & Burrows, 1970). In winter, a season in which Desmarestia aculeata sporophytes are absent from marine habitats, Kain (1966) collected visually bare stones from Port Erin, Isle of Man.  When the stones were exposed to high illumination (2,780 lux) for 18 hours a day and maintained at 5°C, Desmarestia aculeata sporophytes grew successfully. Demonstrating that increases in light intensity are an important trigger for Desmarestia spp. growth and recruitment.

Saccharina lattisma can be quite ephemeral in nature and appear early in algal succession. For example, Leinaas & Christie (1996) removed Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis from “Urchin Barrens” and observed a succession effect.  The substratum was colonized initially by filamentous algae, but after a couple of weeks, these were out-competed and the habitat dominated by Saccharina latissima which themselves were subsequently out-competed by Laminaria hyperborea. In the Isle of Man, Kain (1975) cleared sublittoral blocks of Laminaria hyperborea at different times of the year for several years.  The first colonizers and succession community differed between blocks and at what time of year the blocks were cleared. However, Saccharina lattisma was an early colonizer, but within 2 years of clearance the blocks were dominated by Laminaria hyperborea.

Resilience assessment. All three canopy forming seaweeds that characterize IR.HIR.KSed.Sac, IR.HIR.KSed.SlatSac, IR.HIR.KSed.DesFilR, and IR.HIR.KSed.XKScrR are opportunistic species with rapid colonization and growth rates. Both Desmarestia spp. & Saccorhiza polyschides are capable of reaching maturity within a year. Saccharina latissima has been shown to be an early colonizer within macroalgal succession, appearing within 2 weeks of clearance. Therefore, resilience has been assessed as ‘High’.

Hydrological Pressures

Use [show more] / [show less] to open/close text displayed

ResistanceResilienceSensitivity
Temperature increase (local) [Show more]

Temperature increase (local)

Benchmark. A 5°C increase in temperature for one month, or 2°C for one year. Further detail

Evidence

Saccorhiza polyschides has a wide geographic distribution, and can tolerate a wide range of temperatures. Sporophyte growth can occur from 3-24°C and gametophyte development from 5-25°C (Norton, 1977). Fernández (2011) however suggested that summer temperatures of >20°C sustained for longer than a period of 30 days may inhibit development and recruitment.

Desmarestiales are unusual in that they produce and accumulate sulphuric acid within intracellular vacuoles (McClintock et al., 1982; Connor et al., 2004; Gagnon et al., 2013). Seasonal increases in temperatures limit the ability of the storage vacuoles to contain the acid and release it into the surrounding environment. The continued release of acid results in progressive decolourisation, tissue degradation and mortality of Desmarestia sporophytes (Gagnon et al., 2013). Gagnon et al. (2013) exposed Desmarestia viridis samples during 30 hour salinity and temperature treatments. At 29 and 32psu (MNCR: Full Salinity scale) Desmarestia viridis was able to tolerant to changes in temperature from 5-12°C, but exposure to 18°C was lethal to sporophytes.

The geographic distribution of Saccharina latissima is determined by the 19-20°C isotherm (Müller et al., 2009). Gametophytes can develop in ≤23°C (Lüning, 1990), but the optimal temperature range for sporophyte growth is 10-15°C (Bolton & Lüning, 1982).  Bolton & Lüning (1982) experimentally observed that sporophyte growth was inhibited by 50-70% at 20°C and following 7 days at 23°C all specimens completely disintegrated. In the field, Saccharina latissima has significant regional variation in its acclimation to temperature change. For example, Gerard & Dubois (1988) observed sporophytes of Saccharina latissima which were regularly exposed to ≥20°C could tolerate these temperatures whereas sporophytes from other populations which rarely experience ≥17°C showed 100% mortality after 3 weeks of exposure to 20°C. Therefore, the response of Saccharina latissima to a change in temperatures is likely to be locally variable.

Anderson et al. (2011) transplanted Saccharina latissima from the Skagerrak region, Norway an area which has experienced a 50.7-83% Saccharina latissima decline since 2002 (Moy & Christie, 2012). Since 1960-2009 sea surface temperatures in the region have regularly exceeded 20°C (the temperature at which Saccharina latissima growth is severely inhibited) and so has the number of days which remain above 20°C. Anderson et al. (2011) hypothesised that high sea temperatures were indirectly linked to Saccharina latissima deforestation in the region, causing high epiphytic loading of sporophyte fronds (estimated to cover 80 & 100% of transplanted sporophytes). High sea temperatures has been linked to the slow growth of Saccharina latissima which is likely to decrease the photosynthetic ability of, and increase the vulnerability of Saccharina latissima to epiphytic loading, bacterial and viral attacks (Anderson et al., 2011).

Desmarestiales are sensitive to high temperatures and low salinities (Gagnon et al., 2013). Desmarestiales are unusual in that they produce and accumulate sulphuric acid (H2SO4) within intracellular vacuoles (McClintock et al., 1982; Connor et al., 2004; Gagnon et al., 2013). Increases in temperatures and low salinities limit the ability of the storage vacuoles to contain the acid and release it into the surrounding environment. The continued release of acid results in progressive decolourisation, tissue degradation and mortality of Desmarestia sporophytes (Gagnon et al., 2013). Gagnon et al. (2013) exposed Desmarestia viridis samples during 30 hour salinity and temperature treatments, observing at 29 and 32 psu (MNCR: Full Salinity scale) Desmarestia viridis was tolerant to changes in temperature from 5-12°C, exposure to 18°C was lethal to sporophytes. Furthermore, sporophytes that had already begun the senescence phase were exposed to 10.8 ± 0.3°C and completely shed all tissue from the stipe and laterals within ca15 days, whereas those exposed to lower temperatures of 2.5± 0.1°C lasted ca30 days. Gagnon et al. (2013) also observed Desmarestia spp. degraded progressively in low salinity treatments of 26, 23 & 20 psu (<20 psu was not tested). Therefore indicating Desmarestia spp. are highly sensitive to both high temperature (12-18°C) and low salinities (<26 psu).

IR.HIR.KSed.Sac, IR.HIR.KSed.SlatSac, IR.HIR.KSed.DesFilR, and IR.HIR.KSed.XKScrR are distributed throughout the UK (Connor et al., 2004). Northern to southern Sea Surface Temperature (SST) ranges from 8-16°C in summer and 6-13°C in winter (Beszczynska-Möller & Dye, 2013).

Sensitivity assessment. Acute 5°C increases in temperature for a period of 1 month combined with high summer temperatures may exceed the threshold temperature of 18-20°C in biotopes within the south of the UK, which would likely cause mortality of Desmarestia spp., and severely limit Saccorhiza polyschides recruitment & Saccharina latissima sporophyte growth. A 2°C increase in temperature for a period of 1 year would likely result in the exceeding an 18°C temperature threshold in the south of the UK. This temperature threshold would likely result in high mortality of Desmarestia spp. Saccharina latissima which are not acclimated to similar temperatures may also experience high and rapid mortality. Resistance has been assessed as ‘None’, Resilience as ‘High’. Sensitivity has been assessed as ‘Medium’.

None
High
High
High
Help
High
High
High
High
Help
Medium
High
High
High
Help
Temperature decrease (local) [Show more]

Temperature decrease (local)

Benchmark. A 5°C decrease in temperature for one month, or 2°C for one year. Further detail

Evidence

Demarestia spp. are a cold water adapted genus with a polar distribution, which can grow abundantly in water temperatures of ca 0.5°C (Gagnon et al., 2013).  Saccharina latissima is also widely spread throughout the Arctic and has a lower temperature threshold for sporophyte growth at 0°C (Lüning, 1990). Subtidal red algae can survive at -2°C (Lüning, 1990; Kain & Norton, 1990). These temperatures are well below that considered within this pressure benchmark. Demarestia spp. Saccharina latissima are therefore unlikely to be adversely affected by a decrease in temperature at the benchmark level.

Saccorhiza polyschides sporophyte growth can occur within a range from 3-24°C and gametophyte development within a range of 5-25°C (Norton, 1977). Norton (1977) experimentally observed that at 3-5°C gametophytes failed to develop into viable sporophytes. This temperature range also corresponds with Saccorhiza polyschides northern range edge (ca 65° 35’N, mid Norway), above which the average winter temperature is ≤4°C (U.S. Navy, 1958).

IR.HIR.KSed.Sac, IR.HIR.KSed.SlatSac, IR.HIR.KSed.DesFilR, and IR.HIR.KSed.XKScrR are distributed throughout the UK (Connor et al., 2004). Northern to southern Sea Surface Temperature (SST) ranges from 8-16°C in summer and 6-13°C in winter (Beszczynska-Möller & Dye, 2013)

Sensitivity assessment. Both long-term and acute temperature decrease 2-5°C combined with low winter temperatures could negatively affect Saccorhiza polyschides recruitment in biotopes located in the north of the UK. Resistance has been assessed as ‘Low’, resilience as ‘High’. Sensitivity has been assessed as ‘Low’.

 

Low
High
High
High
Help
High
High
High
High
Help
Low
High
High
High
Help
Salinity increase (local) [Show more]

Salinity increase (local)

Benchmark. A increase in one MNCR salinity category above the usual range of the biotope or habitat. Further detail

Evidence

Lüning (1990) suggest that kelps are stenohaline, their general tolerance to salinity as a phenotypic group covering 16-50 psu over a 24 hr period. Optimal growth probably occurring between 30-35 psu (MNCR category-Full Salinity) and growth rates are likely to be affected by periodic salinity stress. Birkett et al. (1998b) suggested that long-term increases in salinity may affect kelp growth and may result in loss of affected kelp, and therefore loss of the biotope.

Karsten (2007) tested the photosynthetic ability of Saccharina latissima under acute 2 & 5 day exposure to salinity treatments ranging from 5-60 psu. A control experiment was also carried at 34 psu (Salinity under normal marine conditions). Between 25-55 psu Saccharina latissima had high photosynthetic ability at >80% of the control levels.

Sensitivity assessment. The evidence suggests that Saccharina latissima can tolerate exposure to hypersaline conditions of ≥40‰ (MNCR full salinity range=30-40‰). Optimal salinities for other kelps are assumed to be 30-35 psu. Hypersaline tolerances for Desmarestia spp. are unknown. Resistance has been assessed as ‘Low’, resilience as ‘High’. The sensitivity of this biotope to an increase in salinity has been assessed as ‘Low’.

Low
Medium
High
High
Help
High
High
Low
High
Help
Low
Medium
Low
High
Help
Salinity decrease (local) [Show more]

Salinity decrease (local)

Benchmark. A decrease in one MNCR salinity category above the usual range of the biotope or habitat. Further detail

Evidence

Saccorhiza polyschides is affected by low salinities. Norton & South (1969) observed at ≤9‰ zoospores often burst due to internal osmotic pressure and none developed. At ≤25‰,  only 25% of gametophytes germinated and at ≤20‰ sporophyte growth was often retarded. At ≤35‰, 76% of gametophytes germinated. These results demonstrate that at ≤25‰ recruitment may be inhibited and sporophyte growth retarded.

Karsten (2007) tested the photosynthetic ability of Saccharina latissima under acute 2 & 5 day exposure to salinity treatments ranging from 5-60 psu. A control experiment was also carried at 34 psu (Salinity under normal marine conditions). Between 25-55 psu Saccharina latissima had a high photosynthetic ability at >80% of the control levels. Hyposaline treatment of 10-20 psu led to a gradual decline of photosynthetic ability. After 2 days at 5 psu, Saccharina latissima s photosynthetic ability was ~30% of control. After 5 days at 5 psu, Saccharina latissima specimens became bleached and showed signs of severe damage. The experiment was conducted on Saccharina latissima from the Arctic, and the authors suggest that at extremely low water temperatures (1-5°C) macroalgae acclimation to rapid salinity changes could be slower than at temperate latitudes. It is, therefore, possible that Saccharina latissima of the UK may be able to acclimate to salinity changes more effectively and quicker.

