ArticlePDF Available

Biodiversity loss from deep-sea mining

Authors:
  • Commonwealth Secretariat, London, UK
NATURE GEOSCIENCE | ADVANCE ONLINE PUBLICATION | www.nature.com/naturegeoscience 1
correspondence
To the Editor — e emerging deep-sea
mining industry is seen by some to be
an engine for economic development in
the maritime sector1. e International
Seabed Authority — the body that
regulates mining activities on the seabed
beyond national jurisdiction — must also
protect the marine environment from
harmful eects that arise from mining2.
e International Seabed Authority is
currently draing a regulatory framework
for deep-sea mining that includes
measures for environmental protection.
Responsible mining increasingly strives
to work with no net loss of biodiversity3.
Financial and regulatory frameworks
commonly require extractive industries
to use a four-tier mitigation hierarchy
to prevent biodiversity loss: in order of
priority, biodiversity loss is to be avoided,
minimized, remediated and — as a last
resort — oset4,5. We argue here that
mining with no net loss of biodiversity
using this mitigation hierarchy in the deep
sea is an unattainable goal.
e rst tier of the mitigation hierarchy
is avoidance. Potentially useful mitigation
strategies in the deep sea include patchwork
extraction, whereby some minerals with
associated fauna are le undisturbed, or
other means to limit the direct mining
footprint. Even so, loss of biodiversity will
be unavoidable because mining directly
destroys habitat and indirectly degrades
large volumes of the water column and
areas of the seabed due to the generation
of sediment plumes that are enriched in
bioavailable metals.
Although biodiversity loss within
mines is inevitable, innovative engineering
design could reduce or minimize some
risks to near- and far-eld biodiversity.
For example, shrouds tted to cutting
equipment might reduce the dispersion
of sediment plumes and the footprint
of plume impacts such as the burial of
organisms. Similarly, vehicle design might
limit compaction of seabed sediments.
Of course, the ecacy of such eorts in
mitigating biodiversity loss would need to
be tested.
Remediation addresses the residual
loss of biodiversity at and around a mine
site aer avoidance and minimization
interventions. In the deep sea, native
species are oen slow to recruit and
recolonize disturbed habitats. Slow
recovery on the scale of decades to
centuries, enormous spatial scales of mines
for certain mineral resources (a single
30-year operation license to mine metal-
rich nodules will involve an area about
the size of Austria6) and the high cost of
working in the deep sea may mean that
remediation is unrealistic7. Further, the
science of deep-sea benthic remediation is
a nascent eld8. It is far from established
that remediation of industrial mine sites
in the deep sea is feasible for any mineral
resource, and we know of no remediation
actions that can be applied to the
water column.
e last resort in the mitigation
hierarchy is in-kind or like-for-like
osets within a biogeographical region.
When osets cannot be located where the
aected biodiversity is found, and where
the aected biodiversity is important for
geographically restricted functions such
as connectivity (as is the case for the deep
sea), in-kind osets are not an appropriate
mitigation strategy9. Out-of-kind osets10,
such as restoring coral reefs in exchange
for loss of deep-sea biodiversity, have been
proposed, but this practice assumes that
loss of largely unknown deep-sea species
and ecosystems is acceptable. We question
this assumption on scientic grounds. e
relationship between any gain in biological
diversity in an out-of-kind setting and
loss of biological diversity in the deep
sea is so ambiguous as to be scientically
meaningless. Further, compensating
biodiversity loss in international waters
with biodiversity gains in national waters
could constitute a transfer of wealth that
runs counter to the Law of the Sea, where
benets from deep seabed mining must
accrue to the international community at
large, as part of the common heritage of
humankind. Given the paucity of other
industrial activities in the deep sea (except
perhaps sheries), it is dicult to imagine
a scenario where averted risk osets10 could
apply; that is, where a mining operation
could avert biodiversity losses from
other activities.
e four-tier mitigation hierarchy used
so oen to minimize biodiversity loss in
terrestrial mining and oshore oil and
gas operations thus fails when applied
to the deep ocean. Residual biodiversity
loss cannot be mitigated through
remediation or osets and the goal of no
net loss of biodiversity is not achievable for
deep-seabed mining. Focus therefore must
be on avoiding and minimizing harm. Most
mining-induced loss of biodiversity in the
deep sea is likely to last forever on human
timescales, given the very slow natural
rates of recovery in aected ecosystems. It
is incumbent on the International Seabed
Authority to communicate to the public the
potentially serious implications of this loss
of biodiversity and ask for a response.
