w w w.m a r i n e h u b . o r g December 2008 1

NEWSLETTERApril 2009

this

issu

e > News and Events

“Seamounts may serve as refuges for deep-sea animals” 1

Oceans matter! 2

Census of Marine Life explorers find hundreds of identical species thrive in both Arctic and Antarctic 2

Explore the ocean with Google Earth 2

Biology and the geomorphology off North-west Australia 2

Paul Hedge joins Hub as knowledge broker 2

> Perspective 3

> In Focus – Bioregionalisation

An introduction to the hierarchical framework for bioregionalisation 4

New analysis of shelf provinces and biomes based on fish data 5

Ophiuroid bioregionalisation 6

Are regional patterns of distribution congruent for decapods and fishes? 7

Scales of habitat heterogeneity and megabenthos biodiversity on Australia’s west coast 8

Milestone - New physical and biological data coverage for Australia 8

New biologically informed marine biodiversity maps to support marine regional planning 9

> Publications 10

> Profile

Jennifer Lavers, CSIRO 12

> Surveys

Temperate Reef Sampling 12

Jervis Bay, NSW 13

> Conferences/Workshops 14

News and eventsSeamounts may serve as refuges for deep-sea animalsMonterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI), 11 Feb 2009

Commonwealth Environment Research Facilities Program (CERF) Marine Biodiversity Hub

“Over the last two decades, marine biologists have discovered lush forests of deep-sea corals and sponges growing on seamounts offshore of the California coast.

It has generally been assumed that many of these animals live only on seamounts, and are found nowhere else. However, two new research papers show that most seamount animals can also be found in other deep-sea areas. Seamounts, however, do support

particularly large, dense clusters of these animals. These findings may help coastal managers protect seamounts from damage by human activities.

Two of the expeditions to Davidson Seamount were led by Andrew DeVogelaere of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary and were funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Office of Exploration. Other expeditions were funded by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation (through MBARI) and were led by MBARI biologist James Barry, who studies seafloor animals,

and by geologist David Clague, who studies undersea volcanoes.” n

Media release: http://www.mbari.org/news/news_releases/2009/seamounts/seamounts.html

“These findings may help coastal managers protect seamounts from damage by human activities.”

Banner photo: Australia’s deepest image. Live bamboo coral at 3850m depth in the Tasman Fracture Marine Reserve. For comparison, Australia’s highest mountain, Mt Kosciusko, is a mere 2228 m above sea level. Photo: Ron Thresher, CSIRO.

sea level

4000metres

3000

2000

1000

- 1000

- 2000

- 3000

- 4000photo of live bamboo coral at 3850 m

Mt Kosciusko 2228 m

2 December 2008 w w w .m a r i n e h u b . o r g

Oceans matter!Senator Kim Carr, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, launched A Marine Nation: National Framework for Marine Research and Innovation, on March 17, 2009.

Census of Marine Life explorers find hundreds of identical species thrive in both Arctic and AntarcticMedia release – 15 February, 2009

This strategy sets the direction for research in this critical area through a new commitment to national co-ordination by agencies involved in Australia’s marine science, technology and innovation effort. The Framework also highlights the need for greatly expanded investment in marine R&D.

A copy of the strategy and the Oceans Pod Cast Video are now available at www.opsag.org

A complementary analysis calling for a similar ‘sea change’ in our view of Australia’s ocean interests was undertaken independently by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and released on 18 March 2009. http://www.aspi.org.au/publications/publicationlist.aspx?pubtype=5

Both documents conclude (in part) that Australia needs to continue to build national multidisciplinary collaborations in marine science and management.

“Earth’s unique, forbidding ice oceans of the Arctic and Antarctic have revealed a trove of secrets to Census of Marine Life explorers, who were especially surprised to find that at least 235 species live in both polar seas despite an 11,000-kilometer distance in between.” Australian researchers, Drs. Michael Stoddart and Victoria Wadley, lead the Census of Antarctic Marine Life.

• Researchers in North and South find Polar oceans share 235 species

• Changes in species distribution documented as warmer oceans spur migration

• United by high-speed current, Antarctic benthos revealed as single bioregion

• Smaller species replacing larger ones in some Arctic waters

Media release: http://www.coml.org/press-releases-2009

Explore the ocean with Google EarthDownload the latest version of Google Earth (version 5) and dive beneath the surface, explore the ocean, learn about ocean observations and explore content on selected marine protected areas.

Biology and the geomorphology off North-west AustraliaAUSGEO News, March 2009, Geoscience Australia

Download the software: http://earth.google.com/ocean/

Take the tour to “Explore the ocean”: http://earth.google.com/tour.html#v=4

View selected marine protected areas in Australia: Launch Google Earth, then in the Layers pane select and expand the Ocean folder to see the list of items including Marine Protected Areas. Navigate to the map of Australia by dragging your mouse, then zoom in (using the slider on RHS) and click on the corresponding symbols of features of interest.

Geoscience Australia (including Hub researcher Rachel Przeslawski) updated analyses of the relatively shallow Glomar shoals off North-west Australia using a biodiversity index as an additional layer in the seascapes model. Incorporating the biological layer resulted in habitat classes that more closely matched the actual geomorphology (or landform) of Glomar Shoals.

More info: http://www.ga.gov.au/ausgeonews/ausgeonews200903/seascapes.jsp

Paul Hedge joins Hub as knowledge broker

Linking researchers to marine planners and managers, and linking data to ongoing management needs is an important part of the Hub’s work. It is clear from the immediate uptake of our research results outputs by the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts and other management agencies that we are starting to engage profitably with our stakeholders. We want to further this engagement, ensuring that the products we develop are appropriate for immediate and future needs and that we have a good understanding of how we can contribute to marine biodiversity management now and in the future. We are fortunate in this context to welcome Paul Hedge to the hub as knowledge broker.

Paul is an experienced project manager with a diverse background in coasts, oceans and the maritime realm. During the last 13 years he has managed a range of field-based and office-based projects related to managing marine biodiversity. In the last 7 years Paul has worked for the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) managing projects for marine bioregional planning. His current projects are focused on development of system to monitor and evaluate the health of the marine environment in Australia’s Exclusive Economic Zone.

Paul attended the University of Tasmania where he focused his honours research and the following 5 years on research

w w w.m a r i n e h u b . o r g December 2008 3

and management on the introduced marine pest rice grass, Spartina anglica, in Australia (Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment (Tasmania) and the USA (Department of Natural Resources (Washington).

