Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 V3

Haig Fras Special Area of Conservation (SAC) Monitoring Report 2015

MPA Monitoring Programme Contract Reference: MB0129 Report Number: 11 Version: 3 July 2019

Project Title: Marine Protected Areas (MPA) Monitoring Programme Report No. 11. Title: Haig Fras Special Area of Conservation (SAC) Monitoring Report 2015 Defra Project Code: MB0129 Defra Contract Manager: Carole Kelly

Funded by: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Marine and Fisheries Seacole Block 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF

Authorship

Anna Downie Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas)

Joanna Bluemel Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas)

Mark Breckels Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas)

Fionnuala McBreen Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC)

Recommended Citation Downie, A., Bluemel, J., Breckels, M. and McBreen, F. (2019). Haig Fras Special Area of Conservation (SAC) Monitoring Report 2015. MPA Monitoring Programme Report No. 11. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).

Contact JNCC: Marine Monitoring Team ([email protected])

Acknowledgements We thank the Marine Protected Areas Survey Coordination and Evidence Group (MPAG) representatives for reviewing earlier drafts of this report, and Dr. Marcel Austenfeld for his advice and support in designing the macro for batch processing the laser measurements of images using ImageJ.

Disclaimer: The content of this report does not necessarily reflect the views of Defra, nor is Defra liable for the accuracy of information provided, or responsible for any use of the reports content. Although the data provided in this report have been quality assured, the final products - e.g. habitat maps – may be subject to revision following any further data provision or once they have been used in SNCB advice or assessments. Document Control Title: Haig Fras Special Area of Conservation (SAC) Monitoring Report 2015

Version Control

Author Date Comment Version Downie et al. July 2018 Draft submitted to Tammy Noble-James (Cefas) and V0.1 Joey O’Connor (JNCC) . Downie et al. August Amended draft reviewed by Tammy Noble-James V1 2018 (Cefas) and proofread by Silke Kröger (Cefas and submitted to MPAG and external reviewer. Downie et al. February MPAG and external comments addressed. Approved V2 2019 by Elly Hill (JNCC) and proofread by Lynsey Gregory & Mark Etherton-Nicoll (Cefas). Submitted to MPAG for checking of amendments. Downie et al. July 2019 MPAG final comments addressed. Submitted to Defra V3 for sign-off and publication.

Contents

Contents ...... 1 Abbreviations ...... 7 Glossary ...... 9 Executive Summary ...... 1 1 Introduction ...... 14 1.1 Site overview ...... 14 1.2 Aims and objectives ...... 16 1.2.1 High-level conservation objective ...... 16 1.2.2 Favourable condition and feature attributes ...... 16 1.2.3 Report aims & objectives ...... 17 2 Methods ...... 18 2.1 Existing data used in the report ...... 18 2.2 Survey design (CEND0915) ...... 18 2.3 Data acquisition and processing ...... 19 2.3.1 Seabed imagery ...... 20 2.4 Data preparation and analysis ...... 20 2.4.1 Tidal model ...... 20 2.4.2 Bathymetric derivatives ...... 21 2.4.3 Identifying topographic pinnacle locations ...... 21 2.4.4 Image quality assessment and data truncation ...... 22 2.4.5 Community and abundance data ...... 23 2.4.6 Statistical analyses ...... 23 2.4.7 Evaluating potential indicators ...... 25 3 Results ...... 26 3.1 Supporting processes ...... 26 3.2 Distribution & extent ...... 27 3.2.1 Physical reef structure ...... 298 3.2.2 Pinnacle locations ...... 20 3.2.3 Biotopes present ...... 21 3.2.4 Typical taxa and communities ...... 24

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 1 3.2.5 Potential indicator taxa ...... 32 3.3 Other monitoring requirements ...... 50 3.3.1 Marine litter ...... 50 3.3.2 OSPAR Threatened and/or Declining Species and Habitats ...... 50 3.3.3 Non-indigenous species ...... 50 3.4 Post-hoc power analysis ...... 50 4 Discussion ...... 51 4.1 Extent and distribution of the Annex I Reef ...... 51 4.2 Structure and function of characteristic biological communities ...... 51 4.3 Analysis limitations ...... 54 4.4 Anthropogenic impacts ...... 55 4.5 Other monitoring requirements ...... 55 5 Recommendations and future monitoring ...... 56 5.1 Operational recommendations ...... 56 5.2 Analytical recommendations ...... 57 6 References ...... 59 Appendix 1. Selection of still images for quantitative analysis ...... 62 Appendix 2. Epifauna data truncation protocol applied to seabed imagery data ...... 68 Appendix 3. Full taxon list from still images and video...... 75 Appendix 4. Seafloor litter monitoring...... 80 Appendix 5. Non-indigenous species (NIS)...... 81

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 2 Figures Figure 1. Distribution of UK Annex I Reef habitat with the location of the Haig Fras SAC...... 15 Figure 2. Annex I Bedrock Reef exent at Haig Fras SAC as mapped by Barrio-Froján et al. (2015) with the distribution of underwater camera stations for the dedicated survey of reef fauna (CEND 0915, May 2015)...... 19 Figure 3. Modelled maximum tidal current speed at Haig Fras SAC overlaid on classified bathymetry. Areas shown in yellow are above the approximate wave base for the area (70 m)...... 26 Figure 4. EUNIS habitats at Haig Fras SAC as mapped by Barrio-Froján et al. (2015) with corresponding habitats observed in still images from the 2015 survey...... 28 Figure 5. Percentages of substrata observed in still images per transect from 2015 data acquired at the Haig Fras SAC...... 29 Figure 6. Potential pinnacle sites within the Haig Fras SAC, as identified by GIS analysis ...... 30 Figure 7. Example images of MNCR biotopes identified in still images at Haig Fras SAC...... 32 Figure 8. MNCR biotopes observed on image transects in the 2015 survey at Haig Fras SAC. Pies represent the proportion of images along each tow assigned to each biotope...... 33 Figure 9. (a) n-MDS of SACFOR taxa abundance for the 58 transects. (b) PCA of the environmental variables at each site with the greatest correlation to patterns in community composition. Coloured symbols show cluster groups of associated transects. A = Pinnacle Shallow – Corynactis; B = Pinnacle Deeper – Corynactis and Carophyllia; C = Deep with cobbles – Asteroidea and sponges; D = Bedrock – Large Hydrozoa and Echinoderms; E = Sediment patches – Echinoidea and Hydrozoa; F = Sediment patches – Echinoidea and Hydrozoa; G = Sediment patches – Hydrozoa and sponges...... 37 Figure 10. Spatial distribution of community groups derived from hierarchical clustering with SIMPROF...... 42 Figure 11. Example images of potential indicator taxa at Haig Fras SAC...... 44 Figure 12. Maps illustrating the distribution and density (transect mean individuals/m2) of Eunicella verrucosa (top left), Porella spp. (top right), flabellate Porifera (bottom left) and arborescent Porifera (bottom right) across the Haig Fras SAC...... 45 Figure 13. Example images of additional potential indicator taxa at Haig Fras SAC. 46 Figure 14. Maps illustrating the distribution and median SACFOR abundance of Caryophyllia smithii (top), Corynactis viridis (middle) and Nemertesia spp. (bottom) across the Haig Fras SAC...... 47

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 3 Figure 15. Plot showing the density of Eunicella verrucosa per 10 m2 against the variable log10 slope for each station (black circles). The red line denotes the Negative Binomial regression model predicted values and the dotted red lines are the 95% confidence intervals. See Table 9 for model statistics...... 48 Figure 16. Plot showing the density of flabellate Porifera per 10m2 against the variable natural log (ln) rugosity (VRM25) (left) and the percentage of mud (right) for each transect. The red line denotes the Negative Binomial regression model predicted values and the dotted red lines are the 95% confidence intervals. See Table 9 for model statistics...... 49 Figure 17. Plot showing the density of arborescent Porifera per 10m2 against the natural log (ln) of the percentage of pebbles at each transect. The red line denotes the Negative Binomial regression model predicted values and the dotted red lines are the 95% confidence intervals. See Table 9 for model statistics...... 49 Figure 18. Plot showing Corynactis viridis presence and absence against the variable slope (left) and percentage of shell (right) for each transect. The red line denotes the Binary Logistic regression model predicted values and the dotted red lines are the 95% confidence intervals. See Table 9 for model statistics...... 50 Figure 19. Selection of laser pixels using Red channel threshold values...... 63 Figure 20. Examples of the 'Particle Analysis' tool in ImageJ v1.51n used during the automated field of view (m2) calculation procedure. The mask of pixels selected using the ‘Split Channel’ or ‘Colour Threshold’ tools is shown to the right of its respective image. Contiguous pixel aggregations selected in the ‘Particle Analysis’ are highlighted in blue in the masks. Objects in an image (a) with similar colour values to the laser spots were excluded from the particle selection (b). In some images (c) several objects had the same size and shape as laser points, leading to selection of more than four points (d)...... 64 Figure 21. Range of image FOV (m2) across broadscale habitats for each image quality class (assigned by the analyst during image processing)...... 65 Figure 22. Species accumulation curves for transects with a minimum of 15 images, with estimated confidence intervals (2 x st. dev.). The selected standard sample cumulative area range is highlighted in blue...... 67 Figure 23. In-situ images of the two Alcyonacean individuals (a, b) sampled by ROV on JC124, and a map showing the sampling location (c)...... 69

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 4 Tables Table 1. Still image data from 2015 survey of Haig Fras SAC used in this report. ... 22 Table 2: Details of Generalised Linear Modelling (GLM) methods for each potential indicator taxon, including data type, GLM family (probability distribution) and link function used...... 24 Table 3. OSPAR (2012) state indicator selection criteria (adapted from ICES and UK scientific indicator evaluation)...... 25 Table 4 Confusion matrix comparing the EUNIS Level 3 habitats observed in still images to the habitats predicted in the habitat map at the still location. The table shows the number of stills for each combination of ground observation and mapped habitat class. Producers accuracy = how often the ‘real’ habitat class on the ground is correctly shown on the map. User’s accuracy = how often the habitat class on the map is actually present on the ground...... 27 Table 5. Prevalence of the biotopes identified in the 2015 survey of Haig Fras SAC. Numbers are given for all stations where a biotope was recorded, the number of stations where each biotope was recorded in > 5 images, and the total number of images across the whole site classified into each biotope. Biotopes are given for both the EUNIS Marine Habitat Classification and Marine Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland (MNCR)...... 31 Table 6. Characterisation of the most commonly occurring and abundant taxa at Haig Fras SAC. The cumulative list of 26 taxa includes those that contribute to the 20 most frequently observed taxa, and the 20 most abundant taxa in terms of median when present. Potential indicator taxa are highlighted in bold (Section 3.3.5)...... 35 Table 7: Groups of transects with similar taxa contributions and environmental variables identified by clustering and SIMPER approaches. Potential indicator taxa are shown in bold text (Section 3.3.5)...... 38 Table 8. Average density and standard deviation along transect (individuals/m2) of potential indicator taxa and the number of stations at which they were present, out of a total of 58. Density is given as average for the whole site and as the average of the transects where taxa were present...... 43 Table 9. Detailing the taxa modelled, variables chosen to be included in the model from the highly-correlated bathymetry derived environmental variables (Section 2.4.2), final Generalised Linear Model (GLM), Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), residual deviance (dev.) and residual degrees of freedom (d.f.) for the final model. The overdispersion parameter (k), deviance goodness of fit test (Pearson's chi-squared value (X2), the p-value (p))...... 48 Table 10. Results of a post-hoc power analysis on the suggested indicator taxa. Number of stations required to detect a 20% change in density (individuals/m2) at 0.8 power...... 51

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 5 Table 11. Threshold ranges for the red channel, hue, saturation, brightness, particle size and circularity used in ImageJ to extract pixels corresponding to the laser points for each batch run, and the number of images measured automatically in each batch run and manually measured...... 64 Table 12. The number of stations with a set number of images retained after applying various field of view thresholds...... 66 Table 13. Full truncation table, showing decisions made for the still image dataset. Original taxon is given as recorded by the image analyst, with qualifiers. N = number of images with < 0.5 m2 FOV and ≥ 70% of image visible, in which each taxon was observed. Taxonomic classification is sourced from the WoRMS database. Truncation notes outline the rationale behind each truncation decision...... 70 Table 14. The full list of taxa from all still images and video segments collected on CEND0915...... 75 Table 15. Standardised categories and sub-categories for sea-floor litter as defined by OSPAR/ICES/IBTS for the North East Atlantic and Baltic. Guidance on Monitoring of Marine Litter in European Seas, a guidance document within the Common Implementation Strategy for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, MSFD Technical Subgroup on Marine Litter, 2013...... 80 Table 16. Taxa listed as non-indigenous species (present and horizon) which have been selected for assessment of Good Environmental Status in GB waters under MSFD Descriptor 2 (Stebbing et al., 2014)...... 81 Table 17. Additional taxa listed as non-indigenous species in the JNCC ‘Non-native marine species in British waters: a review and directory’ report by Eno et al. (1997) which have not been selected for assessment of Good Environmental Status in GB waters under MSFD Descriptor 2...... 82

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 6 Abbreviations

AIC Akaike Information Criterion BPI Bathymetric Position Index Cefas Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science CP2 Charting Progress 2 Defra Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs EC European Commission EUNIS European Nature Information System FOV Field of View GES Good Environmental Status GIS Geographical Information System GLM Generalised Linear Model HD High definition JNCC Joint Nature Conservation Committee NMBAQC North East Atlantic Marine Biological Analytical Quality Control Scheme MBES Multibeam echosounder MDS Multi-dimensional Scaling MESH Mapping European Seabed Habitats MNCR Marine Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland MPA Marine Protected Area MPAG Marine Protected Areas Survey Coordination and Evidence Group MSFD Marine Strategy Framework Directive NE Natural England NIS Non-Indigenous Species n-MDS Non-metric multidimensional scaling OBIA Object-based image analysis OSPAR The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic PCA Principle Components Analysis PRIMER Plymouth Routines In Multivariate Ecological Research PSA Particle Size Analysis

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 7 SAC Special Area of Conservation SACFOR Superabundant, Abundant, Common, Frequent, Occasional, Rare SIMPER Similarity percentage analysis SIMPROF Similarity profile routine SNCB Statutory Nature Conservation Body VA Viewable Area

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 8 Glossary

Definitions signified by an asterisk (*) have been sourced from Natural England and JNCC Ecological Network Guidance (NE and JNCC, 2010).

