1 / 26

Gaps in marine taxonomy resources in Europe

Mark J. Costello Chris S. Emblow Philippe Bouchet Anastasios Legakis. Leigh Marine Laboratory, University of Auckland, New Zealand. m.costello@auckland.ac.nz Ecological Consultancy Services Ltd (EcoServe), Ireland Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France

avye-burt
Download Presentation

Gaps in marine taxonomy resources in Europe

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Mark J. Costello Chris S. Emblow Philippe Bouchet Anastasios Legakis Leigh Marine Laboratory, University of Auckland, New Zealand. m.costello@auckland.ac.nz Ecological Consultancy Services Ltd (EcoServe), Ireland Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France National and Capodistrian University of Athens, Greece Gaps in marine taxonomy resources in Europe

  2. Taxonomic resources • People – taxonomists, identification skills • Identification guides • Collections of specimens • Inventories of species

  3. This talk • Aim – what are gaps in taxonomic resources for marine biodiversity in Europe? • What we did – project, ouputs, scope • Expectations • What we found • Implications for research and management

  4. EU part-funded project 22 partner organisations 170+ participating scientists 385,000 euro, 2 years communication with 42 organisations * Data management plan Intellectual Property Rights Agreement * Aim of external communications data exchange awareness of project invite end-user comments maximise synergy of effort, minimise overlap stimulate related activities foster collaboration promote use of results The project= European Register of Marine Species

  5. ERMS - outputs • Web site providing results • Book listing marine species * • Register of 600 experts (in 37 countries) in European marine species identification • Bibliography of 840 identification guides • Gaps in identification expertise and guides, knowledge of species groups, and marine species collections • New scientific society for the long term management of biodiversity data (intellectual property) • Model and foundation for future projects (e.g. Fauna Europaea, BIOMARE, MARBEF) * Costello, M. J., Emblow, C and White R. (editors) 2001. European Register of Marine Species. A check-list of marine species in Europe and a bibliography of guides to their identification. Patrimoines naturels 50, 1-463. ISBN 2-85653-538-0; ISSN 1281-6213

  6. North Pole to 26oN Mid-Atlantic Ridge to Black Sea 0.5 ppt to deep-sea Excluded Saltmarshes Lichens, diatoms, cyanobacteria, bacteria ERMS scope

  7. Our expectations • species – total 20,000 – 25,000 • identification guides – decreasing adequacy with smaller body size taxa • taxonomists - most 60-70 years of age • collections – most in museums

  8. 88 experts compiled species lists No Mediterranean lists for Rotifera and Brachiopoda No list for non-halacarid Acarina Listed 30,000 + 4,000 omitted + 2,000 to be described 36,000 total Experts under-estimated by 40-60% ! How many species?

  9. Preliminary lists Crytophytes heterotrophic euglenoids Haptophytes Prasinophytes Compiled from literature Apicomplexa (free-living species) Dinoflagellates Kathablepharids Placozoa Ctenophora Rotifera Hirudinea Thermosbaenacea Isopoda – excluding Epicaridea Brachiopoda Appendicularia Cephalochordata Weaker lists

  10. Protists Ciliates – aloricate oligotrichs Ciliates – Chonotricha Ciliates – folliculinids Ciliates – Rhynchodida Amoebae – testate Apusomonads Choanoflagellates Euglenids - kinetoplastids Bicosoecids Labyrinthulids Thaustrochytrids Stramenopiles incertae sedis Thaumatomonads Protista incertae sedis (heterotrophic species) Amoebae – naked Xenophyophora Non-protist Mesozoa Gnathostomulida Euphausiacea Hemichordata Fungi Porifera Siphonophora Chilopoda Diplopoda Insecta Phoronida Geographic coverage may be incomplete

  11. Foraminifera Actiniaria Antipatharia Hydrozoa Octocorallia Scleractinia Cubozoa Scyphozoa Ascidiacea Thaliacea Pisces Tetrapoda Bryozoa Cycliophora Entoprocta Echinodermata Other taxa Macroalgae Seagrass Chaetognatha Myxozoa Gastrotrichia Cephalorhyncha (= Loricifera, Priapulida, Kinorhyncha, Nematomorpha) Tardigrada Echiura Sipuncula Pentastomida Mollusca Geographic coverage complete • Arthropods • Pycnogonida • Remipedia • Branchiura • Cladocera • Mystacocarida • Copepoda • Tantulocarida • Cirripedia • Decapoda • Mysidacea • Isopoda • Insecta • Stomatopoda • Acarina • Ostracoda • Amphipoda • Cumacea • Tanaidacea • Worms • Cestoda • Nemertea • Acanthocephala • Turbellaria • Aspidogastrea • Digenea • Monogenea • Oligochaeta • Nematoda • Polychaeta • Pogonophora

  12. 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 1750 1850 1950 Year Rates of species discovery All species

  13. Major benthic, some pelagic

  14. Meiofauna parasites

  15. Bryozoa in Europe and New Zealand Europe New Zealand

  16. 842 guides 43% published in special series (e.g. Synopses British Fauna) 58% Northern Europe 26% Mediterranean 11% Lusitanian - Macronesia Coverage of identification guides

  17. Trends in publications of guides

  18. More guides/number species for more conspicuous taxa

  19. Expertise • Database 1,200 persons in 38 countries (29 European countries) • 614 respondents • 80% employed in public sector (including universities)

  20. Identification & taxonomic expertise by taxa Positive but poor correlations between species/taxa and number of identificiation and taxonomic experts

  21. Age structure of all experts Average age = 47 Range 23 to 89 Taxonomists older than identification experts (=ecologists?)

  22. 500 questionnaires 80 institutes responsed ½ in universities ! State of specimen collections

  23. 60% managed by < 4 staff ½ global coverage of species ¼ limited to national species 60% have type specimens 8 institutes > 10,000 specimens 60% institutes < 1,000 specimens How well catalogued? 20% - none 36% - complete 40% - no electronic 10% - full electronic State of specimen collections

  24. species 20,000 to 25,000 taxonomists most 60-70 years of age identification guides decreasing adequacy with smaller body size taxa collections most in museums 36,000 ! Average age 47 True, but also less for southern European seas Most in universities, all poorly resourced, catalogues insufficient Expectations and findings

  25. Conclusions • High rates discovery in these taxa • most diverse least least well known • thousands species remain to be discovered • Know less conspicuous taxa least • more guides required in these groups • More ident’ guides for southern European species • No evidence of taxonomists going extinct • Collections not limited to museums, most poorly catalogued • Awareness, knowledge inaccessible as not in databases

  26. How to fill gaps? • Revise and expand checklist (ERMS 2.0) • Fund guides to southern European taxa • Focus taxonomic and ecological studies on least well known taxa in least well studied places

More Related