Scottish Marine Protected Areas (MPA) monitoring strategy: supporting annexes 1 to 6

Annex 1: Detail on the key pressures for the different MPA feature monitoring groups

This annex provides summaries of key pressures that have been produced for other reports and assessments. The terminology and methods vary between the feature groups. Standardised terms have been used in Table 2 of the main Strategy document to provide an overview.

Marine mammals

Seals

Harbour and grey seals in the UK are particularly sensitive to a number of pressures^[1] (see Table A1.1). Susceptibility to these pressures will also vary across species; for example, harbour seals are more susceptible to Phocine Distemper Virus (PDV) while bycatch in fisheries may pose more of a threat to grey seals.

Table A1.1. Key pressures on harbour and grey seals in the UK

Pressures

Anthropogenic disturbance - including increased ocean noise, boat traffic, disturbance from haulout sites

Bycatch (fisheries)

Climate change

Competition with other marine mammals

Deliberate killing (shooting)

Disease (infectious, non-infectious and toxins)

Entanglement in marine debris

Loss of habitat

Nutritional stress

Pollution

Predation

Prey availability (removal of target and non-target species)

Trauma - death or injury by collisions (with marine renewable energy developments)

Of the pressures identified above for harbour and grey seals, the following are considered the most significant: Harbour seals - competition with grey seals and other marine mammals, disease, trauma, pollution and anthropogenic disturbance; grey seals - competition with other marine mammals, disease, bycatch, pollution and anthropogenic disturbance (SMRU, pers comm.).

Cetaceans

Macleod et al (2015) identified some of the key pressures to which cetaceans in the UK are particularly sensitive (see Table A1.2). Susceptibility to these pressures will vary across species and at different spatial scales.

Table A1.2. Key pressures on cetaceans in the UK

Pressures

Bycatch (fisheries)

Disease

Prey availability (removal of target and non-target species)

Contaminants

Underwater noise

Trauma - death or injury by collisions

Loss of habitats

Data derived from cetacean and seal strandings can be used to give an indication of some of the pressures in coastal areas, but specific studies are required to quantify the impacts (IAMMWG, 2015). For example, analysis of PCBs from blubber samples has shown that PCBs may have impacts on the reproductive success of cetaceans, leading to population level effects for certain species (Jepson et al., 2016). In addition, information on seal and cetacean bycatch is collected from fisheries monitoring^[2].

The Marine Noise Registry^[3] (MNR) has been established to record activities in UK seas that produce loud, low to medium frequency (10Hz - 10kHz) impulsive noise.

There is relatively little quantitative or even qualitative information on pressures in offshore areas compared to our knowledge for inshore waters.

Marine birds

Mitchell et al. (2010) identified a number of key pressures which impact seabirds and marine waterbirds in the UK (Table A1.3). These pressures act at both a local level (e.g. recreational disturbance, predation from non- native species) and wider scales (e.g. bycatch, industrial fisheries, pollution, climate change). Sensitivity and exposure vary; for example, guillemots and razorbills will be more sensitive to oil spills during their flightless late summer moulting period than during the breeding season when they are more mobile (Williams et al., 1995).

At sea, the most important pressures are contamination by, or ingestion of hazardous substances (hydrocarbons, plastic); by-catch in static and mobile fishing gear and reduced prey availability, driven in part by climate change and in some circumstances, commercial fishing pressure. On land (especially at breeding colonies), key pressures are predation by non-native species; habitat loss and degradation; and displacement as a result of repeated / chronic disturbance.

1 Example human activities for each pressure taken from the full list presented in Annex 2 of Eassom & Church 2013. Progress towards the development of a standardised UK pressures-activity matrix. Paper presented to HBDSEG, October 2013.

Two pressures not identified by Mitchell et al. (2010) are ‘death or injury by collision’ and ‘barrier to species movements’, have come to prominence in relation to marine renewable energy developments (e.g. Furness et al., 2013; Bradbury et al., 2014).

When considering any results from monitoring activities it is important to try to separate the effects of climate change (see Daunt & Mitchell 2013 and Pearce-Higgins & Holt, 2013) from other pressures which have more potential to be managed at a local level (see Frederiksen et al., 2004 for an example of how this might be attempted).

Fish

Fish are susceptible to a number of key pressures identified in Table A1.4 below. Of those species appearing as protected features under the MPA network, some will be more susceptible to certain pressures than others depending on a number of factors including: their life histories, behaviours, size reproductive and feeding strategies.

Table A1.4. List of key pressures on populations of marine fish in Scottish waters covered by the MPA network.

