The Marine Life Information Network

Temperature increase (local)

Benchmark. A 5°C increase in temperature for one month, or 2°C for one year. Further detail

Evidence

The temperature isotherm of 19-20°C has been reported as limiting Saccharina latissima geographic distribution (Müller et al., 2009). Gametophytes can develop in ≤23°C (Lüning, 1990) however, the optimal temperature range for sporophyte growth is 10-15 °C (Bolton & Lüning, 1982). Bolton & Lüning (1982) experimentally observed that sporophyte growth was inhibited by 50-70% at 20°C and following 7 days at 23°C all specimens completely disintegrated. In the field Saccharina latissima has shown significant regional variation in its acclimation to temperature changes, for example Gerard & Dubois (1988) observed sporophytes of Saccharina latissima which were regularly exposed to ≥20°C could tolerate these temperatures, whereas sporophytes from other populations which rarely experience ≥17°C showed 100% mortality after 3 weeks of exposure to 20 °C. Therefore, the response of Saccharina latissima to a change in temperatures is likely to be locally variable.

In experiments, Lüning (1980) observed that Chorda filum could not reproduce at 15-20 °C but found that sporophytes could tolerate ≤26 °C.

Northern to southern Sea Surface Temperature (SST) ranges from 8-16 °C in summer and 6-13 °C in winter in the UK (Beszczynska-Möller & Dye, 2013). The effect of this pressure is likely to be regionally variable.

Sensitivity assessment. Ecotypes of Saccharina lattisima have been shown to have different temperature optimums (Dubois, 1988). Both a 2 & 5°C increase in temperature, when combined with high UK summer temperatures in the south of the UK, could cause large scale mortality of Saccharina lattisima and inhibit Chorda filum reproduction. Resistance has been assessed as ‘None’, Resilience as ‘High’. Sensitivity has been assessed as ‘Medium’.

Temperature decrease (local)

Benchmark. A 5°C decrease in temperature for one month, or 2°C for one year. Further detail

Evidence

Saccharina lattissima and Chorda filum are widespread throughout the arctic. Saccharina lattissima has a lower temperature threshold for sporophyte growth at 0 °C (Lüning, 1990). Chorda filum sporophytes can also tolerate 0 °C, Novaczek et al., (1986) observed that 99% of newly settled zoospores died at 0 °C but sporophytes transferred from 5 °C to 0 °C remained healthy and continued to grow for a period of 2 months. Novaczek et al., (1986) therefore demonstrated that sporophytes could tolerate exposure to low (≥0°C) temperatures, but that exposure could have negative effects on larval survival and recruitment processes. Subtidal red algae can survive at -2°C (Lüning, 1990; Kain & Norton, 1990). The distribution and temperature tolerances of these species suggest they likely be unaffected by temperature decreases assessed within this pressure.

Sensitivity assessment. Resistance has been assessed as ‘High’, resilience as ‘High’”. Sensitivity has been assessed as ‘Not Sensitive’.

Salinity increase (local)

Benchmark. A increase in one MNCR salinity category above the usual range of the biotope or habitat. Further detail

Evidence

Karsten (2007) tested the photosynthetic ability of Saccharina latissima under acute 2 and 5 day exposure to salinity treatments ranging from 5-60 psu. A control experiment was also carried at 34 psu. Saccharina latissima showed high photosynthetic ability at >80% of the control levels between 25-55 psu. However, Birkett et al. (1998) suggested that kelps are stenohaline and therefore long-term increases in salinity may be detrimental.

Chorda filum can be found in rock pools (South & Burrows, 1967). High air temperatures cause surface evaporation of water from rock pools so that salinity steadily increases. The extent of temperature and salinity change is affected by the frequency and time of day at which tidal inundation occurs. If high tide occurs in early morning and evening the diurnal temperature follows that of the air, whilst high water at midday suddenly returns the temperature to that of the sea (Pyefinch, 1943). It should be noted however that local populations may be acclimated to the prevailing salinity regime and may, therefore, exhibit different tolerances to other populations subject to different salinity conditions and therefore caution should be used when inferring tolerances. However, it is likely that Chorda filum is tolerant of short-term salinity increases.

Sensitivity assessment. The evidence suggests that Saccharina latissima and Chorda filum can tolerate short-term exposure to hypersaline conditions (≥40‰-MNCR full salinity). An increase in salinity to ≥40‰ may, however, be above the optima for characterizing species and cause a decline in growth, and possibly loss of red algae and a reduction in species diversity.  Resistance has been assessed as ‘Medium’, resilience as ‘High’. The sensitivity of this biotope to an increase in salinity has been assessed as ‘Low’.

Salinity decrease (local)

Benchmark. A decrease in one MNCR salinity category above the usual range of the biotope or habitat. Further detail

Evidence

Karsten (2007) tested the photosynthetic ability of Saccharina latissima under acute 2 and 5 day exposure to salinity treatments ranging from 5-60 psu. A control experiment was also carried at 34 psu. Saccharina latissima showed high photosynthetic ability at >80% of the control levels between 25-55 psu. Hyposaline treatment of 10-20 psu led to a gradual decline of photosynthetic ability. After 2 days at 5 psu, Saccharina latissima showed a significant decline in photosynthetic ability at approx. 30% of control. After 5 days at 5 psu, Saccharina latissima specimens became bleached and showed signs of severe damage. The experiment was conducted on Saccharina latissima from the Arctic, and the authors suggest that at extremely low water temperatures (1-5°C) macroalgae acclimation to rapid salinity changes could be slower than at temperate latitudes. It is, therefore, possible that resident Saccharina latissima of the UK maybe be able to acclimate to salinity changes more effectively.