References
1. Blue Growth: Opportunities for Marine and Maritime
Sustainable Growth (European Comission, 2012);
http://dx.doi.org/10.2771/43949
2. Levin, L.A. etal. Mar. Poli cy 74, 245–259 (2016).
3. Rainey, H.J. etal. Oryx 49, 232–238 (2015).
4. Ekstrom, J., Bennun, L. & Mitchell, R. A Cross-sector Guide for
Implementing the Mitigation Hierarchy (Cross Sector Biodiversity
Initiative, 2015).
5. Performance Standard 6: Biodiversity Conservation and
Sustainable Management of Living Natural Res ources
(International Finance Corporation, 2012).
6. Smith, C.R., Levin, L.A., Koslow, A., Tyler, P.A. &
Glover, A.G. in Aquatic Ecosystems: Trends and Global Prospects
(ed. Polunin, N.) 334–349 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2008).
7. Van Dover, C.L. etal. Mar. P olic y 44, 98–106 (2014).
8. Strömberg, S.M., Lundälv, T. & Goreau, T.J. J.Exp. Mar. Bio. Ecol.
395, 153–161 (2010).
9. Pilgrim, J.D. etal. Conserv. Lett. 6, 376–384 (2013).
10. Guidance Notes to the Standard on Biodiversity Osets (Business
and Biodiversity Osets Program, 2012).
Biodiversity loss from deep-sea mining
The Tu’i Malila vent field in the Lau Basin,
southwest Pacific. Lau Basin foundation species
(Alviniconcha spp. snails, Ifremeria nautilei snails,
and Bathymodiolus septemdierum mussels) live
in diuse flow on the surfaces of metal-rich
sulfide deposits.
KAREN JACOBSEN, IN SITU SCIENCE ILLUSTRATION
2 NATURE GEOSCIENCE | ADVANCE ONLINE PUBLICATION | www.nature.com/naturegeoscience
correspondence
C. L. Van Dover1*, J. A. Ardron2, E. Escobar3,
M. Gianni4, K. M. Gjerde5, A. Jaeckel6,
D. O. B. Jones2, L. A. Levin7, H. J. Niner8,
L. Pendleton1,9, C. R. Smith10, T. Thiele11,
P. J. Turner1, L. Watling12 and P. P. E. Weaver13
1Division of Marine Science and Conservation,
Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke
University, Beaufort, North Carolina 28516, USA.
2National Oceanography Centre, University of
Southampton, Waterfront Campus, European
Way, Southampton SO14 3ZH, UK. 3UNAM
ICML-CU, Biodiversidad y Macroecologia, 04510
Mexico City, Mexico. 4Deep-Sea Conservation
Coalition, Postbus 59681, 1040 LD Amsterdam,
Netherlands. 5IUCN Marine and Polar Programme,
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA.
6Macquarie Law School and Macquarie Marine
Research Centre, Macquarie University, New
South Wales 2109, Australia. 7Center for Marine
Biodiversity and Conservation, Scripps Institution
of Oceanography, UC San Diego, La Jolla,
California 92093-0218 USA. 8University College
London, Torrens Building, 220 Victoria Square,
Adelaide 5000, Australia. 9Université de Bretagne
Occidentale, UMR6308 AMURE, IUEM, 29280
Plouzané, France. 10Department of Oceanography,
1000 Pope Road, University of Hawaii at Mānoa,
Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 USA. 11Institute of
Global Aairs, London School of Economics,
London WC2A 2AZ, UK. 12Department of Biology,
Edmondson Hall, University of Hawaii at Mānoa,
Honolulu, Hawaii 96822, USA. 13Seascape
Consultants, Romsey SO51 0QA, UK.