Pressures

Bycatch / entanglement

Collisions

Disease

Physical barriers to movement

Physical damage or loss to habitats

Pollution

Reduced prey availability

Seabed habitats

A list of priority pressures for seabed habitats at a UK scale (Table A1.5) was derived following the 2010 Charting Progress 2 (CP2) assessment of UK seas (Aish et al., 2010; HBDSEG, 2011). Only high and medium ranking pressures are presented here. The list of priority pressures was derived from the OSPAR Intersessional Correspondence Group on Cumulative Effects (ICG-C) list. It is possible that there may be pressures affecting seabed habitats in Scotland which are of concern at an MPA level which are not captured by this list.

References

Aish, A., Ashworth, J., Barrio Froján, B., Benjamins, S., Bolam, S., Brazier, P., Brockington, S., Chaniotis, P., Clements, A., Coggan, R., Coltman, N., Connor, D., Coyle, M., Davies, J., Edwards, H., Edwards, T., Greathead, C., Greenstreet, S., Hall-Spencer, J., Hawkridge, J., Hiscock. K., Howell. K., Hughes, A., Ide, R., James, B., Kelly, C., Khan-Marnie, J., Mackie, T., Manson, F., Mazik, K., Mieszkowska, N., Moore, J., O’Reilly, M., Pirie, P., Prior, A., Reach, I., Rees, I., Robinson, L., Sanderson, B., Service, M., Stoker, B., Tellier, P. & Verling, E. 2010. Charting Progress 2 Healthy and Biological Diverse Seas Feeder Report: Section 3.1: Marine Habitats. Published by Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs on behalf of UKMMAS. p68-271. In: UKMMAS (2010) Charting Progress 2 Healthy and Biological Diverse Seas Feeder Report (Eds. Frost, M & Hawkridge, J).

Bradbury, G., Trinder, M., Furness, B., Banks, A.N., Caldow, R.W.G. & Humer, D. 2014. Mapping Seabird Sensitivity to Offshore Wind Farms. PLoS ONE 9(9): e106366. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0106366.

Daunt, F. & Mitchell, I. 2013. Impacts of climate change on seabirds. MCCIP Science Review 2013, 125-133.

Eassom, A. & Church, N. 2013. Progress towards the development of a standardised UK pressures-activity matrix. Paper presented to HBDSEG, October 2013.

Frederiksen, M., Wanless, S., Harris, M.P., Rothery, P. & Wilson, L.J. 2004. The role of industrial fisheries and oceanographic change in the decline of North Sea black-legged kittiwakes. Journal of Applied Ecology 41: 1129-1139.

Furness, R.W., Wade, H. & Masden, E. 2013. Assessing vulnerability of marine bird populations to offshore wind farms. Journal of Environmental Management 119: 56-66. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.01.025.

HBDESG. 2011. Prioritisation of pressures for benthic habitats within the UK for the Marine Biodiversity Monitoring R&D Programme. Briefing paper to UKMMAS evidence groups.

IAMMWG. 2015. Management Units for cetaceans in UK waters (January 2015). JNCC Report No. 547. JNCC Peterborough. Available from -http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/Report_547_webv2.pdf

Jepson, P.D. Deaville, R., Barber, J.L., Aguilar, A., Borrell, A., Murphy, S., Barry, J., Brownlow, A., Barnett, J., Berrow, S., Cunningham, A.A., Davison, N.J., ten Doeschate, M., Esteban, R., Ferreira, M., Foote, A.D., Genov, T., Giménez, J., Loveridge, J., Llavona, A., Martin, V., Maxwell, D.L., Papachlimitzou, A., Penrose, R., Perkins, M.W., Smith, B., de Stephanis, R., Tregenza, N., Verborgh. P., Fernandez, A. & Law, R.J. 2016. PCB pollution continues to impact populations of orcas and other dolphins in European waters. Scientific Reports 6, 18573; doi: 10.1038/srep18573. Available from - http://www.nature.com/articles/srep18573/

Macleod, K., Pinn, E, Dunn, T. & Marubini, F. 2015. Advice on Monitoring Options for UK Cetaceans. An unpublished JNCC report.

Mitchell, P.I., Austin, G. & Parsons, M. 2010. Charting Progress 2 Healthy and Biological Diverse Seas Feeder report: Section 3.8: Marine birds. Published by Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs on behalf of UKMMAS. p592-665. In: UKMMAS (2010) Charting Progress 2 Healthy and Biological Diverse Seas Feeder report (Eds. Frost, M & Hawkridge, J).

Pearce-Higgins, J.W. & Holt, C.A. 2013. Impacts of climate change on waterbirds. MCCIP Science Review 2013, 149-154, doi:10.14465/2013.arc16.149-154.

Williams, J.M., Tasker, M.L., Carter, I.C. & Webb, A. 1995. A method of assessing seabird vulnerability to surface pollutants. IBIS 137: S147-S152. doi:10.1111/j.1474-919X.1995.tb08435.x