Chorda filum is tolerant of low salinities (Wilce, 1959; Hayren, I940; Norton & South, 1969), and has been recorded at Björnholm, Finland at a salinity as low as 5.15%o (Hayren, I940). Norton & South (1969) observed that Chorda filum could develop sporophytes at ≥5‰ under laboratory conditions, however at low salinities, the time taken to develop into sporophytes took 65 days at 5‰ or 16 days at 35‰. It was also noted that below 9‰ sporophytes did not grow above 2 mm in length.

Sensitivity assessment.  A decrease in one MNCR salinity scale from “Full Salinity” (30-40 psu) to “Reduced Salinity” (18-30 psu) would inhibit Saccharina lattissima photosynthesis and hence growth. Chorda filum is highly tolerant of low salinity and is unlikely to be affected at the benchmark level. However, a shift to reduced salinity conditions is likely to result in a change in the infauna community and an overall reduction in species diversity. Therefore, resistance has been assessed as ‘Medium’ resilience as ‘High’. The sensitivity of this biotope to a decrease in salinity has been assessed as ‘Low’.

Water flow (tidal current) changes (local)

Benchmark. A change in peak mean spring bed flow velocity of between 0.1 m/s to 0.2 m/s for more than one year. Further detail

Evidence

Peteiro & Freire (2013) measured Saccharina latissima growth from 2 sites, the 1^st had maximal water velocities of 0.3 m/sec and the 2^nd 0.1 m/sec. At site 1 Saccharina latissima had significantly larger biomass than at site 2 (16 kg/m to 12 kg/m respectively). Peteiro & Freire (2013) suggested that faster water velocities were beneficial to Saccharina latissima growth. However, Gerard & Mann (1979) measured Saccharina latissima productivity at greater water velocities and found Saccharina latissima productivity is reduced in moderately strong tidal streams (≤1 m/sec) when compared to weak tidal streams (<0.5 m/sec).

Chorda filum sporophytes often grow on unstable objects, such as pebbles and shell. Owing to the typically unstable substratum which Chorda filum grows on, whole populations can be moved during storms and deposited in more sheltered locations where development will continue (South & Burrows, 1967). The survival of Chorda filum sporophytes following transport of their attached substrata indicates the species is relatively tolerant to changes in water flow or wave action.

As highlighted by Connor et al., (2004) large increases in tidal flow (>0.5 m/s) are likely to influence biotope structure and smaller changes in tidal flow (e.g. 0.1-0.2m/s) are not likely to have a significant effect on the characterizing species. A change in the tidal flow of 0.1-0.2 m/sec in low energy biotopes e.g. SS.SMp.KSwSS.SlatR.Mu, may, however, remove finer sediment fractions (e.g. mud) and may, therefore, change the biotope. However, the evidence is lacking and a change in tidal velocities is not likely to result in a significant change to the dominant species.

Sensitivity assessment. Resistance has been assessed as ‘High’, resilience as ‘High’. Sensitivity has been assessed as ‘Not Sensitive’.

Emergence regime changes

Benchmark.  1) A change in the time covered or not covered by the sea for a period of ≥1 year or 2) an increase in relative sea level or decrease in high water level for ≥1 year. Further detail

Evidence

SS.SMp.KSwSS.SlatR and SS.SMp.KSwSS.SlatCho are recorded from 0-10m, while SlatR can extend to 20m (Connor et al., 2004). Therefore, the upper limit of the biotopes in the sublittoral fringe (South & Burrows, 1967; White & Marshall, 2007) could be exposed during some low tides.

An increase in emergence will result in an increased risk of desiccation and mortality of Saccharina latissima and Chorda filum. Removal of macroalgae canopy may also increase desiccation and mortality of the undergrowth red seaweed community (Hawkins & Harkin, 1985). Providing that suitable substrata are present, the biotope is likely to re-establish further down the shore within a similar emergence regime to that which existed previously.

Sensitivity assessment. Resistance has been assessed as ‘Medium’. Resilience as ‘High’. The sensitivity of this biotope to a change in emergence is considered as ‘Low’.

Wave exposure changes (local)

Benchmark. A change in near shore significant wave height of >3% but <5% for more than one year. Further detail

Evidence

Birkett et al. (1998b) suggested that Saccharina latissima is rarely present in areas of wave exposure, where it is out-competed by Laminaria hyperborea. Chorda filum sporophytes often grow on unstable objects, such as pebbles and shell. Owing to the typically unstable substratum which Chorda filum grows on, whole populations can be moved during storms and deposited in more sheltered locations where development will continue (South & Burrows, 1967).

A large increase in near-shore wave height is likely to significantly influence biotope structure. As highlighted by Connor et al. (2004), sub-biotopes within SS.SMp.KSwSS.SlatR are largely distinguished by wave exposure

Sensitivity assessment. A large scale increase in local wave height may increase local sediment mobility, potentially increase dislodgment or relocation of the characterizing species (South & Burrows, 1967; Birkett et al., 1998b). However, an increase in nearshore significant wave height of 3-5% is not likely to have a significant effect on biotope structure. Resistance has been assessed as ‘High’, Resilience as ‘High’. Sensitivity has been assessed as ‘Not Sensitive’ at the benchmark level.