Prior to this, Paul spent 4 years in a Hobart-based marine engineering firm as an apprentice fitter and turner. The marine theme also extends to his private pursuits of surfing, fishing and diving). n

Perspectiveby Prof Nic Bax, Director, CERF Marine Biodiversity Hub

Making maps is a major component of understanding and managing landscapes and seascapes, and the CERF Marine Biodiversity Hub is updating and testing the maps being used to understand and manage Australia’s underwater environment.

Imagine a road map of Canberra. Is it useful? Is it true to the landscape? Hopefully you answered yes to the first question and no to the second. Maps are an important part of our everyday experience of living, and thankfully have been sufficiently abstracted to be helpful. As Marc Mangel pointed out at the AEDA and Landscape Logic’s Fenner Conference recently, every map is a simplification of a real landscape. In this newsletter, we focus on the advances being made in describing Australia’s seascape. The next newsletter will focus on connectivity within this seascape, both how organisms connect now, and how they got here in the first place.

Being a simplification of a real landscape, maps are not unique. They can be represented at an infinity of different scales and contexts, with different features important at each scale. Maps reflect the interests and biases of the mapmaker as much as they do the features of the natural environment. It is important to choose a map that is appropriate to the question being asked, and know how much of the map is based on data and how much on speculation. Recognising the importance of scale, Australia’s marine bioregionalisation is based on a hierarchical process. As Vincent Lyne describes in introducing this issue, the value of each layer (or map) in this hierarchy depends on its being interpreted in the context of the higher layers. It’s a bit like zooming in and out in Google to find your way around. At the top level in the hierarchy for Australian oceans, the distribution of range limited demersal fish species was used to determine 24

provinces and 17 transition zones on the Australian shelf. William White and Dan Gledhill report on an updated analysis of this provincial structure incorporating recent surveys that provide complete coverage around Australia and new depth information. The most startling new result is at the second hierarchical level, where they found that the 2,758 demersal shelf fish formed consistent depth zones or biomes around Australia, regardless of the width of the continental shelf. This new knowledge is being already used

in the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts’ (DEWHA) regional planning process, and is the cause of much speculation among hub researchers over what mechanisms could produce this consistent structuring.

Of course, not only is there always another fish in the sea, there are also members of 31 other animal phyla (contrast this to the relatively junior terrestrial domain which has only 12 animal phyla). A key question for researchers and managers is whether the seascape as seen though the (evolutionary) eyes of a fish, and being used in marine regional planning, matches that as seen by invertebrates. Surprisingly, this question has been rarely, if ever, addressed in the international literature. We report on 3 new studies

in this issue that broadly support the hypothesis that fish are a good indicator of patterns in biodiversity at provincial scales. First, Tim O’Hara has painstakingly developed a taxonomically consistent dataset of 180,000 ophiuroid or brittlestar specimens and found remarkable congruity between the bioregional patterns of fish and ophiuroids. Second, PhD student, Anna McCallum, shows that the provincial distribution patterns of decapods on Australia’s west coast are consistent with patterns inferred from earlier fish collections. Third, Alan Williams describes how the patterns of six major invertebrate taxa in the same area are broadly consistent with those of fish, and each other, but that rarer taxa or those with limited distributions may need special consideration if they are to be adequately represented in regional planning. While distributions at the provincial scale were associated with broad-scale oceanographic patterns, at finer scales they were associated with changes in seabed type, substantiating the concept of a hierarchical organisation of Australia’s marine biodiversity, and validating its use in Australia’s regional marine planning.

Underlying these studies are extensive data collections painstakingly collected over the years, but often frustratingly

inaccessible. A major undertaking of the Marine Biodiversity Hub was to update the physical datasets for Australia’s marine environment and to access available biological datasets. Brendan Brooke and Roland Pitcher report in this issue that we have reached this major milestone and that the physical data are now available to hub researchers on a 0.01 degree (approx. 1 km2) grid around the nation to determine the extent to which physical data can be used to predict patterns in the assembled biological data. National datasets like these have the potential to change our maps and perception of the marine environment. Importantly the hierarchical scale at which these data are most useful is the scale at which DEWHA regional planners are now working. Hub researchers are

“Hub researchers are working . . . to provide the first biologically informed analyses of Australia’s physical marine environment to regional marine planners to support marine protected area design and other regional management measures.”

4 December 2008 w w w .m a r i n e h u b . o r g

working long hours to provide the first biologically informed analyses of Australia’s physical marine environment to regional marine planners to support marine protected area design and other regional management measures (see later article by Nic Bax). These are interim products that miss one key property required for their interpretation – uncertainty. Hub researchers are also developing new statistical methods that will provide a measure of this uncertainty, and change the maps from an unrealistic portrayal of the presence/absence of communities to the probability that each of a range of communities occur in any particular area. This has important implications for managing off-reserve areas to support

on-reserve management, or managing the matrix as it is sometimes called.

Astonishingly, we are already halfway through the Hub’s lifespan. We have updated and tested the highest level or provincial patterns in biodiversity, provided a new and nationally consistent depth structure at the second level, and are in the process of developing new biologically informed analyses of physical data on an approx 1 km2 grid. Can we go to an even finer scale? A second milestone recently achieved by the Hub is the completion of all new survey work designed to provide complementary physical and biological data at scales down to 1 m2. Three major surveys have been completed – Carnarvon Shelf, Jervis Bay (see article by Rachel

In Focus – BioregionalisationEach issue of the newsletter focuses on a particular area of research that CERF hub scientists are participating in. This time it is bioregionalisation. If you would like more information on a particular area contact the Hub Director or Knowledge Broker.

An introduction to the hierarchical framework for bioregionalisationby Vincent Lyne, CSIRO - CERF Biodiversity and Prediction Programs

These regionalisations are enabling Australia to move towards sustainable management of its marine ecosystems, and are a key element of the international convention to conserve biodiversity (Convention on Biological Diversity) using reliable spatial environmental information.

Bioregionalisation represents the spatial footprint of biogeographic processes and relationships captured as hierarchical “bioregions”. It aims to depict scale-dependent complexity in a succinct form tailored to the available information and expertise and at scales useful to marine regional planners. Bioregions are designed to be parsimonious groupings of environments and species distributions that represent spatial units of biological significance. The hierarchical nature of the bioregionalisation is essential

to understanding individual layers, as individual layers taken by themselves can lead to incorrect interpretations of the biologically significant spatial structure. Each bioregion consists of sub-units and key processes, and is embedded within a higher level context. The value of the higher level context, a key feature of hierarchical frameworks, needs to be fully utilised in spatial management planning.