Gagnon et al. (2013) observed Desmarestia spp. sporophytes degraded progressively in low salinity treatments of 26, 23 & 20 psu (<20 psu was not tested). Desmarestia spp. accumulate sulphuric acid throughout the growth season which is released when the sporophyte becomes stressed under high temperatures or low salinities. Acid release causes progressive degradation of the sporophyte and mortality. Gagnon et al. (2013) exposed Desmarestia viridis samples during 30 hour salinity and temperature treatments, observing Desmarestia spp. degraded progressively in low salinity treatments of 26, 23 & 20psu (<20psu was not tested).

Sensitivity assessment. A decrease in one MNCR salinity scale from “Full Salinity” (30-40psu) to “Reduced Salinity” (18-30 psu) may result in mortality of Desmarestia spp. inhibit Saccorhiza polyschides recruitment and inhibit Saccharina latissima photosynthesis. Resistance has been assessed as ‘Low’ resilience as ‘High’. The sensitivity of this biotope to a decrease in salinity has been assessed as ‘Low’.

Low
High
High
High
Help
High
High
High
High
Help
Low
High
High
High
Help
Water flow (tidal current) changes (local) [Show more]

Water flow (tidal current) changes (local)

Benchmark. A change in peak mean spring bed flow velocity of between 0.1 m/s to 0.2 m/s for more than one year. Further detail

Evidence

Peteiro & Freire (2013) measured Saccharina latissima growth from 2 sites, the 1st had maximal water velocities of 0.3 m/sec and the 2nd 0.1 m/sec. At site 1 Saccharina latissima had significantly larger biomass than at site 2 (16kg /m to 12 kg /m respectively). Peteiro & Freire (2013) suggested that faster water velocities were beneficial to Saccharina latissima growth. However, Gerard & Mann (1979) measured Saccharina latissima productivity at greater water velocities and found Saccharina latissima productivity is reduced in moderately strong tidal streams (≤1m/sec) when compared to weak tidal streams (<0.5m/sec).

IR.HIR.KSed.SlatSac can be found from very strong (>3m/sec) to very weak tidal streams. IR.HIR.KSed.Sac, IR.HIR.KSed.DesFilR, IR.HIR.KSed.XKScrR can be found from moderately strong (0.5-1.5m/sec) to weak tidal streams (0.5m/sec). An increase in tidal flow may increase local sediment mobility and scour, potentially increasing dislodgment of kelps (Birket et al., 1998) and Desmarestia spp.

Sensitivity assessment. Due to the range of tidal streams which these biotopes can be found a change of 0.1m/s to 0.2m/s, is not likely to dramatically affect biotope structure. Resistance has been assessed as ‘High’, resilience as ‘High’. Sensitivity has been assessed as ‘Not Sensitive’.

High
Medium
High
High
Help
High
High
High
High
Help
Not sensitive
Medium
High
High
Help
Emergence regime changes [Show more]

Emergence regime changes

Benchmark.  1) A change in the time covered or not covered by the sea for a period of ≥1 year or 2) an increase in relative sea level or decrease in high water level for ≥1 year. Further detail

Evidence

IR.HIR.KSed.Sac and IR.HIR.KSed.XKScr can be found on sublittoral fringe rock so that the characterizing species would be exposed during low spring tides. IR.HIR.KSed.SlatSac and IR.HIR.KSed.DesFilR are found in the infralittoral and as such would only be exposed on extreme low tides (Connor et al., 2004).

An increase in emergence will result in an increased risk of desiccation and mortality of the dominant seaweeds (Desmarestia spp., Saccorhiza polyschides, Saccharina latissima). Removal of canopy forming seaweeds has also been shown to increase desiccation and mortality of the understorey macroalgae (Hawkins & Harkin, 1985). Providing that suitable substrata are present, the biotope is likely to re-establish further down the shore within a similar emergence regime to that which existed previously.  A decrease in emergence could, however, result in  an extension of the biotope further up the shore, although its lower limit is still probably controlled by light penetration, competition and grazing so that entire extent of the biotope may  move.

Sensitivity assessment. Resistance has been assessed as ‘Low’. Resilience as ‘High’. The sensitivity of this biotope to a change in emergence is considered as ‘Low’.

Low
Low
NR
NR
Help
High
High
Low
High
Help
Low
Low
NR
NR
Help
Wave exposure changes (local) [Show more]

Wave exposure changes (local)

Benchmark. A change in near shore significant wave height of >3% but <5% for more than one year. Further detail

Evidence

IR.HIR.KSed.Sac, IR.HIR.KSed.SlatSac, IR.HIR.KSed.DesFilR, IR.HIR.KSed.XKScrR are recorded from extremely exposed to wave sheltered sites and characterized by rapidly colonising macro-algae (Connor et al., 2004). As a result of rapid recovery, the community is relatively resistant to disturbance when compared to other kelp biotopes (e.g. IR.HIR.Kfar.LhypR). Birkett et al. (1998b) suggest that Saccharina latissima and Saccorhiza polyschides are rarely present in areas of wave exposure, where they may be spatially out-competed by Laminaria hyperborea.  However, the seasonally unstable nature of the substrata or periodic sediment scour within theses biotopes is likely to inhibit the growth of long lived species, such as Laminaria hyperborea and allow opportunistic species such as Demarestia spp., Saccharina latissima and Saccorhiza polyschides to proliferate.  An increase in local wave height may increase local sediment mobility and scour, potentially increasing dislodgment of kelps (Birket et al., 1998) and Desmarestia spp. The biotopes may appear sparse after winter storms but the biotope recovers again due to rapid colonization and growth by the dominant kelps and Desmarestia spp.

Sensitivity assessment. The biotope is dominated by rapid colonizing species that tolerate or rapidly recover from scour, siltation and burial.  They occur across a broad wave exposure range, and, therefore, a change in nearshore significant wave height of 3-5% is not likely to have a significant effect on biotope structure. Resistance has been assessed as ’High’, resilience as ‘High’. Therefore, sensitivity has been assessed as ‘Not Sensitive’ at the benchmark level.

High
Low
NR
NR
Help
High
High
Low
High
Help
Not sensitive
Low
NR
NR
Help

Chemical Pressures

Use [show more] / [show less] to open/close text displayed

ResistanceResilienceSensitivity
Transition elements & organo-metal contamination [Show more]

Transition elements & organo-metal contamination

Benchmark. Exposure of marine species or habitat to one or more relevant contaminants via uncontrolled releases or incidental spills. Further detail

Evidence

This pressure is Not assessed but evidence is presented where available.

Bryan (1984) suggested that the general order for heavy metal toxicity in seaweeds is: Organic Hg > inorganic Hg > Cu > Ag > Zn > Cd > Pb. Cole et al., (1999) reported that Hg was very toxic to macrophytes. Similarly, Hopkin & Kain (1978) demonstrated sub-lethal effects of heavy metals on kelp gametophytes and sporophytes, including reduced growth and respiration. Sheppard et al. (1980) noted that increasing levels of heavy metal contamination along the west coast of Britain reduced species number and richness in holdfast fauna, except for suspension feeders which became increasingly dominant. Gastropods may be relatively tolerant of heavy metal pollution (Bryan, 1984). Although macroalgae species may not be killed, except by high levels of contamination, reduced growth rates may impair the ability of the biotope to recover from other environmental disturbances. Thompson & Burrows (1984) observed the growth of Saccharina latissima sporophyte growth was significantly inhibited at 50 µg Cu /l, 1000 µg Zn/l and 50 µg Hg/l. Zoospores were found to be more intolerant and significant reductions in survival rates were observed at 25 µg Cu/l, 1000 µg Zn/l and 5 µg/l.

Not Assessed (NA)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Not assessed (NA)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Not assessed (NA)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Hydrocarbon & PAH contamination [Show more]

Hydrocarbon & PAH contamination

Benchmark. Exposure of marine species or habitat to one or more relevant contaminants via uncontrolled releases or incidental spills. Further detail

Evidence

This pressure is Not assessed but evidence is presented where available.

IR.HIR.KSed.Sac, IR.HIR.KSed.SlatSac, IR.HIR.KSed.DesFilR, IR.HIR.KSed.XKScrR, are predominantly recorded in the sub-tidal (<0 m). These habitats are therefore not likely to come into contact with freshly released oil but only to sinking emulsified oil and oil adsorbed onto particles (Birket et al., 1998b). The mucilaginous slime layer coating of laminarians may protect them from smothering by oil. Hydrocarbons in solution reduce photosynthesis and may be algicidal. However, Holt et al. (1995) reported that oil spills in the USA and from the Torrey Canyon had little effect on kelp forests. Similarly, surveys of subtidal communities at a number sites between 1-22.5m below chart datum showed no noticeable impacts of the Sea Empress oil spill and clean up (Rostron & Bunker, 1997). Laboratory studies of the effects of oil and dispersants on several red algae species, including Delesseria sanguinea (Grandy 1984; cited in Holt et al., 1995) concluded that they were all sensitive to oil/ dispersant mixtures, with little differences between adults, sporelings, diploid or haploid life stages.

Not Assessed (NA)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Not assessed (NA)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Not assessed (NA)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Synthetic compound contamination [Show more]

Synthetic compound contamination

Benchmark. Exposure of marine species or habitat to one or more relevant contaminants via uncontrolled releases or incidental spills. Further detail

Evidence

This pressure is Not assessed but evidence is presented where available.

O'Brian & Dixon (1976) suggested that red algae were the most sensitive group of macrophytes to oil and dispersant contamination (see Smith, 1968). Saccharina latissima has also been found to be sensitive to antifouling compounds. Johansson (2009) exposed samples of Saccharina latissima to several antifouing compounds, observing chlorothalonil, DCOIT, dichlofluanid and tolylfluanid inhibited photosynthesis. Exposure to Chlorothalonil and tolylfluanid, was also found to continue inhibiting oxygen evolution after exposure had finished, and may cause irreversible damage.

Smith (1968) observed that epiphytic and benthic red algae were intolerant of dispersant or oil contamination during the Torrey Canyon oil spill; only the epiphytes Crytopleura ramosa and Spermothamnion repens and some tufts of Jania rubens survived together with Osmundea pinnatifida, Gigartina pistillata and Phyllophora crispa from the sublittoral fringe. Delesseria sanguinea was probably the most intolerant since it was damaged at depths of 6m (Smith, 1968). Holt et al.(1995) suggested that Delesseria sanguinea is probably generally sensitive of chemical contamination.

Not Assessed (NA)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Not assessed (NA)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Not assessed (NA)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Radionuclide contamination [Show more]

Radionuclide contamination

Benchmark. An increase in 10µGy/h above background levels. Further detail

Evidence

No evidence

Not relevant (NR)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Not relevant (NR)
NR
NR
NR
Help
No evidence (NEv)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Introduction of other substances [Show more]

Introduction of other substances

Benchmark. Exposure of marine species or habitat to one or more relevant contaminants via uncontrolled releases or incidental spills. Further detail

Evidence

This pressure is Not assessed.