Transition elements & organo-metal contamination

Benchmark. Exposure of marine species or habitat to one or more relevant contaminants via uncontrolled releases or incidental spills. Further detail

Evidence

This pressure is Not assessed but evidence is presented where available

Bryan (1984) suggested that the general order for heavy metal toxicity in seaweeds is: Organic Hg > inorganic Hg > Cu > Ag > Zn > Cd > Pb. Cole et al., (1999) reported that Hg was very toxic to macrophytes. Similarly, Hopkin & Kain (1978) demonstrated sub-lethal effects of heavy metals on kelp gametophytes and sporophytes, including reduced growth and respiration. Sheppard et al. (1980) noted that increasing levels of heavy metal contamination along the west coast of Britain reduced species number and richness in holdfast fauna, except for suspension feeders which became increasingly dominant. Gastropods may be relatively tolerant of heavy metal pollution (Bryan, 1984). Although macroalgae species may not be killed, except by high levels of contamination, reduced growth rates may impair the ability of the biotope to recover from other environmental disturbances. Thompson & Burrows (1984) observed the growth of Saccharina latissima sporophyte growth was significantly inhibited at 50 µg Cu /l, 1000 µg Zn/l and 50 µg Hg/l. Zoospores were found to be more intolerant and significant reductions in survival rates were observed at 25 µg Cu/l, 1000 µg Zn/l and 5 µg/l.

Hydrocarbon & PAH contamination

Benchmark. Exposure of marine species or habitat to one or more relevant contaminants via uncontrolled releases or incidental spills. Further detail

Evidence

This pressure is Not assessed but evidence is presented where available

The mucilaginous slime layer coating of Laminarians may protect them from smothering by oil. Hydrocarbons in solution reduce photosynthesis and may be algicidal. However, Holt et al. (1995) reported that oil spills in the USA and from the Torrey Canyon had little effect on kelps. Similarly, surveys of subtidal communities at a number sites between 1-22.5 m below chart datum showed no noticeable impacts of the Sea Empress oil spill and clean up (Rostron & Bunker, 1997) or during the experimental release of untreated oil in Baffin Island, Canada (Cross et al., 1987). Laboratory studies of the effects of oil and dispersants on several red algae species (Grandy 1984) concluded that they were all sensitive to oil/ dispersant mixtures, with little differences between adults, sporelings, diploid or haploid life stages.

Synthetic compound contamination

Benchmark. Exposure of marine species or habitat to one or more relevant contaminants via uncontrolled releases or incidental spills. Further detail

Evidence

This pressure is Not assessed but evidence is presented where available

O'Brian & Dixon (1976) suggested that red algae were the most sensitive group of macrophytes to oil and dispersant contamination (see Smith, 1968). Saccharina latissima has also been found to be sensitive to antifouling compounds. Johansson (2009) exposed samples of Saccharina latissima to several antifouling compounds, observing chlorothalonil, DCOIT, dichlofluanid and tolylfluanid inhibited photosynthesis. Exposure to Chlorothalonil and tolylfluanid was also found to continue inhibiting oxygen evolution after exposure had finished, and may cause irreversible damage.

Smith (1968) observed that epiphytic and benthic red algae were intolerant of dispersant or oil contamination during the Torrey Canyon oil spill; only the epiphytes Crytopleura ramosa and Spermothamnion repens and some tufts of Jania rubens survived together with Osmundea pinnatifida, Gigartina pistillata and Phyllophora crispa from the sublittoral fringe.

Radionuclide contamination

Benchmark. An increase in 10µGy/h above background levels. Further detail

Evidence

No Evidence

Introduction of other substances

Benchmark. Exposure of marine species or habitat to one or more relevant contaminants via uncontrolled releases or incidental spills. Further detail

Evidence

This pressure is Not assessed.

De-oxygenation

Benchmark. Exposure to dissolved oxygen concentration of less than or equal to 2 mg/l for one week (a change from WFD poor status to bad status). Further detail

Evidence

Reduced oxygen concentrations can inhibit both photosynthesis and respiration in macroalgae (Kinne, 1977). Despite this, macroalgae are thought to buffer the environmental conditions of low oxygen, thereby acting as a refuge for organisms in oxygen depleted regions especially if the oxygen depletion is short-term (Frieder et al., 2012). A rapid recovery from a state of low oxygen is expected if the environmental conditions are transient. If levels do drop below 4 mg/l negative effects on these organisms can be expected with adverse effects occurring below 2 mg/l (Cole et al., 1999).

Sensitivity Assessment. Reduced oxygen levels are likely to inhibit photosynthesis and respiration but not cause a loss of the macroalgae population directly. Resistance has been assessed as ‘High’ and resilience as ‘High’. Sensitivity has been assessed as ‘Not sensitive’ at the benchmark level.

Nutrient enrichment

Benchmark. Compliance with WFD criteria for good status. Further detail

Evidence

Conolly & Drew (1985) found Saccharina latissima sporophytes had relatively higher growth rates when in close proximity to a sewage outlet in St Andrews, UK, compared to other sites along the east coast of Scotland. At St Andrews, nitrate levels were 20.22µM, which represents an approx. 25% increase compared to other sites (approx. 15.87 µM). Handå et al. (2013) also reported Saccharina latissima sporophytes grew approx. 1% faster per day when in close proximity to Norwegian salmon farms, where elevated ammonium could be readily absorbed by sporophytes.  Read et al. (1983) reported after the installation of a new sewage treatment works, which reduced the suspended solid content of liquid effluent by 60% in the Firth of Forth, Saccharina latissima became abundant where previously it had been absent. Bokn et al. (2003) conducted a nutrient loading experiment on intertidal fucoids. Within 3 years of the experiment no significant effect was observed in the communities, however, 4-5 years into the experiment a shift occurred from perennials to ephemeral algae. Although Bokn et al. (2003) focussed on fucoids the results could indicate that long-term (>4 years) nutrient loading can result in community shift to ephemeral algae species. Disparities between the findings of the aforementioned studies are likely to be related to the level of organic enrichment.