Activity A human action which may have an effect on the marine environment; e.g. fishing, energy production (Robinson, Rogers and Frid, 2008).* Annex I Habitats Habitats of conservation importance listed in Annex I of the EC Habitats Directive, for which Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) are designated. Anthropogenic Caused by humans or human activities; usually used in reference to environmental degradation.* Assemblage A collection of plants and/or animals characteristically associated with a particular environment that can be used as an indicator of that environment. The term has a neutral connotation, and does not imply any specific relationship between the component organisms, whereas terms such as ‘community’ imply interactions (Allaby, 2015). Benthic A description for animals, plants and habitats associated with the seabed. All plants and animals that live in, on or near the seabed are benthos (e.g. sponges, crabs, seagrass beds).* Biotope The physical habitat with its associated, distinctive biological communities. A biotope is the smallest unit of a habitat that can be delineated conveniently and is characterised by the community of plants and animals living there.* Community A general term applied to any grouping of populations of different organisms found living together in a particular environment; essentially the biotic component of an ecosystem. The organisms interact and give the community a structure (Allaby, 2015). Conservation A statement of the nature conservation aspirations for the Objective feature(s) of interest within a site, and an assessment of those human pressures likely to affect the feature(s).* EC Habitats The EC Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Directive Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora) requires Member States to take measures to maintain natural habitats and wild species of European importance at, or restore them to, favourable conservation status. Epifauna Fauna living on the seabed surface.

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 9 EUNIS A European habitat classification system, covering all types of habitats from natural to artificial, terrestrial to freshwater and marine.* Favourable When the ecological condition of a species or habitat is in line Condition with the conservation objectives for that feature. The term ‘favourable’ encompasses a range of ecological conditions depending on the objectives for individual features.* Feature A species, habitat, geological or geomorphological entity for which an MPA is identified and managed.* Feature Attributes Ecological characteristics defined for each feature within site- specific Supplementary Advice on Conservation Objectives (SACO). Feature Attributes are monitored to determine whether condition is favourable. Impact The consequence of pressures (e.g. habitat degradation) where a change occurs that is different to that expected under natural conditions (Robinson, Rogers and Frid, 2008).* Infauna Fauna living within the seabed sediment. Joint Nature The statutory advisor to Government on UK and international Conservation nature conservation. Its specific remit in the marine environment Committee (JNCC) ranges from 12 - 200 nautical miles offshore.

Marine Strategy The MSFD (EC Directive 2008/56/EC) aims to achieve Good Framework Environmental Status (GES) of EU marine waters and to protect Directive (MSFD) the resource base upon which marine-related economic and social activities depend. Marine Protected A generic term to cover all marine areas that are ‘A clearly Area (MPA) defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values’ (Dudley, 2008).* Natura 2000 The EU network of nature protection areas (classified as Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas), established under the 1992 EC Habitats Directive.* Natural England The statutory conservation advisor to Government, with a remit for England out to 12 nautical miles offshore. Non-indigenous A species that has been introduced directly or indirectly by Species human agency (deliberately or otherwise) to an area where it has not occurred in historical times and which is separate from and

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 10 lies outside the area where natural range extension could be expected (Eno et al., 1997).* Pressure The mechanism through which an activity has an effect on any part of the ecosystem (e.g. physical abrasion caused by trawling). Pressures can be physical, chemical or biological, and the same pressure can be caused by a number of different activities (Robinson, Rogers and Frid, 2008).* Special Areas of Protected sites designated under the European Habitats Conservation Directive for species and habitats of European importance, as listed in Annex I and II of the Directive.* Supplementary Site-specific advice providing more detailed information on the Advice on ecological characteristics or ‘attributes’ of the site’s designated Conservation feature(s). This advice is issued by Natural England and/or Objectives (SACO) JNCC.

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 11 Executive Summary This report is one of a series of Marine Protected Area (MPA) monitoring reports delivered to Defra by the Marine Protected Areas Survey Coordination and Evidence Group (MPAG). The purpose of the report series is to provide the necessary information to allow Defra to fulfil its obligations in relation to MPA assessment and reporting, in relation to current policy instruments, including the Oslo-Paris (OSPAR) Convention, the UK Marine & Coastal Access Act (2009) and Community Directives (e.g. the Habitats and Birds Directives and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive). This monitoring report is informed by data acquired during a dedicated survey carried out at Haig Fras Special Area of Conservation (SAC) during 2015, and will form part of the ongoing time series data and evidence for this MPA. Haig Fras SAC is an offshore Natura 2000 site located within the ‘Western Channel and Celtic Sea’ Charting Progress 2 (CP2) sea area. Haig Fras, a deep circalittoral bedrock reef with low topographic complexity in a fully saline environment, is designated for the Annex I habitat ‘Reef’ and represents one of only a few areas of substantial rocky reef habitat in offshore waters of this region. This report provides a characterisation of the bedrock reef habitat features. The survey targeted the Annex I Reef feature mapped by Barrio-Froján et al. (2015). The mapped bedrock reef distribution and extent was found to be consistent with the habitat observed in still images collected in the survey. The majority of the reef was classified as ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’, consisting of the biotope ‘Echinoderms and crustose communities’ (CR.MCR.EcCr) and its Caryophyllia smithii dominated sub-biotopes. In addition a number of still images were found to be similar in species composition (specifically abundant axinellid sponges) to the biotope ‘Phakellia ventilabrum and Axinellid sponges on deep, wave- exposed circalittoral rock’ (CR.HCR.DpSp.PhaAxi). However, given the depth and moderate energy tidal regime of the deeper parts of the SAC, and the abundance of encrusting fauna and C. smithii associated with these stations, the decision was made to keep these stills within the CR.MCR.EcCr (CarSp) complex. Steep pinnacles hosted clearly different communities from the deeper flat part of the reef. The pinnacles were dominated by Corynactis viridis and had lower species richness than the low-lying reef. They were classified as ‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock’ with the biotope ‘Corynactis viridis and a mixed turf of crisiids, Bugula, Scrupocellaria, and Cellaria on moderately tide-swept exposed circalittoral rock’ (CR.HCR.XFa.CVirCri). The low number of pinnacle sites sampled restricted analytical power. GIS analysis for additional pinnacle sites identified 416 rock outcrops, 86 of which were of sufficient area to be suitable for new sampling locations for future surveys. Seven potential indicator taxa were thought to be typical of Annex I Reef within the Haig Fras SAC, and are suggested for future monitoring using standardised quantitative imagery data. C. viridis, associated with the steep sloped pinnacles, is a potential indicator species for those locations. Flabellate sponges and E. verrucosa,

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 12 associated with the low-relief part of the reef, are suggested as indicators for these habitats. No evidence of fishing activities, OSPAR Threatened and/or Declining Species or Habitats, non-indigenous species or marine litter were observed at Haig Fras in the 2015 survey. Recommendations are presented for improving data quality and refining target metrics for future monitoring of Haig Fras, based on the findings in the report.

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 13 1 Introduction

The Haig Fras Special Area of Conservation (SAC) is part of a network of Natura 2000 sites designed to meet conservation objectives under the EC Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC). These sites will also contribute to an ecologically coherent network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) across the North-east Atlantic agreed under the Oslo Paris (OSPAR) Convention and other international commitments to which the UK is a signatory. Every six years, EU Member States are required to report on the conservation status of habitats and species listed under Annexes I, II, IV and V of the Habitats Directive. Assessment of the habitats and species are presented at a UK level rather than at individual site level. To these obligations, Defra has directed the Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies (SNCBs) to carry out a programme of MPA monitoring. As the SNCB responsible for nature conservation offshore (between 12nm and 200nm from the coast), JNCC is conducting a programme of MPA monitoring work within these areas. Where possible this monitoring will also inform assessment of the status of the wider UK marine environment; for example, assessment of whether Good Environmental Status (GES) has been achieved, as required under Article 11 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). This initial monitoring report primarily explores data acquired from the first dedicated monitoring survey of the Haig Fras SAC, which form the initial point in a monitoring time series against which feature condition can be assessed in the future. The specific aims of the report are discussed in detail in Section 1.2.

1.1 Site overview

Haig Fras SAC is designated for the Annex I habitat ‘Reefs’ and is an example of deep circalittoral bedrock reef with low topographic complexity in a fully saline environment1. It represents one of only a few areas of substantial rocky reef habitat in offshore waters of the Western channel and Celtic sea region (Figure 1). The granite rock exposure measures approximately 45 km by 15 km and protrudes above the surrounding sediment seabed, with the main shoal pinnacle rising to within 38 m of the sea surface. Three surveys were undertaken between 2000 and 2012 to map the extent of the Annex I Bedrock Reef sub-feature using multibeam echosounders, sidescan sonar and sub-bottom profile data, groundtruthing using Shipek grabs and seabed imagery (Rees, 2000; Coggan, 2012; Barrio Froján et al., 2015). Seabed imagery collected over the main rock platform and the shoal showed that distinct biotopes were associated with both the rock habitat and the sediment ‘pockets’ which occurred on the platform area. Around the base of the shoal, boulders

1 Information on the data that underpin this site can be found on the Evidence tab in the JNCC Site Information Centre.

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 14 and cobbles partially embedded in sediment provide a complex habitat, although these areas were determined not to comprise the Annex I Reef sub-type ‘Stony Reef’, according to the criteria proposed by Irving (2009). Imagery showed that on the uppermost parts of the Haig Fras shoal, the exposed bedrock was dominated by jewel anemones (Corynactis viridis) but also supported encrusting sponges and bryozoans, as well as mobile fauna such as the sea urchin Echinus esculentus, and gastropod molluscs of the genus Calliostoma. At the shallowest depth surveyed (approximately 52 m), small patches of encrusting pink coralline algae were observed, indicating that the peak of the shoal protrudes into the photic zone. Between 60 m and 70 m depth the shoal bedrock was slightly covered in silt and not widely colonised except by the cup coral, Caryophyllia smithii (which was abundant), and a few mobile species such as the urchin Echinus esculentus, topshells (Calliostoma spp.) and crinoids (Antedon spp.). High numbers of cup corals were found on parts of the rock platform away from the shoal. At the base of the shoal, the rock was covered with a thin layer of fine calcareous sand and mud, and supported cup sponges, erect branching sponges, C. smithii and crinoids. The boulders and cobbles around the base of the shoal supported encrusting sponges, C. smithii and crinoids in low numbers; brittlestars, squat lobster (Munida spp.) and the ross coral Pentapora fascialis were also present.

Figure 1. Distribution of UK Annex I Reef habitat with the location of the Haig Fras SAC.

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 15 1.2 Aims and objectives

1.2.1 High-level conservation objective The Conservation Objective for the Haig Fras SAC is for the Annex I Reef feature to be in favourable condition, thus ensuring site integrity in the long term and contribution to Favourable Conservation Status of Annex I Reefs (JNCC, 2018a). This contribution would be achieved by maintaining or restoring, subject to natural change: (i) The extent and distribution of the qualifying habitat in the site; (ii) The structure and function of the qualifying habitat in the site; and (iii) The supporting processes on which the qualifying habitat relies.

