Search

In highly diverse systems such as coral reefs, many species appear to fulfil similar ecological roles, suggesting that they might be ecologically equivalent. However, even if species provide similar functions, the magnitude of those roles could modulate their impact within ecosystems. Here, we compare the functional contributions of two common, co-occurring Caribbean sea cucumber species, Holothuria mexicana and Actynopyga agassizii, in terms of ammonium provisioning and sediment processing on Bahamian patch reefs. We quantified these functions through empirical measures of ammonium excretion, and in situ observations of sediment processing coupled with fecal pellet collections. On a per-individual level, H. mexicana excreted approximately 23% more ammonium and processed approximately 53% more sediment per hour than A. agassizii. However, when we combined these species-specific functional rates to species abundances to produce reef-wide estimates, we found that A. agassizii contributed more than H. mexicana to sediment processing at 57% of reefs (1.9 times more per unit area across all surveyed reefs), and more to ammonium excretion at 83% of reefs (5.6 times more ammonium per unit area across all surveyed reefs), owing to its higher abundance. We conclude that sea cucumber species can differ in the rates at which they deliver per capita ecosystem functions but their ecological impacts at the population level depend on their abundance at a given location.

Warming seas, marine heatwaves, and habitat degradation are increasingly widespread phenomena affecting marine biodiversity, yet our understanding of their broader impacts is largely derived from collective insights from independent localized studies. Insufficient systematic broadscale monitoring limits our understanding of the true extent of these impacts and our capacity to track these at scales relevant to national policies and international agreements. Using an extensive time series of co-located reef fish community structure and habitat data spanning 12 years and the entire Australian continent, we found that reef fish community responses to changing temperatures and habitats are dynamic and widespread but regionally patchy. Shifts in composition and abundance of the fish community often occurred within 2 years of environmental or habitat change, although the relative importance of these two mechanisms of climate impact tended to differ between tropical and temperate zones. The clearest of these changes on temperate and subtropical reefs were temperature related, with responses measured by the reef fish thermal index indicating reshuffling according to the thermal affinities of species present. On low latitude coral reefs, the community generalization index indicated shifting dominance of habitat generalist fishes through time, concurrent with changing coral cover. Our results emphasize the importance of maintaining local ecological detail when scaling up datasets to inform national policies and global biodiversity targets. Scaled-up ecological monitoring is needed to discriminate among increasingly diverse drivers of large-scale biodiversity change and better connect presently disjointed systems of biodiversity observation, indicator research, and governance.

There is an urgent need to halt and reverse loss of mangroves and seagrass to protect and increase the ecosystem services they provide to coastal communities, such as enhancing coastal resilience and contributing to climate stability.

The shifting baseline syndrome describes a gradual lowering of human cognitive baselines, as each generation accepts a lower standard of resource abundance or size as the new norm. There is strong empirical evidence of declining trends of abundance and body sizes of marine fish species reported from docks and markets. We asked whether these widespread trends in shrinking marine fish are detectable in popular English-language media, or whether news writers, like many marine stakeholders, are captive to shifting baselines. We collected 266 English-language news articles, printed between 1869 and 2015, which featured headlines that used a superlative adjective, such as ‘giant’, ‘huge’, or ‘monster’, to describe an individual fish caught. We combined the reported sizes of the captured fish with information on maximum species-specific recorded sizes to reconstruct trends of relative size (reported size divided by maximum size) of newsworthy fishes over time. We found some evidence of a shifting baseline syndrome in news media over the last 140 years: overall, the relative length of the largest fish worthy of a headline has declined over time. This pattern held for charismatic fish species (e.g. basking sharks, whale sharks, giant mantas), which are now reported in the media at smaller relative lengths than they were near the turn of the 20th century, and for the largest species under high risk of extinction. In contrast, there was no similar trend for pelagic gamefish and oceanic sharks, or for species under lower risk of extinction. While landing any individual of the large-bodied ‘megafish’ may be newsworthy in part because of their large size relative to other fish species, the ‘megafish’ covered in our dataset were small relative to their own species—on average only 56% of the species-specific maximum length. The continued use in the English-language media of superlatives to describe fish that are now a fraction of the maximum size they could reach, or a fraction of the size they used to be, does reflect a shifting baseline for some species. Given that media outlets are a powerful tool for shaping public perception and awareness of environmental issues, there is a real concern that such stories might be interpreted as meaning that superlatively large fish still abound.

The modern biodiversity crisis reflects global extinctions and local introductions. Human activities have dramatically altered rates and scales of processes that regulate biodiversity at local scales [1-7]. Reconciling the threat of global biodiversity loss [2, 4, 6-9] with recent evidence of stability at fine spatial scales [10,11] is a major challenge and requires a nuanced approach to biodiversity change that integrates ecological understanding. With a new dataset of 471 diversity time series spanning from 1962 to 2015 from marine coastal ecosystems, we tested (1) whether biodiversity changed at local scales in recent decades, and (2) whether we can ignore ecological context (e.g., proximate human impacts, trophic level, spatial scale) and still make informative inferences regarding local change. We detected a predominant signal of increasing species richness in coastal systems since 1962 in our dataset, though net species loss was associated with localized effects of anthropogenic impacts. Our geographically extensive dataset is unlikely to be a random sample of marine coastal habitats; impacted sites (3% of our time series) were underrepresented relative to their global presence. These local-scale patterns do not contradict the prospect of accelerating global extinctions [2,4,6-9] but are consistent with local species loss in areas with direct human impacts and increases in diversity due to invasions and range expansions in lower impact areas. Attempts to detect and understand local biodiversity trends are incomplete without information on local human activities and ecological context.