*e-mail: clv3@duke.edu
Acknowledgements
Research leading to these ndings was supported by the
National Science Foundation (C.L.V.D.), Pew Charitable
Trusts (C.L.V.D.), International Climate Initiative (GOBI;
C.L.V.D.), Université Occidental de Bretagne and Institut
Universitaire Européen de la Mer (C.L.V.D., L.P.), 7th
EU Framework (MIDAS #603418; J.A.A., D.O.B.J., M.G.,
K.M.G., P.P.E.W.), EU Horizon 2020 (MERCES #689518,
D.O.B.J.) and the J.M. Kaplan Fund (L.A.L.).
Competing interests
C.L.V.D. and L.A.L. received research support from
Nautilus Minerals; C.R.S. received research support from
UK Seabed Resources DevelopmentLimited.
Published online: 26 June 2017
... Deep seabed mining (DSM) is an emerging industry that could carry significant risks for the marine environment. Mining operations will cause biodiversity loss (Van Dover et al., 2017;Niner et al., 2018) and knock-on effects on the food web (Stratmann et al., 2018;Stratmann et al., 2021) due to habitat destruction (Vanreusel et al., 2016;Volz et al., 2020), sediment plumes (Muñoz-Royo et al., 2022) and noise and light pollution (Williams et al., 2022). In aiming to reduce those environmental risks through an ecosystem-based and precautionary approach (ITLOS, 2011), the International Seabed Authority (ISA), which regulates and manages all DSM-related activities on the international seabed "Area", 1 requires mining operators to apply Best Environmental Practice (BEP). 2 In this context, BEP means 'the most appropriate combination of environmental control measures and strategies' at any given point in time. ...
Article
Full-text available
Best environmental practice (BEP) is a key component of an ecosystem approach to management and is typically a product of practical experience in established industries. For an emerging activity such as deep seabed mining, no such experience will exist at the time of deciding on the permissibility of the first industrial mines. Therefore, experience from deep ocean scientific experiments and research are important to develop a preliminary understanding of BEP for deep seabed mining. This paper offers a detailed review of the scientific literature from which it identifies elements of preliminary BEP for nodule mining. The paper describes the currently envisaged mining process for manganese nodules and its expected effects on the environment and extracts specific recommendations on how to minimise environmental impacts from mining in different layers of the ocean (benthic, benthopelagic, pelagic, and surface waters) as well as from noise and light impacts. In doing so, the paper aims to inform the Mining Code being developed by the International Seabed Authority (ISA). The ISA is the intergovernmental institution mandated to organise and control seabed mining on the international seabed. The ISA is obligated to ensure effective protection of the marine environment from harm likely to arise from mining, with BEP being a core tool to achieve that. This paper provides suggestions for a future ISA Standard on BEP.
... There is overwhelming scientific evidence of serious adverse effects on the sea environment. These include the destruction of natural landforms and the wildlife they support and the formation of large sediment plumes that disrupt aquatic life (for example, Ahnert and Borowski, 2000;DFO, 2000;Halfar and Fujita, 2007;Sharma, 2011;Van Dover et al., 2017;Miller et al., 2018;Orcutt et al., 2020;Scales, 2021;Farran, 2022). ...
Article
Full-text available
The discovery of rare metal resources in international waters has raised seabed mining claims for large areas of the bottom. There is abundant scientific evidence of major negative consequences for the maritime environment, such as the destruction of natural landforms and the fauna that depend on them, as well as the production of enormous silt plumes that disrupt aquatic life. This study investigated the environmental risks of seabed mining for metal resources in the Baltic Sea using a combination of hydrodynamic, particle-tracking, and sediment-transport models. The models were applied for ten years i.e., 2000-2009 under prevailing conditions to simulate seabed mining operations. The focus was on sediment concentration near the seabed and its spread. The mean background concentrations were low with small seasonal bed-level variations throughout the Baltic Sea Basin. Late summer and early autumn periods were the most active. Seabed mining significantly alters the dynamics of sediment suspensions and bed level variations. The concentrations increase unsustainably to high levels, posing a serious threat to the ecological health of the Baltic Sea. The Gotland basins in the Baltic Sea are the most susceptible to mining. The bed level variations will be ten-fold, exposing the highly contaminated sediments at the seabed to the flow. In less than a year, 30-60% of the total particles released in each basin reached the thermocline layers. This study suggests that seabed mining in the Baltic Sea is not sustainable.
