Advertisement

Alien Planktonic Species in the Marine Realm: What Do They Mean for Ecosystem Services Provision?

  • Alexandra KrabergEmail author
  • Gesche Krause
Chapter

Abstract

Biodiversity, which in its simplest form is defined as the number of species in a system and their abundance, is considered vital for ecosystem stability [1].

Keywords

Climate change Foodweb Harmful algae Non-native species Plankton 

References

  1. 1.
    Begon M, Townsend CR, Harper JL. Ecology: from individuals to ecosystems. 4th ed. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell; 2005.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Balvanera P, Pfisterer AB, Buchmann N, He J-S, Nakashizuka T, Rafaelli D, et al. Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning and services. Ecol Lett. 2015;9:1146–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yool A, Tyrell T. Role of diatoms in regulating the ocean’s silicon cycle. Glob Biogeochem Cycles. 2003;17:1103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wiltshire KH, Kraberg A, Bartsch I, Boersma M, Heinz-Dieter F, Freund J, et al. Helgoland roads: 45 years of change in the North Sea. Estuar Coast. 2010;33:295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eurostat. Eurostat regional yearbook 2011: coastal regions. Luxembourg: Europäische Union; 2011.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Loreau M, Naeem S, Inchausti P, Bengtsson J, Grime JP, Hector A, et al. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: current knowledge and future challenges. Science. 2001;294:804–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Katsanevakis S, Gatto F, Zenetos A, Cardoso AC. How many marine aliens in Europe? Manag Biol Invasion. 2013;4(1):37–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    DAISIE European Invasive Alien Species Gateway. http://www.europe-aliens.org. Accessed 23 Oct 2017.
  9. 9.
    Gollasch SD, Haydar D, Minchin D, Wolff WJ, Reise K. Introduced aquatic species of the North Sea coasts and adjacent brackish waters. In: Rilov G, Crooks JA, editors. Biological invasions in marine ecosystems. Ecological studies (analysis and synthesis), vol. 204. Berlin: Springer; 2009.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hajdu S, Pertola S, Kuosa H. Prorocentrum minimum (Dinophyceae) in the Baltic Sea: morphology, occurrence—a review. Harmful Algae. 2005;4:471–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kaczmarska I, Ehrman JM. High colonization and propagule pressure by ship ballast as a vector for the diatom genus Pseudo-nitzschia. Manag Biol Invasion. 2015;6:31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jansen S. Copepods grazing on Coscinodiscus wailesii: a question of size? Helgol Mar Res. 2008;62(3):251–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2005.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    De Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willeman L. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complex. 2010;7(3):260–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gahzoul J. Recognising the complexities of ecosystem management and the ecosystem service concept. Gaia. 2007;16(3):215–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schwerdtner Máñez K, Krause G, Ring I, Glaser M. The Gordian knot of mangrove conservation: disentangling the role of scale, services and benefits. Glob Environ Chang. 2014;28:120–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol Econ. 2009;68:643–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Global biodiversity outlook 3. Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity; 2010.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Brussels: European Commission; 2011.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    TEEB. Why value the oceans? A discussion paper. 2012. http://www.teebweb.org/media/2013/10/2013-Why-Value-the-Oceans-Discussion-Paper.pdf. Accessed 23 Oct 2017.
  21. 21.
    Cranford PJ, Kamermanns P, Krause G, Mazurié J, Buck BH, Dolmer P, et al. An ecosystem-based framework for the integrated evaluation and management of bivalve aquaculture impacts. Aquacul Environ Interact. 2012;2:193–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Biggs HC, Rogers KH. An adaptive system to link science, monitoring and management in practice. In: du Toit JT, Rogers KH, Biggs HC, editors. The Kruger experience: ecology and management of Savannah heterogeneity. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2003. p. 59–80.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gillson L, Duffin KI. Thresholds of potential concern as benchmarks in the management of African savannahs. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2007;362:309–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Matsuyama Y, Shumway S. Impacts of harmful algal blooms on shellfisheries aquaculture. In: Burnell G, Allan G, editors. New technologies in aquaculture. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2009. p. 580–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Conover RJ. Interrelations between microzooplankton and other planktonic organisms. Ann Inst Oceanogr. 1982;58(S):31–6.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Reguera B, Riobo P, Rodriguez F, Diaz PA, Pizarro G, Paz B, et al. Dinophysis toxins: causative organisms, distribution and fate in shellfish. Mar Drugs. 2014;12:394–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Berdalet E, Fleming LE, Gowen R, Davidson K, Hess P, Backer LC, et al. Marine harmful algal blooms, human health and wellbeing: challenges and opportunities in the 21st century. J Mar Biol Assoc UK. 2015;  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315415001733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Johns DG, Edwards M, Greve W, SJohn AWG. Increasing prevalence of the marine cladoceran Penilia avirostris (Dana, 1852). Helgol Mar Res. 2005;59(3):214–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bilio M, Niermann U. Is the comb jelly really to blame for it all? Mnemiopsis leidyi and the ecological concerns about the Caspian sea. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2004;269:173–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Knowler D. Reassessing the costs of biological invasion: Mnemiopsis lediyi in the Black Sea. Ecol Econ. 2005;52:187–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bennett EM, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ. Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol Lett. 2009;12:1394–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kraberg AC, Carstens K, Peters S, Tilly K, Wiltshire KH. The diatom Mediopyxis helysia at Helgoland Roads: a success story? Helgol Mar Res. 2012;66:463–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Edwards M, John AWG, Johns DG, Reid PC. Case history and persistence of the non-indigenous diatom Coscinodiscus wailesii in the north-east Atlantic. J Mar Biol Assoc UK. 2001;81:207–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Knapp S, Schweiger O, Kraberg A, Asmus H, Asmus R, Brey T, et al. Do drivers of biodiversity change differ in importance across marine and terrestrial systems—or is it just different research communities’ perspectives. Sci Total Environ. 2016;574:191–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Biologische Anstalt HelgolandAlfred-Wegener Institute Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine ResearchHelgolandGermany
  2. 2.Division of Climate SciencesAlfred Wegener InstituteBremerhavenGermany

Personalised recommendations