Not Assessed (NA)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Not assessed (NA)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Not assessed (NA)
NR
NR
NR
Help
De-oxygenation [Show more]

De-oxygenation

Benchmark. Exposure to dissolved oxygen concentration of less than or equal to 2 mg/l for one week (a change from WFD poor status to bad status). Further detail

Evidence

Reduced oxygen concentrations can inhibit both photosynthesis and respiration in macroalgae (Kinne, 1977). Despite this, macroalgae are thought to buffer the environmental conditions of low oxygen, thereby acting as a refuge for organisms in oxygen-depleted regions especially if the oxygen depletion is short-term (Frieder et al., 2012).If levels do drop below 4 mg/l negative effects on these organisms can be expected with adverse effects occurring below 2 mg/l (Cole et al., 1999).  However, in wave exposed, highly mixed, areas, the hypoxic conditions are likely to be transient.

Sensitivity Assessment. Reduced oxygen levels are likely to inhibit photosynthesis and respiration but not cause a loss of the macroalgae population directly. Resistance has been assessed as ‘High’, and resilience as ‘High’. Sensitivity has been assessed as ‘Not sensitive’ at the benchmark level.

High
Medium
High
High
Help
High
High
High
High
Help
Not sensitive
Medium
High
High
Help
Nutrient enrichment [Show more]

Nutrient enrichment

Benchmark. Compliance with WFD criteria for good status. Further detail

Evidence

Conolly & Drew (1985) found that Saccharina latissima sporophytes plants at the most eutrophic site in a study on the east coast of Scotland where nutrient levels were 25% higher than ambient levels exhibited a high growth rate. However, Read et al. (1983) reported after removal of a major sewage pollution in the Firth of Forth, Saccharina latissima became abundant where previously it had been absent. Bokn et al. (2003) conducted a nutrient loading experiment on intertidal fucoids. Within 3 years of the experiment no significant effect was observed in the communities, however, 4-5 years into the experiment a shift occurred from perennials to ephemeral algae occurred. Although Bokn et al. (2003) focussed on fucoids the results could indicate that long-term (>4 years) nutrient loading can result in community shift to ephemeral algae species, and explain the disparity between the findings of Conolly & Drew (1985) & Read et al. (1983).

Johnston & Roberts (2009) conducted a meta-analysis, which reviewed 216 papers to assess how a variety of contaminants (including sewage and nutrient loading) affected 6 marine habitats (including subtidal reefs). A 30-50% reduction in species diversity and richness was identified from all habitats exposed to the contaminant types. Johnston & Roberts (2009) however also highlighted that macro-algal communities are relatively tolerant to contamination, but that contaminated communities can have low diversity assemblages which are dominated by opportunistic and fast growing species (Johnston & Roberts, 2009 and references therein). Nutrient enrichment may also result in phytoplankton blooms that increase turbidity and, therefore, may negatively impact photosynthesis.

Sensitivity assessment. However, the biotope is assessed as ‘Not sensitive’ at the pressure benchmark that assumes compliance with good status as defined by the WFD.

Not relevant (NR)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Not relevant (NR)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Not sensitive
NR
NR
NR
Help
Organic enrichment [Show more]

Organic enrichment

Benchmark. A deposit of 100 gC/m2/yr. Further detail

Evidence

Conolly & Drew (1985) found Saccharina latissima sporophytes had relatively higher growth rates close to a sewage outlet in St Andrews, UK when compared to other sites along the east coast of Scotland. At St Andrews, nitrate levels were 20.22µM, which represents an approx 25% increase when compared to other comparable sites (approx 15.87 µM). Handå et al. (2013) also reported Saccharina latissima sporophytes grew approx 1% faster per day when in close proximity to Norwegian Salmon farms, where elevated ammonium can be readily absorbed.  Read et al. (1983) reported after the installation of a new sewage treatment works, which reduced the suspended solid content of liquid effluent by 60% in the Firth of Forth, Saccharina latissima became abundant where previously it had been absent. Bokn et al. (2003) conducted a nutrient loading experiment on intertidal fucoids. Within 3 years of the experiment no significant effect was observed in the communities, however, 4-5 years into the experiment a shift occurred from perennials to ephemeral algae occurred. Although Bokn et al. (2003) focussed on fucoids the results could indicate that long-term (>4 years) nutrient loading can result in community shift to ephemeral algae species. Differences between the findings of the aforementioned studies are likely to be related to the level of organic enrichment, however, could also be time dependent.

Johnston & Roberts (2009) conducted a meta-analysis, which reviewed 216 papers to assess how a variety of contaminants (including sewage and nutrient loading) affected 6 marine habitats (including subtidal reefs). A 30-50% reduction in species diversity and richness was identified from all habitats exposed to the contaminant types. Johnston & Roberts (2009) however also highlighted that macroalgal communities are relatively tolerant to contamination, but that contaminated communities can have low diversity assemblages which are dominated by opportunistic and fast growing species (Johnston & Roberts, 2009 and references therein). Organic enrichment may also result in phytoplankton blooms that increase turbidity and, therefore, may negatively impact photosynthesis.

Sensitivity assessment. Although short-term exposure (<4 years) to organic enrichment may not affect seaweeds directly, indirect effects such as turbidity may significantly affect photosynthesis.  Therefore, resistance has been assessed as ‘Medium’, resilience as ‘High’ and sensitivity as ’Low’.

Medium
Medium
High
High
Help
High
High
Medium
High
Help
Low
Medium
Medium
High
Help

Physical Pressures

Use [show more] / [show less] to open/close text displayed

ResistanceResilienceSensitivity
Physical loss (to land or freshwater habitat) [Show more]

Physical loss (to land or freshwater habitat)

Benchmark. A permanent loss of existing saline habitat within the site. Further detail

Evidence

All marine habitats and benthic species are considered to have a resistance of ‘None’ to this pressure and to be unable to recover from a permanent loss of habitat (resilience is ‘Very Low’).  Sensitivity within the direct spatial footprint of this pressure is therefore ‘High’.  Although no specific evidence is described confidence in this assessment is ‘High’, due to the incontrovertible nature of this pressure.

None
High
High
High
Help
Very Low
High
High
High
Help
High
High
High
High
Help
Physical change (to another seabed type) [Show more]

Physical change (to another seabed type)

Benchmark. Permanent change from sedimentary or soft rock substrata to hard rock or artificial substrata or vice-versa. Further detail

Evidence

If rock substrata were replaced with sedimentary substrata this would represent a fundamental change in habitat type, which Saccharina latissima, Saccorhiza polyschides and Desmarestia spp. would not be able to tolerate. The biotope would be lost.

Sensitivity assessment. Resistance to the pressure is considered ‘None’, and resilience ‘Very Low’. The sensitivity of this biotope to change from sedimentary or soft rock substrata to hard rock or artificial substrata or vice-versa is assessed as ‘High’.

None
High
High
High
Help
Very Low
High
High
High
Help
High
High
High
High
Help
Physical change (to another sediment type) [Show more]

Physical change (to another sediment type)

Benchmark. Permanent change in one Folk class (based on UK SeaMap simplified classification). Further detail

Evidence

Not relevant

Not relevant (NR)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Not relevant (NR)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Not relevant (NR)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Habitat structure changes - removal of substratum (extraction) [Show more]

Habitat structure changes - removal of substratum (extraction)

Benchmark. The extraction of substratum to 30 cm (where substratum includes sediments and soft rock but excludes hard bedrock). Further detail

Evidence

Not relevant

Not relevant (NR)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Not relevant (NR)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Not relevant (NR)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Abrasion / disturbance of the surface of the substratum or seabed [Show more]

Abrasion / disturbance of the surface of the substratum or seabed

Benchmark. Damage to surface features (e.g. species and physical structures within the habitat). Further detail

Evidence

Abrasion of the substratum e.g. from bottom or pot fishing gear, cable laying etc. may cause localised mobility of the substrata and mortality of the resident community. The effect would be situation dependent however if bottom fishing gear were towed over a site it may mobilise a high proportion of the rock substrata and cause high mortality in the resident community. However, the characteristic species within IR.HIR.KSed.Sac, IR.HIR.KSed.SlatSac, IR.HIR.KSed.DesFilR, and IR.HIR.KSed.XKScrR have rapid growth rates and are distinctive of “disturbed areas. Information on from experimental clearances is summarised under resilience above.

Sensitivity assessment. Resistance has been assessed as ‘None’, Resilience as ‘High’. Sensitivity has been assessed as ‘Medium’.

None
Low
NR
NR
Help
High
High
High
High
Help
Medium
Low
NR
NR
Help
Penetration or disturbance of the substratum subsurface [Show more]

Penetration or disturbance of the substratum subsurface

Benchmark. Damage to sub-surface features (e.g. species and physical structures within the habitat). Further detail

Evidence

Not relevant, please refer to pressure 'Abrasion/disturbance of the substratum on the surface of the seabed'.

Not relevant (NR)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Not relevant (NR)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Not relevant (NR)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Changes in suspended solids (water clarity) [Show more]

Changes in suspended solids (water clarity)

Benchmark. A change in one rank on the WFD (Water Framework Directive) scale e.g. from clear to intermediate for one year. Further detail

Evidence

Suspended Particle Matter (SPM) concentration has a linear relationship with subsurface light attenuation (Kd) (Devlin et al., 1998). Light penetration influences the maximum depth at which kelp species can grow and it has been reported that laminarians grow at depths at which the light levels are reduced to 1 percent of incident light at the surface. Maximal depth distribution of laminarians, therefore, varies from 100m in the Mediterranean to only 6-7m in the silt-laden German Bight.  In Atlantic European waters, the depth limit is typically 35m. In very turbid waters the depth at which kelp is found may be reduced, or in some cases excluded completely (e.g. Severn Estuary), because of the alteration in light attenuation by suspended sediment (Lüning, 1990; Birkett et al., 1998). Limited information is available on which to assess the effect of a decrease in water clarity on Laminariales show a decrease of 50% photosynthetic activity when turbidity increases by 0.1/m (light attenuation coefficient =0.1-0.2/m; Staehr & Wernberg, 2009). Demarestia spp. recruitment has also been found to be highly affected by light attenuation and frequency, typically rare (ca <10% coverage (Edwards, 1998) beneath kelp canopies where light levels can be 1-5% of surface irradiance (Kitching, 1941).

A decrease in water clarity as a result of mobilised sediments may also increase sediment scour of biotopes within close proximity. However, the characterizing species within IR.HIR.KSed.Sac, IR.HIR.KSed.SlatSac, IR.HIR.KSed.DesFilR, and IR.HIR.KSed.XKScrR have rapid growth and colonisation rates are as such relatively resilient to sediment scouring.

Sensitivity assessment. An increase in water clarity from clear to intermediate (10-100mg/l) represent a change in light attenuation of ca 0.67-6.7 Kd/m and is likely to result in a greater than 50% reduction in photosynthesis of Laminaria spp. The biotope is typical of sediment affected habitats and laminarians occur at a lower abundance than in other HIR.KSwed biotopes. But Desmarestia recruitment and presumably growth is likely to be affected adversely by the reduction in light and the abundance of the important characterizing species could decline. Therefore, resistance to this pressure is assessed as ‘Low’. Resilience to this pressure is assessed as ‘High’ and this biotope is regarded as having a sensitivity of ‘Low‘.

Low
Medium
Medium
Medium
Help
High
High
High
High
Help
Low
Medium
Medium
Medium
Help
Smothering and siltation rate changes (light) [Show more]

Smothering and siltation rate changes (light)

Benchmark. ‘Light’ deposition of up to 5 cm of fine material added to the seabed in a single discrete event. Further detail

Evidence

Smothering by sediment e.g. 5 cm material during a discrete event, is unlikely to damage Saccharina latissima, Saccorhiza polyschides and Desmarestia spp. sporophytes but may provide a physical barrier to zoospore settlement and therefore negatively impact on recruitment processes (Moy & Christie, 2012). Laboratory studies showed that kelp and gametophytes can survive in darkness for between 6-16 months at 8°C and would probably survive smothering by a discrete event and once returned to normal conditions gametophytes resumed growth or maturation within 1 month (Dieck, 1993). Saccorhiza polyschides zoospores successfully developed after 180 days of darkness (Norton, 1977). Intolerance to this factor is likely to be higher during the peak periods of sporulation and/or spore settlement.