The highest level used in the bioregionalisation is the Provincial scale (D1 in the figure below). This scale in the hierarchy is based on the biogeography or range distributions of informative fish species and an associated atlas of oceanographic variables (the CARS Atlas). It aims to describe large scale units that encompass the full range of many species and these data have been updated as

Bioregionalisation of Australia’s marine and coastal environments has progressed steadily since the early work on the 1998 Interim Marine and Coastal Regionalisation of Australia through to the 2006 Integrated Marine and Coastal Regionalisation of Australia (IMCRA v4.0) and the 2007 Southern Ocean Bioregionalisation.

part of the CERF Hub’s work. Additional projects used other taxa such as sponges to verify the Australian classification and this work continues (see articles by Tim O’Hara, Anna McCallum, and Alan Williams in this issue). Much of the international work at similar scales (see for example, the GOODS regionalisation) is based on geophysical variables and statistical approaches, as databases on species distribution that encompass such large spatial scales are generally lacking.

The second hierarchical level (Biomes D2) is based on the distinct patterns or depth bands of fish across the shelf and slope; and William White and Dan Gledhill report that the distinct structure with depth can be extended to the shelf. In the context of marine regional planning, the first two scales in the hierarchy indicate the broad biogeographic regions and depth zones that need to be included in conservation planning to represent the diversity of Australia’s marine fauna.

Biogeomorphical units form the third level in the hierarchy, recognising the association of particular species and groups (within Provinces and Biomes) to the physical structure of the seafloor and overlying water column (often referred to as a Seascape approach). Importantly, this level of classification can provide information at scales useful for spatial planners designing marine reserves or other spatial management instruments.

Przeslawski), Southeast Tasmania – and hub scientists contributed to a fourth survey – Lord Howe. Survey results will be reported in future newsletters and reports will be available on the Hub website. The Carnarvon Shelf survey by itself resulted in 9,900 km of ship track, and 1,263 km2 or 400GB of multibeam swath bathymetry comprising 109 soundings. The next 15 months of the Hub will be an intense period of data preparation, analysis and reporting to determine and describe biodiversity patterns at this finer scale, improve our representation of patterns in biodiversity, and provide national predictions with associated uncertainty of Australia’s marine biodiversity. And that‘s just the mapping component of the Hub’s work. n

w w w.m a r i n e h u b . o r g December 2008 5

To date, in Australia this level has been primarily interpreted from geomorphic units due to the lack of data on the association of geomorphic units with species distributions. A key research focus of the Marine Biodiversity Hub is to provide the biological interpretation of

these geomorphic units, and statistical and expert-based methods are being developed to provide biological interpretations of these physical structures.

These top three levels of the hierarchy have most influence on marine regional planning, including the design of marine

reserves. Lower levels in the hierarchy become essential when it is necessary to describe the variation within large scale planning units, for example in regional-scale environmental management and for monitoring or interpreting the impacts of activities such as physical disturbance

of the seabed or climate change. Regionalisation studies are now being extended to mapping key assets (including processes) within ecological systems.

Bioregionalisation is more than a static description of the biophysical environment. It is also a key step towards

“Bioregionalisation represents the spatial footprint of biogeographic processes and relationships captured as hierarchical ‘bioregions’.”

predictive understanding for managing natural resources. It provides the spatial framework within which dynamic interactions between the bioregional units (broad-scale habitats) and the components of ecological systems (functional groups, species) can be studied. Bioregionalisation involves an integrated assessment of key ecological issues on:

• Multiple scales

• Multiple descriptors or typologies

Noting that:

• Relationships across the hierarchy provide context (above) and relevance (below)

• Attributes at any level depend on the distribution and similarities of sub-units within that level

The underlying philosophy of bioregionalisations is that at any level, the spatial structure and composition of units is likely to be in quasi-equilibrium with drivers acting on the region and processes operating through it that supply services to other regions. While human use imposes threats and pressures that may act in concert with natural drivers to alter the state of bioregions (species composition, populations, state of habitats...), information used for regionalisations needs to be quality controlled for the degree of impact from human use, as well as accuracy and reliability. Key aspects of the framework are captured in the diagram (left). n

New analysis of shelf provinces and biomes based on fish databy William White/Daniel Gledhill, CSIRO - CERF Biodiversity Program

Early regionalisations of Australia (used in regional marine planning and the establishment of the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas, NRSMPA) were based primarily on continental slope fishes. A surprising result from the new data is the consistent structuring by depth of fish species all around Australia. These results are already being used by Australia’s regional marine planning teams.

New and revised data on Australian shelf fishes were used to provide new provincial and biomic (depth) regionalisations of the continental shelf.

Preliminary analyses were conducted on distribution information, consisting of depth and geographic start and end points recorded around the Australian continental margin. All data available for species that occur at depths shallower than 250 m, regardless of data confidence and BII (Biogeographic Information Index) scores, were used to determine the provincial and biomic structures of the continental shelf.

Following extensive assimilation and updating of species range and depth data, 3,687 of 5,283 Australian fish species records had depth and string range information, and 2,758 of these were recorded as occurring demersally at 250 m or shallower. Jaccard analyses, following procedures developed for the slope bioregionalisation, were then used to analyse the provincial structure for species data for all depths shallower than 250 m. A gridded matrix analysis in string-depth space was then conducted to resolve the biomic structure.

While the results reported here are preliminary, they generally parallel the previous shelf provinces produced by CSIRO researchers for the Integrated Marine and Coastal Regionalisation of

6 December 2008 w w w .m a r i n e h u b . o r g

Australia (IMCRA), with some significant differences. The north-eastern and north-western provincial structuring more closely resembles that reported on the slope. This is likely to be the result of inclusion in this provisional analysis of a number of species which are primarily slope dwellers. The translocation of the Gulfs Province could be resulting from similar ‘noise’ in the dataset. Further, more refined analyses will be conducted to produce a more robust shelf bioregionalisation.

Biomic structures across all shelves are also consistent and show an unresolved coastal biome out to about 15 m and other biomes at approximate depth ranges of: 70–100 m; 120–145 m; 160–195 m, with transition zones between these. Of these

transitions, the ones at 15–70 m and 195–235 m have the highest Jaccards implying strong inter-mixing of species at these depth ranges. While the magnitude of the Jaccard varied along the shelf, the pattern of this variation was consistent. This implies that both the provincial and biomic

“Ecosystem structure and functioning is being considered in the design of a network of Commonwealth marine protected areas at broad regional and bioregional scales using the Integrated Marine and Coastal Regionalisation of Australia v4.0. Finer-scale data such as shelf depth biomes and other information emerging from the CERF research, such as distribution of species evenness, will also be used in the development of marine protected areas options where feasible.”