1.2.2 Favourable condition and feature attributes Broad feature attributes (above in bold) are assessed to determine whether a feature is in favourable condition. Extent refers to the total area in the site occupied by the qualifying feature and must include consideration of its distribution (i.e. how it is spread out within the site). A reduction in extent has the potential to alter the biological and physical functioning of sediment habitat types (Elliott et al., 1998). The distribution of a habitat influences the component communities present, and can contribute to the health and resilience of the feature (JNCC, 2004). Structure encompasses the physical components of a habitat type, together with the biological structure and the key and influential species present. Physical structure refers to finer scale topography, sediment composition and distribution. Physical structure can have a strong influence on the hydrodynamic regime at varying spatial scales in the marine environment, as well as the presence and distribution of biological communities (Elliot et al., 1998). This is particularly true of rock features which can be large-scale topographic features. Biological communities are important in not only characterising the rock feature but supporting the health of the feature (i.e. its conservation status) and the provision of ecosystem services by performing functional roles. Functions are ecological processes including for example, secondary production, habitat modification, supply of recruits, bioengineering and biodeposition. Functions are reliant on natural supporting processes and the growth and reproduction of biological communities which characterise the habitat and as mentioned previously, provide a variety of roles within it (Norling et al., 2007). These can occur at several temporal and spatial scales and help to maintain the provision of ecosystem services (ETC, 2011) locally and to the wider marine environment. Rocky habitats rely on a range of natural supporting processes to support the functions (ecological processes) and recovery from any impacts. For the site to fully deliver its conservation benefits, the following natural supporting processes must remain largely unimpeded; hydrodynamic regime, water quality and sediment quality.

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 16 Further information and conservation advice, including Supplementary Advice on Conservation Objectives (JNCC, 2018b) can be found on the JNCC Site Information Centre for Haig Fras SAC2.

1.2.3 Report aims & objectives The primary aim of this monitoring report is to explore and describe the attributes of the designated feature (Annex I Reef) within the Haig Fras SAC, to enable future assessments of feature condition. The results presented will also be used to develop recommendations for future monitoring, including the discussion of specific metrics which may indicate whether the condition of the feature has been maintained, improved or declined. The secondary aim of the report is to present evidence relating to MSFD Descriptors of Good Environmental Status (GES). The specific objectives of this monitoring report are provided below:

1. Describe the extent and distribution of the Annex I Reef within the SAC; 2. Describe the structure and function, quality, and the composition of characteristic biological communities of the Annex I Reef within the SAC; 3. Present information relating to supporting processes which are known to influence the Annex I Reef within the SAC; 4. Note observations of any species or habitats listed as Threatened and/or Declining by the OSPAR Commission; 5. Present any evidence of non-indigenous species (MSFD Descriptor 2) and marine litter (MSFD Descriptor 10) within the site; 6. Present any evidence of anthropogenic impacts observed within the site; 7. Provide practical recommendations for appropriate future monitoring approaches for both the designated features and their natural supporting processes (e.g., metric selection, survey design, data collection approaches) with a discussion of their requirements.

2 Haig Fas SAC Site Information Centre: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-6533

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 17 2 Methods

2.1 Existing data used in the report

Multibeam echosounder (MBES) bathymetry and backscatter data covering the entire Annex I Reef feature were collected during 2011 and 2012 on RV Cefas Endeavour surveys CEND0211, CEND0511 and CEND1012. The MBES data were acquired using two Kongsberg systems run simultaneously (EM3002D and EM2040). A more detailed description of data acquisition is given in Coggan (2012) and Barrio- Froján et al. (2015). A composite of the bathymetry, gridded at 2 m raster resolution, is used in this report to illustrate the reef reatures, and as a source of derivative GIS layers describing aspects of the reef’s topography, including slope and bathymetric rugosity. A map of the Annex I Reef feature (Bedrock sub-type only), produced by Barrio-Froján et al. (2015), has been included to delineate the known extent and distribution of the reef (Figure 2). The map was created by object based image analysis (OBIA) of MBES bathymetry and backscatter collected in 2011 and 2012, along with 18 camera tows (9 in 2011 and 9 in 2012) and 11 particle size analysis (PSA) samples collected in 2012 on the above surveys.

2.2 Survey design (CEND0915)

A dedicated survey to characterise the benthic epifauna of the Annex I Reef feature was undertaken by Cefas and JNCC on RV Cefas Endeavour in May 2015 (CEND0915; Callaway, 2015). As insufficient data were available for Haig Fras, power analysis was conducted using data from an analogous site at the Isles of Scilly, collected by Cefas and Natural England (NE) in 2014 (CEND2514; Jenkins and McIlwaine, 2015) to determine the required sampling level for biological variables including taxon richness, abundance and biodiversity metrics. Taxa abundance had the highest sampling variation and was accordingly selected to determine sample size. To observe a 20% change in taxa abundance at a power of 0.8 with a statistical significance 0.05, 86 samples were required. Sampling points were randomly allocated within the Annex I Bedrock Reef sub-feature boundary mapped by Barrio-Froján et al. (2015) (Figure 2) with a minimum distance of 0.005 decimal degrees between points and the layer boundary using ETGeowizard’s ‘Random points polygon’ tool (Callaway, 2015). A further five targeted sample points were positioned to sample reef ‘pinnacle’ habitats (i.e. the shallowest parts of the reef). This resulted in a total of 91 sample stations within the area delineated as Annex I Reef (Figure 2). Camera transects of 200 m in length were completed at each station, oriented such that isobath contours were followed as consistently as practicably possible. For further details regarding the survey design see Callaway (2015).

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 18

Figure 2. Annex I Bedrock Reef exent at Haig Fras SAC as mapped by Barrio-Froján et al. (2015) with the distribution of underwater camera stations for the dedicated survey of reef fauna (CEND 0915, May 2015).

2.3 Data acquisition and processing

Seabed imagery data were acquired, processed and analysed to; validate the extent and distribution of Annex I Reef (Objective 1), investigate the biological communities (Objective 2), assess the presence of OSPAR Threatened and/or Declining species or habitats (Objective 4), non-indigenous species and marine litter (Objective 5), and any observed anthropogenic impacts (Objective 6) within the Haig Fras SAC.

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 19 2.3.1 Seabed imagery A five-megapixel Kongsberg video camera with still image capability was mounted to the drop frame with a parallel high definition (HD) SubC 1Cam Alpha+ video camera for continuous video recording. The camera was fitted with a four-spot laser-scaling device. Drop camera transects collected video data along the 200 m transects, with still imagery captured at 30 second intervals. Additional opportunistic images were captured to assist with ID of species and habitats. The imagery data were collected in accordance with MESH guidelines (Coggan et al., 2007), processed and subjected to external quality assurance following the NMBAQC guidelines (Turner et al., 2016). Each image was assigned a EUNIS and MNCR biotope according to the substrata and fauna visible in the image. Abundance of each observed taxon in video segments and still images was recorded using the SACFOR scale3. For those taxa that count or percentage cover estimates were possible, these additional variables were also included.

2.4 Data preparation and analysis

2.4.1 Tidal model A tidal model was generated to present information relating to the supporting processes which are known to influence the Annex I Reef within the SAC (Objective 3). Mean and maximum tidal current velocities (m s-1) at the seabed and mean and maximum bed shear stress were obtained from a tidal model built for the study area. The depth-averaged model of Haig Fras SAC is nested with a larger English Channel model and has been built using an unstructured triangular mesh, using the software Telemac2D (v7p1). The model domain extends 48.01°N – 52.48°N and 2.23°E – 9.51°W. The unstructured mesh was discretised with 292,630 nodes and 571,260 elements. The mesh has a resolution of approximately 3 km along the open boundary. In the area of interest, the resolution is refined to approximately 25 m. Bathymetry for the model was sourced from the Defra Digital Elevation Model (Astrium, 2011). The resolution of the dataset is 1 arc second (~30 m). In the area of the SAC, the MBES bathymetry from the area was used, gridded to a 2 m resolution. The hydrodynamics are forced along the open boundaries using 11 tidal constituents (M2, S2, N2, K2, K1, O1, P1, Q1, M4, MS4 and MN4) from the OSU TPXO European Shelf 1/30° regional model. After a spin up period of 5 days, the model was run for 30 days to cover a full spring-neap cycle. Bed shear stress (N/m2) was calculated as per Soulsby (1997), based on current speed and local sediment characteristics (derived from the habitat map and sediment samples).

3 http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-2684

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 20 2.4.2 Bathymetric derivatives Bathymetric derivatives were derived to facilitate description of the physical structure of the Annex I Reef, and investigate relationships between biota and environmental variables (Objective 2), in addition to informing future monitoring survey designs (Objective 7). The MBES bathymetry was used to calculate slope and bathymetric rugosity. Slope (in degrees) was calculated using Spatial Analyst in ArcGIS 10.5, both from the 2 m gridded bathymetry [Slope] and a smoothed bathymetric layer resulting from a focal mean calculated for a square neighbourhood of 15 pixels across [SlopeM15]. Bathymetric rugosity was calculated using the Terrain Ruggedness (VRM) tool in the Benthic Terrain Modeller (v. 3.0) ArcGIS extension (Walbridge et al., 2018). Terrain Ruggedness measures the variation in three-dimensional orientation of grid cells within a neighbourhood and was calculated with a five cell neighbourhood (VRM5) and 25 cell neighbourhood (VRM25). The standard deviation in bathymetry was also calculated for a five cell neighbourhood (BSD). Aspect (orientation of slope) was taken into consideration in combination with the main directions and velocity of the flood and ebb tides derived from the tidal model. A shaded relief was created using the Hillshade function in Spatial Analyst for each main direction (flood: 260°, ebb: 80°, elevation 20°). The maximum ‘illumination’ from the two shaded relief layers was then multiplied by the mean current velocity to create a layer approximating exposure to tidal currents (Current Exposure).

2.4.3 Identifying topographic pinnacle locations

A GIS analysis (in ArcGIS 10.5) was used to pinpoint potential new locations for wider sampling of the pinnacles, representing the ‘A4.1 Atlantic and Mediterranean high energy circalittoral rock’ habitat. This analysis was conducted to inform future monitoring survey designs (Objective 7), due to this habitat being underrepresented in the CEND0915 dataset. The process was informed by the characteristics identified in the statistical analyses described above. The highest energy conditions are present around the steep topography of the pinnacles. First a coarse bathymetric position index (BPI) was calculated from the multibeam bathymetry data, with an inner radius of 5 pixels and an outer radius of 150 pixels. Areas with a BPI higher than 4 were seen to represent individual rock outcrops and extracted as a separate dataset. Mean depth, standard deviation in depth, mean rugosity (VRM5) and mean slope were calculated for each individual outcrop. To further select the elevations most likely to correspond to the high energy pinnacle sites, elevations were filtered to only contain those with values in the range covered by the observed pinnacle sites. Cut-off values calculated for the summary summary statistics were; mean depth (< 80 m), standard deviation in depth (> 0.7), mean rugosity (>0.005), and mean slope (>5).

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 21 2.4.4 Image quality assessment and data truncation The use of a drop camera introduces additional uncertainty into the data derived from video and still imagery, due to the variability in height above the seabed during video segments and between still images. Quality of the video and still imagery can also vary greatly within each transect. The variability within video segments makes it very difficult to estimate the area sampled and to define an appropriate level of taxonomic identification. Hence, analyses in this report only utilised data derived from the still images. The taxon list from video segments was inspected for any additional taxa present not observed in still imagery. A subset of the full still image dataset was used to prepare a semi-standardised set of images covering a roughly equal area per sample station (Table 1). Image quality was assessed using two parameters; image field of view (FOV, m2) and estimated percentage of the seabed which was viewable (i.e. sufficiently lit, in focus and not obstructed). FOV was calculated using a semi-automated process in ImageJ v1.51n (Rasband, 1999-2016). Viewable area (VA) was estimated by eye in 5% increments. Parameter thresholds (i.e. acceptable FOV and VA) were chosen to optimise the number of images, sample stations and taxa to be retained for further analyses, as well as image quality (defined as the ability to identify taxa to the highest taxonomic detail possible). Species accumulation curves were computed to determine the desired and attainable sample area per survey station. Images with FOVs up to 0.6 m2 and a minimum VA of 75% were randomly sub-sampled and aggregated until an area between 2–3 m2 was achieved per sample station. Images identified as sediment habitat were all excluded from the selection. The percentage cover of the substrate type within each image was also recorded. The process is described in detail in Appendix 1. The sub-selection resulted in a dataset comprising 765 comparable quality images of rock habitat from 58 stations (transects), each containing a variable number of aggregated images equating to an area of 2–3 m2. The average number of stills used per station was 13 (ranging from 7–18, depending on how many stills were required to make up the standard sample area).

