Search

Benthic habitats and communities are key components of the marine ecosystem. Securing their functioning is a central aim in marine environmental management, where monitoring data provide the base for assessing the state of marine ecosystems. In the Baltic Sea, a > 50-year-long tradition of zoobenthic monitoring exists. However, the monitoring programmes were designed prior to the current policies, primarily to detect long-term trends at basin-scale and are thus not optimal to fulfil recent requirements such as area-based periodic status assessments. Here, we review the current monitoring programmes and assess the precision and representativity of the monitoring data in status assessments to identify routes for improvement. At present, the monitoring is focused on soft-bottoms, not accounting for all habitat types occurring in the Baltic Sea. Evaluating the sources of variance in the assessment data revealed that the component accounting for variability among stations forms the largest proportion of the uncertainty. Furthermore, it is shown that the precision of the status estimates can be improved, with the current number of samples. Reducing sampling effort per station, but sampling more stations, is the best option to improve precision in status assessments. Furthermore, by allocating the sampling stations more evenly in the sub-basins, a better representativity of the area can be achieved. However, emphasis on securing the long-term data series is needed if changes to the monitoring programmes are planned.

Legislations and commitments regulate Baltic Sea status assessments and monitoring. These assessments suffer from monitoring gaps that need prioritization. We used three sources of information; scientific articles, project reports and a stakeholder survey to identify gaps in relation to requirements set by the HELCOM's Baltic Sea Action Plan, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the Water Framework Directive. The most frequently mentioned gap was that key requirements are not sufficiently monitored in space and time. Biodiversity monitoring was the category containing most gaps. However, whereas more than half of the gaps in reports related to biodiversity, scientific articles pointed out many gaps in the monitoring of pollution and water quality. An important finding was that the three sources differed notably with respect to which gaps were mentioned most often. Thus, conclusions about gap prioritization for management should be drawn after carefully considering the different viewpoints of scientists and stakeholders., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)