Laminaria digitata on moderately exposed sublittoral fringe bedrock

Summary

UK and Ireland classification

Description

Exposed to sheltered sublittoral fringe bedrock dominated by a dense canopy of Laminaria digitata, often with a wide range of filamentous and foliose red seaweeds beneath. The most frequently occurring red seaweeds are Palmaria palmataCorallina officinalisMastocarpus stellatusChondrus crispus, Lomentaria articulata and Membranoptera alata. Generally, the rocky substratum is covered by encrusting coralline algae, on which occasional limpets Patella vulgata and topshells Steromphala cineraria graze. A wide variety of fauna occurs, some of the most commonly occurring species being the sponge Halichondria panicea and the tube-building polychaete Spirobranchus triqueter. Kelp holdfasts provide a refuge for a varied assemblage of species such as sponges and the limpet Patella pellucida, while encrusting bryozoans such as Electra pilosa more often are found on the fronds of foliose red seaweeds. Solitary ascidians may be locally abundant where overhanging or vertical rock occurs, while the hydroid Dynamena pumila can be abundant on Fucus serratus and Laminaria sp. fronds. On exposed, wave-surged shores, the robust red seaweeds M. stellatusC. crispus and C. officinalis can form a dense turf beneath the kelp along with the occasional green seaweed Ulva lactuca. Similarly, on such shores, the mussel Mytilus edulis can occur in extremely dense aggregations on the rock, beneath the kelp canopy. This biotope is usually found on the extreme low shore below the Fucus serratus zone (Fser) and above the truly sublittoral Laminaria hyperborea zone (Lhyp). (Information from Connor et al., 2004; JNCC, 2015, 2022).

Depth range

Lower shore, 0-5 m

Additional information

-

Listed By

Habitat review

Ecology

Ecological and functional relationships

Kelp habitats are dynamic ecosystems where competition for space, light and food result in patchy distribution patterns of flora and fauna. Kelp beds are diverse species rich habitats and over 1,200 species have been recorded in UK moderately exposed kelp biotopes (MIR.KR) (Birkett et al. 1998b). Kelps are major primary producers, up to 90% of kelp production enters the detrital food web and is probably a major contributor of organic carbon to surrounding communities (Birkett et al. 1998b). Major interactions are thought to be the effects of competition for space, shading, herbivory and predation.
  • In most kelp biotopes there is evidence of strong competition for space, especially for space on a favourable substratum. Competition may occur between individual plants of the same species, between kelps and substratum-colonizing species of animals and other algae and between colonial animals and encrusting algae. Competition for space between individuals and species is dynamic, resulting in a constantly changing patchwork of species covering any suitable substrata within the biotope.
  • The blades of Laminaria digitata plants form a canopy layer which may cut off much of the incident irradiance. This restricts the development of species with high light demands so that the understorey of plants becomes dominated by shade tolerant red algae. It also allows species normally restricted to the lower infralittoral in kelp-free areas to compete more effectively in the reduced light levels of the kelp bed and so are found at shallower depths.
  • Within kelp beds there are relatively few species that are directly grazing either the kelp or the understorey algae as the enzymes required to directly utilise algae as food are not common. Those species able to graze directly on the kelp include the gastropods: Gibbula spp., Littorina spp., Haliotis tuberculata (in the Channel Islands only), Patella pellucida, Lacuna spp. and the Rissoidae, together with some amphipods and isopods. Patella pellucida grazes epiphytes and the kelp tissue directly, forming pits similar to the home scars of intertidal limpets. The larger, laevis form excavates large cavities in the holdfast of Laminaria spp. which creates tissue damage weakening the adult plant and possibly contributes to its loss due to wave action and storms (Kain, 1979). Infestation with Patella pellucida varies between sites and decreases with depth.
  • The molluscs Patella vulgata and Gibbula spp. and chitons (especially in the north) graze the rock below leaving, with the effects of frond-sweeping, extensive bare crustose coralline algae on the rock.
  • Predation within kelp beds has not been well studied in the UK. Although some species are known to prey on others, such as starfish on mussels, very little is known of the predator-prey relationships for the many species occurring in kelp beds.
  • The abundance of filter feeding organisms such as sponges, bryozoans and tunicates which colonize both the rock and kelp plants indicates the importance of planktonic input to the benthic community of the biotope. Although very little information is available about planktonic communities in kelp beds it can be assumed that there will be larger inputs of larval stages from species with bentho-pelagic life cycles than in the general plankton (Birkett et al, 1998b).
  • Kelp plants are also exploited as a habitat; the holdfast, stipe and frond each support a different type of community although only the oldest Laminaria digitata plants will have epiphytic life on the stipe (which is smooth in all but the oldest individuals); however, holdfasts shelter a particularly rich diversity of animals from a wide range of taxa (see Habitat complexity).

Seasonal and longer term change

Most species in the biotope are perennial and seasonal changes are likely to be in condition of individuals rather than presence or absence.
  • Growth rate of Laminaria digitata is seasonally controlled with a period of rapid growth from February to July and one of slower growth from August to January. Increased wave exposure and storms in winter months are likely to erode Laminaria digitata blades so that they appear tattered in winter months and overall standing biomass is reduced. Periodic storms are also likely to remove older and weaker plants creating patches cleared of kelp and increasing the local turbidity. Cleared patches may encourage growth of sporelings or gametophyte maturation. Growth of understorey algae is also reduced in the winter months.
  • Some species of algae have seasonally heteromorphic life histories spending a part of the year as a cryptic or encrusting growth form and only becoming recognisable in the foliose phase of their life cycles. The occurrence of such algae is often seen as the occurrence of 'ephemeral algae'. Some hydrozoans may be present in the kelp bed in their attached, colonial form only for a part of the year, spending the rest of the year as medusae.
It should be emphasised that present understanding of the natural fluctuations in the species assemblages, populations, distribution and diversity of species in kelp beds is very limited.

Habitat structure and complexity

The structure of kelp beds is complex with many different habitats i.e. bedrock, crevices, sediment pockets, the holdfast, stipe and blade of the plants themselves.
  • Holdfasts provide refuge to a wide variety of animals supporting a diverse fauna that represents a sample of the surrounding mobile fauna and crevice dwelling organisms, e.g. polychaetes, small crabs, gastropods, bivalves, and amphipods.
  • Kelp fronds may be colonized by encrusting bryozoans and hydroids and are grazed by molluscs such as the blue-rayed limpet Patella pellucida.
  • Older rougher stipes of Laminaria digitata provide a substratum for a large number of epiphytic flora and fauna and it has been estimated that rugose stipes provide one and a half times that surface area provided by the bedrock (Jones et al., 2000).
  • The bedrock offers surfaces for settlement and shelter of species and is colonized by encrusting and foliose red algae with a variety of tubicolous animals and ascidian species attached.

Productivity

Kelp plants are the major primary producers in the marine coastal habitat. Within the euphotic zone kelps produce nearly 75% of the net carbon fixed and large kelps often produce annually well in excess of a kilogram of carbon per square metre of shore. However, only about 10% of this productivity is directly grazed. Kelps contribute 2-3 times their standing biomass each year as particulate detritus and dissolved organic matter that provides the energy supply for filter feeders and detritivores in and around the kelp bed. Dissolved organic carbon, algal fragments and microbial film organisms are continually removed by the sea. This may enter the food chain of local subtidal ecosystems, or be exported further offshore. Rocky shores make a contribution to the food of many marine species through the production of planktonic larvae and propagules which contribute to pelagic food chains.

Recruitment processes

Most species in this biotope produce planktonic propagules annually and so recruitment is often from distant sources and is frequent.
  • Benthic species, plant and animal, that possess a planktonic stage: gamete, spore or larvae, are likely to be influenced by kelp mediated alteration of fluid and particulate, and consequently larval fluxes. Kelp canopies also affect the physical environment, such as the substratum, experienced by actively settling planktonic larvae. The substrata beneath kelp plants for example, are often dark and sediment laden, conditions likely to affect larval settlement and post settlement survival. Both the demographic structure of populations and the composition of assemblages may be profoundly affected by variation in recruitment rates driven by such factors.
  • Laminaria digitata plants are fertile all year round with maximum production of spores in July - August and November - December. Young sporophytes (germlings) appear all year with maxima in spring and autumn. Chapman (1981) demonstrated that substantial recruitment of Laminaria digitata plants to areas barren of kelp plants was possible up to 600m away from reproductive plants.
  • Among sessile organisms, patterns fixed at settlement, though potentially altered by post settlement mortality, obviously cannot be influenced by dispersal of juveniles or adults.
  • Some of the species living in kelp beds do not have pelagic larvae, but instead have direct development producing their offspring as 'miniature adults'.

Time for community to reach maturity

Kain (1975) examined the recolonization of cleared concrete blocks by kelp plants and other algae and found that Laminaria digitata plants were re-established within 2 years and that red algae returned with a year. Many other characterizing species have planktonic larvae and/or are mobile and so can migrate into the affected area. Colonization of most species of fauna inhabiting kelp holdfast, for example, were found as early as one year after kelp trawling of Laminaria hyperborea plants in Norway, although numbers of both individuals and species, especially isopods and amphipods, increase with a corresponding increase in holdfast size (Christie et al, 1998). However, although these species colonize the biotope quite rapidly maturity of the overall community is likely to be longer. For example, encrusting coralline algae such as Lithophyllum incrustans are slow growing (2-7 mm per annum - see Irvine & Chamberlain 1994) and recruitment of other species to the kelp bed may take longer. In dredged kelp beds in Norway for example, although the rock between Laminaria hyperborea plants was uniformly covered with coralline algae after 3 years, the more diverse community of cnidarians, bryozoans and sponges associated with coralline algae seen on undredged plots was absent (Birkett et al., 1998b). Within five years, however, the biotope is likely to have reached maturity.