Table 1. Still image data from 2015 survey of Haig Fras SAC used in this report.

Stations Images Images per Data used tow ( ± sd)

Full dataset 91 2512 28 ± 9𝒙𝒙� Biotope in images Semi-standardised 58 765 13 ± 2 SACFOR abundance dataset Counts / % cover Species richness

Taxa in the images were identified to varying taxonomic levels, depending on image quality and resolution, as well as the visibility of individuals in the image; therefore, the taxon list was truncated in two ways (see Appendix 2). Firstly, to provide a list of taxa that avoided grouping at high taxonomic levels to allow for the estimation of species

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 22 richness and diversity, and secondly, by grouping taxa at higher taxonomic levels to maximise the taxon abundance data retained for subsequent community analyses. A full taxon list for the stills imagery and video data is given in Appendix 3.

The full imagery datasets (not a subset) were analysed for the presence of marine litter (Objective 5; see Table 15 for MSFD categories) and non-indigenous species (Objective 5; see Table 16 and Table 17).

2.4.5 Community and abundance data Quantitative abundance values were only available for a subset of taxa, therefore SACFOR scores were used for community analysis. In analyses requiring numerical variables, SACFOR classes were transformed to a numerical scale from 1 to 6, with 1 corresponding to ‘Rare’ and 6 to ‘Superabundant’. The way in which SACFOR scores are assigned makes this numerical scale akin to abundance values that have been scaled and log transformed. A taxon by station community data matrix was produced by calculating the median numerical SACFOR score for each truncated taxon across the subset of aggregated images per station. The median was used in place of the mean, due to the ordinal nature of the SACFOR variable. Seven taxa, which had counts or percent cover recorded, were selected for additional analysis, to investigate their suitability as potential indicator taxa for future monitoring (see Objective 7). These selected taxa were relatively frequent in the dataset, and hence deemed typical of the reef feature. Densities (individuals/m2) were calculated as the total count divided by the total area (FOV x VA) in the subset of images per transect, whilst percent cover was averaged across the transect.

2.4.6 Statistical analyses Statistical analyses of epifaunal data were conducted to investigate the structure and composition of characteristic communities (Objective 2) and to explore the suitability of potential indicator taxa (Objective 7). All multivariate and univariate statistical analyses utililised the same set of environmental variables. Depth was sourced from the MBES bathymetry (see Section 2.1). Tidal current velocity at the sea floor was derived from the tidal model (see Section 2.4.1). Bathymetric rugosity, slope and exposure to tidal current were additionally derived from the bathymetry (see Section 2.4.2). The percentage cover of substrate categories (including bedrock, boulders, cobbles, pebbles, gravel, shell, sand and mud) were derived from the still image data. The ratio of consolidated (sum of boulders, cobbles and pebbles) versus unconsolidated substrates (sum of gravel, shell, sand and mud), referred to as rock to sediment ratio, was further calculated from substrate data. The truncated epifaunal community data were imported into PRIMER v7 (Clarke and Gorley, 2015) to allow multivariate analysis, in combination with associated environmental parameters. The total number of taxa at each transect was established.

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 23 Non-metric multidimensional scaling (n-MDS) ordination plots of Bray-Curtis similarity, and hierarchical cluster analysis using SIMPROF on SACFOR abundance data, were used to identify groups of transects within the site. The SIMPER routine was used to identify the taxa contributing the most to similarities within and differences between the cluster groups (Clarke et al., 2014). The full list of environmental parameters collected for each transect was reduced by removing the following highly intercorrelated variables; bathymetric standard deviation, rugosity (VRM25), and slope (from 2m gridded bathymetry). The environmental variables with the greatest correlation to patterns in the community composition were established using BEST routine in PRIMER v7 (Clarke et al., 2014). Principle Components Analysis (PCA) was run on the environmental parameters: exposure to tidal current, rugosity (VRM5), slope (M15), bathymetry and the proportion of the seabed made up of bedrock, boulders, cobbles, pebbles, gravel, shell fragments, sand, and mud. Relationships between the abundance of four potential indicator taxa (Section 3.2.5) and local environmental variables were investigated using Generalised Linear Models (Table 2) in R v3.3.2. (R Core Team, 2017), and RStudio v1.0.143 (RStudio Team, 2015). Models using a negative binomial probability distribution were calculated using the ‘glm-nb’ function from the MASS library (Venables & Ripley, 2002) to correct for overdispersion (k > 8 for all taxa, identified using a Poisson model with a ‘log’ link function). Logistic regression (binomial probability distribution) was conducted using the ‘glm’ formula. A forward stepwise algorithm using Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) was used to select the predictor variables which yielded the best model. As all bathymetric derivatives were highly correlated (Pearsons correlation coefficient >0.4), only the variable giving in the lowest AIC and highest significance for each indicator taxon was included in each respective model. Density was converted to counts per a standard sample area of 10 m2, by multiplying by 10 and rounding to the nearest whole number, to comply with the assumption of count data in the analysis. Two potential indicator taxa were not analysed using GLMs due to their ubiquitous abundance and distribution across transects.

Table 2: Details of Generalised Linear Modelling (GLM) methods for each potential indicator taxon, including data type, GLM family (probability distribution) and link function used.

Potential indicator taxon Response variable Family Link function Eunicella verrucosa, Density/ 10 m2 (1 d.p.) Negative Binomial log Flabellate Porifera Arborescent Porifera Corynactis viridis Presence/Absence Binomial cloglog

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 24 2.4.7 Evaluating potential indicators

Where potential indicators were identified as candidates for future monitoring of feature condition within the site (i.e. specific taxa which were thought to be typical of the Annex I Reef feature), they were evaluated against the criteria provided in Table 3. These criteria were set out by OSPAR (2012) in advice on the selection of indicators for descriptors of marine biodiversity under the MSFD. They can, however, be broadly applied outside of this context, including in the selection of site or feature-specific indicators.

Table 3. OSPAR (2012) state indicator selection criteria (adapted from ICES and UK scientific indicator evaluation).

Criterion Specification Sensitivity Does the indicator allow detection of change against background variation or noise? Specificity Does the indicator respond primarily to a specific human pressure, with low responsiveness to other causes of change? Accuracy Is the indicator measured with a low error rate? Simplicity Is the indicator easily measured? Responsiveness Is the indicator able to act as an early warning signal? Spatial applicability Is the indicator measurable over a large proportion of the geographical area to which it is to apply? Management link Is the indicator tightly linked to an activity which can be managed to reduce its negative effects on the indicator (i.e. are the quantitative trends in cause and effect of change well known?) Validity Is the indicator based on an existing body or time-series of data (either continuous or interrupted) to allow a realistic setting of objectives? Communication Is the indicator relatively easy to understand by non-scientists and those who will decide on their use?

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 25 3 Results

3.1 Supporting processes

Haig Fras SAC is located in a very exposed offshore area. Wave base is at approximately 70 m depth on this part of the shelf (Connor et al., 2006), so the shallowest pinnacles will experience high energy from wave action. The majority of the seabed, however, is below wave base, making the main hydrodynamic processes tidal current driven. The tidal model indicates mainly moderate (0.5-1.5 m s-1) to weak (< 0.5 m s-1) tidal currents flowing on a west-east axis (Figure 3). There is very little variation in current speed across the reef.

Figure 3. Modelled maximum tidal current speed at Haig Fras SAC overlaid on classified bathymetry. Areas shown in yellow are above the approximate wave base for the area (70 m).

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 26 3.2 Distribution & extent

The distribution and extent of the Annex I Reef feature was investigated in detail by Barrio-Froján et al. (2015). They estimated the total area of the reef at approximately 176 km2. The reef consists of three main low relief granite exposures along with several steep rock pinnacles, interspersed by areas of relatively flat and smooth seabed in between the rock outcrops. The rock falls into the habitats ‘A4.1 Atlantic and Mediterranean high energy circalittoral rock’ and ‘A4.2 Atlantic and Mediterranean moderate energy circalittoral rock’. Sediment habitats present between the rocky reef outcrops have been characterised, mapped and assigned mostly to the biotope ‘A5.15 Deep circalittoral coarse sediment’ (Figure 4). A comparison of the rock as mapped by Barrio-Froján et al. (2015) and the habitats observed in the 2015 still images shows that the map is very accurate in delineating the rock feature (Table 4). Whilst there is some confusion among the two rock energy categories, only 2% (44) of the images classified as either type of rock fall into the areas mapped as sediment habitats. This is to be expected as the survey targeted the rock feature. Furthermore only 14% (330) of still images in areas mapped as rock were classified as sediment habitat, indicating a good agreement between mapped and observed rock distribution and extent (Table 4).

Table 4 Confusion matrix4 comparing the EUNIS Level 3 habitats observed in still images to the habitats predicted in the habitat map at the still location. The table shows the number of stills for each combination of ground observation and mapped habitat class. Producers accuracy = how often the ‘real’ habitat class on the ground is correctly shown on the map. User’s accuracy = how often the habitat class on the map is actually present on the ground.

Mapped Habitat Producer’s accuracy A4.1 High A4.2 Moderate A5 Sublittoral energy energy sediment Observed Habitat circalittoral rock circalittoral rock A4.1 High energy 85 33 0 72% circalittoral rock A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral 25 1973 44 97% rock A5 Sublittoral 0 330 21 6% sediment Total no. images 2512 Overall User’s accuracy 77% 84% 32% Accuracy 83%

The low agreement between the map and the images observed to be sediment, suggesting overestimation of the extent of rock, is again due to the survey targeting

4 https://www.dataschool.io/simple-guide-to-confusion-matrix-terminology/

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 27 areas mapped as rock. A map at this scale is not able to distinguish pockets of sediment on a rock outcrop, which inevitably occur.

Figure 4. EUNIS habitats at Haig Fras SAC as mapped by Barrio-Froján et al. (2015) with corresponding habitats observed in still images from the 2015 survey. Structure and function

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 28 3.2.1 Physical reef structure The Reef feature at Haig Fras consists of outcropping exposed bedrock in depths ranging from 40 m at the pinnacles to 104 m at the deepest point of the reef. Whilst the bedrock above 70 m is clear of overlying sediments, below 70 m the rock is often partially covered in sediments ranging from cobbles to mud. The rock outcrops are surrounded by coarse and mixed sediments. Figure 5 shows the proportions of different substrata observed at each video tow location.

Figure 5. Percentages of substrata observed in still images per transect from 2015 data acquired at the Haig Fras SAC.

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 29 3.2.2 Pinnacle locations The GIS analysis for potential additional pinnacle sites identified 416 rock outcrops with similar depth, rugosity and slope attributes to the pinnacle sites observed from camera tows (Figure 6). Of these, 164 had a minimum area of 0.01 km2, and 86 were 250 m or more in length across the feature, making them appropriate locations for additional transects in future surveys.

Figure 6. Potential pinnacle sites within the Haig Fras SAC, as identified by GIS analysis

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 30 3.2.3 Biotopes present Each still image was assigned a biotope by the imagery analyst, based on physical habitat and fauna present. The vast majority of the reef was classified as ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ (Table 5) consisting of the biotope ‘Echinoderms and crustose communities’ (CR.MCR.EcCr) and its sub-biotopes ‘Caryophyllia smithii, sponges and crustose communities on wave-exposed circalittoral rock’ (CR.MCR.EcCr.CarSp), ‘Caryophyllia smithii and sponges with Pentapora foliacea, Porella compressa and crustose communities on wave-exposed circalittoral rock’ (CR.MCR.EcCr.CarSp.PenPcom) and ‘Brittlestars overlying coralline crusts, Parasmittina trispinosa and Caryophyllia smithii on wave-exposed circalittoral rock’ (CR.MCR.EcCr.CarSp.Bri). The highest rock pinnacles and parts of other transects were classified as ‘Corynactis viridis and a mixed turf of crisiids, Bugula, Scrupocellaria, and Cellaria on moderately tide-swept exposed circalittoral rock’ (CR.HCR.XFa.CVirCri). Figure 7 shows example images of the identified biotopes and Figure 8 shows the distribution of the biotopes across the site. A number of images (115 in total ) not associated with the pinnacles were classified as either CR.MCR.EcCr or CR.MCR.EcCr.CarSp, however it was noted that their faunal composition was similar to a certain “high energy’ biotope, despite the tidal model indicating that the energy levels were moderate. This high energy biotope is defined as ‘Phakellia ventilabrum and Axinellid sponges on deep, wave- exposed circalittoral rock’ (CR.HCR.DpSp.PhaAxi). The sediment veneer apparent in these images, alongside the encrusting fauna and abundant C. smithii led the analyst to keep these images in the CR.MCR.EcCR / CarSp biotope, however we recommend that a new biotope may be appropriate.