Johnston & Roberts (2009) conducted a meta-analysis, which reviewed 216 papers to assess how a variety of contaminants (including sewage and nutrient loading) affected 6 marine habitats (including subtidal reefs). A 30-50% reduction in species diversity and richness was identified from all habitats exposed to the contaminant types. Johnston & Roberts (2009) ,however, also highlighted that macroalgal communities are relatively tolerant to contamination, but that contaminated communities can have low diversity assemblages which are dominated by opportunistic and fast growing species (Johnston & Roberts, 2009 and references therein).

Sensitivity assessment. Although short-term exposure (<4 years) to nutrient enrichment may not affect seaweeds directly, indirect effects such as turbidity may significantly affect photosynthesis and result in reduced growth and reproduction and increased competition form fast growing but ephemeral species. However, this biotope is considered to be 'Not sensitive' at the pressure benchmark, that assumes compliance with good status as defined by the WFD.

Organic enrichment

Benchmark. A deposit of 100 gC/m²/yr. Further detail

Evidence

Read et al. (1983) reported after the installation of a new sewage treatment works, which reduced the suspended solid content of liquid effluent by 60% in the Firth of Forth, Saccharina latissima became abundant where previously it had been absent. Bokn et al. (2003) conducted a nutrient loading experiment on intertidal fucoids. Within 3 years of the experiment no significant effect was observed in the communities, however, 4-5 years into the experiment a shift occurred from perennials to ephemeral algae. Although Bokn et al. (2003) focussed on fucoids the results could indicate that long-term (>4 years) nutrient loading can result in community shift to ephemeral algae species. Disparities between the findings of the aforementioned studies are likely to be related to the level of organic enrichment.

Johnston & Roberts (2009) conducted a meta-analysis, which reviewed 216 papers to assess how a variety of contaminants (including sewage and nutrient loading) affected 6 marine habitats (including subtidal reefs). A 30-50% reduction in species diversity and richness was identified from all habitats exposed to the contaminant types. Johnston & Roberts (2009) however also highlighted that macroalgal communities are relatively tolerant to contamination, but that contaminated communities can have low diversity assemblages which are dominated by opportunistic and fast growing species (Johnston & Roberts, 2009 and references therein). Organic enrichment may also result in phytoplankton blooms that increase turbidity and therefore may negatively impact photosynthesis.

Sensitivity assessment. Although short-term exposure (<4 years) to organic enrichment may not affect seaweeds directly, indirect effects such as turbidity may significantly affect photosynthesis, and result in reduced growth and reproduction and increased competition form fast growing but ephemeral species Resistance has been assessed as ‘Medium’, resilience as ‘High’. Sensitivity has been assessed as ’Low’.

Physical loss (to land or freshwater habitat)

Benchmark. A permanent loss of existing saline habitat within the site. Further detail

Evidence

All marine habitats and benthic species are considered to have a resistance of ‘None’ to this pressure and to be unable to recover from a permanent loss of habitat (resilience is ‘Very Low’).  Sensitivity within the direct spatial footprint of this pressure is, therefore ‘High’. Although no specific evidence is described confidence in this assessment is ‘High’, due to the incontrovertible nature of this pressure.

Physical change (to another seabed type)

Benchmark. Permanent change from sedimentary or soft rock substrata to hard rock or artificial substrata or vice-versa. Further detail

Evidence

If sediment were replaced with rock or artificial substrata, this would represent a fundamental change to the biotope (Macleod et al., 2014). All the characterizing species within this biotope can grow on rock biotopes (Birkett et al., 1998; Connor et al., 2004), however, SS.SMp.KSwSS are by definition sediment biotopes and introduction of rock would change them into a rock based habitat complex, and the biotope would be lost

Sensitivity assessment. Resistance to the pressure is considered ‘None’, and resilience ‘Very low’. Sensitivity has been assessed as ‘High’

Physical change (to another sediment type)

Benchmark. Permanent change in one Folk class (based on UK SeaMap simplified classification). Further detail

Evidence

SS.SMp.KSwSS are sediment based biotopes. Stabilised cobbles, pebbles, gravel and shell fractions provide a substrate for macro-algae to dominate the community (Connor et al., 2004). An increase in the dominance of smaller sediment fractions e.g. sand and/or mud will likely smoother the existing biotope, inhibit successive re-colonisation of macroalgae and/or increase the sediment scour.

Sensitivity assessment. Resistance has been assessed as ‘None’, resilience as Very low (the pressure is a permanent change), and sensitivity as High. 

Habitat structure changes - removal of substratum (extraction)

Benchmark. The extraction of substratum to 30 cm (where substratum includes sediments and soft rock but excludes hard bedrock). Further detail

Evidence

SS.SMp.KSwSS.SlatR (plus sub-biotopes), SS.SMp.KSwSS.SlatCho can be found on a varied mixture of sediment and rock fractions. Extraction of substratum to 30 cm is likely to remove small sediment fractions (e.g. gravel) and may mobilize the remaining larger rock fractions (e.g. boulders) causing high mortality within the resident community. All characterizing species have rapid growth rates and are likely to recover within 2 years.

Sensitivity assessment. Resistance has been assessed as ‘None’, Resilience as ‘High’. Sensitivity has been assessed as ‘Medium’.