IR.HIR.KSed.Sac, IR.HIR.KSed.SlatSac, IR.HIR.KSed.DesFilR, IR.HIR.KSed.XKScrR are found from extreme wave exposed-sheltered sites (Connor et al., 2004). In wave exposed biotopes deposited sediment is unlikely to remain for more than a few tidal cycles (due to water flow or wave action). In sheltered biotopes deposited sediment could remain and the effects of deposition could be longer lasting.

Sensitivity assessment. Resistance has been assessed as ‘High’, resilience as ‘High’ and sensitivity as ‘Not Sensitive’.

High
Low
NR
NR
Help
High
High
High
High
Help
Not sensitive
Low
Low
Low
Help
Smothering and siltation rate changes (heavy) [Show more]

Smothering and siltation rate changes (heavy)

Benchmark. ‘Heavy’ deposition of up to 30 cm of fine material added to the seabed in a single discrete event. Further detail

Evidence

Smothering by sediment e.g. 30 cm material during a discrete event is unlikely to damage Saccharina latissima, Saccorhiza polyschides, and Desmarestia spp. sporophytes but may provide a physical barrier to zoospore settlement and therefore negatively impact on recruitment processes (Moy & Christie, 2012). The volume of sediment may also inundate juvenile sporophytes. Given the short life expectancy of Saccharina latissima (2-4 years;Parke, 1948), self-sustaining populations are likely to be dependent on annual recruitment (Moy & Christie, 2012). Given the microscopic size of the gametophyte, 30 cm of sediment could be expected to significantly inhibit growth.  Laboratory studies showed that kelp and gametophytes can survive in darkness for between 6-16 months at 8°C and would probably survive smothering by a discrete event and once returned to normal conditions gametophytes resumed growth or maturation within 1 month (Dieck, 1993).  Saccorhiza polyschides zoospores, specifically, successfully developed after 180 days of darkness (Norton, 1977). Intolerance to this factor is likely to be higher during the peak periods of sporulation and/or spore settlement.

IR.HIR.KSed.XKScrR is subject to periodic burial from surrounding sediments, however, IR.HIR.KSed.Sac, IR.HIR.KSed.SlatSac, IR.HIR.KSed.DesFilR, and IR.HIR.KSed.XKScrR are recorded from extreme wave exposed-sheltered sites (Connor et al., 2004) and, therefore, the effects of burial are likely to be mediated. In highly wave exposed biotopes deposited sediment is unlikely to remain for more than a few tidal cycles (due to water flow or wave action). In sheltered biotopes, the high volume of deposited sediment could remain and the effects could be longer lasting. However, these biotopes are periodically disturbed by winter storms or sediment scour therefore deposited sediments are unlikely to remain for a full season.

Sensitivity assessment. Resistance has been assessed as ‘Medium’, resilience as ‘High’. Sensitivity has been assessed as ‘Low’.

Medium
Low
NR
NR
Help
High
High
High
High
Help
Low
Low
Low
Low
Help
Litter [Show more]

Litter

Benchmark. The introduction of man-made objects able to cause physical harm (surface, water column, seafloor or strandline). Further detail

Evidence

Not assessed.

Not Assessed (NA)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Not assessed (NA)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Not assessed (NA)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Electromagnetic changes [Show more]

Electromagnetic changes

Benchmark. A local electric field of 1 V/m or a local magnetic field of 10 µT. Further detail

Evidence

No evidence

Not relevant (NR)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Not relevant (NR)
NR
NR
NR
Help
No evidence (NEv)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Underwater noise changes [Show more]

Underwater noise changes

Benchmark. MSFD indicator levels (SEL or peak SPL) exceeded for 20% of days in a calendar year. Further detail

Evidence

Not relevant

Not relevant (NR)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Not relevant (NR)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Not relevant (NR)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Introduction of light or shading [Show more]

Introduction of light or shading

Benchmark. A change in incident light via anthropogenic means. Further detail

Evidence

There is no evidence to suggest that anthropogenic light sources would affect Saccharina latissima, Saccorhiza polyschides and Desmarestia spp. Shading of the biotope (e.g. by the construction of a pontoon, pier etc) could adversely affect the biotope in areas where the water clarity is also low, and tip the balance to shade tolerant species, resulting in the loss of the biotope directly within the shaded area, or a reduction in seaweed abundance.

Sensitivity assessment. Resistance is probably 'Low', with a 'Medium' resilience and a sensitivity of 'Medium', albeit with 'low' confidence due to the lack of direct evidence.

Low
Low
NR
NR
Help
Medium
Low
NR
NR
Help
Medium
Low
NR
NR
Help
Barrier to species movement [Show more]

Barrier to species movement

Benchmark. A permanent or temporary barrier to species movement over ≥50% of water body width or a 10% change in tidal excursion. Further detail

Evidence

Not relevant. This pressure is considered applicable to mobile species, e.g. fish and marine mammals rather than seabed habitats. Physical and hydrographic barriers may limit the dispersal of spores.  But spore dispersal is not considered under the pressure definition and benchmark.

Not relevant (NR)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Not relevant (NR)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Not relevant (NR)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Death or injury by collision [Show more]

Death or injury by collision

Benchmark. Injury or mortality from collisions of biota with both static or moving structures due to 0.1% of tidal volume on an average tide, passing through an artificial structure. Further detail

Evidence

Not relevant. Collision from grounding vessels is addressed under abrasion above.

Not relevant (NR)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Not relevant (NR)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Not relevant (NR)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Visual disturbance [Show more]

Visual disturbance

Benchmark. The daily duration of transient visual cues exceeds 10% of the period of site occupancy by the feature. Further detail

Evidence

Not relevant

Not relevant (NR)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Not relevant (NR)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Not relevant (NR)
NR
NR
NR
Help

Biological Pressures

Use [show more] / [show less] to open/close text displayed

ResistanceResilienceSensitivity
Genetic modification & translocation of indigenous species [Show more]

Genetic modification & translocation of indigenous species

Benchmark. Translocation of indigenous species or the introduction of genetically modified or genetically different populations of indigenous species that may result in changes in the genetic structure of local populations, hybridization, or change in community structure. Further detail

Evidence

At the time of writing no evidence regarding the genetic modification or effects of translocation of native kelp populations was found.

Not relevant (NR)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Not relevant (NR)
NR
NR
NR
Help
No evidence (NEv)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Introduction or spread of invasive non-indigenous species [Show more]

Introduction or spread of invasive non-indigenous species

Benchmark. The introduction of one or more invasive non-indigenous species (INIS). Further detail

Evidence

Competition with invasive macroalgae may be a potential threat to native kelp biotopes.  Potential invasives include Undaria pinnatifida, Sargassum muticum and Codium fragile (de Bettignies et al., 2021). In Nova Scotia, Codium fragile competes successfully with native kelps for space including Laminaria digitata, exploiting gaps within the kelp beds.  Once established, the algal mat created by Codium fragile prevents re-colonization by other macro-algae (Scheibling et al., 2006).

Sargassum muticum is a circumglobal invasive species (Engelen et al., 2015).  It is recorded (2015) from Norway to Morocco and into the Mediterranean in the eastern Atlantic and from Alaska to Baja California in the eastern Pacific and from southern Russia to southern China in the western Pacific (Engelen et al., 2015).  It colonizes a variety of habitats and can tolerate -1°C to 30°C and survive salinities below 10 ppt.  Although fertilization does not occur below 15 ppt and growth of germlings is limited below 10°C it can complete its life cycle as long as temperatures are over 8°C for at least four months of the year (Engelen et al., 2015).  However, its distribution is limited by the availability of hard substratum (e.g. stones >10 cm) and light (Staeher et al., 2000; Strong & Dring 2011; Engelen et al., 2015).  It is most abundant between 1 and 3 m below mean water.  But it has been recorded at 18 m or 30 m in the clear waters of California.  However, it is a poor competitor under low light and only develops dense canopies in shallow areas (Engelen et al., 2015).

Sargassum muticum was shown to replace and out-compete leathery, canopy-forming macroalgae such as Saccharina latissima, Halidrys siliquosa, and Fucus spp. and, to a lesser degree, understorey species such as Codium fragile, Chondrus crispus and Dictyota dichotoma in Limfjorden, Denmark between 1984 and 1997 (Staehr et al., 2000; Engelen et al., 2015; de Bettignies et al., 2021).  The invasion in Limfjorden had stabilized by 2005 although many of the native macroalgal species continued to decline (Engelen et al., 2015).  In Limfjorden, the distribution of Sargassum muticum was limited to areas with hard substratum, in particular stones >10 cm in diameter, while smaller stones, gravel and sand were unsuitable.  It was most abundant between 1 and 4 m in depth but had low cover at 0-0.5 m or 4-6 m, in the turbid waters of the Limfjorden.  Limfjorden is wave sheltered although wave exposure has been reported to restrict the growth and survival of Sargassum muticum (Staehr et al., 2000).  Viejo et al. (1995) reported that Sargassum muticum transplanted to wave exposed shores in Spain experienced >80% breakages within a month and that the growth of undamaged plants was significantly lower than that of plants on sheltered shores.  Similarly, Andrew & Viejo (1998) noted that Sargassum muticum was restricted to intertidal rockpools in wave exposed sites in the Bay of Biscay.

Experimental manipulation of subtidal algal canopies in San Juan Islands, Washington State, USA, showed that Sargassum muticum reduced the abundance and diversity of native macroalgae, including the kelp Laminaria bongardiana and Desmarestia spp. due to shadingHowever, experimental removal of Sargassum resulted in the recovery of native species within about one year (Britton-Simmons, 2004; Engelen et al., 2015).  The negative effects of Sargassum muticum on native macroalgae are mainly due to completion to light, rather than changes in nutrient availability, sedimentation or water flow (Britton-Simmons, 2004; Engelen et al., 2015).

Undaria pinnatifida (Wakame or Asian kelp) is a large brown seaweed and an Invasive Non-Indigenous Species (INIS) that could out-compete native UK kelp species (see Farrell & Fletcher, 2006; Thompson & Schiel, 2012; Brodie et al., 2014; Hieser et al., 2014; Arnold et al., 2016; Epstein & Smale, 2017; Kraan, 2017; Epstein & Smale, 2018; Epstein et al., 2019a,b; Tidbury, 2020). Undaria pinnatifida originates from Japan but is established currently on the coastlines of New Zealand, Australia, Northern France, Spain, Italy, the UK, Portugal, Belgium, Holland, Argentina, Mexico, and the USA (De Leij et al., 2017). Undaria pinnatifida was first recorded in the UK in the Hamble Estuary in 1994 (Macleod et al., 2016) and has since proliferated along UK coastlines. One year after its discovery at the Queen Anne Battery marina, Plymouth, it had become a major fouling plant on pontoons (Minchin & Nunn, 2014). Although initially restricted to artificial habitats, such as marinas and ports, it is now widespread in natural habitats in several areas, including Plymouth Sound.