Table 5. Prevalence of the biotopes identified in the 2015 survey of Haig Fras SAC. Numbers are given for all stations where a biotope was recorded, the number of stations where each biotope was recorded in > 5 images, and the total number of images across the whole site classified into each biotope. Biotopes are given for both the EUNIS Marine Habitat Classification and Marine Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland (MNCR).

EUNIS EUNIS Biotope (MNCR) Number of stations Total no. Level 3 habitat images Present >5 images A4.1 A4.132 CR.HCR.XFa.CvirCri 10 5 119 A4.2 A4.2 CR.MCR 28 8 125 A4.21 CR.MCR.EcCr 91 79 1469 A4.212 CR.MCR.EcCr.CarSp 52 17 287 A4.2121 CR.MCR.EcCr.CarSp.Bri 5 4 74 A4.2122 CR.MCR.EcCr.CarSp.PenPcom 5 1 13

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 31

Figure 7. Example images of MNCR biotopes identified in still images at Haig Fras SAC.

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 32

Figure 8. MNCR biotopes observed on image transects in the 2015 survey at Haig Fras SAC. Pies represent the proportion of images along each tow assigned to each biotope.

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 33 3.2.4 Typical taxa and communities Before analysis the taxonomic matrix was truncated to ensure equal likelihood of detection for taxa throughout the dataset. As a rule only large and consistently distinguishable taxa identified to species or genus were kept separate, other taxa were combined to higher taxonomic levels, or to morphotype (see Appendix 2). Following truncation, a total of 61 taxa were observed across the Haig Fras SAC, with an average of 23.8 taxa (± 4.53 s.d.) observed on each transect. The corresponding values for the less stringently truncated dataset, where finer-level taxa identification was included, was 27.1 (± 5.5 s.d.). The greatest number of recorded taxa on a transect was 32, whilst the lowest was 13. The most commonly observed taxa, and the taxa with the highest average (median) SACFOR abundances across the Haig Fras SAC are shown in Table 6. Two morphotypes of Hydrozoa (‘turf’ and ‘small’) and Gastropoda, were ubiquitous across the site and found in high abundance. Encrusting Bryozoa were found in all transects across the site at low abundance. Echinoderms in the classes Asteroidea, Ophiuroidea and Crinoidea were common and abundant across most transects. Different morphotypes of Porifera occurred across the site with arborescent and flabellate being both the most frequently observed and abundant. Common species included the Devonshire cup coral, C. smithii, which was present in 95% of the transects and sea-chervil, Alcyonidium diaphanum present in 86%. The pink sea fan, E. verrucosa occurred in 40% of transects. The similarity of community composition (based on Bray-Curtis similarity of SACFOR abundance) between the transects at Haig Fras is illustrated by 2D non-metric MDS ordination (Figure 9a). The 2D ordination has a stress of 0.23, which is considered high, and therefore the ordination should be considered a partial representation of the full multivariate information. Seven statistically significant groups of transects were identified using the SACFOR test, however, considerable overlap in taxa is apparent (Figure 9; Table 7). Bathymetry was the single environmental variable with the greatest correlation to the community composition (Rho = 0.374 , p = 0.001). The strongest correlation between community composition and environmental variables was based on five variables, including the proportional coverage of cobbles, sand and mud, depth, and bathymetric rugosity (Rho = 0.451, p = 0.001). In the PCA incorporating the five most influential environmental variables, PC1 accounts for 46.0% of the variation in the community data, PC2 increases the cumulative variation to 71.6%. The relationships between environmental variables and the first two principal components, along with the cluster groups are shown in Figure 9b.

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 34 Table 6. Characterisation of the most commonly occurring and abundant taxa at Haig Fras SAC. The cumulative list of 26 taxa includes those that contribute to the 20 most frequently observed taxa, and the 20 most abundant taxa in terms of median when present. Potential indicator taxa are highlighted in bold (Section 3.2.5).

Median Median Occurrence Maximum SACFOR SACFOR Taxon in transects SACFOR (when (across (%) abundance present) the site)

Hydrozoa (small) 100 4 4 4 Hydrozoa (turf) 100 4 4 6 Gastropoda (other) 100 4 4 4 Bryozoa (encrusting) 100 1 Serpulidae 97 3 3 4 Ophiuroidea 95 4 4 5 Caryophyllia smithii 95 3 3 4 Brachiopoda 91 3 3 4 Asteroidea 90 5 5 5 Nemertesia 90 4 4 4 Porella 90 2 2 2.5 Polychaeta (other) 88 3 3 4 Alcyonidium diaphanum 86 2 2 2 Crinoidea 79 4 4 5 Porifera (flabellate) 76 4 4 4 Echinoidea 64 5 4.5 5 Bryozoa (erect) 64 2 1 2 Sertulariidae 57 4 2 4 Ascidiacea (solitary) 57 3 3 4 Porifera (arborescent) 53 4 4 4.5 Paguridae 50 4 2 4 Plumularioidea (other) 48 4 0 4 Actiniaria 45 4 0 5.5 Eunicella verrucosa 40 5 0 5 Corynactis viridis 26 4 0 5 Diazona violacea 19 5 0 5

Cluster groups A and B are distinct from the others, representing the pinnacle sites characterised by shallow water depths, high rugosity and low levels of sediment and cobbles. The presence of the jewel anemone, C. viridis, is the primary taxon differentiating the community composition at the pinnacles from the deeper rock areas of the SAC (Table 7; Figure 10). These groups correspond to the ‘A5.1 High energy

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 35 circalittoral rock’ habitat. The largest cluster group, F, includes 37 of the transects and is characterised by Echinoderms in the classes Asteroidea, Ophiuroidea and Crinoidea, which accounted for over 20% of the similarity between transects. Group D only contains two stations, and is at an intermediate depth between the pinnacles and the main group (F). Groups C, E and G are variations around Group F, with a higher prevalence of flabellate and arborescent sponges in Group C, and hydroid taxa in Groups E and G (Table 7). Figure 10 shows the spatial distribution of the cluster groups across the reef feature.

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 36

Figure 9. (a) n-MDS of SACFOR taxa abundance for the 58 transects. (b) PCA of the environmental variables at each site with the greatest correlation to patterns in community composition. Coloured symbols show cluster groups of associated transects. A = Pinnacle Shallow – Corynactis; B = Pinnacle Deeper – Corynactis and Carophyllia; C = Deep with cobbles – Asteroidea and sponges; D = Bedrock – Large Hydrozoa and Echinoderms; E = Sediment patches – Echinoidea and Hydrozoa; F = Sediment patches – Echinoidea and Hydrozoa; G = Sediment patches – Hydrozoa and sponges.

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 37 Table 7: Groups of transects with similar taxa contributions and environmental variables identified by clustering and SIMPER approaches. Potential indicator taxa are shown in bold text (Section 3.2.5).

Transects Taxa in common within groups (explaining 70 Mean S Group environmental thresholds – Cluster Group Similarity (number) % of the within group similarity) (and s.d.) mean (standard deviation)

A HGFR027 75.62 Corynactis viridis 14.5 Cobbles 0.0% (0.00) Pinnacle Shallow - HGFR091 Hydrozoa (small) (2.12) Sand 0.0% (0.00) Corynactis Hydrozoa (turf) Mud 1.0% (0.05) (2) Nemertesia spp. VRM5 0.05 (0.023) Ophiuroidea Paguridae Bathymetry -57.9 m (4.19)

Ascidiacea (solitary)

B HGFR002 70.79 Echinoidea 20.4 Cobbles 1.0% (2.14) Pinnacle Deeper – HGFR025 Hydrozoa (small) (4.77) Sand 1.1% (1.37) Corynactis and HGFR041 Ophiuroidea Carophyllia Mud 1.3% (0.43) HGFR088 Corynactis viridis VRM5 0.01 (0.009) HGFR090 Gastropoda (other) Caryophyllia smithii Bathymetry -68.5 m (8.58)

(5) Brachiopoda Polychaeta (other) Serpulidae

C HGFR047 69.13 Asteroidea 22.0 Cobbles 12.6% (12.31) Deep with cobbles – HGFR057 Hydrozoa (small) (2.45) Sand 9.6% (9.83) Asteroidea and HGFR082 Porifera (arborescent) sponges Mud 2.3% (1.67) HGFR083 Porifera (flabellate) VRM5 0.00 (0.001) Gastropoda (other) (4) Hydrozoa (turf) Bathymetry -89.4 m (5.76)

Brachiopoda Caryophyllia smithii Serpulidae

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 38 Transects Taxa in common within groups (explaining 70 Mean S Group environmental thresholds – Cluster Group Similarity (number) % of the within group similarity) (and s.d.) mean (standard deviation) Sertulariidae

D HGFR059 78.21 Asteroidea 26.5 Cobbles 0.0% (0.00) Bedrock – Large HGFR089 Echinoidea (2.12) Sand 0.5% (0.65) Hydrozoa and Gastropoda (other) Echinoderms Mud 1.0% (0.04) (2) Haleciidae VRM5 0.00 (0.001) Hydrozoa (small) Nemertesia spp. Bathymetry -73.3 m (5.09)

Ophiuroidea Plumularioidea (other) Porifera (arborescent) Brachiopoda Caryophyllia smithii Corynactis viridis E HGFR035 79.71 Echinoidea 30.0 Cobbles 3.1% (4.83) Sediment patches – HGFR036 Hydrozoa (turf) (0.00) Sand 5.9% (2.38) Echinoidea and HGFR037 Hydrozoa (small) Hydrozoa Mud 5.0% (2.16) Nemertesia spp. VRM5 0.00 (0.000) (3) Ophiuroidea Paguridae Bathymetry -88.6 m (1.64)

Plumularioidea (other) Porifera (arborescent) Porifera (flabellate) Porifera (globular) Caryophyllia smithii Gastropoda (other) Brachiopoda

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 39 Transects Taxa in common within groups (explaining 70 Mean S Group environmental thresholds – Cluster Group Similarity (number) % of the within group similarity) (and s.d.) mean (standard deviation)

F HGFR001 HGFR053 73.27 Asteroidea 24.5 Cobbles 2.7% (3.86) Sediment patches – HGFR003 HGFR054 Ophiuroidea (4.05) Sand 5.1% (3.92) Echinoidea and HGFR004 HGFR055 Hydrozoa (small) Hydrozoa Mud 2.5% (1.71) HGFR005 HGFR056 Gastropoda (other) VRM5 0.00 (0.000) HGFR010 HGFR058 Crinoidea HGFR011 HGFR060 Hydrozoa (turf) Bathymetry -88.7 m (5.67)

HGFR018 HGFR061 Nemertesia spp. HGFR019 HGFR064 Caryophyllia smithii HGFR020 HGFR065 Brachiopoda HGFR026 HGFR070 Serpulidae HGFR029 HGFR073 Polychaeta (other) HGFR030 HGFR074 Porifera (flabellate) HGFR031 HGFR075 HGFR032 HGFR076 HGFR042 HGFR077 HGFR048 HGFR081 HGFR049 HGFR084 HGFR051 HGFR085 HGFR052 HGFR086 (37)

G HGFR007 72.29 Hydrozoa (small) 22.5 Cobbles 1.4% (2.43) Sediment patches – HGFR013 Nemertesia spp. (4.04) Sand 7.7% (6.12) Hydrozoa and sponges HGFR067 Ophiuroidea Mud 4.8% (3.22) HGFR069 Plumularioidea (other) VRM5 0.00 (0.000) Porifera (arborescent) (4) Porifera (flabellate) Bathymetry -89.2 m (8.22)

Gastropoda (other)

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 40 Transects Taxa in common within groups (explaining 70 Mean S Group environmental thresholds – Cluster Group Similarity (number) % of the within group similarity) (and s.d.) mean (standard deviation) Hydrozoa (turf) Caryophyllia smithii Polychaeta (other)

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 41

Figure 10. Spatial distribution of community groups derived from hierarchical clustering with SIMPROF.

3.2.5 Potential indicator taxa Seven taxa (C. smithii, Nemertesia spp., Porella sp., flabellate and arborescent Porifera, E. verrucosa and C. viridis) appeared to be typical of the Annex I Reef communities within the Haig Fras SAC, and were identified as potential indicator taxa for monitoring. All seven taxa are large, sessile, conspicuous and easily identifiable, the abundance of which can be quantitively enumerated for establishing a time series.