Abrasion / disturbance of the surface of the substratum or seabed

Benchmark. Damage to surface features (e.g. species and physical structures within the habitat). Further detail

Evidence

Abrasion of the substratum e.g. from bottom or pot fishing gear, cable laying etc. may cause localised mobility of the substrata and mortality of the resident community. The effect would be situation dependent, however, if bottom fishing gear were towed over a site it may mobilise a high proportion of the rock substrata and cause high mortality in the resident community.

Sensitivity assessment. Resistance has been assessed as ‘None’, Resilience as ‘High’. Sensitivity has been assessed as ‘Medium’.

Penetration or disturbance of the substratum subsurface

Benchmark. Damage to sub-surface features (e.g. species and physical structures within the habitat). Further detail

Evidence

Penetration and/or disturbance of the substrate below the surface of the seabed may cause localised mobility of the substrata and mortality of the resident community.

Sensitivity assessment. Resistance has been assessed as ‘None’, Resilience as ‘High’. Sensitivity has been assessed as ‘Medium’.

Changes in suspended solids (water clarity)

Benchmark. A change in one rank on the WFD (Water Framework Directive) scale e.g. from clear to intermediate for one year. Further detail

Evidence

Suspended Particle Matter (SPM) concentration has a positive linear relationship with subsurface light attenuation (Kd) (Devlin et al., 2008). Light availability and water turbidity are principal factors in determining depth range at which macro-algae can be found (Birkett et al., 1998b). Light penetration influences the maximum depth at which laminarians can grow and it has been reported that laminarians grow at depths at which the light levels are reduced to 1 percent of incident light at the surface. Maximal depth distribution of laminarians, therefore, varies from 100 m in the Mediterranean to only 6-7m in the silt-laden German Bight. In Atlantic European waters, the depth limit is typically 35 m. In very turbid waters the depth at which kelp is found may be reduced, or in some cases excluded completely (e.g. Severn Estuary), because of the alteration in light attenuation by suspended sediment (Lüning, 1990; Birkett et al. 1998b). Laminarians show a decrease of 50% photosynthetic activity when turbidity increases by 0.1/m (light attenuation coefficient =0.1-0.2/m; Staehr & Wernberg, 2009).

Sensitivity Assessment. A decrease in turbidity is likely to support enhanced growth (and possible habitat expansion) and is therefore not considered in this assessment. An increase in water turbidity is likely to primarily affect photosynthesis, therefore, growth and density of the canopy forming seaweeds. Resistance to this pressure is defined as ‘Low’ and resilience to this pressure is defined as ‘High’ at the benchmark level due to the scale of the impact. Hence, this biotope is regarded as having a sensitivity of ‘Low‘.

Smothering and siltation rate changes (light)

Benchmark. ‘Light’ deposition of up to 5 cm of fine material added to the seabed in a single discrete event. Further detail

Evidence

Smothering by sediment e.g. 5 cm material during a discrete event, is unlikely to damage mature examples of Saccharina latissima and Chorda filum but may provide a physical barrier to zoospore settlement and therefore could negatively impact on recruitment processes (Moy & Christie, 2012). Laboratory studies showed that kelp and gametophytes can survive in darkness for between 6-16 months at 8 °C and would probably survive smothering by a discrete event and once returned to normal conditions gametophytes resumed growth or maturation within 1 month (Dieck, 1993).

SS.SMp.KSwSS biotopes are all recorded in moderately strong tidal streams to negligible (≤1.5 m/sec) (Connor et al., 2004). In tidally exposed biotopes deposited sediment is unlikely to remain for more than a few tidal cycles (due to water flow or wave action). In sheltered biotopes deposited sediment could remain however are unlikely to remain for longer than a year.

Sensitivity assessment. Resistance has been assessed as ‘High’, resilience as ‘High’. Sensitivity has been assessed as ‘Not Sensitive’.

Smothering and siltation rate changes (heavy)

Benchmark. ‘Heavy’ deposition of up to 30 cm of fine material added to the seabed in a single discrete event. Further detail

Evidence

Smothering by sediment e.g. 30 cm material during a discrete event, is unlikely to damage mature examples of Saccharina latissima and Chorda filum but may provide a physical barrier to zoospore settlement and therefore could negatively impact on recruitment processes (Moy & Christie, 2012). Laboratory studies showed that kelp and gametophytes can survive in darkness for between 6-16 months at 8°C and would probably survive smothering by a discrete event and once returned to normal conditions gametophytes resumed growth or maturation within 1 month (Dieck, 1993).

SS.SMp.KSwSS biotopes are all recorded in moderately strong tidal streams to negligible (≤1.5 m/sec) (Connor et al., 2004). In tidally exposed biotopes deposited sediment is unlikely to remain for more than a few tidal cycles (due to water flow or wave action). In sheltered biotopes deposited sediment could remain however are unlikely to remain for longer than a year.

Sensitivity assessment. Resistance has been assessed as ‘Medium’, resilience as ‘High’. Sensitivity has been assessed as ‘Low’.

Litter

Benchmark. The introduction of man-made objects able to cause physical harm (surface, water column, seafloor or strandline). Further detail

Evidence

Not assessed.

Electromagnetic changes

Benchmark. A local electric field of 1 V/m or a local magnetic field of 10 µT. Further detail

Evidence

No evidence

Underwater noise changes

Benchmark. MSFD indicator levels (SEL or peak SPL) exceeded for 20% of days in a calendar year. Further detail

Evidence

Not relevant

Introduction of light or shading

Benchmark. A change in incident light via anthropogenic means. Further detail

Evidence

There is no evidence to suggest that anthropogenic light sources would affect macro-algae. Shading of the biotope (e.g. by the construction of a pontoon, pier etc.) could adversely affect the biotope in areas where the water clarity is also low, and tip the balance to shade tolerant species, resulting in the loss of the biotope directly within the shaded area, or a reduction in seaweed abundance.