Undaria pinnatifida seems to settle better on artificial substrata (e.g. floats, marinas or piers) than on natural rocky shores among local kelps (Vaz-Pinto et al., 2014). It is found predominantly in low intertidal to shallow subtidal habitats (Epstein et al., 2019b) and is significantly more abundant on artificial substrata compared to natural rocky substrata (Heiser et al., 2014; Epstein & Smale, 2018). James (2017) suggested that Undaria pinnatifida could out-compete native species on artificial substrata (such as marinas and wharf structures). De Leij et al. (2017) suggested that in natural substrata, Undaria pinnatifida can be inhibited by the presence of native competitors, such as large perennial species. The species behaves as a winter annual and recruitment occurs in winter followed by rapid growth through spring, maturity and then senescence through summer, with only the microscopic life stages persisting through autumn. It exhibits multiple dispersal strategies, such as short-range spore dispersal, and long-range dispersal as whole drift plants or fragments. Undaria pinnatifida has spread rapidly across the UK and Europe, resulting in community-wide responses and impacts (Vaz-Pinto et al., 2014; Epstein & Smale, 2017). Its impacts are complex and context-specific, depending on space, time, and taxa present in the introduced location (Epstein & Smale, 2017; Teagle et al., 2017; Tidbury, 2020).

Undaria pinnatifida has been reported to both co-exist with and out-compete Saccharina latissima (Farrell & Fletcher, 2006; Heiser et al., 2014; Epstein et al., 2019b). For example, in Torquay Marina, UK, Farrell & Fletcher (2006) completed a canopy removal experiment between 1996-2002. They reported that Saccharina latissima decreased in both control and treatment plots from ca 3 plants per 0.45 m² in 1996 to ca 1 plant per 0.45 m² in 1997 and had disappeared completely from pontoons by 2002. This coincided with a significant increase in Undaria pinnatifida from 0 plants per 0.45 m² in 1996 to ca 6 plants per 0.45 m² in 1997. However, there was a slight decrease in Undaria pinnatifida at both control and treatment plots between 1997 and 1998. By 2002, Undaria pinnatifida had recovered at control and treatment plots to ca 4-6 plants per 0.45 m² whereas Saccharina latissima had not.

In Plymouth Sound (UK), Epstein et al. (2019b) found that within its depth range (+1 to –4 m), Undaria pinnatifida co-existed with seven species of canopy-forming brown macroalgae, including Saccharina latissima. However, they reported that Undaria pinnatifida biomass was negatively related to Saccharina latissima in both intertidal and subtidal habitats. This was only statistically significant in subtidal habitats, which suggested that there was some competition between the two species (Epstein et al., 2019b). Heiser et al. (2014) surveyed 17 sites within Plymouth Sound, UK and found that Saccharina latissima was significantly more abundant at sites with Undaria pinnatifida with ca 5 Saccharina latissima individuals per m² present, compared to ca 0.5 Saccharina latissima individuals per m² present at sites without Undaria pinnatifida.

Epstein et al. (2019a) reported that when Undaria pinnatifida was removed from sites in Plymouth Sound, there was no difference in understorey assemblages. Surveys revealed that there was a high variation in the abundance and mean cover of understory macroalgae, both between plots and survey months. For example, the mean cover of brown understorey algae followed the same trend for each removal treatment (0%, 50% and 100% removal of Undaria pinnatifida). Epstein et al. (2019a) observed an initial increase in mean percentage cover of brown understorey algae 0-5 months following the removal of Undaria pinnatifida, which peaked after 7 months. This then decreased 7-15 months post-removal and then slightly recovered after 16-20 months.

Sensitivity assessment.  IR.HIR.KSed.DesFilR is wave exposed and has weak to moderately strong tidal streams that result in seasonally mobile substrata, especially in winter storms. Hence, it is dominated by opportunistic annuals such as Desmarestia spp. with only stunted individual kelps such as Saccharina latissima and Laminaria hyperborea present where bedrock is available.

Undaria pinnatifida may be able to colonize the biotope although winter mobility of substrata may interfere with its recruitment.  However, it is unlikely to out-compete the native kelps in wave exposed conditions. Also, the evidence suggests that Undaria pinnatifida does not affect the abundance of brown understorey algae. Similarly, Sargassum muticum prefers wave sheltered conditions in shallow waters or the sublittoral fringe and is unlikely to out-compete the native kelps or brown algae in the wave exposed conditions and depth (5-10 m) that define this biotope.  Therefore, the presence of a few individuals of Sargassum muticum and/or Undaria pinnatifida is unlikely to have a significant effect on the community of the biotope. Hence, resistance is assessed as ‘Medium’ to represent their potential to replace individuals of the characteristic native kelps but this is a precautionary assessment. Resilience is assessed as ‘High’ as the biotope is disturbed and both the native and non-native species need to recolonize and/or regrow annually. Therefore, sensitivity is assessed as ‘Low’. Overall, confidence is assessed as ‘Low’ due to evidence of variation and site-specific nature of competition between native kelps and both Undaria pinnatifida and Sargassum muticum.

Medium
Low
NR
NR
Help
High
High
High
High
Help
Low
Low
Low
Low
Help
Introduction of microbial pathogens [Show more]

Introduction of microbial pathogens

Benchmark. The introduction of relevant microbial pathogens or metazoan disease vectors to an area where they are currently not present (e.g. Martelia refringens and Bonamia, Avian influenza virus, viral Haemorrhagic Septicaemia virus). Further detail

Evidence

Laminarians may be infected by the microscopic brown alga Streblonema aecidioides. Infected algae show symptoms of Streblonema disease, i.e. alterations of the blade and stipe ranging from dark spots to heavy deformations and completely crippled thalli Infection can reduce growth rates of host algae (Peters & Scaffelke, 1996). The marine fungi Eurychasma spp can also infect early life stages of laminarians and Desmarestia viridis, however the effects of infection are unknown (Müller et al., 1999).

Sensitivity assessment. Due to a lack of conclusive evidence the sensitivity of this biotope cannot be assessed against this pressure.

No evidence (NEv)
NR
NR
NR
Help
No evidence (NEv)
NR
NR
NR
Help
No evidence (NEv)
NR
NR
NR
Help
Removal of target species [Show more]

Removal of target species

Benchmark. Removal of species targeted by fishery, shellfishery or harvesting at a commercial or recreational scale. Further detail

Evidence

There has been recent commercial interest in Saccharina latissima as a consumable called “sea vegetables” (Birket et al., 1998). However, Saccharina latissima sporophytes are typically matured on ropes (Handå et al. 2013) and not directly extracted from the seabed, as with Laminaria hyperborea (Christie et al., 1998). No evidence has been found for commercial extraction of Saccorhiza polyschides or Desmarestia spp.. However, if the biotopes were subject to harvest, then a large propostion of the resisdent kelp population could be removed. . Thus evidence to assess the resistance of IR.HIR.KSed.Sac, IR.HIR.KSed.SlatSac, IR.HIR.KSed.DesFilR, IR.HIR.KSed.XKScrR to direct harvesting is limited. It has been assumed that if targeted harvesting were in operation it would remove >75% of sporophytes.

Sensitivity assessment. Resistance has been assessed as ‘None’, Resilience as ‘High’. Sensitivity has been assessed as ‘Medium’.

None
Low
NR
NR
Help
High
High
High
High
Help
Medium
Low
NR
NR
Help
Removal of non-target species [Show more]

Removal of non-target species

Benchmark. Removal of features or incidental non-targeted catch (by-catch) through targeted fishery, shellfishery or harvesting at a commercial or recreational scale. Further detail

Evidence

IR.HIR.KSed.Sac, IR.HIR.KSed.SlatSac, IR.HIR.KSed.DesFilR, IR.HIR.KSed.XKScrR Are characterised by a canopy of Saccorhiza polyschides, Saccharina latissima and Desmarestia spp. If the canopy were removed the red seaweeds understorey community may become bleached, and/or perish (Hawkins & Harkin, 1985), leading to further reductions in biodiversity. The biotope is however naturally periodically disturbed and as such would recover rapidly.

Sensitivity assessment. Resistance has been assessed as ‘None’, Resiliance as ‘High’. Sensitivity has been assessed as ‘Medium’.

None
Low
NR
NR
Help
High
High
High
High
Help
Medium
Low
NR
NR
Help

Bibliography

  1. Andrew, N.L. & Viejo, R.M., 1998. Ecological limits to the invasion of Sargassum muticum in northern Spain. Aquatic Botany, 60 (3), 251-263. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3770(97)00088-0

  2. Arnold, M., Teagle, H., Brown, M.P. & Smale, D.A., 2016. The structure of biogenic habitat and epibiotic assemblages associated with the global invasive kelp Undaria pinnatifida in comparison to native macroalgae. Biological Invasions, 18 (3), 661-676. DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-015-1037-6

  3. Baardseth, E., 1956. The growth rings in Alaria stipes.  In Proceedings of the International Seaweed Symposium, 2, Trondheim (eds T. Braarud & N.A. Sorensen)  pp. 153-157. London: Pergamon Press.

  4. Bégin, C., Johnson, L.E. & Himmelman, J.H., 2004. Macroalgal canopies: distribution and diversity of associated invertebrates and effects on the recruitment and growth of mussels. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 271 (1), 121-132.

  5. Bekkby, T. & Moy, F.E., 2011. Developing spatial models of sugar kelp (Saccharina latissima) potential distribution under natural conditions and areas of its disappearance in Skagerrak. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science, 95 (4), 477-483.

  6. Beszczynska-Möller, A., & Dye, S.R., 2013. ICES Report on Ocean Climate 2012. In ICES Cooperative Research Report, vol. 321 pp. 73.

  7. Birkett, D.A., Maggs, C.A., Dring, M.J. & Boaden, P.J.S., 1998b. Infralittoral reef biotopes with kelp species: an overview of dynamic and sensitivity characteristics for conservation management of marine SACs. Natura 2000 report prepared by Scottish Association of Marine Science (SAMS) for the UK Marine SACs Project., Scottish Association for Marine Science. (UK Marine SACs Project, vol VI.), 174 pp. Available from: http://ukmpa.marinebiodiversity.org/uk_sacs/pdfs/reefkelp.pdf

  8. Bishop, G.M., 1985. Aspects of the reproductive ecology of the sea urchin Echinus esculentus L. Ph.D. thesis, University of Exeter, UK.

  9. Boolootian, R.A.,1966. Physiology of Echinodermata. (Ed. R.A. Boolootian), pp. 822-822. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

  10. Bower, S.M., 1996. Synopsis of Infectious Diseases and Parasites of Commercially Exploited Shellfish: Bald-sea-urchin Disease. [On-line]. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. [cited 26/01/16]. Available from: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/aah-saa/diseases-maladies/bsudsu-eng.html

  11. Bradshaw, C., Veale, L.O., Hill, A.S. & Brand, A.R., 2000. The effects of scallop dredging on gravelly seabed communities. In: Effects of fishing on non-target species and habitats (ed. M.J. Kaiser & de S.J. Groot), pp. 83-104. Oxford: Blackwell Science.

  12. Britton-Simmons, K.H., 2004. Direct and indirect effects of the introduced alga Sargassum muticum on benthic, subtidal communities of Washington State, USA. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 277, 61-78. DOI https://doi.org/10.3354/meps277061

  13. Brodie J., Williamson, C.J., Smale, D.A., Kamenos, N.A., Mieszkowska, N., Santos, R., Cunliffe, M., Steinke, M., Yesson, C. & Anderson, K.M., 2014. The future of the northeast Atlantic benthic flora in a high CO2 world. Ecology and Evolution, 4 (13), 2787-2798. DOI  https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1105

  14. Bryan, G.W., 1984. Pollution due to heavy metals and their compounds. In Marine Ecology: A Comprehensive, Integrated Treatise on Life in the Oceans and Coastal Waters, vol. 5. Ocean Management, part 3, (ed. O. Kinne), pp.1289-1431. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

  15. Burrows, M.T., Smale, D., O’Connor, N., Rein, H.V. & Moore, P., 2014. Marine Strategy Framework Directive Indicators for UK Kelp Habitats Part 1: Developing proposals for potential indicators. Joint Nature Conservation Comittee,  Peterborough. Report no. 525.