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 42

Of the selected seven taxa, only flabellate and arborescent Porifera, Porella sp. and E. verrucosa were consistently counted during image analysis and were suitable for the calculation of density per transect (individuals/m2). Figure 11 shows example images of these four taxa. Figure 12 illustrates the distribution and abundance across the site of those four taxa. Density of all the taxa was highly variable across the site, even when only looking only at transects where the taxon was present (Table 8).

Table 8. Average density and standard deviation along transect (individuals/m2) of potential indicator taxa and the number of stations at which they were present, out of a total of 58. Density is given as average for the whole site and as the average of the transects where taxa were present.

Average Average density Number of density (Ind./m2) where stations Ind./m2 present present

Eunicella verrucosa 0.9 (± 1.5) 1.7 (± 1.7) 30 (52%)

Porifera (arborescent) 1.1 (± 2.3) 2.2 (± 2.9) 30 (52%)

Porifera (flabellate) 1.4 (± 1.7) 2 (± 1.7) 42 (72%)

Porella sp. 4.7 (± 3.1) 5.1 (±3.0) 54 (93%)

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 43 Eunicella verrucosa Porella sp.

Flabellate Porifera

Arborescent Porifera

Figure 11. Example images of potential indicator taxa at Haig Fras SAC.

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 44

Figure 12. Maps illustrating the distribution and density (transect mean individuals/m2) of Eunicella verrucosa (top left), Porella spp. (top right), flabellate Porifera (bottom left) and arborescent Porifera (bottom right) across the Haig Fras SAC.

Other potential indicator taxa (C. smithii, C. viridis and Nemertisia spp.) were not consistently counted and therefore densities were not attainable and these taxa were investigated using the SACFOR abundance scale. C. smithii was present at 55 stations where it was either ‘Frequent’ or ‘Common’, C. viridis was present at 15 stations ranging from ‘Frequent’ to ‘Abundant’ and Nemertesia spp. was present at 52

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 45 stations, consistently as ‘Common’. Figure 13 shows example images of the taxa and Figure 14 shows the distribution and abundance of these three taxa across the site.

Caryophyllia smithii Corynactis viridis

Nemertesia antennina Nemertesia ramosa

Figure 13. Example images of additional potential indicator taxa at Haig Fras SAC.

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 46

Figure 14. Maps illustrating the distribution and median SACFOR abundance of Caryophyllia smithii (top), Corynactis viridis (middle) and Nemertesia spp. (bottom) across the Haig Fras SAC.

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 47 Habitat preferences of four of the seven potential indicator taxa were investigated in more detail using GLM. Three taxa, Porella sp., C. smithii and Nemertesia spp., were too evenly distributed across the site to derive environmental correlations. Details of the final models used to investigate the effects of environmental variables on the abundance of E. verrucosa, flabellate and arborescent Porifera and the occurrence of C. viridis are given in Table 9.

Table 9. Detailing the taxa modelled, variables chosen to be included in the model from the highly-correlated bathymetry derived environmental variables (Section 2.4.2), final Generalised Linear Model (GLM), Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), residual deviance (dev.) and residual degrees of freedom (d.f.) for the final model. The overdispersion parameter (k), deviance goodness of fit test (Pearson's chi-squared value (X2), the p-value (p)).

Taxon Chosen Final model AIC Dev. d.f. k X2 p variable Eunicella Slope E. verrucosa/10m2 408.7 55.6 53 1.0 60.6 >0.05 verrucosa ~ log10 slope + log10 gravel + log10 ratio + log10 ratio^2 Porifera Rugosity Arborescent 328.7 54.5 55 1.0 42.8 >0.05 (arborescent) (VRM5) Porifera/10m2 ~ ln pebbles + ln rugosity Porifera Rugosity Flabellate Porifera/10m2 412.3 65.9 53 1.2 49.7 >0.1 (flabellate) (VRM25) ~ ln-rugosity + mud + ln- rugosity*mud + mud^2 Corynactis Slope C. viridis P/A 27.8 21.8 55 NA NA NA viridis ~ shell + slope

E. verrucosa abundance was negatively correlated to Log10 slope (X53 = -3.23, p <0.01) (Table 9). E. verrucosa densities were highly variable up to a log10 slope value of 0.8 (Figure 15). Very few E. verrucosa were recorded for stations with log10 slope values higher than 0.8 where the model predictions show a good fit to the observed data.

Figure 15. Plot showing the density of Eunicella verrucosa per 10 m2 against the variable log10 slope for each station (black circles). The red line denotes the Negative Binomial regression model predicted values and the dotted red lines are the 95% confidence intervals. See Table 9 for model statistics.

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 48 Flabellate Porifera abundance was negatively correlated to ln-rugosity (X53 = -3.90, p <0.001) (Table 9). Flabellate Porifera densities were highly variable up to a ln-rugosity value of -4.3 (Figure 16). No flabellate Porifera were recorded for stations with ln- rugosity values higher than -4.3. The highest abundances of flabellate Porifera were observed at ln-rugosity values between -7 and -5. A marginally significant positive relationship between flabellate Porifera and mud was found (X53 = -3.90, p < 0.05), however, the predicted variables do not fit the data well (Figure 16) and there is considerable variation in the density of flabellate Porifera at all mud percentages.

Figure 16. Plot showing the density of flabellate Porifera per 10m2 against the variable natural log (ln) rugosity (VRM25) (left) and the percentage of mud (right) for each transect. The red line denotes the Negative Binomial regression model predicted values and the dotted red lines are the 95% confidence intervals. See Table 9 for model statistics.

Arborescent Porifera abundance was weakly negatively correlated to ln pebbles (X 55 = -2.14, p <0.05), although no clear relationship was observed when examining the predicted values (Figure 17).

Figure 17. Plot showing the density of arborescent Porifera per 10m2 against the natural log (ln) of the percentage of pebbles at each transect. The red line denotes the Negative Binomial regression model predicted values and the dotted red lines are the 95% confidence intervals. See Table 9 for model statistics.

C. viridis was the only taxon recorded in SACFOR that had variability in distribution and abundance across the site. A positive relationship with slope was observed (X55 = 2.07, p < 0.05) (Figure 18), and for one unit increase in slope, the odds of observing C. viridis (as opposed to not observing C. viridis) increased by a factor of 1.928 (95%

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 49 Confidence Interval (C.I.) = 1.160-4.212). Conversely a negative relationship was seen between the presence of C. viridis and the percentage of shell (X55 = -2.33, p < 0.05) (Figure 18). For a one unit increase in shell, the odds of observing C. viridis decreased by a factor of 0.229 (95% C.I. = 0.048-0.606). The difference between final model and 2 null model was; Chi 2 = 44.54, p <0.0001, log likelihood3 = -10.88), however, the model validity should be taken with caution due to the variable slope almost perfectly predicting the presence and absence of C. viridis.

Figure 18. Plot showing Corynactis viridis presence and absence against the variable slope (left) and percentage of shell (right) for each transect. The red line denotes the Binary Logistic regression model predicted values and the dotted red lines are the 95% confidence intervals. See Table 9 for model statistics.

3.3 Other monitoring requirements

3.3.1 Marine litter No marine litter was observed from images. Barrio-Frojan et al. (2015) reported observations of static gears in the eastern end of the site, which is subject to potting and a long-line fishery. The standardised categories and sub-categories for sea-floor litter as defined by OSPAR/ICES/IBTS for the North East Atlantic and Baltic are listed in Appendix 4.

3.3.2 OSPAR Threatened and/or Declining Species and Habitats No OSPAR Threatened and/or Declining Species and Habitats were observed from images or video segments.

3.3.3 Non-indigenous species No non-indigenous species (NIS) were observed from images or video segments. A list of NIS is provided in Appendix 5 for reference (Table 16 and Table 17).

3.4 Post-hoc power analysis

A post-hoc power analysis run on the full quantitative dataset of 58 stations, including both high energy and moderate energy circalittoral rock determined that 18 stations were required to detect a 20% difference in species richness (S) at 0.8 power. When

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 50 investigating only the pinnacle cluster groups A and B, corresponding to the high energy circalittoral rock habitat, the corresponding figure was 16 stations, whilst for groups C to G, corresponding to the moderate energy circalittoral rock 12 stations were sufficient. Number of stations suggested by the post-hoc power analysis for detecting a 20% difference in the density (individuals/m2) of the potential indicator taxa at 0.8 power varied widely between 57 –181 depending on the taxon (Table 10).

Table 10. Results of a post-hoc power analysis on the suggested indicator taxa. Number of stations required to detect a 20% change in density (individuals/m2) at 0.8 power.

Taxon Distribution Number of stations Eunicella verrucosa Log-normal 57 Porella sp. Normal 181 Porifera - Arborescent Log-normal 122 Porifera - Flabellate Log-normal 92

4 Discussion

4.1 Extent and distribution of the Annex I Reef

The dedicated drop camera monitoring survey of the Haig Fras SAC carried out in May 2015 was able to confirm that the extent and distribution of the Annex I Bedrock Reef, as mapped by Barrio-Froján et al. (2015) may be considered accurate. The reef consists of outcropping bedrock with varying amounts of overlaying sediments. In places the bedrock forms steep pinnacles of clean bedrock, the highest of which reach up to 40 m. The majority of the reef, however, is low-lying bedrock, between 80 - 100 m depth, covered with patches of coarse sediment, sand and small amounts of mud. Tidal currents at the site are weak to moderate with an east-west main direction.

4.2 Structure and function of characteristic biological communities

The steep pinnacles hosted clearly different communities from the deeper flat part of the reef. These sites were classified into high energy circalittoral biotopes (CR.HCR.XFa.CvirCri) in image analysis, and were dominated by Corynactis viridis. The different community composition was also reflected in the results of the cluster analysis, where cluster groups A and B corresponded to transects where a high number of images represent the C. viridis dominated high energy rock biotope. The small number of stations (A = 2, B = 5), does not allow for firm conclusions to be made on differences between the communities. Both groups were characterised by shallow water depths, high rugosity and low levels of sediment and cobbles, however Group A contained the shallowest parts of the pinnacles, also supporting encrusting and

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 51 foliose red algae. Although the pinnacle sites are shallower than the rest of the reef, C. viridis occurred across the full depth range and its distribution at the site was mainly driven by its association with steep slopes, which provide a higher energy environment in comparison to the low-lying reef. The pinnacles are more numerous in the south- western rock platforms and were only sampled in that area. Consequently the pinnacle taxon, C. viridis, especially appeared to occur in very low densities in the north-eastern half of the SAC. Sampling additional pinnacle locations in the north-eastern part of the site could address the spatial bias in the present dataset. The deeper, low-relief parts of the reef were mostly classified as moderate energy rock biotopes centering around ‘Echinoderms and crustose communities’ (CR.MCR.EcCr). A comparison of biotopes assigned to individual images, with the cluster classes given to whole transects, shows that individual biotopes range across cluster groups. CR.MCR.EcCr.CarSp.Bri is primarily associated with groups B and D, probably where the transect is transitioning between the steep pinnacle and lower lying rock. CR.MCR.EcCr.CarSp.PenPcom occurs almost exclusively in Group E. The initial analysis of the presence of CR.MCR.EcCr.CarSwi has been amended following confirmation (through retrieval of specimens) that the Alcyonacean Swiftia pallida is actually the gorgonian Eunicella verrucoa (see Appendix 2). These images have been assigned either CR.MCR.EcCr (32 No.) or CR.MCR.EcCr.CarSp (124), and are distributed across cluster groups C, E, F and G. On a number of transects both the CR.MCR.EcCr biotope and the CR.MCR.EcCr.CarSp sub-biotope and had been assigned to images by the analyst with a note stating that the determination was uncertain and fauna also fit the high energy biotope ‘Phakellia ventilabrum and Axinellid sponges on deep, wave- exposed circalittoral rock’ (CR.HCR.DpSp.PhaAxi). This highlights the inherent difficulties and subjectivity of habitat classification, and the likelihood that some communities assigned to a high energy biotope can also occur in moderate energy conditions. Communities along these imagery transects showed ubiquitous taxa such as encrusting bryozoans, hydrozoan turf, serpulid worms, numerous gastropods and C. smithii, with variations on the relative abundances of hydroids, sponges and echinoderms. The variability in community structure in the deeper low-relief reef was mostly associated with the extent and type of overlying sediment patches, particularly the presence of cobbles, sand and mud. The reef supports a wide variety of sponges, with encrusting, flabellate, massive and arborescent morphotypes most prevalent. E. verrucosa is present at the site in its white form. The pinnacles had lower species richness than the low-lying reef, with the exception of Group D, which included taxa from both habitats. Group A, which corresponds to the highest peaks of the pinnacles, only had 14.5 taxa on average and Group B 20.4 taxa. Taxa richness in the deeper low-lying part of the reef ranged from 22 (Group C) to 30 (Group E) taxa observed. Seven taxa (C. smithii, Nemertesia spp., Porella sp., flabellate and arborescent Porifera, E. verrucosa and C. viridis) have been identified as potential indicators,