Additional information

-

Preferences & Distribution

Habitat preferences

Depth Range Lower shore, 0-5 m
Water clarity preferences
Limiting Nutrients Nitrogen (nitrates), Phosphorus (phosphates)
Salinity preferences Full (30-40 psu)
Physiographic preferences Enclosed coast or Embayment, Open coast, Strait or Sound
Biological zone preferences Sublittoral fringe
Substratum/habitat preferences Bedrock, Large to very large boulders
Tidal strength preferences Moderately strong 1 to 3 knots (0.5-1.5 m/sec.), Very weak (negligible), Weak < 1 knot (<0.5 m/sec.)
Wave exposure preferences Exposed, Moderately exposed, Sheltered
Other preferences

Additional Information

Species composition

Species found especially in this biotope

  • Umbonula littoralis

Rare or scarce species associated with this biotope

-

Additional information

Sensitivity review

Sensitivity characteristics of the habitat and relevant characteristic species

IR.MIR.KT.Ldig.Ldig occurs on bedrock and boulders subject to moderate to very weak tidal streams in wave exposed to sheltered conditions. The community is characterized by a dense Laminaria digitata canopy, beneath which is a diverse understorey community of varied red seaweed, ascidians and bryozoans.  The kelp supports holdfast fauna and both kelp and red seaweeds support encrusting or erect bryozoans.  The rock surface covered by encrusting corallines.

In undertaking this assessment of sensitivity, an account is taken of knowledge of the biology of all characterizing species in the biotope. For this sensitivity assessment, Laminaria digitata is the primary focus of research, as loss of the kelp canopy would represent a loss of the biotope. However, it is recognized that the red algal community also defines the biotope. Examples of important species groups are mentioned where appropriate.

Resilience and recovery rates of habitat

The available evidence indicates that the recovery of kelp biotopes, where kelp has been entirely removed, requires at least two years. Re-colonization of concrete blocks by Laminaria digitata was investigated by Kain (1975) at Port Erin, Isle of Man. Laminaria digitata was considered re-established two years after removal, with the characterizing red foliose algae following one year later. Similarly, recovery after simulated harvesting of a standing crop of Laminaria digitata occurred within 18-20 months (Kain, 1979). While colonization of young Laminaria sporophytes may occur one year after initial substratum clearance (Kain 1979), the return of the biotope to its original mature condition is likely to lag behind this recolonization. These findings agree with previous studies which showed that when 60% of sporophytes (adult alga) were removed from a location, 18 months were required for the stand to rejuvenate (Perez, 1971), while in France, CIAM (Le Comité Interprofessionel des Algues Marines) proposed that, regardless of collection method, the restoration of stands of laminarians took up to 18 months post harvesting (Arzel, 1998). Some disparities between reported recovery rates do exist, with cleared plots in Helgoland taking 25 months, probably because plots were burned to ensure total removal of spores and germlings (Markham & Munda, 1980). Even after 25 months, although macroalgal density had returned to pre-clearance levels, the Laminaria digitata were smaller than those on undisturbed plots, suggesting full recovery needs longer than 25 months (Markham and Munda, 1980).

The seasonal timing of macroalgal removal impacts recovery rates. Engelen et al. (2010) showed that removal of 0.25 m2 areas of Laminaria digitata forest in the spring and autumn had different recovery rates, with autumn recovery more rapid than spring (taking a minimum of 12 months). Return to conditions prior to removal took 18-24 months, with competition for space by Saccorhiza polyschides impacting recovery rates in the first year of recolonization (Engelen et al., 2010). The growth rate of Laminaria digitata changes with the seasons. Growth is rapid from February to July, slower in August to January, and occurs diffusely in the blade (Kain, 1979). This diffuse growth may enhance its resistance to potential grazers. Spores are produced at temperatures lower than 18°C with a minimum of 10 weeks a year between 5-18 °C needed to ensure spore formation (Bartsch, 2013). Thus temperature and season impacts the level of reproductive activity. In order to maximise survival rates of mature gametophytes, gametophyte development can be delayed by the algae until optimum conditions return and the gametophyte produces gametes (Van den Hoek et al., 1995), which suggests a degree of resistance to short-term changes in temperature which may be anthropogenic in origin. However, seaweeds have been cited as being particularly sensitive to short-term warming events (Dayton & Tegner, 1984; Smale & Wernberg, 2013; Wernberg et al., 2013; from Smale et al., 2013).

Smith (1985) recorded the recovery of Laminaria longicruris and Laminaria digitata following total experimental clearance within Lobster Bay, Nova Scotia. Within three months Laminaria longicruris recovery was well established, and experimental clearance plots were indistinguishable from the surrounding habitat. Laminaria digitata however required two years to fully recover following clearance.

The dispersal of Laminaria digitata spores and subsequent successful recruitment has been recorded 600 m from reproductive individuals (Chapman, 1981). Local water movement plays an important role in the potential recovery of a biotope, with spores dependent on currents to extend their dispersal range, although the majority of larvae settle within its local habitat (Brennan et al., 2014). If only part of the biotope is destroyed then recovery is likely to be fast. However, if the whole of a local biotope is destroyed, then its recovery depends on spores from an external source and, if the biotope is isolated from others of its kind, then recovery may be very slow. As kelp are attached to the substratum and have no mobility, recovery of the biotope where the kelp has been removed will depend on recolonization of cleared surfaces by germlings.  The frequency of disturbance is also important when considering the resilience of this biotope to various pressures, especially in terms of allowing novel species to out-compete Laminaria digitata in local areas. A loss of genetic diversity is not regarded as an issue for this species unless additional pressures result in the isolation and fragmentation of wild coastal populations (Valero et al., 2011). Genetic differentiation in wild populations occurs within 10 km with genetic flow occurring between adjacent species (Billot et al., 2003).  Opportunistic species such as Sargassum muticum and Codium fragile exploit gaps in the kelp bed and out-compete Laminaria digitata, so that high frequency, low impact disturbances may make the kelp stands more vulnerable to competition from these and other turf-forming algae; especially if climate change results in temperature shifts (Staehr et al., 2000; Scheibling & Gagnon, 2006; Connell & Russell 2010).

Experimental work in Nova Scotia (Atlantic coast of Canada), where Laminaria longicruris (and its understorey of Laminaria digitata) is harvested has shown that if kelps beds are destroyed/partially destroyed, grazing sea urchins may prevent regeneration and recruitment of kelp populations. It is thought that kelp harvesting removes the cover and protection of urchin predators (lobsters, crabs, fish) and a reduction in predator pressure, due either to kelp harvesting or lobster fishing, enables increases in urchin populations which graze destructively on Laminaria spp., forming barrens (Bernstein et al. 1981). Grazers are responsible for less than 20% of kelp produced nutrients entering the food web; the majority enters as detritus or dissolved organic matter. Under healthy conditions, grazers do not feed on the kelp themselves, but on their epibiota, with a few rare examples such as the blue rayed limpet (Krumhansl & Scheibling, 2012). The urchin barrens recorded off the coast of Norway are not common to UK waters with deforestation by urchins instead restricted and patchy (although some have been noted in Scotland; Smale et al., 2013). Stressed environments may be more susceptible to overgrazing by urchins, highlighting the need to consider these stressors as accumulative rather than isolated.

Resilience assessment. Evidence from Engelen et al. (2011) indicated that complete recovery of Laminaria digitata and its associated epibiota occurs 18-24 month after complete removal of Laminaria digitata. Smith (1985) also suggested 24 months for the recovery of a Laminaria digitata bed. Therefore,  resilience has been assessed as ‘High’. Competition between Laminaria digitata and Saccorhiza polyschides can also increase recovery time. In addition, experimental evidence (Kain, 1975, 1979; Markham & Munda, 1980) suggest that if the entire community is removed (e.g. where resistance is 'None') that the recovery of the kelp bed and red algal community may take longer, possibly up to three years, so that resilience is assessed as 'Medium'.

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

Laminaria digitata is distributed from Brittany to the coast of Norway, while its UK distribution encompasses the whole of the UK coast (Blight and Thompson, 2008).  Its distribution suggests that the species would tolerate chronic temperature change (e.g. by 2°C for a year).  However, local populations may have acclimatized to local physical conditions meaning that populations at the extremes of the species’ range are less comparable than those populations in the middle of its range. Additionally, the distribution data of this species suggests it is a northern species, as such, it will be vulnerable to increases in temperature and may be out-competed at its southern limits by other kelp species.

The thermal optimum of Laminaria digitata is between 10-15°C, with reproductive ability impaired to 20% at 18°C (Arzel, 1998). Therefore while the current population may not be affected, recruitment may be reduced.  Spore production only occurs between 5-10°C and is the most temperature sensitive stage of reproduction in Laminaria digitata. Outside this temperature range, reproduction is severely reduced and the species is at risk from local extinction in the long-term. In addition, a temperature increases to 22-23°C causes cell damage and death (Sundene, 1964; Bolton & Lüning, 1982). The sensitivity of this species, therefore, relies on the current sea temperatures of the specific location (Bartsch et al., 2013). A minimum of 10 weeks a year between 5-18°C is needed in order to ensure spore formation and hence reproduction (Bartsch et al., 2013).

Combining predicted sea surface temperate over the next century with the current distribution of Laminaria digitata, Merzouk & Johnson (2011) predict an expansion of its northern limits and localised extinctions across its southern range edge (Mid Bay of Biscay, Northern France and southern England; Birkett et al., 1998). Suggesting at sites where sea temperature is artificially increased as a result of anthropogenic activity (e.g. effluent output) local extinction of the biotope may occur (Raybaud et al., 2013) especially if combined with high UK summer sea temperatures in southern examples of this biotope (Bartsch et al., 2013). In southern examples of IR.MIR.KT.LdigT, Laminaria digitata may also be out-competed by its Lusitanian competitor Laminaria ochroleuca which is regionally abundant across the south UK coastline (Smale et al., 2014).