  16. Casas, G., Scrosati, R. & Piriz, M.L., 2004. The invasive kelp Undaria pinnatifida (Phaeophyceae, Laminariales) reduces native seaweed diversity in Nuevo Gulf (Patagonia, Argentina). Biological Invasions, 6 (4), 411-416.

  17. Castric-Fey, A., Girard, A. & L'Hardy-Halos, M.T., 1993. The Distribution of Undaria pinnatifida (Phaeophyceae, Laminariales) on the Coast of St. Malo (Brittany, France). Botanica Marina, 36 (4), 351-358. DOI https://doi.org/10.1515/botm.1993.36.4.351

  18. Christie, H., Fredriksen, S. & Rinde, E., 1998. Regrowth of kelp and colonization of epiphyte and fauna community after kelp trawling at the coast of Norway. Hydrobiologia, 375/376, 49-58.

  19. Cole, S., Codling, I.D., Parr, W. & Zabel, T., 1999. Guidelines for managing water quality impacts within UK European Marine sites. Natura 2000 report prepared for the UK Marine SACs Project. 441 pp., Swindon: Water Research Council on behalf of EN, SNH, CCW, JNCC, SAMS and EHS. [UK Marine SACs Project.]. Available from: http://ukmpa.marinebiodiversity.org/uk_sacs/pdfs/water_quality.pdf

  20. Connor, D.W., Allen, J.H., Golding, N., Howell, K.L., Lieberknecht, L.M., Northen, K.O. & Reker, J.B., 2004. The Marine Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland. Version 04.05. ISBN 1 861 07561 8. In JNCC (2015), The Marine Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland Version 15.03. [2019-07-24]. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. Available from https://mhc.jncc.gov.uk/

  21. Connor, D.W., Dalkin, M.J., Hill, T.O., Holt, R.H.F. & Sanderson, W.G., 1997a. Marine biotope classification for Britain and Ireland. Vol. 2. Sublittoral biotopes. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough, JNCC Report no. 230, Version 97.06., Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough, JNCC Report no. 230, Version 97.06.

  22. Conolly N.J. & Drew, E.A., 1985. Physiology of Laminaria. III. Effect of a coastal eutrophication on seasonal patterns of growth and tissue composition in Laminaria digitata and L. saccharina. Marine Ecology, Pubblicazioni della Stazione Zoologica di Napoli I, 6, 181-195.

  23. Cosse, A., Potin, P. & Leblanc, C., 2009. Patterns of gene expression induced by oligoguluronates reveal conserved and environment‐specific molecular defence responses in the brown alga Laminaria digitata. New Phytologist, 182 (1), 239-250.

  24. Crump, R.G., Morley, H.S., & Williams, A.D., 1999. West Angle Bay, a case study. Littoral monitoring of permanent quadrats before and after the Sea Empress oil spill. Field Studies, 9, 497-511.

  25. Dauvin, J.C., Bellan, G., Bellan-Santini, D., Castric, A., Francour, P., Gentil, F., Girard, A., Gofas, S., Mahe, C., Noel, P., & Reviers, B. de., 1994. Typologie des ZNIEFF-Mer. Liste des parametres et des biocoenoses des cotes francaises metropolitaines. 2nd ed. Secretariat Faune-Flore, Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris (Collection Patrimoines Naturels, Serie Patrimoine Ecologique, No. 12). Coll. Patrimoines Naturels, vol. 12, Secretariat Faune-Flore, Paris.

  26. Davies, C.E. & Moss, D., 1998. European Union Nature Information System (EUNIS) Habitat Classification. Report to European Topic Centre on Nature Conservation from the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Monks Wood, Cambridgeshire. [Final draft with further revisions to marine habitats.], Brussels: European Environment Agency.

  27. Dayton, P.K., Tegner, M.J., Parnell, P.E. & Edwards, P.B., 1992. Temporal and spatial patterns of disturbance and recovery in a kelp forest community. Ecological Monographs, 62, 421-445.

  28. De Bettignies, T., de Bettignies, F., Bartsch, I., Bekkby, T., Boiffin, A., Casado de Amezúa, P., Christie, H., Edwards, H., Fournier, N., García, A., Gauthier, L., Gillham, K., Halling, C., Harrald, M., Hennicke, J., Hernández, S., Kilnäs, M., Martinez, B., Mieszkowska, N., Moore, P., Moy, F., Mueller, M., Norderhaug, K.M., Ó Cadhla, O., Parry, M., Ramsay, K., Robertson, M., Russel, T., Serrão, E., Smale, D., Sousa Pinto, I., Steen, H., Street, M., Walday, M., Werner, T. & La Rivière, M., 2021. Background Document for Kelp Forests. OSPAR Commission, London, OSPAR 788/2021, 66 pp. Available from: https://www.ospar.org/documents?v=46796

  29. De Leij, R., Epstein, G., Brown, M.P. & Smale, D.A., 2017. The influence of native macroalgal canopies on the distribution and abundance of the non-native kelp Undaria pinnatifida in natural reef habitats. Marine Biology, 164 (7). DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-017-3183-0

  30. Devlin, M.J., Barry, J., Mills, D.K., Gowen, R.J., Foden, J., Sivyer, D. & Tett, P., 2008. Relationships between suspended particulate material, light attenuation and Secchi depth in UK marine waters. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 79 (3), 429-439.

  31. Dieck, T.I., 1992. North Pacific and North Atlantic digitate Laminaria species (Phaeophyta): hybridization experiments and temperature responses. Phycologia, 31, 147-163.

  32. Dieck, T.I., 1993. Temperature tolerance and survival in darkness of kelp gametophytes (Laminariales: Phaeophyta) - ecological and biogeographical implications. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 100, 253-264.

  33. Dinesen G., 1999. Modiolus modiolus and the associated fauna. In Bruntse, G., Lein, T.E., Nielsen, R. (eds), Marine benthic algae and invertebrate communities from the shallow waters of the Faroe Islands: a base line study. Kaldbak Marine Biological Laboratory, pp. 66-71.

  34. Dinnel, P.A., Pagano, G.G., & Oshido, P.S., 1988. A sea urchin test system for marine environmental monitoring. In Echinoderm Biology. Proceedings of the Sixth International Echinoderm Conference, Victoria, 23-28 August 1987, (R.D. Burke, P.V. Mladenov, P. Lambert, Parsley, R.L. ed.), pp 611-619. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema.

  35. Drew, E.A., Forster, G.R., Gage, J., Harwood, G., Larkum, A.W.D., Lythgoe, J.M & Potts, G.W. 1967. "Torrey Canyon" report. Underwater Association Report for 1966-67, pp. 53-60.

  36. Eckman, J.E., 1983. Hydrodynamic processes affecting benthic recruitment 1. Limnology and Oceanography, 28 (2), 241-257.

  37. Edwards, A., 1980. Ecological studies of the kelp Laminaria hyperborea and its associated fauna in south-west Ireland. Ophelia, 9, 47-60.

  38. Elner, R.W. & Vadas, R.L., 1990. Inference in ecology: the sea urchin phenomenon in the northwest Atlantic. American Naturalist, 136, 108-125.

  39. Elsäßer, B., Fariñas-Franco, J.M., Wilson, C.D., Kregting, L. & Roberts, D., 2013. Identifying optimal sites for natural recovery and restoration of impacted biogenic habitats in a special area of conservation using hydrodynamic and habitat suitability modelling. Journal of Sea Research, 77, 11-21.

  40. Engelen, A.H., Serebryakova, A., Ang, P., Britton-Simmons, K., Mineur, F., Pedersen, M. F., & Toth, G., 2015. Circumglobal invasion by the brown seaweed Sargassum muticum. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review, 53, 81-126.

  41. Epstein, G. & Smale, D.A., 2017. Undaria pinnatifida: A case study to highlight challenges in marine invasion ecology and management. Ecology and Evolution, 7 (20), 8624-8642. DOI https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3430

  42. Epstein, G. & Smale, D.A., 2018. Environmental and ecological factors influencing the spillover of the non-native kelp, Undaria pinnatifida, from marinas into natural rocky reef communities. Biological Invasions, 20 (4), 1049-1072. DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-017-1610-2

  43. Epstein, G., Foggo, A. & Smale, D.A., 2019a. Inconspicuous impacts: Widespread marine invader causes subtle but significant changes in native macroalgal assemblages. Ecosphere, 10 (7). DOI https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2814

  44. Epstein, G., Hawkins, S.J. & Smale, D.A., 2019b. Identifying niche and fitness dissimilarities in invaded marine macroalgal canopies within the context of contemporary coexistence theory. Scientific Reports, 9. DOI https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-45388-5

  45. Erwin, D.G., Picton, B.E., Connor, D.W., Howson, C.M., Gilleece, P. & Bogues, M.J., 1990. Inshore Marine Life of Northern Ireland. Report of a survey carried out by the diving team of the Botany and Zoology Department of the Ulster Museum in fulfilment of a contract with Conservation Branch of the Department of the Environment (N.I.)., Ulster Museum, Belfast: HMSO.

  46. Farrell, P. & Fletcher, R., 2006. An investigation of dispersal of the introduced brown alga Undaria pinnatifida (Harvey) Suringar and its competition with some species on the man-made structures of Torquay Marina (Devon, UK). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 334 (2), 236-243.

  47. Fletcher, R. & Farrell, P., 1998. Introduced brown algae in the North East Atlantic, with particular respect to Undaria pinnatifida (Harvey) Suringar. Helgolander Meeresuntersuchungen, 52 (3-4), 259-275.

  48. Fletcher, R.L., 1996. The occurrence of 'green tides' - a review. In Marine Benthic Vegetation. Recent changes and the Effects of Eutrophication (ed. W. Schramm & P.H. Nienhuis). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. [Ecological Studies, vol. 123].

  49. Forrest, B.M. & Taylor, M.D., 2002. Assessing invasion impact: Survey design considerations and implications for management of an invasive marine plant. Biological Invasions, 4 (4), 375-386. DOI https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023613428351

  50. Fredriksen, S., Sjøtun, K., Lein, T.E. & Rueness, J., 1995. Spore dispersal in Laminaria hyperborea (Laminariales, Phaeophyceae). Sarsia, 80 (1), 47-53.

  51. Frieder, C., Nam, S., Martz, T. & Levin, L., 2012. High temporal and spatial variability of dissolved oxygen and pH in a nearshore California kelp forest. Biogeosciences, 9 (10), 3917-3930.

  52. Gainey, L.F., 1994. Volume regulation in three species of marine mussels. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 181 (2), 201-211.

  53. Gommez, J.L.C. & Miguez-Rodriguez, L.J., 1999. Effects of oil pollution on skeleton and tissues of Echinus esculentus L. 1758 (Echinodermata, Echinoidea) in a population of A Coruna Bay, Galicia, Spain. In Echinoderm Research 1998. Proceedings of the Fifth European Conference on Echinoderms, Milan, 7-12 September 1998, (ed. M.D.C. Carnevali & F. Bonasoro) pp. 439-447. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema.

  54. Gorman, D., Bajjouk, T., Populus, J., Vasquez, M. & Ehrhold, A., 2013. Modeling kelp forest distribution and biomass along temperate rocky coastlines. Marine Biology, 160 (2), 309-325.

  55. Grandy, N., 1984. The effects of oil and dispersants on subtidal red algae. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Liverpool.

  56. Griffiths, A.B., Dennis, R. & Potts, G.W., 1979. Mortality associated with a phytoplankton bloom off Penzance in Mounts Bay. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 59, 515-528.