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 52 representing typical taxa for Annex I Reef at the Haig Fras SAC. They also show potential for development as indicators of condition, due to their fragile forms, longevity and role in providing three-dimensional structure to the reef. These taxa are often large and easy to identify, whilst simultaneously associated with other specific fauna as part of a rich community (Haynes et al., 2014). E. verrucosa can be used as an indicator of physical disturbance and changes in sedimentation rates and current regime. It is long-lived, slow-growing and fragile and is intolerant of scour, smothering and substratum loss, as well as changes in water flow and oxygen conditions (Hiscock et al., 2005; Haynes et al., 2014). Other slow-growing, long-lived species sensitive to physical disturbance include A. infundibuliformis and P. ventilabrum (collectively Axinellidae due to difficulties in visual determination). These taxa are covered under the arborescent and flabellate sponges at Haig Fras. Although less sensitive to disturbance, additional taxa suggested by Haynes et al. (2014) include C. viridis and C. smithii, which are easy to identify and are associated with other less conspicuous taxa. With the exception of C. smithii and C. viridis, which were only reported on the SACFOR scale, both frequency of occurrence and average abundances were established for the remaining indicator taxa. All investigated indicator taxa were highly variable in their abundance across the site. The feasibility of monitoring any of these taxa hinges on the ability to detect changes in their abundance. Based on the post- hoc power analysis (20% difference in the density (individuals/m2) at 80% power) E. verrucosa and flabellate sponges are the most promising taxa for monitoring, with change detectable using 57 and 92 stations, respectively. The other taxa required more than 100 stations. The high numbers required to detect change are partly a result of attempting to detect change across the entire site, which includes the variability associated with habitat preferences. An attempt was made to identify any trends in the distribution and abundance of the taxa in relation to their environment, to restrict assessment to within their specific environmental envelopes. C. viridis was found to be associated with the steep sloped pinnacles, and could be used as an indicator limited to those locations. Conversely, flabellate sponges and E. verrucosa were associated with the low-lying part of the reef, and could be used as indicators for these habitats. Otherwise very little of the variance was explained by the environmental variables available, indicating either high natural spatial variability, the lack of standardisation in the imagery source data or the lack of appropriate associated environmental variables. All seven potential indicator taxa fulfil the ‘Simplicity’ and ‘Communication’ OSPAR criteria (2012; see Table 3), being easily measurable and providing simple metrics. Given the data limitations detailed in this report (and expanded on in Section 4.3), the error rate associated with measuring these taxa was higher than desirable, however the taxa are likely to meet the ‘Accuracy’ criterion if the imagery data acquisition and analysis recommendations (Section 5) are adopted for future monitoring surveys. ‘Spatial applicability’ was variable; C. viridis has a limited spatial extent across the site

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 53 but could be considered typical of pinnacle taxa, C. smithii, Nemertesia spp., and Porella sp. are widespread across the site, whilst E. verrucosa, flabellate Porifera and arborescent Porifera are present across large areas, but are more restricted in their distribution. Further studies on pressure-state relationships, and the distribution of pressures within the site, would be required to establish whether the taxa would fulfil the ‘Sensitivity’, ‘Specificity’, ‘Responsiveness’, ‘Management link’ and ‘Validity’ criteria. Very few transects were conducted at the pinnacle sites. In survey planning the term ‘pinnacle’ was used to denote the shallowest part of the reef according to depth data. The analysis revealed that pinnacles were more characterised by distinctive topography than depth. The biotope assignations, cluster analysis and analysis of the distribution of potential indicator taxa all indicate that the pinnacle stations are different from the main body of stations. However, only five of the 58 transects included in the quantitative dataset fell into the true pinnacle cluster groups (A and B) with an additional two in the crossover Group D. Additional probable pinnacle sites were identified in a GIS analysis, to indicate potential locations for extra pinnacle transects in future surveys. The post-hoc power analysis on the semi-standardised dataset indicated that 16 transects would be required from the pinnacle sites to detect a 20% change in taxa richness at a power of 0.8. The corresponding number of transects for the low-lying reef was 12. Too few taxa were consistently analysed as counts to produce an equivalent post-hoc analysis of the total abundance per transect to compare with the figure given by the pre-survey power analysis (86).

4.3 Analysis limitations

The rocky nature of the habitat at Haig Fras necessitated the use of a drop camera to collect imagery (as opposed to a bottom-contacting camera sledge). Using a drop camera introduces additional uncertainty into the data derived from video and still imagery, due to the variability in height above the seabed during video segments and between still images (due to avoidance of rocky substrates and at times swell). The variability within video segments makes it difficult to estimate the area sampled and to define an appropriate level of taxonomic identification. Hence this report only utilised data derived from the still images. The image subsetting process (described in Appendix 3) enabled the use of quantitative measures, such as taxa richness, but also greatly reduced the number of stations with sufficient observations to be included in the dataset. Height above seabed influences image resolution, and consequently the size of individuals that can be observed in images along with the level of taxonomic identification possible. A FOV of < 0.6 m2 was found to correspond to ‘Good’ and a FOV of < 0.25 m2 to ‘Excellent’ image quality as specified by the NMBAQC digital imagery interpretation guidelines (Turner et al., 2016). Keeping the image quality and FOV more consistent across the entire dataset made taxonomic truncation of the community dataset easier and reduced arbitrary variation in the resulting community

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 54 matrix. Species accumulation curves, calculated as part of the image data subsetting procedure, revealed that the appropriate area of seafloor to sample the rock community with still imagery on the scale of a 200 metre drop camera transect was ~ 5 m2, which corresponds to 10 images at a FOV of 0.5 m2, or 20 images at a FOV of 0.25 m2. Several transects fell short of the optimal area. Due to the varying FOV in images it was not possible to fully standardise the transect sample area, or the number of images included. As a compromise a semi-standardised dataset was achieved by restricting the sample total area between 2 – 3m2, made up of 7 – 18 images. Only 58 out of 91 transects were retained with the intermediate image quality thresholds applied in this report. Stricter thresholds for image quality would likely have given better, more robust data but would have led to a smaller total area and fewer transects included in the final dataset. A larger number of good quality images is required to achieve a comprehensive dataset. The lack of quantitative (count or percent cover) abundance metrics in the full community dataset restricted the analysis and the power of statistical testing that could be achieved with the data. SACFOR abundances, which are only semi-quantitative, had to be used for community analyses, limiting the interpretation and usefulness of their results. The large number of taxa identified to very coarse taxonomic resolution also made many of the diversity metrics and taxonomic distinctness inapplicable.

4.4 Anthropogenic impacts

Assessment of fishing activity in the SAC has shown that the predominant fishing activities overlapping the reef feature consist of longlining and static netting (anchored/seine nets), whilst demersal trawling occurs on the sediment habitats at the base of the reef and through the two sediment corridors that run between the reef features (JNCC, 2014). The 2011 survey, as reported by Barrio-Froján et al. (2015) observed static fishing gear in the eastern half of the site. No evidence of fishing activities or lost gear were recorded from Haig Fras during the 2015 survey.

4.5 Other monitoring requirements

No OSPAR Threatened and/or Declining Species or Habitats, non-indigenous species (MSFD Descriptor 2) or marine litter (MSFD Descriptor 10) were observed at Haig Fras in the 2015 survey.

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 55 5 Recommendations and future monitoring

5.1 Operational recommendations

• Still images should be the primary source of information, and for analysis purposes should be as standardised as feasibly possible using a drop frame camera system that is not designed to land on the seafloor. It is important to collect many still images of good quality with as similar an FOV as possible, covering a minimum of 5 m2 per transect of standard length. Images with a standard analysed area would make it possible to collate a standard number of images to make up a set sample area for each transect. The best way to achieve images of equal field of view, outside of systems that are towed or landed on the seafloor, is to ensure image capture at a standardised height above the sea floor. This method standardises the image FOV, and therefore ground resolution, at image capture, yielding a fully comparable set of images. It should be noted that this method is logistically challenging in the field due to the need to continually adjust the altitude of the camera unit in response to topographical changes, vessel speed, currents and swell. • A Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) could be considered to mitigate some of the issues associated with drop cameras. The additional financial costs would, however, need to be considered in the context of the required data quality and potential modifications to existing systems. • Methods of standardising the length and area analysed along video segments should be further investigated to make the video data more useful for analysis purposes. Video is a good source of counts for conspicuous taxa once the area sampled can be quantified. A quadrat projected onto the ground by fan lasers at capture would allow for counts of individuals from a standardised area. This would be especially advantageous for counts from video segments in rocky terrain, where the camera will be lifted and lowered very frequently to avoid contact with the ground. • Alternatively, video and images taken at different heights can be post- processed to include a quadrat frame of standardised size prior to analysis. Two pairs of laser scaling devices on the drop camera frame would allow for average FOVs to be calculated and trapezium quadrats to be drawn on each image, to account for the angle of the camera. Such post-processed images will provide a set area cover, but do not account for the variable ground resolution in images of different FOV. • The above recommendations for imagery standardisation would improve the likelihood of the potential indicator taxa fulfilling the ‘Accuracy’ criterion. • In this report individual still images were pooled into one sample per transect. Single images of good or adequate quality cover too small an area of the

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 56 seafloor to act as single samples. Each sample location should be consistent, and attempt to minimise within-transect variability. Variability across the site should be captured between transects. Consequently, transects should be kept within depth and substrate type if possible. Shorter transects with more frequent photos would reduce in-transect variability, especially on the pinnacle stations. • Additional stations on the newly described distinct pinnacle locations (as distinct from the predicted ‘pinnacle’ areas targeted by the survey design) would allow the use of quantitative metrics in monitoring at the habitat type level. The power analysis suggests a minimum of 16 stations is needed for the pinnacle habitat. The potential pinnacle locations identified in Section 3.2.2 can be used to identify new sampling locations. • Transects should be located using a stratified random approach. Stratification should, however, be based upon detailed topographic and substratum type information, to ensure a consistent sampling target (pinnacle, rock outcrop, area of flat rock) and reduce environmental variation along transects.

5.2 Analytical recommendations

• Still images are the preferred source of information when imagery has been collected using a drop camera in the challenging conditions of a rocky reef. At Haig Fras much of the video was not usable for analysis due to the camera only occasionally being at a height above the seabed appropriate for observation of fauna. If data from the video segments is to be included in analysis (e.g. for quantification of conspicuous indicator taxa), the video needs to be analysed using a standardised segment, excluding parts of the video which are above a set height above the seabed length, to give a quantitative standardised dataset for statistical testing. The standard segment length will in practise be determined by the shortest distance the camera is within range. • A standard level of taxonomic detail needs to be set for the identification of each taxon observed at the site. Using a morphotype/species where needed will be more informative than a strictly taxonomic identification. It is often not possible to identify taxa to species or genus, and often identification is done at a much coarser level of taxonomy, losing a great deal of information. It is important to recognise the limitations of identification from imagery of such species as A. infundibuliformis versus P. ventilabrum, or arborescent Axinella spp. vs. Raspailia spp. In addition to the standard level agreed upon, taxa can be identified to more detailed level where possible, for use in a site species list, whilst not included in any quantitative analysis. • For each taxon that will be used in quantitative analysis, a decision should also be taken on how it will be enumerated (count vs. percent cover) and abundance recorded the same way for each image. Also, it should be considered how the scales used will affect merging of taxa at the truncation stage. The decisions

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 57 made for the first monitoring event will determine the scale used in all successive surveys. • Introducing one standardised measurement unit for all taxa, through other abundance estimate methods, such as standardised quadrat square counts or random point counts within a standardised area of the image, could also be considered for repeatable, comparable measurements for quantitative analysis. In addition to providing a more inclusive and comprehensive dataset, this would increase the likelihood of the potential indicator taxa fulfilling the OSPAR (2012) ‘Accuracy’ criterion. • The best dataset for quantitative analysis (a fully quantitative, standardised dataset using robust scientific design) would be achieved by having a standard area of the seafloor analysed in each image, allowing the use of the same number of images for each transect to achieve same sample area. • On a number of transects the biotope membership was unclear (e.g. the similarity between CR.MCR.EcCr(CarSp) and CR.HCR.DpSp.PhaAxi biotope), highlighting the fact that biotope classifications are inherently subjective. Assigning a biotope to individual stills without considering the surrounding habitat and community can lead to inflated variability, therefore any future changes in biotope membership should be interpreted with caution. • Many of the images which were classified showing similarity to CR.HCR.DpSp.PhaAxi occurred in low-lying deeper areas of moderate energy, indicating that a moderate energy version of the same biotope could be considered as an addition to the MNCR classification. • Further studies should consider investigation of pressure-state relationships, and the distribution of pressures within the site (e.g. measurement of sediment suspension and deposition in reef areas close to trawling activity), would be required to establish whether the potential indicator taxa could fulfil the OSPAR (2012) ‘Sensitivity’, ‘Specificity’, ‘Responsiveness’, ‘Management link’ and ‘Validity’ criteria.