Sensitivity assessment. Species within the habitat are likely to vary in response to temperature change, despite this, Laminaria digitata is likely to withstand an increase in temperature at the benchmark level, and this biotope is therefore assessed as having a ‘High’ resistance to this pressure.  Resilience is, therefore, also ‘High’. If the temperature increase is short-term (a 5°C increase in temp for one month period) this biotope is considered ‘Not sensitive’ at the benchmark level. However, because this pressure may affect the reproductive stage of the algae, over periods longer than one year, if the temperature does not facilitate spore production then a temperature increase of 5°C is likely to negatively affect the biotope and may result in its local loss at the extremes of its range, especially in the light of climate change which has seen the northward retreat of Laminaria digitata biotopes in Europe (Raybaud et al., 2013).

Medium
High
High
High
Help
High
High
High
High
Help
Low
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

The thermal optimum of Laminaria digitata is between 10-15°C, with reproductive ability impaired to 20% at 18°C (Arzel, 1998). Therefore while the current population may not be affected, recruitment may be reduced. Spore production only occurs between 5-10°C and is the most temperature sensitive stage of reproduction in Laminaria digitata. Outside this temperature range, reproduction is severely reduced and the species is at risk from local extinction in the short-term. In addition, a temperature increase to 22-23°C causes cell damage and death (Sundene, 1964; Bolton & Lüning, 1982). During an exceptionally warm summer in Norway, Sundene (1964) reported the destruction of Laminaria digitata plants exposed to temperatures of 22-23°C. The sensitivity of this species, therefore, relies on the current sea temperatures of the specific location (Bartsch et al., 2013). A minimum of 10 weeks a year between 5-18°C is needed in order to ensure spore formation and hence reproduction (Bartsch et al., 2013).

With a warming climate, Merzouk & Johnston (2011) predict an expansion of the northern limits of this species. The northward retreat of Laminaria digitata has been predicted using the IPCC climate change model, suggesting that in conditions of increased temperatures by anthropogenic means (e.g. effluent output) local extinction of the biotope may be likely (Raybaud et al., 2013) especially if the increases in summer temperatures inhibiting reproduction recorded by Bartsch et al. (2013) continues.

Sensitivity assessment.  The dominant kelp Laminaria digitata is thought to be a northern species and likely to retreat north as a result of climate change. Therefore, it is unlikely to be sensitive to a reduction in temperature at the benchmark level. Several members of the red algal community are found from the lower shore to the sublittoral, and probably not sensitive to changes at the benchmark level, as if some individual species may reduce in abundance or be lost, the diverse red algal community will remain.  Therefore, a resistance of 'High' is suggested, with a resilience of 'High' and 'the biotope is regarded as 'Not sensitive' at the benchmark level.

High
High
High
High
Help
High
High
High
High
Help
Not sensitive
High
Medium
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

Kelps are tolerant to short-term daily fluctuation in salinity and are recorded as tolerating 5-60 psu; however, they are much less tolerant to long-term changes with growth and photosynthetic rates declining either side of 20-45 psu (Gordillo et al., 2002, Karsten, 2007).  Despite this tolerance, Laminaria digitata is considered to be a stenohaline species, and this biotope is only found in conditions of full salinity (Connor et al., 2004). Therefore, other species probably out-compete Laminaria digitata at the limits of its salinity tolerance, meaning that despite the biotope’s tolerance under conditions of no competition, under natural conditions this biotope is unlikely to occur in conditions above 40 psu.

Sensitivity assessment. This biotope is only recorded in conditions of full salinity and a change from full to hypersaline conditions (>40 psu) for a year is likely to result in major changes in the character of the biotope, including loss of the dominant kelp and members of the red algal community. Therefore, a resistance of 'Low' is suggested, with a resilience of 'High' and a resultant sensitivity of 'Low'.  However, in the absence of direct evidence, the overall confidence in the assessment is 'Low'.

Low
Low
NR
NR
Help
High
High
High
High
Help
Low
Low
Low
Low
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

Birkett et al. (1998b) suggested that kelps are stenohaline, in that they do not tolerate wide fluctuations in salinity and require regular salinities of 30-35 psu to maintain optimum growth rates. Growth rate may be adversely affected if the kelp plant is subjected to periodic salinity stress. Laminaria digitata tolerates a large salinity range within a 24 hour period (5-60 psu; Karsten, 2007).  At the extremes of this range; decreases in photosynthetic rates are evident, particularly at low salinities (Gordillo et al., 2002).  In the study by Karsten (2007), kelp thalli were kept at constant salinities for 5 days, with their photosynthetic rates measured after 2 and 5 days. The lower salinity limit for Laminaria digitata lies between 10 and 15 psu. On the Norwegian coast, Sundene (1964) found healthy Laminaria digitata plants growing between 15 and 25 psu. Axelsson & Axelsson (1987) indicated damage of the plants’ plasma membranes occurs when salinity is below 20 or above 50 psu. Localized, long-term reductions in salinity, to below 20 psu, may result in the loss of kelp beds in affected areas (Birkett et al., 1998b).

Red algae vary in their resistance to reduced or variable salinity, so that changes in salinity may change the species composition of the red algal community. In laboratory experiments, maximum rates of photosynthesis and respiration in Palmaria palmata were observed at a salinity 32 psu (Robbins, 1978) although photosynthetic rates were high down to a salinity of 21 psu. Palmaria palmata is likely to be tolerant of small changes in salinity because as an intertidal species it is regularly exposed to precipitation. Corallina officinalis inhabits rock pools and gullies from mid to low water. Therefore, it is likely to be exposed to short-term hyposaline (freshwater runoff and rainfall) and hypersaline (evaporation) events. However, its distribution in the Baltic is restricted to increasingly deep water as the surface salinity decreases, suggesting that it requires full salinity in the long-term (Kinne, 1971).  Some of the fauna, including Halichondria panicea, are tolerant of a wide variety of salinity habitats from reduced to full salinity and are therefore unlikely to be affected by a drop in salinity at the benchmark level.

Sensitivity assessment.  The main studies which this assessment is based on are laboratory studies.  More weight is lent to studies carried out in the field as they provide more realistic estimates of how this species is likely to respond to pressures. Although Laminaria digitata cold survive reduced salinity conditions (i.e. 18-30) this biotope is only found in full salinity conditions (Connor et al., 2004), this biotope is considered to have a resistance of ‘None’ at the benchmark level as the biotope could be lost or replaced by variable salinity biotopes (e.g. IR.MIR.KR.Slat.Ldig) due to an increased abundance of Saccharina latissima. Resilience is considered ‘Medium’ (2-10 years) due to the scale of the impact, giving a sensitivity of ‘Medium’.

None
High
High
Medium
Help
Medium
High
High
High
Help
Medium
High
High
Medium
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

This biotope occurs in a range of water flow conditions from moderately strong (0.5-1.5 meters /second) to very weak (negligible) (Connor et al., 2004). Its flexible stipe and low profile holdfast allow it to flourish in areas with strong water currents. In Lough Ine in Ireland, Laminaria digitata forms dense forests in the fast flowing water of the Rapids where water speeds vary from 4-6 knots (ca 2-3 m/s) (Bassingdale et al., 1948). Laminaria digitata is also found in very strong flows (>3.87 m/s) although it is often out-competed by Alaria esculenta. The biotope is not found in areas where sand scour occurs (associated with high water flow rates).  The structure of the substratum typically of this biotope is also likely to reduce water flow by increasing frictional drag, providing some inherent resistance within the biotope.  Therefore, the Laminaria digitata and its associated community will probably not be affected by a change of 0.1-0.2 m/s in peak mean spring bed flow velocity.  Laminaria digitata partially achieves survival in a range of water flow conditions due to its blade morphology, which varies with flow, becoming narrower and more digitate as water flow rate increases (Sundene, 1964).  In a laboratory study, this morphological adaptation was attributed to longitudinal stress with exposure to this stress over 6 weeks resulting in narrower blades and a significantly higher rate of cell elongation, compared to those plants that had not experienced the same stress.  This study also suggested that plasticity would serve to decrease the risk of thallus damage in areas of greater exposure or in stormier conditions (Gerard, 1987).

Larval dispersal is in part governed by the local hydrodynamic regime; increased turbulence is associated with an increase in biotope connectivity and therefore a loss of larvae from the local system. A decrease in wave and current mediated water flow is identified by lower connectivity with other sites and a higher settlement rate within the local biotope (Robins et al., 2013).  Therefore, an increase in water flow could result in larval loss from the local biotope, which if not balanced by a larval influx from another geographically different population, could result in the demise of the local biotope’s health; with a shift in the age structure of the population and a dearth of young alga. A decrease in the level of water flow is unlikely to have a detrimental effect because the species often grow in areas of low water movement where it may form extensive loose-lying populations (Burrows, 1958; cited in White and Marshall, 2007).

Sensitivity assessment.  Resistance is assessed as ‘High’ and by default  ‘High’ resilience to this pressure. Therefore, this biotope is regarded as ‘Not sensitive’ at the benchmark level’, although a prolonged increase in flow could result in loss of the biotope due to reduced local recruitment and competition from other species.

High
Medium
Medium
High
Help
High
High
High
High
Help
Not sensitive
Medium
Medium
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

This biotope occurs in the shallow sublittoral and is therefore exposed to changes in emergence. Increased emergence will expose the biotope to air for longer periods leading to drying. Laminaria digitata is relatively resistant to desiccation, surviving up to 40% water loss (Dring & Brown, 1982).  The desiccation tolerance of Laminaria digitata allows beds to extend a further 2 cm into the eulittoral zone where grazing pressure is removed (Southward & Southward, 1978). When exposed to the air, kelp canopies buffer the effects of high temperatures and water loss on organisms below their fronds with substratum temperatures on average 8-10°C lower under the canopy than bare rock, additionally decreasing water loss by >45% (Bertness et al, 1999).