... However, ocean mining will inevitably damage the marine environment and biodiversity, which has been highlighted over the past several years [6,7]. For instance, the dispersion of sediment plumes and the footprint of plumes have strong negative impacts on benthic organisms, even leading to biodiversity loss [6,8]. Although extensive studies have revealed the geographical distribution and polymetallic composition of manganese nodules in marine sediments [2,9,10], the microbial diversity underneath sediments where polymetallic nodules exist is understudied [11]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Deep ocean polymetallic nodules, rich in cobalt, nickel, and titanium which are commonly used in high-technology and biotechnology applications, are being eyed for green energy transition through deep-sea mining operations. Prokaryotic communities underneath polymetallic nodules could participate in deep-sea biogeochemical cycling, however, are not fully described. To address this gap, we collected sediment cores from Nazimov guyots, where polymetallic nodules exist, to explore the diversity and vertical distribution of prokaryotic communities. Our 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing data, quantitative PCR results, and phylogenetic beta diversity indices showed that prokaryotic diversity in the surficial layers (0–8 cm) was > 4-fold higher compared to deeper horizons (8–26 cm), while heterotrophs dominated in all sediment horizons. Proteobacteria was the most abundant taxon (32–82%) across all sediment depths, followed by Thaumarchaeota (4–37%), Firmicutes (2–18%), and Planctomycetes (1–6%). Depth was the key factor controlling prokaryotic distribution, while heavy metals (e.g., iron, copper, nickel, cobalt, zinc) can also influence significantly the downcore distribution of prokaryotic communities. Analyses of phylogenetic diversity showed that deterministic processes governing prokaryotic assembly in surficial layers, contrasting with stochastic influences in deep layers. This was further supported from the detection of a more complex prokaryotic co-occurrence network in the surficial layer which suggested more diverse prokaryotic communities existed in the surface vs. deeper sediments. This study expands current knowledge on the vertical distribution of benthic prokaryotic diversity in deep sea settings underneath polymetallic nodules, and the results reported might set a baseline for future mining decisions.
... (2) Deep-sea mining activities involve several direct impacts to the deep-sea environment, including direct damage to benthic organisms, re-deposition and emission of particulates, potential upwelling and marine pollution [13,138]. The exploitation of seabed mineral resources will change the seabed landform, which will have a great impact on the seabed environment [139]. ...
... The deep sea and high seas are subject to threats such as overfishing [34], deep-sea mining [35], climate change and pollution [36]; sponges are habitat-forming organisms [37] royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rspb Proc. R. Soc. ...
Article
Full-text available
Sponges pump water to filter feed and for diffusive oxygen uptake. In doing so, trace DNA fragments from a multitude of organisms living around them are trapped in their tissues. Here we show that the environmental DNA retrieved from archived marine sponge specimens can reconstruct the fish communities at the place of sampling and discriminate North Atlantic assemblages according to biogeographic region (from Western Greenland to Svalbard), depth habitat (80–1600 m), and even the level of protection in place. Given the cost associated with ocean biodiversity surveys, we argue that targeted and opportunistic sponge samples – as well as the specimens already stored in museums and other research collections – represent an invaluable trove of biodiversity information that can significantly extend the reach of ocean monitoring.