  57. Hammer, L., 1972. Anaerobiosis in marine algae and marine phanerograms. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Seaweed Symposium, Sapporo, Japan, August 8-12, 1971 (ed. K. Nisizawa, S. Arasaki, Chihara, M., Hirose, H., Nakamura V., Tsuchiya, Y.), pp. 414-419. Tokyo: Tokyo University Press.

  58. Harkin, E., 1981. Fluctuations in epiphyte biomass following Laminaria hyperborea canopy removal. In Proceedings of the Xth International Seaweed Symposium, Gø teborg, 11-15 August 1980 (ed. T. Levring), pp.303-308. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

  59. Hawkins, S.J. & Harkin, E., 1985. Preliminary canopy removal experiments in algal dominated communities low on the shore and in the shallow subtidal on the Isle of Man. Botanica Marina, 28, 223-30.

  60. Hawkins, S.J. & Hartnoll, R.G., 1985. Factors determining the upper limits of intertidal canopy-forming algae. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 20, 265-271.

  61. Hayward, P.J. 1988. Animals on seaweed. Richmond, Surrey: Richmond Publishing Co. Ltd. [Naturalists Handbooks 9].

  62. Heiser, S., Hall-Spencer, J.M. & Hiscock, K., 2014. Assessing the extent of establishment of Undaria pinnatifida in Plymouth Sound Special Area of Conservation, UK. Marine Biodiversity Records, 7, e93.

  63. Hiscock, K. & Mitchell, R., 1980. The Description and Classification of Sublittoral Epibenthic Ecosystems. In The Shore Environment, Vol. 2, Ecosystems, (ed. J.H. Price, D.E.G. Irvine, & W.F. Farnham), 323-370. London and New York: Academic Press. [Systematics Association Special Volume no. 17(b)].

  64. Hoare, R. & Hiscock, K., 1974. An ecological survey of the rocky coast adjacent to the effluent of a bromine extraction plant. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science, 2 (4), 329-348.

  65. Holt, T.J., Jones, D.R., Hawkins, S.J. & Hartnoll, R.G., 1995. The sensitivity of marine communities to man induced change - a scoping report. Countryside Council for Wales, Bangor, Contract Science Report, no. 65.

  66. Hopkin, R. & Kain, J.M., 1978. The effects of some pollutants on the survival, growth and respiration of Laminaria hyperborea. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science, 7, 531-553.

  67. Irvine, L. M. & Chamberlain, Y. M., 1994. Seaweeds of the British Isles, vol. 1. Rhodophyta, Part 2B Corallinales, Hildenbrandiales. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

  68. James, K, 2017. A review of the impacts from invasion by the introduced kelp Undaria pinnatifida. Waikato Regional Council Technical Report 2016/40, Institute of Marine Science, University of Auckland, Hamilton, 40 pp. Available from: https://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/assets/WRC/WRC-2019/TR201640.pdf

  69. James, K., Kibele, J. & Shears, N.T., 2015. Using satellite-derived sea surface temperature to predict the potential global range and phenology of the invasive kelp Undaria pinnatifida. Biological Invasions, 17 (12), 3393-3408. DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-015-0965-5

  70. JNCC (Joint Nature Conservation Committee), 2022.  The Marine Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland Version 22.04. [Date accessed]. Available from: https://mhc.jncc.gov.uk/

  71. JNCC (Joint Nature Conservation Committee), 2022.  The Marine Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland Version 22.04. [Date accessed]. Available from: https://mhc.jncc.gov.uk/

  72. JNCC (Joint Nature Conservation Committee), 1999. Marine Environment Resource Mapping And Information Database (MERMAID): Marine Nature Conservation Review Survey Database. [on-line] http://www.jncc.gov.uk/mermaid

  73. Jones, C.G., Lawton, J.H. & Shackak, M., 1994. Organisms as ecosystem engineers. Oikos, 69, 373-386.

  74. Jones, D.J., 1971. Ecological studies on macro-invertebrate communities associated with polluted kelp forest in the North Sea. Helgolander Wissenschaftliche Meersuntersuchungen, 22, 417-431.

  75. Jones, L.A., Hiscock, K. & Connor, D.W., 2000. Marine habitat reviews. A summary of ecological requirements and sensitivity characteristics for the conservation and management of marine SACs. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. (UK Marine SACs Project report.). Available from: http://ukmpa.marinebiodiversity.org/uk_sacs/pdfs/marine-habitats-review.pdf

  76. Jones, N.S. & Kain, J.M., 1967. Subtidal algal recolonisation following removal of Echinus. Helgolander Wissenschaftliche Meeresuntersuchungen, 15, 460-466.

  77. Kain, J.M., 1964. Aspects of the biology of Laminaria hyperborea III. Survival and growth of gametophytes. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 44 (2), 415-433.

  78. Kain, J.M. & Svendsen, P., 1969. A note on the behaviour of Patina pellucida in Britain and Norway. Sarsia, 38, 25-30.

  79. Kain, J.M., 1967. Populations of Laminaria hyperborea at various latitudes. Helgolander Wissenschaftliche Meeresuntersuchungen, 15, 489-499.

  80. Kain, J.M., 1971a. Synopsis of biological data on Laminaria hyperborea. FAO Fisheries Synopsis, no. 87.

  81. Kain, J.M., 1975a. Algal recolonization of some cleared subtidal areas. Journal of Ecology, 63, 739-765.

  82. Kain, J.M., 1979. A view of the genus Laminaria. Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual Review, 17, 101-161.

  83. Kain, J.M., 1987. Photoperiod and temperature as triggers in the seasonality of Delesseria sanguinea. Helgolander Meeresuntersuchungen, 41, 355-370.

  84. Kain, J.M., & Norton, T.A., 1990. Marine Ecology. In Biology of the Red Algae, (ed. K.M. Cole & Sheath, R.G.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  85. Kain, J.M., Drew, E.A. & Jupp, B.P., 1975. Light and the ecology of Laminaria hyperborea II. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth Symposium of the British Ecological Society, 26-28 March 1974. Light as an Ecological Factor: II (ed. G.C. Evans, R. Bainbridge & O. Rackham), pp. 63-92. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.

  86. Karsten, U., 2007. Research note: salinity tolerance of Arctic kelps from Spitsbergen. Phycological Research, 55 (4), 257-262.

  87. Kelly, M.S., 2000. The reproductive cycle of the sea urchin Psammechinus miliaris (Echinodermata: Echinoidea) in a Scottish sea loch. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 80, 909-919.

  88. Kinne, O. (ed.), 1984. Marine Ecology: A Comprehensive, Integrated Treatise on Life in Oceans and Coastal Waters.Vol. V. Ocean Management Part 3: Pollution and Protection of the Seas - Radioactive Materials, Heavy Metals and Oil. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

  89. Kinne, O., 1977. International Helgoland Symposium "Ecosystem research": summary, conclusions and closing. Helgoländer Wissenschaftliche Meeresuntersuchungen, 30(1-4), 709-727.

  90. Kitching, J., 1941. Studies in sublittoral ecology III. Laminaria forest on the west coast of Scotland; a study of zonation in relation to wave action and illumination. The Biological Bulletin, 80 (3), 324-337

  91. Kraan, S., 2017. Undaria marching on; late arrival in the Republic of Ireland. Journal of Applied Phycology, 29 (2), 1107-1114. DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-016-0985-2

  92. Kregting, L., Blight, A., Elsäßer, B. & Savidge, G., 2013. The influence of water motion on the growth rate of the kelp Laminaria hyperborea. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 448, 337-345.

  93. Kruuk, H., Wansink, D. & Moorhouse, A., 1990. Feeding patches and diving success of otters, Lutra lutra, in Shetland. Oikos, 57, 68-72.

  94. Lang, C. & Mann, K., 1976. Changes in sea urchin populations after the destruction of kelp beds. Marine Biology, 36 (4), 321-326.

  95. Lein, T.E., Sjøtun, K. & Wakili, S., 1991. Mass-occurrence of a brown filamentous endophyte in the lamina of the kelp Laminaria hyperborea (Gunnerus) Foslie along the southwestern coast of Norway. Sarsia, 76 (3), 187-193. DOI https://doi.org/10.1080/00364827.1991.10413474

  96. Leinaas, H.P. & Christie, H., 1996. Effects of removing sea urchins (Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis): stability of the barren state and succession of kelp forest recovery in the east Atlantic. Oecologia, 105(4), 524-536.

  97. Lobban, C.S. & Harrison, P.J., 1997. Seaweed ecology and physiology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  98. Lüning, K., 1990. Seaweeds: their environment, biogeography, and ecophysiology: John Wiley & Sons.

  99. Lyngby, J.E. & Mortensen, S.M., 1996. Effects of dredging activities on growth of Laminaria saccharina. Marine Ecology, Publicazioni della Stazione Zoologica di Napoli I, 17, 345-354.

  100. Macleod, A., Cottier-Cook, E., Hughes, D. & Allen, C., 2016. Investigating the impacts of marine invasive non-native species. Natural England Commissioned Report NECR223, Natural England, 58 pp. Available from: https://pureadmin.uhi.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/3729569/NECR223_edition_1.pdf

  101. Mann, K.H., 1982. Kelp, sea urchins, and predators: a review of strong interactions in rocky subtidal systems of eastern Canada, 1970-1980. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research, 16, 414-423.

  102. MarLIN, 2015. MarLIN (Marine Life Network). (13-10-2015). http://www.marlin.ac.uk

  103. McKenzie, J.D. & Moore, P.G., 1981. The microdistribution of animals associated with the bulbous holdfasts of Saccorhiza polyschides (Phaeophyta). Ophelia, 20, 201-213.

  104. Miller III, H.L., Neale, P.J. & Dunton, K.H., 2009. Biological weighting functions for UV inhibtion of photosynthesis in the kelp Laminaria hyperborea (Phaeophyceae) 1. Journal of Phycology, 45 (3), 571-584.

  105. Minchin, D. & Nunn, J., 2014. The invasive brown alga Undaria pinnatifida (Harvey) Suringar, 1873 (Laminariales: Alariaceae), spreads northwards in Europe. Bioinvasions Records, 3 (2), 57-63. DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.3391/bir.2014.3.2.01

  106. Moore, P.G., 1973a. The kelp fauna of north east Britain I. Function of the physical environment. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 13, 97-125.

  107. Moore, P.G., 1973b. The kelp fauna of north east Britain. II. Multivariate classification: turbidity as an ecological factor. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 13, 127-163.

  108. Moore, P.G., 1978. Turbidity and kelp holdfast Amphipoda. I. Wales and S.W. England. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 32, 53-96.

  109. Moore, P.G., 1985. Levels of heterogeneity and the amphipod fauna of kelp holdfasts. In The Ecology of Rocky Coasts: essays presented to J.R. Lewis, D.Sc. (ed. P.G. Moore & R. Seed), 274-289. London: Hodder & Stoughton Ltd.

  110. Morelissen, B., Dudley, B. D. & Phillips, N. E., 2016. Recruitment of the invasive kelp Undaria pinnatifida does not always benefit from disturbance to native algal communities in low-intertidal habitats. Marine Biology, 163 (12). DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-016-3014-8

  111. NBN, 2015. National Biodiversity Network 2015(20/05/2015). https://data.nbn.org.uk/

  112. Nichols, D., 1981. The Cornish Sea-urchin Fishery. Cornish Studies, 9, 5-18.

  113. Nichols, D., 1984. An investigation of the population dynamics of the common edible sea urchin (Echinus esculentus L.) in relation to species conservation management. Report to Department of the Environment and Nature Conservancy Council from the Department of Biological Sciences, University of Exeter.