Sensitivity assessment. Resistance is probably 'Low', with a 'Medium' resilience and a sensitivity of 'Medium', albeit with 'low' confidence due to the lack of direct evidence.

Barrier to species movement

Benchmark. A permanent or temporary barrier to species movement over ≥50% of water body width or a 10% change in tidal excursion. Further detail

Evidence

Not relevant. This pressure is considered applicable to mobile species, e.g. fish and marine mammals rather than seabed habitats. Physical and hydrographic barriers may limit the dispersal of spores.  But spore dispersal is not considered under the pressure definition and benchmark.

Death or injury by collision

Benchmark. Injury or mortality from collisions of biota with both static or moving structures due to 0.1% of tidal volume on an average tide, passing through an artificial structure. Further detail

Evidence

Not relevant. Collision from grounding vessels is addressed under abrasion above.

Visual disturbance

Benchmark. The daily duration of transient visual cues exceeds 10% of the period of site occupancy by the feature. Further detail

Evidence

Not relevant

Genetic modification & translocation of indigenous species

Benchmark. Translocation of indigenous species or the introduction of genetically modified or genetically different populations of indigenous species that may result in changes in the genetic structure of local populations, hybridization, or change in community structure. Further detail

Evidence

At the time of writing there is no evidence for translocation of Saccharina latissima, Chorda filum over significant geographic distances.

Introduction or spread of invasive non-indigenous species

Benchmark. The introduction of one or more invasive non-indigenous species (INIS). Further detail

Evidence

Competition with invasive macroalgae may be a potential threat to this biotope (de Bettignies et al., 2021).  Potential invasives include Undaria pinnatifida and Sargassum muticum.  Sargassum muticum is a circumglobal invasive species (Engelen et al., 2015).  It is recorded (2015) from Norway to Morocco and into the Mediterranean in the eastern Atlantic and from Alaska to Baja California in the eastern Pacific and from southern Russia to southern China in the western Pacific (Engelen et al., 2015).  It colonizes a variety of habitats and can tolerate -1°C to 30°C and survive salinities below 10 ppt.  Although fertilization does not occur below 15 ppt and growth of germlings is limited below 10°C it can complete its life cycle as long as temperatures are over 8°C for at least four months of the year (Engelen et al., 2015).  However, its distribution is limited by the availability of hard substratum (e.g. stones >10 cm) and light (Staeher et al., 2000; Strong & Dring 2011; Engelen et al., 2015).  It is most abundant between 1 and 3 m below mean water.  But it has been recorded at 18 m or 30 m in the clear waters of California.  However, it is a poor competitor under low light and only develops dense canopies in shallow areas (Engelen et al., 2015). 

Sargassum muticum was shown to replace and out-compete leathery, canopy-forming macroalgae such as Saccharina latissima, Halidrys siliquosa, and Fucus spp. and, to a lesser degree, understorey species such as Codium fragile, Chondrus crispus and Dictyota dichotoma in Limfjorden, Denmark between 1984 and 1997 (Staehr et al., 2000; Engelen et al., 2015; de Bettignies et al., 2021).  The invasion in Limfjorden had stabilized by 2005 although many of the native macroalgal species continued to decline (Engelen et al., 2015).  In Limfjorden, the distribution of Sargassum muticum was limited to areas with hard substratum, in particular stones > 10 cm in diameter, while smaller stones, gravel and sand were unsuitable.  It was most abundant between 1 and 4 m in depth but had low cover at 0-0.5 m or 4-6 m, in the turbid waters of the Limfjorden.  Limfjorden is wave sheltered although wave exposure has been reported to restrict the growth and survival of Sargassum muticum (Staehr et al., 2000).  Viejo et al. (1995) reported that Sargassum muticum transplanted to wave exposed shores in Spain experienced >80% breakages within a month and that the growth of undamaged plants was significantly lower than that of plants on sheltered shores.  Similarly, Andrew & Viejo (1998) noted that Sargassum muticum was restricted to intertidal rockpools in wave exposed sites in the Bay of Biscay. 

Strong & Dring (2011) used canopy removal experiments to investigate inter- and intra-species competition between Sargassum muticum and Saccharina latissima in the Dorn, Strangford Lough, N. Ireland.  The Dorn consists of tidal pools, very sheltered from wave action but with moderately strong tidal streams (1-2 knots).  Sargassum muticum grew better in mixed stands with Saccharina latissima than in the highest density monospecific stands examined.  However, the growth of Saccharina was not affected by the proportion of Sargassum in mixed stands.  They concluded that Saccharina was not impacted significantly by the alien species while Sargassum benefited from growth in mixed stands.  Experimental manipulation of subtidal algal canopies in San Juan Islands, Washington State, USA, showed that Sargassum muticum reduced the abundance of native macroalgae, including the kelp Laminaria bongardiana due to shading.  However, experimental removal of Sargassum resulted in the recovery of native species within about one year (Britton-Simmons, 2004; Engelen et al., 2015).  The negative effects of Sargassum muticum on native macroalgae are mainly due to competition for light, rather than changes in nutrient availability, sedimentation or water flow (Britton-Simmons, 2004; Engelen et al., 2015).   