... It is known to host diverse benthic ecosystems, including cold-water coral reefs, sponge grounds, hydrothermal vents and cold-seeps (Ramirez-Llodra et al., 2010), providing crucial ecosystem services, such as carbon sequestration and storage, nutrient cycling, and the provision of food and energy resources (Thurber et al., 2014;Swanborn et al., 2022). Deep-sea ecosystems have historically been impacted by human activities, including those that focus on the direct exploitation of biological resources (e.g., fisheries), as well as those that target non-living resources (e.g. oil and gas exploitation) (Morato et al., 2006;Van Dover et al., 2017). Moreover, in the past the deep sea has been utilized as a dumping ground for chemical and nuclear wastes, along with serving as a sequestering site for substantial quantities of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) (Ramirez-Llodra et al., 2010). ...
Article
Abandoned, lost, or discarded fishing gear (ALDFG), represents a significant percentage of the global plastic pollution, currently considered one of the major sources from sea-based activities. However, there is still limited understanding of the quantities of ALDFG present on the seafloor and their impacts. In this study, data on the presence of ALDFG was obtained from a large archive of seafloor video footage (351 dives) collected by different imaging platforms in the Azores region over 15 years (2006-2020). Most ALDFG items observed in the images relate to the local bottom longline fishery operating in the region, and include longlines but also anchors, weights, cables and buoys. A generalized additive mixed model (GAMM) was used to predict the distribution and abundance of ALDFG over the seafloor within the limits of the Azores Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) using a suite of environmental and anthropogenic variables. We estimated an average of 113 ± 310 items km-2 (597 ± 756 per km-2 above 1000 m depth) which could imply that over 20 million ALDFG items are present on the deep seafloor of the Azores EEZ. The resulting model identified potential hotspots of ALDFG along the seabed, some of them located over sensitive benthic habitats, such as specific seamounts. In addition, the interactions between ALDFG and benthic organisms were also analysed. Numerous entanglements were observed with several species of large anthozoans and sponges. The use of predictive distribution modelling for ALDFG should be regarded as a useful tool to support ecosystem-based management, which can provide indirect information about fishing pressure and allow the identification of potential high-risk areas. Additional knowledge about the sources, amounts, fates and impacts of ALDFG will be key to address the global issue of plastic pollution and the effects of fishing on marine ecosystems.
Preprint
Full-text available
Deep ocean polymetallic nodules, rich in cobalt, nickel, and titanium which are commonly used in high-technology and biotechnology applications, are being eyed for green energy transition through deep-sea mining operations. Prokaryotic communities underneath polymetallic nodules could participate in deep-sea biogeochemical cycling, however, are not fully described. To address this gap, we collected sediment cores from Nazimov guyots, where polymetallic nodules exist, to explore the diversity and vertical distribution of prokaryotic communities. Our 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing data, quantitative PCR results and phylogenetic beta diversity indices showed that prokaryotic diversity in the surficial layers (0–8 cm) was > 4-fold higher compared to deeper horizons (8–26 cm), while heterotrophs dominated in all sediment horizons. Proteobacteria was the most abundant taxon (32–82%) across all sediment depths, followed by Thaumarchaeota (4–37%), Firmicutes (2–18%) and Planctomycetes (1–6%). Depth was the key factor controlling prokaryotic distribution, while heavy metals (e.g., iron, copper, nickel, cobalt, zinc) can also influence significantly the downcore distribution of prokaryotic communities. Analyses of phylogenetic diversity showed that deterministic processes governing prokaryotic assembly in surficial layers, contrasting with stochastic influences in deep layers. This was further supported from the detection of a more complex prokaryotic co-occurrence network in the surficial layer which suggested more diverse prokaryotic communities existed in the surface vs. deeper sediments. This study expands current knowledge on the vertical distribution of benthic prokaryotic diversity in deep sea settings underneath polymetallic nodules, and the results reported might set a baseline for future mining decisions.