An increase in the benchmark level for air exposure may result in the depression of the biotope’s upper limit; as this species‘ lower limit is set by competition with Laminaria hyperborea (Hawkins & Harkin, 1985). The upper, landward limits of Laminaria digitata biotopes are generally set by competition with the brown algae Fucus serratus (Hawkins & Harkin, 1985); therefore, a decrease in the benchmark level for air exposure may result in the extension of the biotope’s upper limit.  The main driver of competition between Fucus serratus and Laminaria digitata is based on the ability of Fucus serratus to control its respiration rates based on its desiccation rates, which Laminaria digitata is unable to do.  Therefore, longer periods of emergence may result in a compression of Laminaria digitata’s extent as it is out-competed by Fucus serratus at its upper limit. The kelp is able to resist both an increase and decrease in emergence; however, this resistance is based on the free movement of this species within its environmental optima, shifting up or down the shore. Therefore, if an obstacle to movement perpendicular to the shoreline (e.g. sea defence) is then combined with a change in the emergence regime this biotope could undergo compression of its range and potentially local loss.

Sensitivity assessment. This pressure is a key driver of biotope extent because the upper and lower limits of this species are set by inter-species competition.  In the direct footprint of the impact resistance is, therefore, probably ‘Low’ (loss of 25-75%). Resilience is suggested as ‘Medium’ (2-10 years) due to the scale of the impact. This biotope is therefore considered to have ‘Medium’ sensitivity to the pressure.

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

The structure of kelps enables them to survive a range of wave conditions from wave exposed to sheltered conditions (Connor et al., 2004, Harder et al., 2006).  Physiological differences between kelps are evident between low wave exposure and medium-high wave exposure.  The greatest wet weight of Laminaria digitata occurs at low wave exposure (mean significant wave height <0.4 m) decreasing by a mean of 83% in medium to high wave exposures (mean significant wave height >0.4m; Gorman et al., 2013).  At medium to high levels of wave exposure, Laminaria digitata biomass has been shown to decrease by 83% in the field (Wernberg & Thomsen, 2005). In areas of high wave exposure, Laminaria digitata may extend its upper limits into the lower eulittoral zone.

A flexible stipe and low profile holdfast allow Laminaria digitata to flourish in moderately to strongly wave exposed areas (as defined by MNCR, Connor et al., 2004).  The absence of this biotope from extreme wave exposure and sheltered sites indicates a failure of the biotope to compete with other biotopes for space.  The biotope IR.HIR.KFaR.Ala.Ldig typically replaces this biotope under conditions of extreme wave exposure, while in sheltered conditions, IR.LIR.K.Slat.Ldig becomes prevalent.

The physiology of seaweeds grown at exposed sites differs morphologically to those at sheltered sites with those exposed to greater wave action. A transplant experiment of Laminaria digitata, from exposed to sheltered sites resulted in a changed morphology with the frond widening, while individuals transplanted from sheltered to exposed sites became thinner and more streamlined (Sundene, 1964; Gerard, 1987). This morphological plasticity is evident during the spore stage; because of this, it is suggested that if wave height is increased or decreased the kelp will adapt morphologically over time to optimise its survival in the new environment.

The associated assemblage of the biotope also influences Laminaria digitata’s ability to withstand increases in wave action. The encrusting of the epiphytic Membranipora membranacea which reduces the ability of individual kelp to withstand wave action, increasing frond breakages and additionally reducing the maximum stress, toughness and extensibility of the kelp blade materials (Krumhansl et al., 2011).

Sensitivity assessment. The structure of Laminaria digitata makes it resistant to changes in wave action, although large sudden increases in wave action through events such as storms may result in the removal of individuals from the habitat. Also, an increase in wave exposure to very strong or higher, and a reduction in exposure to sheltered condition would result in a change in the community and biotope. However, a 3-5% change in significant wave height is unlikely to be significant and this biotope is, therefore, considered as having ‘High’ resistance to changes in wave height at the benchmark level. Resilience is also considered as ‘High’ at the benchmark, as there is no impact to recover from.  Therefore, this biotope is ’Not sensitive’ at the benchmark level.

High
High
High
High
Help
High
High
High
High
Help
Not sensitive
High
High
High
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.

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.

Laminaria digitata is less susceptible to coating than some other seaweeds because of its preference for exposed locations where wave action will rapidly dissipate oil. The effects of oil accumulation on the thalli are mitigated by the perennial growth of kelps. No significant effects of the Amoco Cadiz spill were observed for Laminaria populations and the World Prodigy spill of 922 tonnes of oil in Narragansett Bay had no discernible effects on Laminaria digitata (Peckol et al., 1990). Mesocosm studies in Norwegian waters showed that chronic low-level oil pollution (25 µg/L) reduced growth rates in Laminaria digitata but only in the second and third years of growth (Bokn, 1985). Where exposed to direct contact with fresh hydrocarbons, encrusting calcareous algae have a high intolerance. The sensitivities of the faunal components of the kelp bed are not known although amphipods normally suffer high mortality in oil affected areas. Analysis of kelp holdfast fauna after the Sea Empress oil spill in Milford Haven illustrated decreases in the number of species, diversity and abundance at sites nearest the spill (SEEEC, 1998).

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.

Several of the species characteristic of the biotope are reported as having a high intolerance to synthetic chemicals. For instance, Cole et al. (1999) suggested that herbicides such as Simazine and Atrazine were very toxic to macrophytic algae. Hiscock & Hoare (1974) noted that almost all red algal species and many animal species were absent from Amlwch Bay in North Wales adjacent to an acidified halogenated effluent. Red algae have also been found to be sensitive to oil spill dispersants (O'Brien & Dixon 1976).

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

No evidence (NEv)
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 have been shown to 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).  A rapid recovery from a state of low oxygen is expected if the environmental conditions are transient. 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).

Sensitivity Assessment.  Reduced oxygen levels are likely to inhibit photosynthesis and respiration but not cause a loss of the macroalgae population directly but small invertebrate epifauna may be lost, causing a reduction in species richness. However, in wave exposed conditions, and hence high mixing, the effects of deoxygenation are likely to be short-lived. Therefore, resistance is assessed as ‘High’.  Hence resilience is likely to be ‘High’, and the biotope is considered ‘Not sensitive’ at the pressure benchmark.

 

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

Nutrient enrichment

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

Evidence

High ambient levels of phosphate and nitrogen enhance spore formation in a number of Laminaria species (Nimura et al., 2002), but will eventually inhibit spore production, particularly at the limits of temperature tolerances as seen in Saccharina latissima (studied as Laminaria saccharina; Yarish et al., 1990). Laminaria digitata seems to follow this trend with a growth peak occurring in conjunction with nutrient upwelling from deeper waters in Norway (Gévaert et al., 2001). Macroalgal growth is generally nitrogen-limited in the summer, as illustrated by the growth rates of Laminaria digitata between an oligotrophic and a eutrophic site in Arbroath, Scotland (Davison et al., 1984). Laminaria digitata does not accumulate the significant internal nutrient reserves seen in some other kelp. Higher growth rates have been associated with alga situated close to sewage outfalls. However, after removal of sewage pollution in the Firth of Forth, Laminaria digitata became abundant on rocky shores from which they had previously been absent (Read et al., 1983). Enhancement of coastal nutrients is likely to favour those species with more rapid growth rates including turf-forming algae (Gorgula & Connell, 2004) which could explain Laminaria digitata absence from the Firth of Forth.  In addition, epiphytic abundance and biomass on Laminaria longicruris increase under a eutrophic regime decreasing the ability of individual alga to photosynthesis and withstand pressure from water movement (Scheibling et al., 1999).

Sensitivity Assessment. The benchmark of this pressure (compliance with WFD ‘good’ status) allows for a slightly less diverse community of red, green and brown seaweeds with the greatest reduction in red species and an increase in the proportion of short-lived species under the WFD criteria for good status. However, this biotope is considered to be 'Not sensitive' at the pressure benchmark, that assumes compliance with good status as defined by the WFD. 

High
High
High
High
Help
High
High
High
High
Help
Not sensitive
High
High
High
Help
Organic enrichment [Show more]

Organic enrichment

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

Evidence

Organic deposition may result in siltation (see smothering and siltation change pressure) and subsequent re-suspension of organic particles reducing water clarity (see 'change in suspended solids' pressure). The deposition of sewage effluent into coastal environments resulted in the absence of Laminaria digitata and many other species from the coastline of the Firth of Forth (Read et al., 1983). The use of some kelp species in conjunction with fish aquaculture (to buffer the effects of organic enrichment in the local area) suggests that many commercial kelps  (including Laminaria digitata) are tolerant to local increases in organic enrichment, although the level of enrichment experienced will be dependent on fish species and aquaculture design (Troell et al., 2003). In California, investigations into the effects of sewage effluent into coastal waters concluded that kelp was negatively affected by the organic enrichment of the surrounding waters (North & Schaefer, 1964). The addition of organic matter may also decrease water clarity and increase particulate matter in the water column the effects of these changes are assessed through the pressure ‘Changes in suspended solids’.

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 were 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).

Sensitivity Assessment. Therefore, the biotope is probably resistant of the direct effects of organic enrichment but may be sensitive to the effects of increased turbidity (see water clarity above) and eutrophication. Therefore, a resistance of 'Medium' is suggested to represent a reduction in species richness and an increase in ephemeral green algae. Resilience is probably ‘High' and the biotope is, therefore, considered to have a 'Low' sensitivity at the pressure benchmark.

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

A change in substratum type from bedrock to sedimentary is likely to have a similar effect as a ‘physical loss (to land or freshwater habitat) because kelp requires a stable, hard, substratum on which to settle. No evidence of this biotope occurring on sedimentary substratum was found in the literature. Also, it is scarce on the south-east coast of Ireland, in particular, Counties Wicklow and Wexford, due to lack of hard substratum.