Undaria pinnatifida (Wakame or Asian kelp) is a large brown seaweed and an Invasive Non-Indigenous Species (INIS) that could out-compete native UK kelp species (see Farrell & Fletcher, 2006; Thompson & Schiel, 2012; Brodie et al., 2014; Hieser et al., 2014; Arnold et al., 2016; Epstein & Smale, 2017; Epstein & Smale, 2018; Kraan, 2017; Epstein et al., 2019a,b; Tidbury, 2020).  Undaria pinnatifida originates from Japan but is established currently on the coastlines of New Zealand, Australia, Northern France, Spain, Italy, the UK, Portugal, Belgium, Holland, Argentina, Mexico, and the USA (De Leij et al., 2017).  Undaria pinnatifida was first recorded in the UK in the Hamble Estuary in 1994 (Macleod et al., 2016).  It has since proliferated along UK coastlines.  One year after its discovery at the Queen Anne Battery marina, Plymouth, it had become a major fouling plant on pontoons (Minchin & Nunn, 2014).  Although initially restricted to artificial habitats, such as marinas and ports, it is now widespread in natural habitats in several areas, including Plymouth Sound.

Undaria pinnatifida seems to settle better on artificial substrata (e.g. floats, marinas, or piers) than on natural rocky shores among local kelps (Vaz-Pinto et al., 2014).  It is found predominantly in low intertidal to shallow subtidal habitats (Epstein et al., 2019b) and is significantly more abundant on artificial substrata compared to natural rocky substrata (Heiser et al., 2014; Epstein & Smale, 2018).  James (2017) suggested that Undaria pinnatifida could out-compete native species on artificial substrata (such as marinas and wharf structures).  In Plymouth, UK, De Leij et al. (2017) found that natural habitats with dense native macroalgal canopies, such as Laminaria hyperborea, Laminaria ochroleuca, Laminaria digitata, and Saccharina latissima had more resistance to Undaria pinnatifida invasion than disturbed or sparse canopies, due to limited space and light availability for Undaria pinnatifida recruits. However, the dense canopies did not always prevent the invasion of Undaria pinnatifida as sporophytes were still recorded within dense Laminaria canopies, so canopy disturbance was not always required (De Leij et al., 2017; Epstein & Smale, 2018).

Undaria pinnatifida species behaves as a winter annual and recruitment occurs in winter followed by rapid growth through spring, maturity, and then senescence through summer, with only the microscopic life stages persisting through autumn.  It exhibits multiple dispersal strategies, such as short-range spore dispersal, and long-range dispersal as whole drift plants or fragments.  Undaria pinnatifida has spread rapidly across the UK and Europe, resulting in community-wide responses and impacts (Vaz-Pinto et al., 2014; Epstein & Smale, 2017). Its impacts are complex and context-specific, depending on space, time, and taxa present in the introduced location (Epstein & Smale, 2017; Teagle et al., 2017; Tidbury, 2020). 

Undaria pinnatifida has a wide physiological niche meaning it can occur in both coastal and estuarine environments showing tolerance for varying salinities, turbidity, and siltation (Heiser et al., 2014; Epstein & Smale, 2018). Undaria pinnatifida can inhibit a broad range of habitats including – reefs; coastal brackish/saline lagoons; large shallow inlets and bays; estuaries; estuarine rocky habitats; natural or near-natural estuary; coastal lagoons; and tidal rivers, estuaries, mudflats, sandflats and lagoons (James 2017).   Undaria pinnatifida prefers sites sheltered with low wave exposure and weak tidal streams (Heiser et al., 2014; Epstein & Smale, 2018).  In natural habitats, Undaria pinnatifida was not recorded if the wave fetch was greater than 642 km but increased in abundance and cover in very sheltered sites (Epstein & Smale, 2018).

In Plymouth Sound (UK), Epstein et al. (2019b) found that within its depth range (+1 to –4 m), Undaria pinnatifida co-existed with seven species of canopy-forming brown macroalgae, including Saccharina latissima.  However, they reported that Undaria pinnatifida biomass was negatively related to Saccharina latissima in both intertidal and subtidal habitats. This was only statistically significant in subtidal habitats, which suggested that there was some competition between the two species (Epstein et al., 2019b). Heiser et al. (2014) surveyed 17 sites within Plymouth Sound, UK and found that Saccharina latissima was significantly more abundant at sites with Undaria pinnatifida with ca 5 Saccharina latissima individuals present per m², compared to ca 0.5 Saccharina latissima individuals per m² present at sites without Undaria pinnatifida. 

Undaria pinnatifida has been reported to both co-exist with and out-compete Saccharina latissima (Farrell & Fletcher, 2006; Heiser et al., 2014; Epstein et al., 2019b). For example, in Torquay Marina, UK, Farrell & Fletcher (2006) completed a canopy removal experiment between 1996-2002. They reported that Saccharina latissima decreased in both control and treatment plots from ca 3 plants per 0.45 m² in 1996 to ca 1 plant per 0.45 m² in 1997 and had disappeared completely from pontoons by 2002. This coincided with a significant increase in Undaria pinnatifida from zero plants per 0.45 m² in 1996 to ca 6 plants per 0.45 m² in 1997.  However, there was a slight decrease in Undaria pinnatifida in both control and treatment plots between 1997 and 1998.  By 2002, Undaria pinnatifida had recovered at control and treatment plots to ca 4-6 plants per 0.45 m² whereas Saccharina latissima had not.

Undaria pinnatifida was successfully eradicated on a sunken ship in Clatham Islands, New Zealand, by applying a heat treatment of 70°C (Wotton et al., 2004).  However, numerous other eradication attempts have failed and, as noted by Fletcher & Farrell (1998), once established Undaria pinnatifida resists most attempts at long-term removal.

