An indicator-based approach for cross-realm coastal biodiversity assessments

被引:4
|
作者
Harris, L. R. [1 ]
Skowno, A. L. [2 ,3 ]
Sink, K. J. [1 ,2 ]
van Niekerk, L. [1 ,4 ]
Holness, S. D. [1 ]
Monyeki, M. [2 ,5 ]
Majiedt, P. [2 ]
机构
[1] Nelson Mandela Univ, Inst Coastal & Marine Res, Gqeberha, South Africa
[2] South African Natl Biodivers Inst SANBI, Kirstenbosch Res Ctr, Cape Town, South Africa
[3] Univ Cape Town, Dept Biol Sci, Cape Town, South Africa
[4] Council Sci & Ind Res CSIR, Stellenbosch, South Africa
[5] Univ Cape Town, Ctr Stat Ecol & Environm, Cape Town, South Africa
关键词
coastal management; ecological condition; ecological indicators; ecosystem protection level; ecosystem threat status; IUCN Red List of Ecosystems; MARINE ECOSYSTEMS; BEACH ECOSYSTEMS; CONSERVATION; VULNERABILITY;
D O I
10.2989/1814232X.2022.2104373
中图分类号
Q17 [水生生物学];
学科分类号
071004 ;
摘要
Ecosystem status assessments are generally separated into realm-specific analyses (terrestrial, freshwater, estuarine or marine), but without integrating these into a coherent assessment of coastal biodiversity across the land-sea interface. Trends in assessment indicators in coastal versus non-coastal areas have also rarely been considered. In this study we aimed to compile the first cross-realm national biodiversity assessment for the South African coast using three key indicators. The ecological condition, ecosystem threat status, and ecosystem protection level of coastal ecosystem types (n = 186) were determined and compared with those of non-coastal ecosystem types (n = 444). Nearly half (46.9%) of the South African coastal habitat has been degraded compared with 20% of non-coastal areas. Proportionately, there are three-times (60%) as many threatened coastal ecosystem types (or 55% by area) as there are threatened non-coastal ecosystem types (19%, 6% by area). Despite the impacted state of coastal biodiversity, protection levels are generally higher in the coastal zone (87% of ecosystem types have some protection) compared with non-coastal areas (75%), although fewer coastal ecosystem types have met their biodiversity targets (24%, vs 28% for non-coastal ecosystem types). These results illustrate the importance of using a cross-realm approach for status assessments, management and conservation of coastal biodiversity. The assessment methods described are flexible and widely applicable to other regions.
引用
收藏
页码:239 / 253
页数:15
相关论文
共 23 条
  • [1] Toward cross-realm management of coastal urban ecosystems
    Threlfall, Caragh G.
    Marzinelli, Ezequiel M.
    Ossola, Alessandro
    Bugnot, Ana B.
    Bishop, Melanie J.
    Lowe, Elizabeth C.
    Imberger, Sam J.
    Myers, Shona
    Steinberg, Peter D.
    Dafforn, Katherine A.
    FRONTIERS IN ECOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, 2021, 19 (04) : 225 - 232
  • [2] Conserving cross-realm coastal biodiversity when real-world planning and implementation processes split the land and sea
    Harris, Linda R.
    van Niekerk, Lara
    Holness, Stephen D.
    Sink, Kerry J.
    Skowno, Andrew L.
    Dayaram, Anisha
    van Deventer, Heidi
    Job, Nancy
    Lamberth, Stephen J.
    Adams, Janine B.
    Raw, Jacqueline L.
    Riddin, Tarn
    Mackay, C. Fiona
    Perschke, Myriam J.
    OCEAN & COASTAL MANAGEMENT, 2025, 263
  • [3] Framing adaptive capacity of coastal communities: A review of the role of scientific framing in indicator-based adaptive capacity assessments in coastal social-ecological systems
    Cordova, Fabiola Espinoza
    Krause, Torsten
    Furlan, Elisa
    Allegri, Elena
    O'Leary, Bethan C.
    Degia, Karima
    Tregarot, Ewan
    Cornet, Cindy C.
    de Juan, Silvia
    Fonseca, Catarina
    Simide, Remy
    Perez, Geraldine
    OCEAN & COASTAL MANAGEMENT, 2024, 259
  • [4] Flood vulnerability of rural women - An indicator-based approach
    Matla, Holy Mercy Divina
    Funk, Christoph
    Gopinath, Pratheesh Pradeep
    Sathyan, Archana Raghavan
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISASTER RISK REDUCTION, 2025, 121
  • [5] Global vulnerability hotspots: differences and agreement between international indicator-based assessments
    Daniel Feldmeyer
    Joern Birkmann
    Joanna M. McMillan
    Lindsay Stringer
    Walter Leal Filho
    Riyanti Djalante
    Patricia F. Pinho
    Emma Liwenga
    Climatic Change, 2021, 169
  • [6] Indicator-based risk assessments for urban hazard resilience: an application for flash floods
    Skoulidou, Despoina
    Kazantzi, Athanasia K.
    ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS-HUMAN AND POLICY DIMENSIONS, 2024,
  • [7] Global vulnerability hotspots: differences and agreement between international indicator-based assessments
    Feldmeyer, Daniel
    Birkmann, Joern
    McMillan, Joanna M.
    Stringer, Lindsay
    Filho, Walter Leal
    Djalante, Riyanti
    Pinho, Patricia F.
    Liwenga, Emma
    CLIMATIC CHANGE, 2021, 169 (1-2) : 1 - 2
  • [8] An indicator-based approach for assessing marine ecosystem resilience
    Flensborg, L. C.
    Maureaud, A. A.
    Bravo, D. N.
    Lindegren, M.
    ICES JOURNAL OF MARINE SCIENCE, 2023, 80 (05) : 1487 - 1499
  • [9] Contextualizing institutional factors in an indicator-based analysis of hazard vulnerability for coastal communities
    Oulahen, Greg
    Chang, Stephanie E.
    Yip, Jackie Z. K.
    Conger, Tugce
    Marteleira, Michelle
    Carter, Christopher
    JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT, 2018, 61 (14) : 2491 - 2511
  • [10] An indicator-based approach to assess sustainability of port-cities and marine management in the Global South
    Ogara, Dinah A. E.
    Morishita, Joji
    Davies, Peter J.
    Mbui, Maina
    Gamoyo, Majambo
    Njoroge, Nashon
    Chann, Isaac Otieno
    Igesa, Benson Senelwa
    Ochieng, Stephen Odhiambo
    FRONTIERS IN MARINE SCIENCE, 2023, 10