Sensitivity assessment.  This biotope is considered to have a resistance of 'None' to this pressure as sedimentary habitats are unsuitable for Laminaria digitata and the associated attached biological assemblage. It would be unable to recover from this permanent change of habitat so resilience is ‘Very low' and its sensitivity within the direct spatial footprint of this pressure is, therefore ‘High’.  

None
Low
NR
NR
Help
Very Low
High
High
High
Help
High
Low
Low
Low
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' to bedrock biotopes

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

The species characterizing this biotope are epifauna or epiflora occurring on rock and would be sensitive to the removal of the habitat. However, extraction of substratum is considered unlikely and this pressure is considered to be ‘Not relevant’ to hard substratum habitats.

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

Low-level disturbance (e.g. solitary anchors) are suggested as being unlikely to cause harm to the biotope as a whole due to their small impact footprint. In a review of the effects of trampling on intertidal habitats, Tyler-Walters & Arnold (2008) found no information on the effects of trampling on Laminaria species (Laminaria digitata or Saccharina latissima). The authors reported that laminarians are robust species but that trampling on blades at low tide could potentially damage the blade or growing meristem.

Traditionally Laminaria digitata was used on agricultural lands as fertilizers; now Laminaria spp. are used in a range of different products, with its alginates used in the cosmetic, pharmaceutical and agri-food industries (Kervarec et al.,1999; McHugh, 2003). Collection of Laminaria digitata by mechanical harvesting (trawling) is not done in the UK, (Netalgae, 2012). Trawling, used to harvest Laminaria hyperborea in Norway results in whole alga being removed from the substratum, and substantial scouring of the substratum, indicating that the use of trawls in a Laminaria digitata biotope is likely to detrimentally affect the biotope, regardless of the target species.  In France, Laminaria digitata is harvested with a ‘Scoubidou’, a curved iron hook which is mechanically operated. This device is considered to be selective; only harvesting individuals older than 2 years (Arzel, 2002). France reportedly harvests 75,000t kelp, mainly consisting of Laminaria digitata annually (FAO, 2007). Davoult et al. (2011) suggested that the maintenance of a sustainable crop of Laminaria digitata was possible if the industry continues employing small vessels evenly dispersed along the coastline. This could protect against habitat fragmentation and buffer over exploitation (Davoult et al., 2011). A fallow period of 18-24 months has been suggested for Laminaria digitata in France, where competition between the juvenile sporophytes of Laminaria digitata and Saccorhiza polyschides was indicated as a threat to the continued harvesting effort of Laminaria digitata (Engelen et al., 2011).

Canopy removal of Laminaria digitata has been shown to reduce shading, resulting in the bleaching of sub-canopy algae (Hawkins & Harkins, 1985). Harvesting may also result in habitat fragmentation, a major threat to this biotope’s ecosystem functioning (Valero et al., 2011).

Harvesting and fishing trawls scour and abrade the seabed, dislodging macroalgae and their associated assemblages from the substratum.  The impact footprint and recovery period to artificial abrasion by bottom trawling are dependent on the trawl’s characteristics including; duration, type and size. There is little evidence in the literature concerning natural or low-level bedrock abrasion.

Sensitivity Assessment.  Abrasion of the substratum could remove a proportion of the kelp and associated red algal community. Therefore, the biotope is considered to have ‘Low’ resistance in the footprint of the pressure (loss of 25-75%) while resilience is ‘High’ (within 2 years). Hence, the biotope is assessed as ‘Low’ sensitivity.

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

The species characterizing this biotope group are epifauna or epiflora occurring on hard rock, which is resistant to subsurface penetration. Therefore, ‘penetration’ is 'Not relevant'. The assessment for abrasion at the surface only is, therefore, considered to equally represent sensitivity to this pressure’. Please refer to ‘abrasion’ above.

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 sub surface light attenuation (Kd) (Devlin et al., 2008). Light availability and water turbidity are principal factors in determining depth range at which kelp can be found (Birkett et al., 1998b). 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 100 m in the Mediterranean to only 6-7 m in the silt laden German Bight. In Atlantic European waters, the depth limit is typically 35 m. 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. 1998b). Laminaria spp. 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). An increase in water turbidity will likely affect the photosynthetic ability of Laminaria digitata, decrease kelp abundance and density.

An increase in SPM results in a increase in subsurface light attenuation. The absence of Laminaria digitata in the Firth of Forth was suggested to be caused by the outflow from a sewage treatment plant that increased the turbidity of the water and thus decreased photosynthetic activity, although the effect of turbidity was probably coupled with increased nutrient levels (Read et al., 1983). Blue light is crucial for the gametophytic stages of Laminaria digitata, and several other congenic species (Lüning, 1980).  Dissolved organic materials (yellow substance or gelbstoff) absorbs blue light (Kirk, 1976), therefore changes in riverine input or other land based runoff are likely to influence kelp density and distribution.  In the silt-laden waters around Helgoland, Germany the depth limit for Laminaria digitata growth may be reduced to between 0 m and 1.5 m (Birkett et al. 1998b). In locations where water clarity is severely decreased, Laminaria species experience a significant decrease in growth from the shading of suspended matter and/or phytoplankton (Lyngby & Mortensen 1996, Spilmont et al., 2009).

Sensitivity Assessment. A decrease in turbidity is likely to support enhanced growth (and possible habitat expansion) and is therefore not considered in this assessment. However, an increase in turbidity, is likely to result in loss of the deeper extent of the biotope. Therefore, resistance to this pressure is defined as ‘Medium’ and resilience to this pressure is defined as ‘High’. Hence, sensitivity is assessed as ‘Low‘.

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

No direct evidence of the effects of this pressure was found for this biotope although some studies were found for the sensitivity of Saccharina latissima to this pressure. An experiment by Roleda & Dethleff (2008) illustrated potential benefits to low levels of siltation including UV protection for Saccharina latissima for short periods. When burial under a variety of sediment types was extended beyond 7 days, symptoms of bleaching, tissue loss and diminished PSII function were exhibited (Roleda and Dethleff, 2011).  A layer of fine grained sediment (0.1-0.2 cm thick) caused rotting of Saccharina latissima and 25% mortality after 4 weeks of coverage in a laboratory experiment. Saccharina latissima is considered to be more silt tolerant than Laminaria digitata, therefore suggesting that in locations of low wave and current mediated water flow; sedimentation is a threat to this biotope (Lyngby & Mortensen 1996).  However, this study was carried out on disk samples from the thalli placed in petri dishes with no current flow.  It is unlikely that this biotope would be found in such conditions of low flow, therefore the relevance of this study is questionable, additionally it is unclear how a whole plant would respond to siltation, however, the findings are still worth considering.

Sedimentation has additional negative effects on the zoospores of brown algae, with spores attaching to the only substratum available. Hence, fine sediment could interfere with recruitment, by preventing and deterring spores attachment to a hard substratum; resulting in their subsequent loss due to waves and currents (Devinny & Volse, 1978, Norton, 1978; Bartsch et al., 2008).  Field observations reveal that kelp is associated with accelerating sediment deposition and additionally prevent sediments being washed away because of their influence on local water current by increasing drag and thus particulate fall out (Airoldi, 2003 references therein). However, this sediment is associated with the holdfasts of the kelp and not the fronds. At higher levels of wave exposure, whiplash by kelp is common, and this, in turn, reduces sediment accumulation at these sites (Kennelly 1989; Melville and Connell, 2001; cited in Airoldi, 2003).

Sensitivity Assessment.  The resistance of this biotope to this pressure is assessed as ‘High’ because despite the dramatic effect of siltation on Laminaria digitata under conditions of no water motion (Lyngby & Mortensen 1996), this biotope exists in water regimes which should favour the rapid exportation of sediment from the biotope, giving it an inherent level of protection against this pressure.  Resilience to this pressure is regarded as ‘High’. This biotope is regarded as ‘Not sensitive’ to this pressure at the benchmark.

High
High
Medium
High
Help
High
High
High
High
Help
Not sensitive
High
Medium
High
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

The evidence suggests that Laminaria digitata is sensitive to prolonged smothering (Roleda & Dethleff, 2011) (see ‘light‘ deposition above ). While 5 cm of sediment coverage may be transported from the biotope relatively quickly a deposition of 30 cm is likely to remain in place for a longer period of time, especially in wave sheltered examples of the biotope. Therefore, heavy siltation' may have a greater effect on the health of the biotope, resulting in smothering of the epifauna and flora, the red algae community and holdfast fauna in particular.  Therefore, the biotope is likely to have a 'Medium’ resistance to this pressure.  Resilience to this pressure is regarded as ‘High’ and sensitivity to this pressure is therefore assessed as ‘Low’.

Medium
Medium
Low
Low
Help
High
High
Medium
Medium
Help
Low
Medium
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. It is feasible that discarded fishing line or plastic netting, or similar discards could tangle on kelp fronds and potentially damage or remove individuals. However, there was no evidence on which to base an assessment. 

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

No evidence (NEv)
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

It is feasible that localised light sources (e.g. post or harbour side lighting) might increase the length of time available for photosynthesis in a shallow example of the biotope, where overnight lighting and the biotope abut.  However, no evidence was found to qualify any effect and sensitivity is not assessed. 

Shading of shallow examples of the biotope (e.g. by the construction of pontoons or jetties) would limit the availability of light and have similar effects to that of increased turbidity (see above) in the affected area. The dominant kelp is likely to be excluded while shade-tolerant red algae may increase in abundance or be reduced to encrusting corallines and become dominated by faunal turfs, depending on the degree of shading.  The biotope may be lost in the affected area, hence a resistance of 'Low' is suggested, with a resilience of 'High' and sensitivity of 'Low'

Low
Low
NR
NR
Help
High
High
Medium
High
Help
Low
Low
Low
Low
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’ to seabed habitats.  NB. Collision by grounding vessels is addressed under ‘surface abrasion’

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

No evidence regarding the genetic modification of this species was found. Harvesting is carried out on wild kelp stands in a sustainable 5 year cycle (Vea and Ask, 2011), therefore, translocation of this species is unlikely.  In addition, if translocation of populations does occur, a loss in genetic diversity is not regarded as an issue for this species, unless additional pressures result in the isolation and fragmentation of wild coastal populations (Valero et al., 2011). Genetic differentiation in wild populations occurs within 10 km with genetic flow occurring between adjacent species (Billot et al., 2003).  No evidence was found to suggest that Laminaria digitata hybridizes with other species.