Barbara Musso, Director, Marine Conservation (Temperate West) Section, Department of the

Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts

structures are important in determining the local rates of speciation and mixing.

More detailed analyses are continuing and details of refined provinces and biomes will be published in coming months. n

Ophiuroid bioregionalisationby Tim O’Hara, Museum Victoria - CERF Biodiversity Program

Since 2001, we have been accumulating distributional records of ophiuroids from the region by collating data from museums, in Australia and overseas, historical information, and identifying new material from the most significant surveys co-ordinated by CSIRO, Geoscience Australia, New Zealand’s National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) and the French l’Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD). The dataset now contains 180,000 specimen records from 45,000 lots. It is one of the few benthic datasets that is taxonomically-consistent over oceanic scales and is currently being used for large-scale ecological, biogeographic or bioregionalisation studies around Australia.

Ophiuroids are useful for these purposes because they are one of the dominant components of the fauna on both hard and soft sediment habitats from intertidal to hadal (trench) depths. They are common associates of key benthic structural elements such as corals and sponges. They are generally abundant and diverse enough to permit statistical analysis but not too diverse to become impossible to identify over typical project timelines. They have a reasonably well

Ophiuroids (commonly called brittlestars, snake stars or basket stars) have emerged as a key group to further our understanding of patterns of bioregionalisation in the Australian region.

understood taxonomy. Finally they have a variety of dispersal strategies including planktotrophy, lecithotrophy, viviparity and asexual fissiparous reproduction.

A bioregionalisation of Australian waters was carried out at three depth strata (50-300 m, 300-750 m, and 750-1500 m) analysing the turnover of species around the coastline from the known end-points of species ranges. These analyses identified twelve bioregions around Australia (Figure 1). The exact boundaries between these regions differed slightly (1-3 degrees) depending on the analysis technique and depth layer. Nevertheless, there was a remarkable congruity between the various analyses and depth strata within this study, and between this study and the bioregionalisation based on fish distributions.

However, analyses based on species known ranges tend to be biased by sampling effort. The more an area is sampled, the more rare species

are found, the more species ranges are extended to this area, which is consequently identified as a bioregional breakpoint. Sampling biases bedevil marine biogeography. Marine expeditions are so expensive that we don’t often have the luxury of designing nice balanced surveys. Instead we get a jumble of data, collected using a variety of sampling gear across all seasons with varying success.

One way around this problem is to create species distribution models by modelling species ‘niche’ or habitat preferences from known occurrence records and predicting their occurrence across the seafloor. This methodology was successfully piloted across the Tasman Sea using 102 ophiuroid species using the modelling software MaxEnt and a variety of oceanographic data

Figure 1. Australian marine bioregionalisation (50-1500 m) derived from ophiuroid distributional end-points.

w w w.m a r i n e h u b . o r g December 2008 7

References:

O’Hara, T.D. (2007). Seamounts: Centres of endemism or species-richness for ophiuroids? Global Ecology and Biogeography 16: 720-732.

O’Hara, T.D. (2008a). Bioregionalisation of Australian waters using brittle stars (Echinodermata: Ophiuroidea), a major group of marine benthic invertebrates. Report by Museum Victoria to the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts.

O’Hara, T.D. (2008b). Bioregionalisation of waters around Lord Howe and Norfolk Islands using brittle stars (Echinodermata: Ophiuroidea). Report by Museum Victoria to the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts.

O’Hara, T.D., Rowden, A.A. & Williams, A. (2008c). Cold-water coral habitats on seamounts: do they have a specialist fauna? Diversity and Distributions 14: 925-934.

generated from CSIRO’s CARS dataset and the 2005 National Marine Bioregionalisation (Figure 2). This analysis is now being extended to cover adjacent areas from Vanuatu to Macquarie Island with up to 200 species. In conjunction with CSIRO, we are now extending the modelling exercise to assess the impact of climate change on seabed fauna. n

Australian EEZ

1000 m2000 m

Temperate littoralTemperate shelfTropical littoralTropical shelfUpper slope 1Upper slope 2aUpper slope 2bMid slope

Contours

BritanniaSeamount

GiffordSeamount

TaupoSeamount

LordHowe Is

Norfolk Is

0 125 250 500 kms

Are regional patterns of distribution congruent for decapods and fishes?by Anna McCallum, Museum Victoria and University of Melbourne - CERF Biodiversity Program

Species composition and distributional patterns of decapod crustaceans along Australia’s western continental margin indicate that community breaks are consistent between decapods and fishes on the shallow upper slope.

The current National Bioregionalisation is based largely on the distributions of fishes. My PhD is investigating the underlying hypotheses of taxonomic surrogacy and biogeography. I am interested in knowing how community structure for fishes compares with that of decapods. Decapods are useful in this context as they have a diverse and relatively well documented taxonomy in Australia, and feature strongly in biogeographic debates.

A comprehensive survey of demersal fish along the west Australian slope provided a useful dataset to compare with the distributions of decapods collected on the recent “Voyage of Discovery” survey (see the article by Alan Williams in this issue). Both surveys targeted similar areas of the slope and have complete and reliable taxonomic identifications. We selected sites from the shallow upper slope to compare changes in community structure along the margin for each taxa. Bray-curtis dissimilarity and multivariate regression were used to split (binary) biological samples into successive groups based on latitude and depth.

Results suggest that for both of decapods and fishes on the shallow upper slope, community breaks are consistent between taxa (Figure 1). Further analysis will investigate the environmental variables shaping these common patterns. n

References:

De’Ath, G. (2002) Multivariate regression trees: a new technique for modeling species-environment relationships. Ecology, 83, 1105-1117.

Williams, A., Koslow, J.A. & Last, P.R. (2001) Diversity, density and community structure of the demersal fish fauna of the continental slope off Western Australia (20 to 35 degrees S). Marine Ecology-Progress Series, 212, 247-263.

Decapods Fishes

Abrohlos

Ningaloo

Perth

Figure 1. Sites on the shallow upper slope of Western Australia; Decapods of the “Voyage of Discovery” (left) and demersal fish survey (right). The coloured symbols represent sites with similar community assemblages.

Figure 2. Eight-class classification of seafloor assemblages generated from cluster analysis of stacked probability predictions from Maximum Entropy modelling of 102 ophiuroid species.

8 December 2008 w w w .m a r i n e h u b . o r g

Scales of habitat heterogeneity and megabenthos biodiversity on Australia’s west coastby Alan Williams, CSIRO - CERF Surrogates Program

The first systematic collection of epibenthic megafauna from Australia’s western continental margin was made in 2005. The distributions of five major invertebrate taxa broadly aligned with those of fish but with some intriguing differences.