Article
Full-text available
The global economy is increasingly focusing on the Oceans to meet its needs, for which maritime spatial planning is being fostered to promote this is done sustainably. Thus, assessing the current state and future development trends of the maritime sectors is key to evaluating the performance of the planning process. This is the aim of this study, in which the main maritime sectors related to the blue economy present in the archipelagos of the European Macaronesia Sea Basin, i.e. the Azores and Madeira (Portugal), and the Canary Islands (Spain), were identified and studied. The following maritime sectors were analysed: fisheries, marine aquaculture, marine biotechnology, coastal and maritime tourism, maritime transport, ship repair and maintenance, extraction of aggregates, deep-sea mining, offshore oil and gas, renewable ocean energies, and desalination. As part of the PLASMAR project, partners undertook in 2017-19 a literature review gathering scientific papers, official statistics and reports, which were complemented by interviews with experts from the economic sectors and public administration departments. Results show that while some maritime sectors are well established, others are emerging sectors with varying long-term growth potential. Besides, development patterns vary across the archipelagos. This study represents the first effort in the Macaronesia Sea Basin to set the basis of the current and future development conditions of the blue economy in applicability to maritime spatial planning processes at a regional level. The future post-pandemic context will provide a unique opportunity to promote the blue economy sectors and activities through the support provided by the EU Green Deal and Recovery and Resilience Plans, as well as with the actions envisioned under the United Nations Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (2021-2030). The European Macaronesia example-given its wide maritime territory, commitment, and capacities in terms of expertise and networking-presents a great potential to act as a good practice to extrapolate the new approach for a sustainable blue economy to other similar geographical settings such as island regions/states.
Chapter
This book examines liability for environmental harm in Antarctic, deep seabed, and high seas commons areas, highlighting a unique set of legal questions: Who has standing to claim environmental harms in global commons ecosystems? How should questions of causation and liability be addressed where harm arises from a variety of activities by state and non-state actors? What kinds of harm should be compensable in global commons ecosystems, which are remote and characterized by high levels of scientific uncertainty? How can practical concerns such as ensuring adequate funds for compensation be resolved? This book provides the first in-depth examination and evaluation of current rules and possible avenues for future legal developments in this area of increasing importance for states, international organizations, commercial actors, and legal and governance scholars. This title is part of the Flip it Open Programme and may also be available Open Access. Check our website Cambridge Core for details.
Article
Full-text available
Increased recognition of the business case for managing corporate impacts on the environment has helped drive increasingly detailed and quantified corporate environmental goals. Foremost among these are goals of no net loss (NNL) and net positive impact (NPI). We assess the scale and growth of such corporate goals. Since the first public, company-wide NNL/NPI goal in 2001, 32 companies have set similar goals, of which 18 specifically include biodiversity. Mining companies have set the most NNL/NPI goals, and the majority of those that include biodiversity, despite the generally lower total global impact of the mining industry on biodiversity compared to the agriculture or forestry industries. This could be linked to the mining industry's greater participation in best practice bodies, high-profile impacts, and higher profit margins per area of impact. The detail and quality of present goals vary widely. We examined specific NNL/NPI goals and assessed the extent to which their key components were likely to increase the effectiveness of these goals in benefiting biodiversity and managing business risk. Nonetheless, outcomes are more important than goals, and we urge conservationists to work with companies to both support and monitor their efforts to achieve increasingly ambitious environmental goals.
Article
Full-text available
An era of expanding deep-ocean industrialization is before us, with policy makers establishing governance frameworks for sustainable management of deep-sea resources while scientists learn more about the ecological structure and functioning of the largest biome on the planet. Missing from discussion of the stewardship of the deep ocean is ecological restoration. If existing activities in the deep sea continue or are expanded and new deep-ocean industries are developed, there is need to consider what is required to minimize or repair resulting damages to the deep-sea environment. In addition, thought should be given as to how any past damage can be rectified. This paper develops the discourse on deep-sea restoration and offers guidance on planning and implementing ecological restoration projects for deep-sea ecosystems that are already, or are at threat of becoming, degraded, damaged or destroyed. Two deep-sea restoration case studies or scenarios are described (deep-sea stony corals on the Darwin Mounds off the west coast of Scotland, deep-sea hydrothermal vents in Manus Basin, Papua New Guinea) and are contrasted with on-going saltmarsh restoration in San Francisco Bay. For these case studies, a set of socio-economic, ecological, and technological decision parameters that might favor (or not) their restoration are examined. Costs for hypothetical restoration scenarios in the deep sea are estimated and first indications suggest they may be two to three orders of magnitude greater per hectare than costs for restoration efforts in shallow-water marine systems.