No evidence (NEv)
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 this biotope. Potential invasives include Undaria pinnatifida, Sargassum muticum and Codium fragile. Sargassum muticum has been shown to competitively replace Laminaria spp. in Denmark (Staehr et al., 2000). 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, 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 to 0.5 m or 4 to 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.

Strong & Dring (2011) used canopy removal experiments to investigate inter- and intra-species competition between Sargassum muticum and Saccharina latissima in the Dorn, Strangford Lough, N. Ireland. The Dorn consists of tidal pools, very sheltered from wave action but with moderately strong tidal streams (1-2 knots). Sargassum muticum grew better in mixed stands with Saccharina latissima than in the highest density monospecific stands examined. However, the growth of Saccharina was not affected by the proportion of Sargassum in mixed stands. They concluded that Saccharina was not impacted significantly by the alien species while Sargassum benefited from growth in mixed stands. Experimental manipulation of subtidal algal canopies in San Juan Islands, Washington State, USA, showed that Sargassum muticum reduced the abundance of native macroalgae, including the kelp Laminaria bongardiana due to shadingHowever, the experimental removal of Sargassum resulted in the recovery of native species within about 1 year (Britton-Simmons, 2004; Engelen et al., 2015). The negative effects of Sargassum muticum on native macroalgae are mainly due to competition for light, rather than changes in nutrient availability, sedimentation, or water flow (Britton-Simmons, 2004; Engelen et al., 2015). Cosson (1999) reported a significant decline in Laminaria digitata at two sites between 1983 and 1997 on the coast of Normandy, France, due to an increase in Sargassum muticum abundance in the same areas. For example, on the Grandcamp rocks, Laminaria digitata has almost disappeared while Sargassum muticum had covered 80% of the lower intertidal and subtidal zone in summer.

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; Epstein & Smale, 2018; Kraan, 2017; 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). It has since proliferated along UK coastlines. One year after its discovery at the Queen Anne Battery marina, Plymouth, it became 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). In Plymouth, UK, De Leij et al. (2017) found that natural habitats with dense native macroalgal canopies, such as Laminaria hyperborea, Laminaria ochroleuca, Laminaria digitata and Saccharina latissima had more resistance to Undaria pinnatifida invasion than disturbed or sparse canopies, due to limited space and light availability for Undaria pinnatifida recruits. However, the dense canopies did not always prevent invasion of Undaria pinnatifida as sporophytes were still recorded within dense Laminaria canopies, so that canopy disturbance was not always required (De Leij et al., 2017; Epstein & Smale, 2018).

Undaria pinnatifida 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 a wide physiological niche meaning it can occur in both coastal and estuarine environments showing tolerance for varying salinities, turbidity, and siltation (Heiser et al., 2014; Epstein & Smale, 2018). Undaria pinnatifida prefers sheltered sites with low wave exposure and weak tidal streams (Heiser et al., 2014; Epstein & Smale, 2018). In natural habitats, Undaria pinnatifida was not recorded if the wave fetch was greater than 642 km but increased in abundance and cover in very sheltered sites (Epstein & Smale, 2018).

In St Malo, France, there was evidence that Undaria pinnatifida could co-exist with Laminaria digitata under certain conditions (Castric-Fey et al., 1993). Epstein et al. (2019b) observed that, in Plymouth Sound, UK, Undaria pinnatifida co-existed with seven species of canopy-forming brown macroalgae within its depth range (+1 to –4 m), including Laminaria digitata; which suggested that they could occupy an overlapping niche. Epstein & Smale (2018) also observed that Undaria pinnatifida was relatively common (abundance of >70 individuals per 25 m transect) at three sites in Devon, UK (Jennycliff, Bovisand and Beacon Cove) where Laminaria spp. were abundant (40-79%) or superabundant (>80%), which suggested that Undaria pinnatifida could co-exist within refugia amongst areas with dense Laminaria spp..

In many cases, Undaria pinnatifida seems to have minimal impacts on native communities (e.g., Forrest & Taylor, 2002; Valentine & Johnson, 2003; South et al., 2016; Epstein & Smale, 2017; Epstein & Smale 2018). Laminaria digitata forms dense monospecific canopies and its thick, extensive laminae are likely to restrict light penetration to the underlying substratum, including Undaria pinnatifida (De Leij et al., 2017). Disturbance to the native kelp canopy can facilitate the spread of INIS by increasing the availability of resources such as light and space. Experimental full removal of the existing kelp canopy in Plymouth Sound allowed the mean cover of Undaria pinnatifida to increase from ca 10% to ca 50% within three months (De Leij et al., 2017). Their experiment showed that the density of Laminaria digitata was important to Undaria pinnatifida invasion (De Leij et al., 2017).

Similarly, a primary succession experiment by Epstein et al. (2019b) in Plymouth Sound (UK) showed that clearance of Laminaria digitata in 2016 resulted in an increase in Undaria pinnatifida abundance. However, this was quickly followed by the recovery of Laminaria digitata in 2017 and the concurrent decline in Undaria pinnatifida, which suggested that Laminaria digitata had a higher fitness (Epstein et al., 2019b). Within the same study, Epstein et al. (2019b) observed that Undaria pinnatifida exhibited a significant negative relationship with Laminaria digitata on intertidal rocky reef substrata, which suggested that Laminaria digitata negatively affected Undaria pinnatifida abundance. It was also suggested that Undaria pinnatifida has a lower resistance to desiccation than Laminaria digitata. As a result, Epstein & Smale (2019b) concluded that due to its lower fitness, Undaria found within natural habitats in the northeast Atlantic has low ecological and community level impacts and was competitively inferior to Laminaria spp.. However, Heiser et al. (2014) found that in Plymouth, UK, Laminaria digitata was significantly less abundant at sites with the presence of Undaria pinnatifida, with only ca 1.5 Laminaria digitata individuals per m2 with Undaria pinnatifida, compared to ca 7 individuals per m2 at sites without Undaria pinnatifida. Undaria pinnatifida was successfully eradicated on a sunken ship in Chatham Islands, New Zealand, by applying a heat treatment of 70°C (Wotton et al., 2004). However, numerous other eradication attempts have failed and as noted by Fletcher & Farrell (1998), once established Undaria pinnatifida resists most attempts at long-term removal.

Sensitivity Assessment. The above evidence suggests that Undaria pinnatifida can co-exist with native kelp species within its depth range (-1 to 4 m) e.g., Laminaria digitata as shown in Plymouth Sound, UK.  The dense kelp canopy may restrict or slow the proliferation of Undaria pinnatifida. But Laminaria digitata has been shown to out-compete Undaria pinnatifida. For example, removal of the Laminaria digitata canopy resulted in the increase of Undaria pinnatifida abundance but recovery of Laminaria digitata in the following year resulted in a concurrent decline in Undaria pinnatifida.

In addition, this Laminaria digitata dominated biotope (IR.MIR.KR.Ldig.Ldig) is found in the sublittoral fringe with a wave exposure ranging from exposed to sheltered and is structured by moderately strong to very weak tidal streams. The evidence above suggests that Undaria prefers sheltered conditions, with low tidal flow, and is less tolerant of desiccation than Laminaria digitata.  It is unlikely to out-compete or replace Laminaria digitata under the physical conditions that characterize this biotope. Therefore, resistance is assessed as ‘Medium’ to represent the possibility of short-term colonization by Undaria after a disturbance. Resilience is ‘High’ due to the high fitness nature of Laminaria digitata (Epstein et al., 2019b), so sensitivity is assessed as ‘Low’.

However, while Sargassum muticum prefers wave sheltered, shallow sites in the sublittoral fringe, it has been reported to invade and out-compete Laminaria digitata beds in Normandy, France (Cosson, 1999; de Bettignies et al., 2021). Therefore, resistance is assessed as ‘Low’ to represent the possibility of colonization by Sargassum. While Laminaria digitata may out-compete Undaria, the recovery after invasion by Sargassum, although rapid, would require direct intervention (removal). Hence, resilience is probably ‘Very low’ so sensitivity is assessed as ‘High’. Overall, confidence is assessed as ‘Low’ due to evidence of variation and the site-specific nature of competition between native kelps and both Undaria pinnatifida and Sargassum muticum and the limited direct evidence of the effect of Sargassum on Laminaria digitata.

Low
Low
NR
NR
Help
Very Low
High
High
High
Help
High
Low
NR
NR
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

Symptoms of disease are regularly seen on Laminaria species, however little evidence in the literature is apparent. Infection of Laminaria japonica sporophytes by Pseudoalteromonas, Vibrio and Halomonas result in the characteristic symptoms of hole-rotten disease (Wang et al., 2008). Additionally, red spot disease may be caused by bacteria of the genus Alteromonas (Sawabe et al., 1998). Hyperplasia or gall growths are often seen as dark spots on Laminaria digitata and have been associated with endophytic brown filamentous algae. It can be inferred from these observations that microbial pathogens may impact growth rates of individuals.  There is no evidence in the literature that infection by microbial pathogens results in the mass death of Laminaria populations and the kelp themselves are known to regulate bacterial infections through iodine metabolism (Cosse et al., 2009). Based on the lack of reported mortalities of the characterizing and associated species, the resistance is assessed as ‘High’ resistance to this pressure. Hence, resilience is assessed as ‘High’ and the biotope is assessed as ‘Not sensitive’

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

Traditionally Laminaria digitata was added to agricultural lands as fertilizers; now Laminaria species are used in a range of different products, with its alginates used in the cosmetic, pharmaceutical and agri-food industries (Kervarec et al., 1999; McHugh, 2003). In France, Laminaria digitata is harvested with a ‘Scoubidou’ (a curved iron hook which is mechanically operated). This device is considered to be selective; only harvesting individuals older than 2 years (Arzel, 2002). France reportedly harvests 75,000t kelp, mainly consisting of Laminaria digitata annually (FAO, 2007). If Laminaria digitata, the key characterizing and structuring species of this biotope is removed then the biotope is considered lost and a significant alteration to the biotope classification and character of the habitat is likely.