Epibenthos was sampled at ~nineteen 1º intervals from Barrow Island to Bald Island guided by the sub-biomes identified in Last et al.’s (2005) bioregional analysis of fishes. Samples were taken from the outer continental shelf (~100 m depth) and the upper continental slope (~400 m depth) at all sites; additional depths (200 m, 700 m and 1000 m) were sampled at 7 of the 19 sites. Museum experts identified all octocoral, decapod (see article by Anna McCallum in this issue), mollusc, echinoderm, ascidian and pycnogonid specimens to species, resulting in 118 samples of standardised abundance (numbers per m2) for 1,602 species in 875 genera from 290 families. Seventeen physical covariates were derived from multibeam acoustics at the dredge scale (depth and mean and variance of backscatter), from depth specific CARS data interpolated to the sample midpoint (mean, range and standard deviation of

temperature and oxygen) and from the CERF Geoscience Australia sediment data set at 1 km grid scale (percentage carbonate, gravel, sand and mud).

Megafaunal community distribution was most influenced by bottom temperature, oxygen concentration, and latitude, which vary on large spatial scales (>100s km), and seabed type at smaller megahabitat scales (10s to 100s of km). Many covariates were driven by the same physical processes and were correlated (e.g. to depth or latitude); thus it is not possible to ascribe causal relationships with faunal distributions. Regional scale transitions in seabed temperature and oxygen concentration are determined by the properties of several major currents that interact with the margin seabed in different ways depending on location. Nested within these scales is high spatial heterogeneity of seabed

type that, even when classified simply as ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ terrain, differentiates consolidated attachment sites for sessile fauna from sediment classes suited to the needs of mobile and burrowing fauna. Collectively, these patterns of heterogeneity can be captured using a hierarchical conceptual framework which consists of biogeographic provinces, biomes, biogeomorphic features, terrains, and several finer scales (see article by Vincent Lyne in this issue).

Important findings from this study are that the provincial structure of invertebrate megabenthos broadly aligns with a provincial structure based on fishes, but that differences in distribution occur between major taxa at the provincial and megahabitat scales. Achieving representative coverage of rarer taxa or taxa with limited distributions might not be feasible at the same time as achieving adequate representation of the major faunal groups. The hierarchical scales of heterogeneity of the megabenthos in this area, the diversity between taxa, and the high proportion of apparently rare species makes it clear that adequately managing the area outside the NRSMPA will be as important as managing the NRSMPA itself. n

This research is part of the Census of Marine Life Continental Margins Program.

Milestone – New physical and biological data coverage for Australiaby Roland Pitcher, CSIRO - Leader, CERF Prediction Program, and

Brendan Brooke, Geoscience Australia - Leader, CERF Surrogates Program

Physical and biological data are being used to investigate the relationships between patterns of biodiversity and the physical environment, including the form of biological responses along physical gradients and the potential to predict biodiversity patterns in areas where no

biological data have been collected. The physical data sets include: bathymetry and derived slope and aspect, a range of parameters that describe seabed shear-stress generated by currents and wind, sediment grain size and carbonate composition, bottom-water chemistry

and nutrients (nitrate, phosphate, oxygen, salinity, temperature, silicate) and their seasonal variation, satellite data for chlorophyll, light attenuation, sea surface temperature and their seasonal variation, and seabed irradiance. The source point data for the existing data have been updated by the Hub and new interpolations have been produced as grids with a cell size of ~1 km2. Maps of the distribution of some of the ~30 variables are shown below.

Available biological datasets that are suitable for biodiversity prediction have been scoped and acquired from various sources, primarily Hub partners. These include datasets that extend over a wide range of contrast in the physical variables, and have broad coverage of taxa, which mostly comprise survey presence/absence/abundance datasets collected in the following biomes and regions:

A major milestone of the CERF Marine Biodiversity Hub has been achieved. The collation of extensive new and updated datasets of seabed physical variables and broad-scale biological survey records was an immense task only just completed. These new datasets are driving our research forward and at the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts’ (DEWHA) request we are developing new national analyses to support their regional planning.

w w w.m a r i n e h u b . o r g December 2008 9

(a) Continental shelf and slope survey datasets from the Great Barrier Reef, Torres Strait, Gulf of Carpentaria, North West Shelf, Southeast Shelf, and wide areas of Slope. The survey methods include: fish trawl, prawn trawl, benthic sled and towed video.

(b) Tropical coral reefs survey datasets from the Coral Sea, Great Barrier Reef, Torres Strait, Timor Sea, North West Shelf, and Ningaloo Reef. The survey methods include: UVC transects for reef fish and reef benthos morphotypes.

Left: Map of site locations for all biological data collated in 2008, categorised by biome: Shelf, Slope, Coral Reefs, and Temperate Reefs.

(c) Southern temperate rocky reefs survey datasets from Tasmania, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, and Western Australia. The survey methods include: UVC transects for fish, macro-algae, and mega-invertebrates.

The site locations of the acquired datasets are mapped (left). A number of additional data sources are currently being investigated that may have the potential to fill some of the gaps across southern and north-western Australia. Also, to enable relationships between physical variables and seabed biodiversity to be measured at fine spatial scales (10s – 100s m), new shelf datasets have been collected by the Hub in south-eastern Tasmania, the Carnarvon Shelf in Western Australia and Jervis Bay in New South Wales.

The new datasets are now being analysed by the CERF Marine Biodiversity Hub scientists in project teams that extend across the partner organisations, in consultation with the Hub stakeholders*. n

New biologically informed marine biodiversity maps to support marine regional planningby Nic Bax, Director, CERF Marine Biodiversity Hub

Maps are representations of the way we view the world we live in. And, as demonstrated in the book by Simon Winchester in 2001, maps also have the potential to change the world! Maps provide two dimensional representations of places, objects, processes and predictions.

[*See page 15 for maps of selected physical variables.]

As such, all maps are essentially models of some aspect of the real world, the representation of which depends on the data analysis instruments and frame of reference we use (geological, ecological, oceanographic, jurisdictional, shipping routes, etc).

Ideally, as marine scientists focused on marine ecosystems, we would aim to provide maps directly derived from measured patterns in biodiversity to assist marine regional planners such as our colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA). One of the major

impediments to providing this type of map, typical of what might be expected for terrestrial areas, is the limited coverage of biological samples in most areas needed to provide the required detail below the Provincial scale. Nonetheless, it is becoming clearer that in areas where we have useful biophysical datasets, the physical structure and texture of the seabed and properties of the overlying water column significantly influence the current patterns of benthic biodiversity.