Article
Full-text available
INTRODUCTION The deep-sea floor lies between the shelf break (c.200 m depth) and the bottom of the Challenger Deep (c.11 000 m depth). It covers more than 300 × 106 km2 and constitutes c.63% of the Earth's solid surface. The distinct habitats of the deep-sea floor are varied, and include sediment-covered slopes, abyssal plains and ocean trenches, the pillow basalts of mid-ocean ridges, rocky seamounts protruding above the sea floor and submarine canyons dissecting continental slopes. The sedimented plains of the slope and abyss are the largest in area, covering >90% of the deep-sea floor and often extending unbroken for over a thousand kilometres. Deep-sea trenches, where continental plates overrun oceanic crust, constitute 1–2% of the deep-ocean bottom. The rocky substrates of mid-ocean ridges (ribbons c.10 km wide, in total approximately 60 000 km long), seamounts (perhaps 50 000–100 000 in number: Epp & Smoot 1989; Smith 1991; Rogers 1994) and submarine canyons are relatively rare habitats in the enormous expanses of the deep sea, together estimated to occupy <4% of the sea floor. Many deep-sea floor habitats share ecological characteristics that make them especially sensitive to environmental change and human impacts. Perhaps the most important characteristic is low biological productivity. Away from the occasional hydrothermal vent and cold seep, the energy for the deep-sea biota is ultimately derived from an attenuated ‘rain’ of organic matter from surface waters hundreds to thousands of metres above (typically 1–10 g Corg per m2 per year).
Article
Extensive areas of the cold-water scleractinian Lophelia pertusa have been damaged due to the impact of bottom-trawling and natural recovery is slow or absent. Here we evaluate a method for coral reef rehabilitation intended to enhance coral transplant survival and growth, i.e. mineral accretion by electrolysis in seawater. Electrolysis in seawater produces a semi-natural substrate in the form of aragonite (CaCO3). The method has been used in coral reef rehabilitation programmes in tropical coral habitats but has so far not been tested in temperate deep-water habitats. A controlled laboratory experiment was performed to test the effect of the substrate per se and different levels of applied current densities (0.00–2.19 A m−2), including galvanic elements (Fe|Zn), on coral fragments attached to the cathodes. The studied responses were; growth rate, budding frequency, mortality, and general health status (degree of polyp activity). We found that the budding frequency differed significantly between treatments, with higher frequencies in low current density treatments. Significant differences were also found in the frequency distribution of calices displaying a growth of ≥ 2 mm yr−1, with higher frequencies in the lowest applied current density (LI), controls, and galvanic elements. Growth rates were slightly higher in LI, although non-significant. Zero mortality was observed in the control group as well as in LI. The degree of polyp activity was not affected by the treatments. These results are in part congruent with earlier studies and the method is found suitable for L. pertusa. The positive effects were mainly restricted to the lowest applied current density treatment (0.06 A m−2). The optimal current density level is hereby found to be considerably lower than levels used in previous studies and provide new guidelines for what levels to use in rehabilitation programmes with this method.
A Cross-sector Guide for Implementing the Mitigation Hierarchy
  • J Ekstrom
  • L Bennun
  • R Mitchell
Ekstrom, J., Bennun, L. & Mitchell, R. A Cross-sector Guide for Implementing the Mitigation Hierarchy (Cross Sector Biodiversity Initiative, 2015).
Blue Growth: Opportunities for Marine and Maritime Sustainable Growth
  • L A Levin
Levin, L. A. et al. Mar. Policy 74, 245-259 (2016).
  • H J Rainey
Rainey, H. J. et al. Oryx 49, 232-238 (2015).
Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources (International Finance Corporation
Performance Standard 6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources (International Finance Corporation, 2012).