Debate exists on whether kelp harvesting is detrimental to fish stocks. While some state that no negative consequences of harvesting have been documented (Vea & Ask, 2011); others suggest that as important foraging and nursery grounds for birds and fish, removal will inevitably result in negative consequences (Lorentsen et al., 2010). Canopy removal of Laminaria digitata has been shown to reduce shading, resulting in the bleaching of sub-canopy algae (Hawkins & Harkin, 1985). Harvesting may also result in habitat fragmentation, a major threat to this biotope’s ecosystem functioning (Valero et al., 2011).  In the UK harvesting of Laminaria digitata is currently restricted to manual removal and farming on small scales, it is therefore not surprising that no evidence of how wild UK kelp populations would react to commercial harvesting was found in the literature (Netalgae, 2012).

Sensitivity Assessment. This biotope has a resistance of ‘None’ to this pressure in the footprint of the pressure, as the removal of its key characterizing and structural species, Laminaria digitata would result in the loss of the biotope. However, resilience is assessed as ‘Medium’, giving a sensitivity of ‘Medium’ to this pressure.

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

Removal of Laminaria digitata as by-catch would result in the loss of the biotope.  In healthy macroalgae communities, many species contribute to the balanced condition of the ecosystem. Disrupting this balance may cause top-down consequences for the biotope; for example, overfishing of top predators in Norwegian waters is thought to have caused the urchin bloom, subsequent overgrazing and proliferation of urchin barrens (Steneck et al., 2004).

Sensitivity assessment. Because of the nature of the pressure, resistance to it is considered as ‘None’, because it potentially involves the removal of Laminaria digitata from the biotope, which would result in its loss. Resilience to this pressure is assessed as ‘Medium’. The sensitivity of this biotope to the removal of the non-targeted catch is assessed as ‘Medium’.

None
High
Medium
High
Help
Medium
High
Medium
High
Help
Medium
Medium
High
High
Help

Bibliography

  1. Airoldi, L., 2003. The effects of sedimentation on rocky coast assemblages. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review, 41,161-236

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. Arzel, P., 2002. La laminaire digitée. Les nouvelles de l’Ifremer, 33 (4).

  5. Arzel, P., 1998. Les laminaires sur les côtes bretonnes. Évolution de l'exploitation et de la flottille de pêche, état actuel et perspectives. Plouzané, France: Ifremer.

  6. Axelsson, B. & Axelsson, L., 1987. A rapid and reliable method to quantify environmental effects on Laminaria based on measurements of ion leakage. Botanica Marina, 30, 55-61.

  7. Barthel, D., 1988. On the ecophysiology of the sponge Halichondria panicea in Kiel Bight. II. Biomass, production, energy budget and integration in environmental processes. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 43, 87-93.

  8. Bartsch, I., Vogt, J., Pehlke, C. & Hanelt, D., 2013. Prevailing sea surface temperatures inhibit summer reproduction of the kelp Laminaria digitata at Helgoland (North Sea). Journal of Phycology, 49 (6), 1061-1073.

  9. Bartsch, I., Wiencke, C., Bischof, K., Buchholz, C.M., Buck, B.H., Eggert, A., Feuerpfeil, P., Hanelt, D., Jacobsen, S. & Karez, R., 2008. The genus Laminaria sensu lato: recent insights and developments. European Journal of Phycology, 43 (1), 1-86.

  10. Bernstein, B.B., Williams, B.E. & Mann, K.H., 1981. The role of behavioral responses to predators in modifying urchins' (Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis) destructive grazing and seasonal foraging patterns. Marine Biology, 63 (1), 39-49.

  11. Bertness, M.D., Leonard, G.H., Levine, J.M., Schmidt, P.R. & Ingraham, A.O., 1999. Testing the relative contribution of positive and negative interactions in rocky intertidal communities. Ecology, 80 (8), 2711-27

  12. Billot, C., Engel, C.R., Rousvoal, S., Kloareg, B. & Valero, M., 2003. Current patterns, habitat discontinuities and population genetic structure: the case of the kelp Laminaria digitata in the English Channel. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 253 (111), 21.

  13. 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

  14. Blight, A.J. & Thompson, R.C., 2008. Epibiont species richness varies between holdfasts of a northern and a southerly distributed kelp species. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 88 (03), 469-475.

  15. Bokn, T., 1985. Effects of diesel oil on commercial benthic algae in Norway. In Proceedings of 1985 Oil Spill Conference, (ed. American Petroleum Institute), pp. 491-496. Washington, D.C.: American Petroleum Institute.

  16. Bolton, J.J. & Lüning, K.A.F., 1982. Optimal growth and maximal survival temperatures of Atlantic Laminaria species (Phaeophyta) in culture. Marine Biology, 66, 89-94.

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. Burrows, E.M., 1958. Sublittoral algal population in Port Erin Bay, Isle of Man. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 37, 687-703.

  20. 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

  21. Chapman, A.R.O., 1981. Stability of sea urchin dominated barren grounds following destructive grazing of kelp in St. Margaret's Bay, Eastern Canada. Marine Biology, 62, 307-311.

  22. 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.

  23. 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

  24. Connell, S.D. & Russell, B.D., 2010. The direct effects of increasing CO2 and temperature on non-calcifying organisms: increasing the potential for phase shifts in kelp forests. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 277 (1686), 1409-1415.

  25. 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/

  26. 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.

  27. Cosson, J., 1999. Sur la disparition progressive de Laminaria digitata sur les cotes du Calvados (France). Cryptogamie: Algol, 20, 35-42.

  28. Davison, I.R., Andrews, M. & Stewart, W.D.P., 1984. Regulation of growth in Laminaria digitata: use of in-vivo nitrate reductase activities as an indicator of nitrogen limitation in field populations of Laminaria spp. Marine Biology, 84, 207-217.

  29. Davoult, E., Engel, C.R., Arzel, P., Knoch, D. & Laurans, M., 2011. Environmental factors and commercial harvesting: exploring possible links behind the decline of the kelp Laminaria digitata in Brittany, France. Cah. Biol. Mar, 52, 1-6.

  30. Dayton, P.K. & Tegner, M.J., 1984. Catastrophic storms, El-Nino, and patch stability in a southern-california kelp community. Science, 224 (4646), 283-285.

  31. 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

  32. 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

  33. Devinny, J. & Volse, L., 1978. Effects of sediments on the development of Macrocystis pyrifera gametophytes. Marine Biology, 48 (4), 343-348.

  34. 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.

  35. Dring, M.J. & Brown, F.A., 1982. Photosynthesis of intertidal brown algae during and after periods of emersion: a renewed search for physiological causes of zonation. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 8, 301-308.

  36. Engelen, A.H., Leveque, L., Destombe, C. & Valer, M., 2011. Spatial and temporal patterns of recovery of low intertidal Laminaria digitata after experimental spring and autumn removal. Cahiers De Biologie Marine, 52 (4), 441-453.

  37. 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.

  38. Eno, N.C., Clark, R.A. & Sanderson, W.G. (ed.) 1997. Non-native marine species in British waters: a review and directory. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

  39. 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

  40. 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

  41. 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

  42. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), 2007. Aquaculture production: values 1984-2005. FISHSTAT Plus - Universal software for fishery statistical time series [online or CD-ROM]. Fishery Information, Data and Statistics Unit. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

  43. 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.

  44. Fletcher, R.L. & Manfredi, C., 1995. The occurrence of Undaria pinnatifida (Phyaeophyceae, Laminariales) on the South Coast of England. Botanica Marina, 38 (4), 355-358.

  45. 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

  46. 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.

  47. Gerard, V.A., 1987. Hydrodynamic streamlining of Laminaria saccharina Lamour. in response to mechanical stress. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 107, 237-244.

  48. Gevaert, F., Davoult, D., Creach, A., Kling, R., Janquin, M.-A., Seuront, L. & Lemoine, Y., 2001. Carbon and nitrogen content of Laminaria saccarina in the eastern English Channel: Biometrics an dseasonal variations. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 81, 727-734.

  49. Gordillo, F.J.L., Dring, M.J. & Savidge, G., 2002. Nitrate and phosphate uptake characteristics of three species of brown algae cultured at low salinity. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 234, 111-116.

  50. Gorgula, S.K. & Connell, S.D., 2004. Expansive covers of turf-forming algae on human-dominated coast: the relative effects of increasing nutrient and sediment loads. Marine Biology, 145 (3), 613-619.

  51. 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.

  52. Guiry, M.D. & Blunden, G., 1991. Seaweed Resources in Europe: Uses and Potential. Chicester: John Wiley & Sons.

  53. Harder, D.L., Hurd, C.L. & Speck, T., 2006. Comparison of mechanical properties of four large, wave-exposed seaweeds. American Journal of Botany, 93 (10), 1426-1432.

  54. 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.

  55. 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.

  56. 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.

  57. 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.

  58. 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

  59. 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/

  60. 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/

  61. Johnston, E.L. & Roberts, D.A., 2009. Contaminants reduce the richness and evenness of marine communities: a review and meta-analysis. Environmental Pollution, 157 (6), 1745-1752.