The results of our research are building a compelling case to use combinations of these data as surrogates for the

distribution of biodiversity. One of the difficult questions being addressed is, which combination of physical factors best represents patterns of biodiversity at the scale of interest? Here we are talking about the third level in the hierarchy used to describe Australia’s marine bioregions (see article by Vincent Lyne) – the first level uses the range limits of informative fish species to derive the Provincial structure; the second level uses the well-known depth structuring to describe biomes across the shelf and slope (see article by William White and Dan Gledhill).

To further refine the third level of the hierarchy, biogeomorphic features, Geoscience Australia (GA) and CSIRO scientists in the CERF Hub have developed and updated maps of 28 physical parameters (and their transforms) around Australia (see previous article), and are now using these data plus available biological information to provide new biologically interpreted maps of potential patterns of marine biodiversity

10 December 2008 w w w .m a r i n e h u b . o r g

for the Australian marine estate. Several approaches have been developed, and we are coordinating production of the resulting maps (all at 0.01 degree resolution) with the DEWHA planning teams to maximise their usefulness. The approaches include:

1. Species richness and evenness based on Piers Dunstan and Scott Foster’s ranked abundance distribution (RAD) approach.

2. A biologically transformed and weighted analysis of the physical variables using distributional data from 200 fish species to statistically define which physical variables most influence their distribution and how that influence occurs – it is unlikely to be the same scale at which it is measured (Nick Ellis and Roland Pitcher).

3. Prediction of the distribution of benthic habitats based on robust spatial analysis of physical variables combined with expert knowledge of the influence of the variables on the distribution of biota; and a test of the performance of a range of species distribution models for predicting the distribution of groups of marine benthic species

(seagrasses and sponges) using co-located physical and species presence data (Zhi Huang and Brendan Brooke).

4. Prediction of the occurrence of tropical reef fish based on co-located physical data, but using a new approach to account for spatial autocorrelation in the samples (Camille Mellin).

These maps will be gradually improved over the next months and examples will appear in future newsletters. Importantly, analysis of the fine-scale

survey data will result in new metrics and combinations of variables (eg. accounting for depth variability at a variety of scales – a north facing slope, within a closed canyon, exposed to deep upwelling), that can then be applied to the broader predictive modelling.

A major research focus of the Hub is the development of statistical approaches that will enable us to derive biologically informed marine biodiversity maps

(BIMBMs?) that represent the probability of species occurring in an area, rather than the somewhat simplistic presence/absence maps currently available. These probabilistic maps will inherently include the uncertainty in predictions, but more importantly support development of future off-reserve management options. For example, vulnerable communities can be protected not only by focusing on areas where they are known to be the dominant faunal community but in addition (or in exchange) by developing

appropriate management plans for the often larger areas where they are predicted to occur, or occur more sporadically (or at least at lower probability). And lastly, there are areas where biological data are insufficient to derive meaningful BIMBMs using statistical approaches, e.g. in the deep sea. We are starting to examine how we can use expert interpretation of existing physical and oceanographic datasets to meet this need. n

“Maps provide two dimensional representations of places, objects, processes and predictions.”

PublicationsMapping and characterising soft sediment habitats, and evaluating physical variables as surrogates of biodiversity in Jervis Bay, NSWby Anderson, T., Brooke, B., Radke, L., McArthur, M., and Hughes, M. 2009

Geoscience Australia, Record 2009/XX. Geoscience Australia, Canberra, 43+pp.

A series of short field surveys in Jervis Bay, New South Wales, were undertaken by Geoscience Australia staff as part of the Surrogates Program in the Commonwealth Environmental Research Facilities (CERF) Marine Biodiversity Hub.

The aim of the Jervis Bay field work was to collect accurately co-located physical and biological data to enable research into the utility of physical parameters as surrogates for patterns of benthic biodiversity in shallow soft-sediment habitats. In this report, the survey design and sampling methods are described; selected field datasets are mapped and discussed; initial results of the laboratory analysis of seabed samples are presented; and there is a brief description of the upcoming analysis of covariance of the physical and biological datasets. n

Carnarvon Shelf survey. Post-survey report by Brooke, B., Nichol, S., Hughes, M., McArthur, M. Anderson, T., Przeslawski, R., Siwabessy. J., Heyward, A., Battershill, C., Colquhoun, C and Doherty, P. 2009.

Geoscience Australia, Record 2009/02. Geoscience Australia, Canberra, 90pp.

This report provides a description of the CERF Marine Biodiversity Hub’s survey of the Carnarvon Shelf, Western Australia, in August and September 2008.

The survey was a collaboration between the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) and Geoscience Australia (GA) aboard RV Solander, as part of the Hub’s Surrogates Program. The purpose of the field surveys in the Surrogates Program is to collect high-quality, accurately co-located data to enable the robust setting of a range

See other publications on our website http://www.marinehub.org/index.php/site/publications/

w w w.m a r i n e h u b . o r g December 2008 11

of physical parameters as surrogates of patterns of benthic biodiversity in strategically selected, spatially discrete areas that are representative of much broader benthic environments. n

Beyond corals and fish: the effects of climate change on noncoral benthic invertebrates of tropical reefs by Przeslawski, R., Ahyong, S., Byrne, M., Worheide, G., and Hutchings, P. 2008.

Global Change Biology (2008) 14, 2773–2795.

Climate change is threatening tropical reefs across the world, with most scientists agreeing that the current changes in climate conditions are occurring at a much faster rate than in the past and are potentially beyond the capacity of reefs to adapt and recover.

Current research in tropical ecosystems focuses largely on corals and fishes, although other benthic marine invertebrates provide crucial services to reef systems, with roles in nutrient cycling, water quality regulation, and herbivory. We review available information on the effects of environmental conditions associated with climate change on noncoral tropical benthic invertebrates, including inferences from modern and fossil records. Increasing sea surface temperatures may decrease survivorship and increase the developmental rate, as well as alter the timing of gonad development, spawning, and food availability. The broad latitudinal distribution and associated temperature ranges of several pantropical taxa suggest that some reef communities may have an in-built adaptive capacity. Tropical benthic invertebrates will also show species-specific sublethal and lethal responses to sea-level rise, ocean acidification, physical disturbance, runoff, turbidity, sedimentation, and changes in ocean circulation. In order to accurately predict a species’ response to these stressors, we must consider the magnitude and duration of exposure to each stressor, as well as the physiology, mobility, and habitat requirements of the species.