  114. Norderhaug, K., 2004. Use of red algae as hosts by kelp-associated amphipods. Marine Biology, 144 (2), 225-230.

  115. Norderhaug, K.M. & Christie, H.C., 2009. Sea urchin grazing and kelp re-vegetation in the NE Atlantic. Marine Biology Research, 5 (6), 515-528.

  116. Norderhaug, K.M., Christie, H. & Fredriksen, S., 2007. Is habitat size an important factor for faunal abundances on kelp (Laminaria hyperborea)? Journal of Sea Research, 58 (2), 120-124.

  117. Nordheim, van, H., Andersen, O.N. & Thissen, J., 1996. Red lists of Biotopes, Flora and Fauna of the Trilateral Wadden Sea area, 1995. Helgolander Meeresuntersuchungen, 50 (Suppl.), 1-136.

  118. Norton, T.A. & South, G.R., 1969. Influence of reduced salinity on the distribution of two laminarian algae. Oikos, 20, 320-326

  119. Norton, T.A., 1970. Synopsis of biological data on Saccorhiza polyschides. FAO Fisheries Synopsis, No. 83, 1-35.

  120. Norton, T.A., 1978. The factors influencing the distribution of Saccorhiza polyschides in the region of Lough Ine. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 58, 527-536.

  121. Norton, T.A., 1992. Dispersal by macroalgae. British Phycological Journal, 27, 293-301.

  122. Norton, T.A., Hiscock, K. & Kitching, J.A., 1977. The Ecology of Lough Ine XX. The Laminaria forest at Carrigathorna. Journal of Ecology, 65, 919-941.

  123. O'Brien, P.J. & Dixon, P.S., 1976. Effects of oils and oil components on algae: a review. British Phycological Journal, 11, 115-142.

  124. Pedersen, M.F., Nejrup, L.B., Fredriksen, S., Christie, H. & Norderhaug, K.M., 2012. Effects of wave exposure on population structure, demography, biomass and productivity of the kelp Laminaria hyperborea. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 451, 45-60.

  125. Penfold, R., Hughson, S., & Boyle, N., 1996. The potential for a sea urchin fishery in Shetland. http://www.nafc.ac.uk/publish/note5/note5.htm, 2000-04-14

  126. Peters, A.F. & Schaffelke, B., 1996. Streblonema (Ectocarpales, Phaeophyceae) infection in the kelp Laminaria saccharina in the western Baltic. Hydrobiologia, 326/327, 111-116.

  127. Philippart, C.J., Anadón, R., Danovaro, R., Dippner, J.W., Drinkwater, K.F., Hawkins, S.J., Oguz, T., O'Sullivan, G. & Reid, P.C., 2011. Impacts of climate change on European marine ecosystems: observations, expectations and indicators. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 400 (1), 52-69.

  128. Raffaelli, D.G.  & Hawkins, S.J., 1999. Intertidal Ecology 2nd edn.. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  129. Read, P.A., Anderson, K.J., Matthews, J.E., Watson, P.G., Halliday, M.C. & Shiells, G.M., 1983. Effects of pollution on the benthos of the Firth of Forth. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 14, 12-16.

  130. Rinde, E. & Sjøtun, K., 2005. Demographic variation in the kelp Laminaria hyperborea along a latitudinal gradient. Marine Biology, 146 (6), 1051-1062.

  131. Rostron, D.M. & Bunker, F. St P.D., 1997. An assessment of sublittoral epibenthic communities and species following the Sea Empress oil spill. A report to the Countryside Council for Wales from Marine Seen & Sub-Sea Survey., Countryside Council for Wales, Bangor, CCW Sea Empress Contact Science, no. 177.

  132. Salland, N. & Smale, D., 2021. Spatial variation in the structure of overwintering, remnant Saccorhiza polyschides sporophytes and their associated assemblages. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 101 (4), 639-648. DOI https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315421000692

  133. Santos, R., 1993. A multivariate study of biotic and abiotic relationships in a subtidal algal stand. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 94, 181-190.

  134. Schiel, D.R. & Foster, M.S., 1986. The structure of subtidal algal stands in temperate waters. Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual Review, 24, 265-307.

  135. Sheppard, C.R.C., Bellamy, D.J. & Sheppard, A.L.S., 1980. Study of the fauna inhabiting the holdfasts of Laminaria hyperborea (Gunn.) Fosl. along some environmental and geographical gradients. Marine Environmental Research, 4, 25-51.

  136. Sivertsen, K., 1997. Geographic and environmental factors affecting the distribution of kelp beds and barren grounds and changes in biota associated with kelp reduction at sites along the Norwegian coast. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 54, 2872-2887.

  137. Sjøtun, K., Christie, H. & Helge Fosså, J., 2006. The combined effect of canopy shading and sea urchin grazing on recruitment in kelp forest (Laminaria hyperborea). Marine Biology Research, 2 (1), 24-32.

  138. Sjøtun, K. & Schoschina, E.V., 2002. Gametophytic development of Laminaria spp. (Laminariales, Phaeophyta) at low temperatures. Phycologia, 41, 147-152.

  139. Smale, D.A., Burrows, M.T., Moore, P., O'Connor, N. & Hawkins, S.J., 2013. Threats and knowledge gaps for ecosystem services provided by kelp forests: a northeast Atlantic perspective. Ecology and evolution, 3 (11), 4016-4038.

  140. Smale, D.A., Wernberg, T., Yunnie, A.L. & Vance, T., 2014. The rise of Laminaria ochroleuca in the Western English Channel (UK) and comparisons with its competitor and assemblage dominant Laminaria hyperborea. Marine ecology.

  141. Smith, J.E. (ed.), 1968. 'Torrey Canyon'. Pollution and marine life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  142. Somerfield, P.J. & Warwick, R.M., 1999. Appraisal of environmental impact and recovery using Laminaria holdfast faunas. Sea Empress, Environmental Evaluation Committee., Countryside Council for Wales, Bangor, CCW Sea Empress Contract Science, Report no. 321.

  143. South, P. M., Lilley, S. A., Tait, L. W., Alestra, T., Hickford, M. J. H., Thomsen, M. S. & Schiel, D. R., 2016. Transient effects of an invasive kelp on the community structure and primary productivity of an intertidal assemblage. Marine and Freshwater Research, 67 (1), 103-112. DOI https://doi.org/10.1071/MF14211

  144. Staehr, P.A. & Wernberg, T., 2009. Physiological responses of Ecklonia radiata (Laminariales) to a latitudinal gradient in ocean temperature. Journal of Phycology, 45, 91-99.

  145. Staehr, P.A., Pedersen, M.F., Thomsen, M.S., Wernberg, T. & Krause-Jensen, D., 2000. Invasion of Sargassum muticum in Limfjorden (Denmark) and its possible impact on the indigenous macroalgal community. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 207, 79-88. DOI https://doi.org/10.3354/meps207079

  146. Steneck, R.S., Graham, M.H., Bourque, B.J., Corbett, D., Erlandson, J.M., Estes, J.A. & Tegner, M.J., 2002. Kelp forest ecosystems: biodiversity, stability, resilience and future. Environmental conservation, 29 (04), 436-459.

  147. Steneck, R.S., Vavrinec, J. & Leland, A.V., 2004. Accelerating trophic-level dysfunction in kelp forest ecosystems of the western North Atlantic. Ecosystems, 7 (4), 323-332.

  148. Strong, J.A. & Dring, M.J., 2011. Macroalgal competition and invasive success: testing competition in mixed canopies of Sargassum muticum and Saccharina latissima. Botanica Marina, 54 (3), 223-229.

  149. Svendsen, P. & Kain, J.M., 1971. The taxonomic status, distribution, and morphology of Laminaria cucullata sensu Jorde and Klavestad. Sarsia, 46 (1), 1-22.

  150. Teagle, H., Hawkins, S. J., Moore, P. J. & Smale, D. A., 2017. The role of kelp species as biogenic habitat formers in coastal marine ecosystems. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 492, 81-98. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2017.01.017

  151. Thompson, G.A. & Schiel, D.R., 2012. Resistance and facilitation by native algal communities in the invasion success of Undaria pinnatifida. Marine Ecology, Progress Series, 468, 95-105.

  152. Thompson, R.S. & Burrows, E.M., 1984. The toxicity of copper, zinc and mercury to the brown macroalga Laminaria saccharina. In Ecotoxicological testing for the marine environment (ed. G. Persoone, E. Jaspers, & C. Claus), Vol. 2, pp. 259-269. Ghent: Laboratory for biological research in aquatic pollution, State University of Ghent.

  153. Tidbury, H, 2020. Wakame (Undaria pinnatifida). GB Non-native Species Rapid Risk Assessment., 15 pp. Available from: http://www.nonnativespecies.org/index.cfm?pageid=143

  154. Ursin, E., 1960. A quantitative investigation of the echinoderm fauna of the central North Sea. Meddelelser fra Danmark Fiskeri-og-Havundersogelser, 2 (24), pp. 204.

  155. Vadas, R.L. & Elner, R.W., 1992. Plant-animal interactions in the north-west Atlantic. In Plant-animal interactions in the marine benthos, (ed. D.M. John, S.J. Hawkins & J.H. Price), 33-60. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [Systematics Association Special Volume, no. 46].

  156. Vadas, R.L., Johnson, S. & Norton, T.A., 1992. Recruitment and mortality of early post-settlement stages of benthic algae. British Phycological Journal, 27, 331-351.

  157. Valentine, J. P. & Johnson, C. R., 2003. Establishment of the introduced kelp Undaria pinnatifida in Tasmania depends on disturbance to native algal assemblages. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 295 (1), 63-90. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-0981(03)00272-7

  158. Van den Hoek, C., 1982. The distribution of benthic marine algae in relation to the temperature regulation of their life histories. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 18, 81-144.

  159. Vaz-Pinto, F., Rodil, I.F., Mineur, F., Olabarria, C. & Arenas, F., 2014. Understanding biological invasions by seaweeds. In Pereira, L. & Neto, J.M. (eds.). Marine algae: biodiversity, taxonomy, environmental assessment and biotechnology. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press, pp. 140-177.

  160. Viejo, R.M., Arrontes, J. & Andrew, N.L., 1995. An Experimental Evaluation of the Effect of Wave Action on the Distribution of Sargassum muticum in Northern Spain. , 38 (1-6), 437-442. DOI https://doi.org/10.1515/botm.1995.38.1-6.437

  161. Vost, L.M., 1983. The influence of Echinus esculentus grazing on subtidal algal communities. British Phycological Journal, 18, 211.

  162. Werner, A. & Kraan, S., 2004. Review of the potential mechanisation of kelp harvesting in Ireland. Marine Environment and Health Series, (No. 17).

  163. Whittick, A., 1983. Spatial and temporal distributions of dominant epiphytes on the stipes of Laminaria hyperborea (Gunn.) Fosl. (Phaeophyta: Laminariales) in S.E. Scotland. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 73, 1-10.

  164. Wotton, D.M., O'Brien, C., Stuart, M.D. & Fergus, D.J., 2004. Eradication success down under: heat treatment of a sunken trawler to kill the invasive seaweed Undaria pinnatifida. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 49 (9), 844-849.

Citation

This review can be cited as:

Stamp, T.E., Lloyd, K.A., & Tyler-Walters, H., 2022. Dense Desmarestia spp. with filamentous red seaweeds on exposed infralittoral cobbles, pebbles and bedrock. In Tyler-Walters H. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Reviews, [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. [cited 29-03-2024]. Available from: https://www.marlin.ac.uk/habitat/detail/1042

 Download PDF version


Last Updated: 19/05/2022