The proliferation of Undaria pinnatifida and competition with native species may cause a reduction in local biodiversity (Valentine & Johnson, 2003; Vaz-Pinto et al., 2014; Arnold et al., 2016; Teagle, 2017; Tidbury, 2020).  A shift towards Undaria pinnatifida dominated beds could result in diminished epibiotic assemblages and lower local biodiversity compared with assemblages associated with native perennial kelp species, such as Laminaria spp. and Saccharina latissima (Arnold et al., 2016; Teagle et al., 2017).  In Plymouth, UK, Arnold et al. (2016) found that Undaria pinnatifida supported less than half the number of taxa and had no unique epibionts compared to Laminaria ochroleuca and Saccharina latissima (Arnold et al., 2016). 

Sensitivity assessment. The above evidence suggests that both Sargassum muticum and Undaria pinnatifida can both compete with and co-exist with Saccharina latissima, depending on local conditions.  For example, Undaria pinnatifida can out-compete Saccharina latissima in artificial habitats, such as in Torquay Marina but within natural habitats, it can co-exist with native kelp species within its depth range (-1 to 4 m), as shown in Plymouth Sound, UK.  Similarly, Sargassum muticum out-competed Saccharina latissima in the Limfjorden but coexisted in the Dorn in Strangford Lough. 

This biotope (SS.SMp.KSwSS.SlatR.CbPb) is dominated by opportunistic and transient macroalgae (e.g. Saccharina latissima) or hardy macroalgae that can withstand seasonal mobility of the cobbles and pebbles due to storms. It is found at 0-30 m (JNCC, 2015, 2022) and at full salinity with moderately strong to weak tidal streams and moderate wave exposure to sheltered conditions.  The evidence above suggests that Undaria prefers sheltered conditions, with a low tidal flow, in the shallow subtidal and sublittoral fringe (ca +1 to 4 m in depth), while Sargassum also prefers wave sheltered conditions and shallow water (ca 1 to 4 m depth).  Therefore, Undaria pinnatifida and Sargassum muticum are only likely to threaten the most shallow (e.g. 0-5 m) and wave sheltered examples of this biotope.  They may either co-exist with or out-compete Saccharina latissima, resulting in a potentially significant (25-75%) reduction in the abundance or extent of the native kelp, especially as it occurs at reduced abundance (frequent) in the biotope, together with a possible decrease in the diversity of other macroalgae.  Therefore, resistance is assessed as ‘Low’ for shallow, wave sheltered examples of the biotope, i.e. above 5 m in depth, while it is probably ‘Not relevant’ to examples below 5 m.  The biotope is probably scoured seasonally so that the resident opportunistic macroalgae would need to recolonize from the surrounding area or regrow from resilient holdfasts and/or resting stages.  Winter storms may reduce or prevent Undaria recruitment while Sargassum develops from perennial holdfasts. Therefore, the biotope recovers annually. Recovery after invasion by Sargassum or Undaria would depend on the relative competition for space between the native kelp Saccharina latissima, other large browns and understorey species (e.g. Desmarestia) on an annual basis although the invasives may become a permanent part of the community. Complete removal of Sargassum, in particular, may require direct intervention so that resilience is assessed as ‘Very low’.  Hence, the sensitivity of shallow, sheltered, examples of the biotope is assessed as ‘High’. Overall, confidence is assessed as ‘Low’ due to evidence of variation and site-specific nature of competition between native kelps, Sargassum muticum, and Undaria pinnatifida.

Introduction of microbial pathogens

Benchmark. The introduction of relevant microbial pathogens or metazoan disease vectors to an area where they are currently not present (e.g. Martelia refringens and Bonamia, Avian influenza virus, viral Haemorrhagic Septicaemia virus). Further detail

Evidence

Laminarians may be infected by the microscopic brown alga Streblonema aecidioides. Infected algae show symptoms of Streblonema disease, i.e. alterations of the blade and stipe ranging from dark spots to heavy deformations and completely crippled thalli Infection can reduce growth rates of host algae (Peters & Scaffelke, 1996). The marine fungi Eurychasma spp can also infect early life stages of laminarians, however, the effects of infection are unknown (Müller et al., 1999).

Sensitivity assessment. Resistance to the pressure is considered ‘Low’, and resilience ‘High’. The sensitivity of this biotope to the introduction of microbial pathogens is assessed as ‘Low’.

Removal of target species

Benchmark. Removal of species targeted by fishery, shellfishery or harvesting at a commercial or recreational scale. Further detail

Evidence

This pressure has been assessed as ‘Not relevant’.

There has been recent commercial interest in Saccharina lattissima as a consumable called “sea vegetables” (Birket et al., 1998). However, Saccharina lattissima sporophytes are typically matured on ropes (Handå et al 2013) and not directly extracted from the seabed, as with Laminaria hyperborea (Christie et al., 1998). No evidence has been found for commercial extraction of Chorda filum.

Removal of non-target species

Benchmark. Removal of features or incidental non-targeted catch (by-catch) through targeted fishery, shellfishery or harvesting at a commercial or recreational scale. Further detail

Evidence

Low level disturbances (e.g. solitary anchors) are unlikely to cause harm to the biotope as a whole, due to the impact’s small footprint. Thus, evidence to assess the resistance of SS.SMp.KSwSS.SlatR (plus sub-biotopes), SS.SMp.KSwSS.SlatCho to non-targeted removal is limited. It is assumed that incidental non-targeted catch (e.g. by trawls or dredges) could mobilise sediment, remove large kelp species, overturn boulders and cobbles and bury smaller seaweeds and cause high mortality within the affected area.

Sensitivity assessment. Resistance has been assessed as ‘None’, Resilience as ‘High’. Sensitivity has been assessed as ‘Medium’.