Stressors will not act independently, and many organisms will be exposed to multiple stressors concurrently, including anthropogenic stressors. Environmental changes associated with climate change are linked to larger ecological processes, including changes in larval dispersal and recruitment success, shifts in community structure and range extensions, and the establishment and spread of invasive species. Loss of some species will trigger economic losses and negative effects on ecosystem function. Our review is intended to create a framework with which to predict the vulnerability of benthic invertebrates to the stressors associated with climate change, as well as their adaptive capacity. We anticipate that this review will assist scientists, managers, and policy-makers to better develop and implement regional research and management strategies, based on observed and predicted changes in environmental conditions. n

Australia’s deep-water reserve network: implications of false homogeneity for classifying abiotic surrogates of biodiversity by Williams, A., Bax, N., Kloser, R., Althaus, F., Barker, B. and Keith, G. 2009.

ICES Journal of Marine Science, 66: 214-224 .

Australia’s South-east network of deepwater marine reserves, declared in July 2007, was designed using a hierarchy that represented the distribution of marine biodiversity as a nested set of ‘bioregions’.

In this hierarchy, ‘geomorphic units’ – individual or aggregations of seabed ‘geomorphic features’ are the finest scale used in the design process. We evaluated the interaction between two hierarchical levels (depth and geomorphic features), using video survey data on seamounts and submarine canyons. False within-class homogeneity indicated that depth, size, complexity, configuration and

anthropogenic impact need to be added as modifiers for geomorphic features to act as surrogates for biodiversity distribution. A consequence of using unmodified geomorphic surrogates, and of not correctly nesting geomorphic features within depth, is the diminished recognition of the importance and comparative rarity of megafaunal biodiversity of the continental margin (< 1,500 m depths). We call this area the ‘zone of importance’ as it is where targeted marine impacts coincide with the highest megafaunal biodiversity.

Refining the geomorphic classification is desirable for future biodiversity characterisation, but an alternative approach is jointly defining patterns in biodiversity and abiotic variables, including utilising finer scale information, and providing a classification that preserves the maximum information of both datasets. Developing Australia’s NRSMPA by 2012 is a challenging prospect given the vast size of its marine area (16 million km2), its highly diverse flora and fauna, and because much marine biodiversity remains poorly sampled and undescribed. n

http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/66/1/214?etoc

The squat lobster Munida isos is one of several animals having its population structure determined with new genetic tools to determine the connectivity between marine reserves – full report in the next Newsletter.

Kar

en G

owle

tt-H

olm

es

12 December 2008 w w w .m a r i n e h u b . o r g

Jennifer Lavers, CSIRO:

Hub scientist, CERF Off-reserve Management Program

Pro

file

Jennifer Lavers received her Bachelor of Science from the University of Alberta where her Honours research focused on the breeding and foraging ecology of waterfowl and terrestrial invertebrates in the Rocky Mountains of western Canada.

Wanting to gain experience working in a range ecosystem types, she moved to the east coast of Canada to pursue a PhD in Biology at Memorial University of Newfoundland. There she studied the demography and ecology of sub-Arctic seabirds which took her to a number of remote islands along a pristine section of Labrador coastline. After four years in the

cold north, bathing in bug-infested ponds, she volunteered her time with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and spent six months living on a remote, seabird island in Hawaii.

Her passion for seabirds and remote locations recently brought her to the Southern Hemisphere where she currently works as a CERF post-doctoral fellow with Chris Wilcox developing new ways to eliminate the accidental capture (or ‘bycatch’) of seabirds and sea turtles

in fishing gear. Combining biochemical techniques and mathematical models with back-to-basics field work, this research will identify the most efficient method for determining the origin of unmarked birds and turtles hooked on fishing vessels, thus ensuring that conservation efforts are directed towards populations at greatest risk from fisheries activities. n

Banding a Grey-faced Petrel on the Aldermen Islands, New Zealand.

SurveysTemperate reef sampling by Neville Barrett and Graham Edgar, UTAS/TAFI - CERF Prediction program

In the early 1990s, Tasmania declared its first no-take Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and with that came the opportunity to use these areas as a large scale experiment to quantify the extent that fishing activities had impacted Tasmanian rocky reef assemblages. As impacts may have been direct, via target species reductions, or indirect via food-chain linkages, we felt it important to develop a research program that had the ability and power to detect biologically meaningful change through time. In that program we established studies in all four new Tasmanian MPAs, and through a succession of small Ocean Rescue grants,

were able to continue an annual time series over the first five years of protection.

That time series demonstrated that there were some clear effects of fishing arising after such a short period of protection, and that a time series was essential in untangling real trends from chance differences between years examined and from variability in reef communities from site to site. Initial changes included a large increase in lobster numbers, lobster biomass and large lobsters, a huge and unexpected increase in bastard trumpeter numbers, and a decrease in abalone numbers. The latter was our first

indication of a food-chain response to increasing predation by lobsters in MPAs.

With support from the Australian Research Council (ARC) and Natural Heritage Trust (NHT), we were able to continue the Tasmanian time series. With increasing interest from other States where new MPAs were being developed, reef monitoring of MPAs expanded across a wider range of geographical locations, habitats, species and MPA zoning plans. This initially included Jervis Bay in NSW and Port Phillip Heads and Wilsons Promontory in Victoria, but with more recent support from the Fisheries Research & Development Corporation (FRDC) and ARC, we extended westwards to Jurien Bay in WA, Encounter Bay in SA, and included new MPAs in Tasmania at Port Davey and the Kent Group of Islands in Bass Strait. For many of these locations we have been able to maintain an on-going time series both prior to protection, and following protection. In many cases MPAs did not end up being declared when

A continental-scale temperate reef dataset collected since the 1980s using standardised methods is being used in the CERF Marine Biodiversity Hub to describe and predict patterns in biodiversity for this important habitat.

w w w.m a r i n e h u b . o r g December 2008 13

initially indicated by State agencies, so we have longer than anticipated baseline time series for many MPAs, with less time post protection! Despite this, most of the newer MPAs are now approaching 5 or more years post declaration, and we are looking forward to being able to compare the response of temperate MPAs at an Australia-wide scale.

Along the way we participated in surveys at a wide number of additional locations around Australia as part of State MPA planning processes or reef health studies, all using the same methodology to ensure the data were comparable. With the addition of more sites, more temporal replication, and greater geographical coverage, the value of this dataset increased with respect to understanding not only the range of MPA responses and effects of fishing, but also understanding natural patterns of temporal variation, geographical variability in biodiversity, the response of introduced species, and ultimately climate change. As the last pieces of our jigsaw puzzle were finally falling into place with opportunities to establish surveys in gap locations such as Cape Leeuwin in WA and Batemans Bay in NSW, the CERF Hub process was announced.