  62. 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

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

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

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

  66. Kennelly, S.J., 1987. Inhibition of kelp recruitment by turfing algae and consequences for an Australian kelp community. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 112 (1), 49-60.

  67. Kervarec, F., Arzel, P. & Guyader, O., 1999. Fisher Behaviour and Economic Interactions Between Fisheries: Examining Seaweed and Scallop Fisheries of the Brest District (Western Brittany, France). The XIth Annual Conference of the European Association of Fisheries Economists. 6th-10th April 1999, Dublin, pp.

  68. Kinne, O. (ed.), 1971a. Marine Ecology: A Comprehensive, Integrated Treatise on Life in Oceans and Coastal Waters. Vol. 1 Environmental Factors, Part 2. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

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

  70. 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

  71. Krumhansl, K.A. & Scheibling, R.E., 2012. Detrital subsidy from subtidal kelp beds is altered by the invasive green alga Codium fragile ssp fragile. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 456, 73-85.

  72. Krumhansl, K.A., Lee, J.M. & Scheibling, R.E., 2011. Grazing damage and encrustation by an invasive bryozoan reduce the ability of kelps to withstand breakage by waves. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 407 (1), 12-18.

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

  74. Lüning, K., 1980. Critical levels of light and temperature regulating the gametogenesis of three laminaria species (Phaeophyceae). Journal of Phycology, 16, 1-15.

  75. 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.

  76. 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

  77. Markham, J.W. & Munda, I.M., 1980. Algal recolonisation in the rocky eulittoral at Helgoland, Germany. Aquatic Botany, 9, 33-71.

  78. McHugh, D.J., 2003. A guide to the seaweed industry: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Rome.

  79. Melville, A. & Connell, S., 2001. Experimental effects of kelp canopies on subtidal coralline algae. Austral Ecology, 26 (1), 102-108.

  80. Merzouk, A. & Johnson, L.E., 2011. Kelp distribution in the northwest Atlantic Ocean under a changing climate. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 400 (1), 90-98.

  81. 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

  82. Morrell, S.L. & Farnham, W.F., 1982. Some effects of substratum on Sargassum muticum. British Phycological Journal, 17 (2), 236-237.

  83. Netalgae, 2012. Seaweed industry in Europe. http://www.netalgae.eu/publications.php: (24/04/2014).

  84. Nimura, K., Mizuta, H. & Yamamoto, H., 2002. Critical contents of nitrogen and phosphorus for sorus formation in four Laminaria species. Botanica Marina, 45, 184-188.

  85. North, W.J. & Schaefer, M., 1964. An investigation of the effects of discharged wastes on kelp. Resource Agency of California, State Water Quality Control Board, Publication, 26.

  86. 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.

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

  88. Peckol, P., Levings, S.C. & Garrity, S.D., 1990. Kelp response following the World Prodigy oil spill. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 21, 473-476.

  89. Pérez, R., 1971. Écologie, croissance et régénération, teneurs en acide alginique de Laminaria digitata sur les cotes de la Manche. Revue des Travaux de l'Institut des Peches Maritimes, 35, 287-346.

  90. Raybaud, V., Beaugrand, G., Goberville, E., Delebecq, G., Destombe, C., Valero, M., Davoult, D., Morin, P. & Gevaert, F., 2013. Decline in kelp in west Europe and climate. Plos One, 8 (6), e66044.

  91. 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.

  92. Robbins, J.V., 1978. Effects of physical and chemical factors on photosynthetic and respiratory rates of Palmaria palmata (Florideophyceae), In Proceedings of the ninth International Seaweed Symposium, Santa Barbara, California, USA, 20-27 August 1977, (ed. Jensen, A. & Stein, J.R.), 273-283. Science Press, Princeton, NJ, USA.

  93. Robins, P.E., Neill, S.P., Giménez, L., Jenkins, S.R. & Malham, S.K., 2013. Physical and biological controls on larval dispersal and connectivity in a highly energetic shelf sea. Limnology and Oceanography, 58(2), 505-524.

  94. Roleda, M.Y. & Dethleff, D., 2011. Storm-generated sediment deposition on rocky shores: Simulating burial effects on the physiology and morphology of Saccharina latissima sporophytes. Marine Biology Research, 7 (3), 213-223.

  95. Rueness, J., 1989. Sargassum muticum and other introduced Japanese macroalgae: biological pollution of European coasts. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 20 (4), 173-176.

  96. Sawabe, T., Makino, H., Tatsumi, M., Nakano, K., Tajima, K., Iqbal, M.M., Yumoto, I., Ezura, Y. & Christen, R., 1998. Pseudoalteromonas bacteriolytica sp. nov., a marine bacterium that is the causative agent of red spot disease of Laminaria japonica. International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology, 48 (3), 769-774.

  97. Scheibling, R.E. & Gagnon, P., 2006. Competitive interactions between the invasive green alga Codium fragile ssp tomentosoides and native canopy-forming seaweeds in Nova Scotia (Canada). Marine Ecology Progress Series, 325, 1-14.

  98. Scheibling, R.E., Hennigar, A.W. & Balch, T., 1999. Destructive grazing, epiphytism, and disease: the dynamics of sea urchin-kelp interactions in Nova Scotia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 56 (12), 2300-2314.

  99. Scheibling, R.E., Lyons, D.A. & Sumi, C.B., 2008. Grazing of the invasive alga Codium fragile ssp. tomentosoides by the common periwinkle Littorina littorea: effects of thallus size, age and condition. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 355 (2), 103-113.

  100. SEEEC (Sea Empress Environmental Evaluation Committee), 1998. The environmental impact of the Sea Empress oil spill. Final Report of the Sea Empress Environmental Evaluation Committee, 135 pp., London: HMSO.

  101. Smale, D.A. & Wernberg, T., 2013. Extreme climatic event drives range contraction of a habitat-forming species. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 280 (1754).

  102. 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.

  103. Smith, B.D., 1985. Recovery following experimental harvesting of Laminaria longicruris and Laminaria digitata in Southwestern Nova Scotia. Helgolander Meeresuntersuchungen, 39(1), 83-101.

  104. 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

  105. Southward, A.J. & Southward, E.C., 1978. Recolonisation of rocky shores in Cornwall after use of toxic dispersants to clean up the Torrey Canyon spill. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 35, 682-706.

  106. Spilmont, N., Denis, L., Artigas, L.F., Caloin, F., Courcot, L., Creach, A., Desroy, N., Gevaert, F., Hacquebart, P., Hubas, C., Janquin, M.-A., Lemoine, Y., Luczak, C., Migne, A., Rauch, M. & Davoult, D., 2009. Impact of the Phaeocystis globosa spring bloom on the intertidal benthic compartment in the eastern English Channel: A synthesis. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 58 (1), 55-63.

  107. 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

  108. 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.

  109. 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.

  110. Sundene, O., 1964. The ecology of Laminaria digitata in Norway in view of transplant experiments. Nytt Magasin for Botanik, 11, 83-107.

  111. 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

  112. 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.

  113. 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

  114. Todd, C.D. & Lewis, J.R., 1984. Effects of low air-temperature on Laminaria digitata in Southwestern Scotland. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 16, 199-201.

  115. Troell, M., Halling, C., Neori, A., Chopin, T., Buschmann, A., Kautsky, N. & Yarish, C., 2003. Integrated mariculture: asking the right questions. Aquaculture, 226 (1), 69-90.

  116. Tyler-Walters, H. & Arnold, C., 2008. Sensitivity of Intertidal Benthic Habitats to Impacts Caused by Access to Fishing Grounds. Report to Cyngor Cefn Gwlad Cymru / Countryside Council for Wales from the Marine Life Information Network (MarLIN) [Contract no. FC 73-03-327], Marine Biological Association of the UK, Plymouth, 48 pp. Available from: www.marlin.ac.uk/publications

  117. 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

  118. Valero, M., Destombe, C., Mauger, S., Ribout, C., Engel, C.R., Daguin-Thiebaut, C. & Tellier, F., 2011. Using genetic tools for sustainable management of kelps: a literature review and the example of Laminaria digitata. CBM-Cahiers de Biologie Marine, 52 (4), 467.

  119. Van den Hoek, C., Mann, D.G. & Jahns, H.M., 1995. Algae: an introduction to phycology: Cambridge University Press.

  120. 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.

  121. Vea, J. & Ask, E., 2011. Creating a sustainable commercial harvest of Laminaria hyperborea, in Norway. Journal of applied Phycology, 23(3), 489-494.

  122. 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

  123. Wang, G., Shuai, L., Li, Y., Lin, W., Zhao, X. & Duan, D., 2008. Phylogenetic analysis of epiphytic marine bacteria on Hole-Rotten diseased sporophytes of Laminaria japonica. Journal of applied phycology, 20 (4), 403-409.

  124. Wernberg, T., Smale, D.A., Tuya, F., Thomsen, M.S., Langlois, T.J., de Bettignies, T., Bennett, S. & Rousseaux, C.S., 2013. An extreme climatic event alters marine ecosystem structure in a global biodiversity hotspot. Nature Climate Change, 3 (1), 78-82.

  125. White, N. & Marshall, C.M.,  2007. Saccharina latissima. Sugar kelp. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. [cited 03/11/2015]. Available from:

  126. 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.

  127. Yarish, C., Penniman, C.A. & Egan, B., 1990. Growth and reproductibe responses of Laminaria longicruris (Laminariales, Phaeophyta) to nutrient enrichment. Hydrobiologia, 204, 505-511.

Citation

This review can be cited as:

Hill, J.M., Tyler-Walters, H.,, Burdett, E.G. & Jasper, C. 2023. Laminaria digitata on moderately exposed sublittoral fringe bedrock. In Tyler-Walters H. and Hiscock K. (eds) Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Reviews, [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. [cited 25-07-2024]. Available from: https://www.marlin.ac.uk/habitat/detail/297

 Download PDF version


Last Updated: 11/10/2023