With assistance from the broad range of research partners participating in the CERF Marine Biodiversity Hub, we can now utilise the continental-scale temperate reef dataset to its full potential, not only in terms of describing patterns of known biodiversity, but also in developing a framework for accurately predicting ecological patterns at sites as yet unvisited (with estimates of reliability of those predictions).

Good information on the distribution of marine biodiversity has been largely lacking to date because of the out-of-sight nature of the marine environment, so project outcomes should fill a critical need for government managers when planning MPA networks and other coastal management schemes. All of our survey data sets have now been collated into one database, and we are moving onto the analysis phase with the recent appointments of Dr Nicole Hill as the ecologist primarily responsible for this task, and Dr Rebecca Leaper, as our statistician assisting with model development in collaboration with CERF partners. n

Temporal and fine-scale variation in the biogeochemistry of Jervis Bay, NSW by Rachel Przeslawski, Geoscience Australia - Marine Benthic Ecologist, CERF Surrogates Program

The identification of suitable abiotic surrogates for biological diversity requires the collection of both physical and biological data. However, logistical constraints often preclude experimental designs that incorporate spatial and temporal replication, and the investigation of appropriate surrogates involves a trade-off between overall spatial coverage and replication.

To investigate seasonal variation in biogeochemistry, we contemporaneously collected summer environmental and infaunal data in order to combine them with similar data from a 2008 CERF winter survey. Because there is a certain error in sampling at the exact location as the previous survey, the survey design also required that replicate samples be taken at a set number of stations in order to quantify fine-scale variability (scale of metres).

Jervis Bay is a temperate marine embayment on the south coast of NSW, valued both economically and ecologically. In the southern part of the bay, we used grabs to collect paired geochemical and biological samples from thirty-two stations. At eight of these stations, we deployed

A survey at Jervis Bay was recently completed in which we sought to investigate how relationships between biological and physical variables may vary across season and fine spatial scales.

three pairs of grabs to investigate fine-scale variability. Due to good weather and extra ship time available, we also deployed a CTD (conductivity, temperature, depth meter) to investigate vertical temperature and salinity profiles at each station. Samples are expected to be processed and analysed by late 2009, but preliminary results indicate that most physical variables and infaunal assemblages vary between seasons. In addition, variation among infaunal assemblages seems greater among stations (hundreds of metres) than within replicates at stations (metres).

Results from this study will allow us to determine whether or not the relationships between abiotic and biotic variables change over time and spatial scale. Such information will be crucial to optimise the likelihood of identifying suitable surrogates for marine biodiversity in soft-sediment environments. To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine how the relationships between environmental factors and marine macro-infaunal diversity may vary over time and space, and we anticipate that other researchers in the CERF Hub will use this data to derive interpolated maps, conduct spatial analyses and develop predictive models. n

Above left: Zoanthids collected from 21.5 m water depth in Jervis Bay, Right: Deploying the Van Veen grab to collect a biological sample.

14 December 2008 w w w .m a r i n e h u b . o r g

Conference/Workshops

Upcoming: IPEC and ASFB “Biogeography and Biodiversity”31 May to 5 June 2009, Fremantle, Western Australia

The 8th Indo-Pacific Fish Conference (IPFC) and the 2009 Australian Society for Fish Biology (ASFB) Workshop & Conference will be held from 31 May to 5 June 2009 in Fremantle, Western Australia. An ASFB workshop on 3 June will bring scientists form a variety of disciplines together to determine what biodiversity advice can be provided to managers now. The CERF Marine Biodiversity Hub is a sponsor of the conference and workshop.

The main themes of the conference include biogeography and phylogeography, biodiversity and community ecology, population biology and ecology and conservation, sustainability and management.

More info: http://www.asfb.org.au/

AMSA 2009 Marine Connectivity – Reminder5-9 July 2009, Adelaide, South

Australia

The CERF Marine Biodiversity Hub has developed 3 special symposia and is sponsoring the poster session and cocktail hour.

More info: http://www.marinehub.org/index.php/site/newsletter_extended_archive/amsa2009_marine_connectivity/

Rachel Przeslawski and Matt McArthur (GA) on the AIMS research vessel Solander off Western Australia celebrating the end of biological sampling for the Marine Biodiversity Hub. The Surrogates Program will be determining new metrics to describe marine biodiversity using the data from high resolution bathymetry, towed video, autonomous underwater vehicle, benthic sled and grab samples collected on the Carnarvon Shelf, Jervis Bay and SE Tasmania.

w w w.m a r i n e h u b . o r g December 2008 15

Bathymetry Sediment % mud fraction

Benthic irradiance Sediment carbonatecomposition

Seabed current stress Bottom water oxygen std dev

Maps of selected physical variables on Australia’s continental shelf that have been associated with patterns in seabed biodiversity data. [See “Milestone - New physical and biological data coverage for Australia”, Pages 8-9.]

Continued from page 9

Milestone – New physical and biological data coverage for Australia

16 December 2008 w w w .m a r i n e h u b . o r g

ContactsDirector Professor Nic Bax Tel: +61 3 6232 5341nic.bax@csiro.au

Executive Officer Vicki Randell Tel: +61 3 6227 7270vicki.randell@utas.edu.au

Knowledge BrokerPaul HedgeTel: +61 3 6232 5462Paul.Hedge@environment.gov.au

Biodiversity Program LeaderDr Alan ButlerTel. +61 3 6232 5157alan.butler@csiro.au

Surrogates Program LeaderDr Brendan BrookeTel. +61 2 6249 9438brendan.brooke@ga.gov.au

Prediction Program LeaderDr Roland PitcherTel. +61 7 3826 7250roland.pitcher@csiro.au

Off-reserve Management Program LeaderDr Chris WilcoxTel. +61 3 6232 5306chris.wilcox@csiro.au

Newsletter items/mailing listAnnabel OzimecTel: +61 3 6232 5462annabel.ozimec@csiro.au

Websitehttp://www.marinehub.org

www.marinehub.orgThis newsletter is produced by the CERF Marine Biodiversity Hub – a collaboration between the University of Tasmania, CSIRO Wealth from Oceans Flagship, Geoscience Australia, the Australian Institute of Marine Science and Museum Victoria. The Marine Biodiversity Hub is funded through the Commonwealth Environment Research Facilities Program (CERF), administered through the Australian Government’s Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. The key aim of CERF is to provide sound advice to inform environmental public policy objectives and to better the management of Australia’s unique environment.

The newsletter is available as a PDF and online version at www.marinehub.org with links to sources.