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 58 6 References

Astrium. (2011). Creation of a high resolution Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the British Isles continental shelf: Final Report. Prepared for Defra, Contract Reference: 13820. 26 pp.

Barrio Froján, C., Diesing, M. and Curtis, M. (2015). Mapping of the Haig Fras Site of Community Importance (SCI). JNCC/Cefas Partnership Report Series, No. 4.

Callaway, A. (2015). CEND0915 cruise report: Monitoring at Haig Fras candidate Special Area of Conservation/Site of Community Importance and East of Haig Fras Marine Conservation Zone. 117 pp.

Clarke, K.R. and Gorley, R.N. (2015). PRIMER v7: User Manual/Tutorial. PRIMER-E, Plymouth, 296pp

Clarke, K.R., Gorley, R.N., Somerfield, P.J. and Warwick, R.M. (2014). Change in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation, 3rd edition. PRIMER-E, Plymouth, 260pp

Coggan, R. (2012). Haig Fras SAC ‘Infill survey’ report. Cefas contract report C5785A, 52pp.

Coggan, R., Mitchell, A., White, J. and Golding, N. (2007). Recommended operating guidelines (ROG) for underwater video and photographic imaging techniques Available via: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20081008131756/http://www.searchmesh .net/Default.aspx?page=1739 [Accessed: 14/022019].

Connor, D.W., Gilliland, P.M., Golding, N., Robinson, P., Todd, D. and Verling, E. (2006). UKSeaMap: the mapping of seabed and water column features of UK seas. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.

Folk, R.L. (1954). The distinction between grain size and mineral composition in sedimentary rock nomenclature. Journal of Geology 62, 344-359.

Elliott, M., Nedwell, S., Jones, N.V., Read, S.J., Cutts, N.D. and Hemingway, K. L. (1998). Volume II Intertidal Sand and Mudflats & Subtidal Mobile Sandbanks. An overview of dynamic and sensitivity characteristics for conservation management of marine SACs. UK Marine SACs Project. Oban, Scotland, English Nature. Eno, N.C., Clarke, R.A. and Sanderson, W.G. (1997) Non-native marine species in British waters: a review and directory. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. EUROPEAN TOPIC CENTRE (ETC). 2011. Assessment and reporting under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive. Explanatory notes and guidelines for the period 2007- 2012. https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/2c12cea2-f827-4bdb-bb56-3731c9fd8b40/Art17%20- %20Guidelines-final.pdf. [Accessed 10/08/2018].

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 59 Haynes, T., Bell, J., Saunders, G., Irving, R,. Williams, J. and Bell, G. (2014). Marine Strategy Framework Directive Shallow Sublittoral Rock Indicators for Fragile Sponge and Anthozoan Assemblages. JNCC Report No. 524, NatureBureau and Environment Systems Ltd. For JNCC, JNCC Peterborough.

Hiscock, K., Jenkins, S., Sewell, J. and Hawkins, S. (2005). Development of a hard substratum benthic invertebrate Water Framework Directive compliant classification tool. Report to the Environment Agency and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee from the Marine Biological Association, Plymouth. JNCC Contract F90-01-790. 54 pp.

Huvenne, V.A.I., Wynn, R.B., Gales, J.A. et al. (2016). RRS James Cook Cruise 124- 125-126 09 Aug-12 Sep 2016. CODEMAP2015: Habitat mapping and ROV vibrocorer trials around Whittard Canyon and Haig Fras. National Oceanography Centre Cruise Report, No. 36. National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, 223pp. Irving, R. (2009). The identification of the main characteristics of stony reef habitats under the Habitats Directive. Summary report of an inter-agency workshop 26-27 March 2008. JNCC Report No. 432. Jenkins, C. and McIlwaine, P. (2015). Isles of Scilly SAC iVMS Survey 2015. Project Code: C5785R&S. Available from Defra on request. JNCC. (2004). Common Standards Monitoring Guidance for Littoral Sediment Habitats. Peterborough, Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC). JNCC. (2014). Offshore Special Area of Conservation Haig Fras Conservation Objectives and Advice on Operations. Version 5.0 (May 2014). 23 pp. http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/Haig%20Fras_ConservationObjectives_AdviceonOperat ions_5.0.pdf [Accessed 10/08/2018]. JNCC. (2018a). Conservation objectives for Haig Fras Special Area of Conservation (SAC). http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/HaigFras_ConservationObjectives_V1.0.pdf. [Accessed 05/02/19]. JNCC. (2018b). Supplementary Advice on Conservation Objectives for Haig Fras Special Area of Conservation. http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/HaigFras_SACO_V1.0.pdf [Accessed 05/02/2019]. Kindt, R. and Coe, R. (2005). Tree diversity analysis: A manual and software for common statistical methods for ecological and biodiversity studies. MNCR. (1990). SACFOR abundance scale used for both littoral and sublittoral taxa from 1990 onwards. http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-2684 [Accessed 10/08/2018]. MSFD Technical Subgroup on Marine Litter. (2013). Guidance on Monitoring of Marine Litter in European Seas. A guidance document within the Common Implementation Strategy for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. JRC Scientific and Policy Reports. 128pp.

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 60 Natural England and Joint Nature Conservation Committee. (2010). The Marine Conservation Zone Project: Ecological Network Guidance. Sheffield and Peterborough, UK.

Norling, K., Rosenburg, R., Hulth, S., Gremare, A. and Bonsdorff, E. (2007). Importance of functional biodiversity and specific-specific traits of benthic fauna for ecosystem functions in marine sediment. Marine Ecology Progress Series 332, 11-23. OSPAR. (2012). MSFD Advice Manual and Background Document on Biodiversity: Approaches to determining good environmental status, setting of environmental targets and selecting indicators for Marine Strategy Framework Directive descriptors 1, 2, 4 and 6. Version 3.2 (5 March 2012). Prepared by the OSPAR Intersessional Correspondence Group on the Coordination of Biodiversity Assessment and Monitoring (ICG COBAM) under the responsibility of the OSPAR Biodiversity Committee (BDC), OSPAR Commission, London Rasband, W.S. (1997-2016). ImageJ. U. S. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA, https://imagej.nih.gov/ij/ [Accessed 10/08/2018]. R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.

R Studio Team. (2015). RStudio: Integrated Development for R. RStudio, Inc., Boston, MA: http://www.rstudio.com/.

Rees, E.I.S. (2000). Preliminary observations on benthic biotopes at Haig Fras: an isolated submerged rock in the Celtic Sea. Southampton: OSPAR/ICES/EEA Second Workshop on Habitat Classification, 18-22 September 2000.

Soulsby, R. (1997). Dynamics of marine sands: a manual for practical applications. Thomas Telford.

Stebbing, P., Murray, J., Whomersley, P. and Tidbury, H. (2014). Monitoring and surveillance for non-indigenous species in UK marine waters. Defra Report. 57 pp.

Thomas, R., Vaughan, I. and Lello, J. (2013). Data Analysis with R Statistical Software. A Guidebook for Scientists. Newport: Eco-explore.pp1-150.

Turner, J.A., Hitchin, R., Verling, E. and van Rein, H. (2016). Epibiota remote monitoring from digital imagery: Interpretation guidelines. NMBAQC.

Venables, W.N. and Ripley, B.D. (2002) Modern Applied Statistics with S. Fourth edition. Springer.

Walbridge, S., Slocum, N., Pobuda, M. and Wright, D.J. (2018) Unified Geomorphological Analysis Workflows with Benthic Terrain Modeler. Geosciences (Switzerland). 8 (3)

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 61 Appendix 1. Selection of still images for quantitative analysis

Video and still images acquired using cameras towed on the seafloor have a consistent field of view (FOV) across the tow and are hence readily applicable to quantitative analysis. However, imagery acquired using a drop-frame camera often consists of video segments and images taken at a wide range of heights above the seafloor, leading to variability both in the FOV and the pixel ground resolution in images. Imagery from drop cameras is therefore not comparable across the tow, and consequently not suitable for quantitative analysis. The still images were chosen for analysis of species richness and multivariate community statistics, due to the relative ease of evaluating the area sampled across the tow, in comparison to the video data and, hence, create a semi-standardised quantitative dataset. To extract a subset of still images to achieve a comparable sampled area, first the area of each image was calculated, and consequently a representative and comparable subset of images was selected for each tow. Automated Image Field of View Calculation FOV, measured in m2, was calculated for each still image by measuring horizontally the number of pixels between the points projected by each laser pair (set at 170 mm apart) and scaling to the pixel dimensions of the images (2592 x 1944 px). The average FOV was then calculated from the two measurements obtained from each laser- scaling device pair. The measurements were taken using a batch processing macro in ImageJ v1.51n (Rasband, 1999-2016) that automatically identified the laser points. The ‘Split Channel’ tool was used during initial runs to isolate the red channel and create a selection of pixels within threshold values (see Figure 19). The ‘Colour Threshold’ tool was also used to select pixels according to the thresholds set for hue, saturation and brightness, that were not selected using the ‘Split Channel’ tool. A mask was saved of the selected pixels for each image.

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 62

Figure 19. Selection of laser pixels using Red channel threshold values.

The ‘Analyse Particles’ tool was used to select ‘particles’ formed by contiguous pixels in the selection by both size and circularity. The particle selection step was included to eliminate other objects with similar colour values that had been selected using the ‘Split Channel’ or ‘Colour Threshold’ tools (see Figure 20 a & b). The laser point selection was not always successful, resulting in too few or too many ‘particles’ identified in the image (see Figure 20 c & d). Those images with greater or fewer than four ‘particles’ selected were not measured and were copied into a separate folder for further assessment. Several runs of the macro were repeated using altered thresholds and particle attribute settings, to maximise the number of images measured (Table 11). Each new run included the images that were left unmeasured by the previous run. Images still left unmeasured by the end of the final run, were either of very poor quality and ignored, or had biota with very similar reflectance to the laser points and were measured manually. As an additional check, percentage difference in the pixel distance between each laser pair was also calculated and any measured pair that differed by more than 30% in the first run and 100% in runs 2 and 3, were flagged up as unmeasured. Different images had different optimal thresholds for picking up the laser spots. The selected points were saved as a separate mask (.jpg) and visually checked.

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 63 a) b)

c) d)

Figure 20. Examples of the 'Particle Analysis' tool in ImageJ v1.51n used during the automated field of view (m2) calculation procedure. The mask of pixels selected using the ‘Split Channel’ or ‘Colour Threshold’ tools is shown to the right of its respective image. Contiguous pixel aggregations selected in the ‘Particle Analysis’ are highlighted in blue in the masks. Objects in an image (a) with similar colour values to the laser spots were excluded from the particle selection (b). In some images (c) several objects had the same size and shape as laser points, leading to selection of more than four points (d).

Table 11. Threshold ranges for the red channel, hue, saturation, brightness, particle size and circularity used in ImageJ to extract pixels corresponding to the laser points for each batch run, and the number of images measured automatically in each batch run and manually measured.

Red channel Hue Saturation Brightness Particle size Circularity No. images

Run 1 240-255 / / / 50-infinity 0.6-1.0 970

Run 2 230-255 / / / 40-infinity 0.4-1.0 127

Run 3 / 225-255 44-255 108-255 40-infinity 0.4-1.0 196

Manual / / / / / / 611

Total 1904

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 64 Image viewable area Each image with a calculated FOV was visually inspected and the percent viewable area (% VA) of the image was estimated. Only parts of the image that were sufficiently lit and focused, and free from obstruction by material in the water column, to allow identification of taxa, were considered to form the viewable area. A 2x2 grid was overlaid on each image and the percentage of the image that was not obscured from view was estimated at 5% intervals. Selection of images for quality and consistency The range of FOV in images was plotted for each habitat type, with the analyst defined Quality Score (Excellent / Good / Poor / Very poor, as defined in the NMBAQC guidelines, Turner et al., 2016) to gauge the appropriate FOV range for quantitative analysis (Figure 21). Good quality images were mainly below a FOV of 0.25 m2, whereas images with a FOV above 0.6 m2 tended to be of poor quality. Better quality images with a small FOV number contain greater taxonomic diversity due to the smaller number of uncertain identifications in well-lit, high-resolution images. Most images, however, were in the 0.25 – 0.6 m2 FOV range (‘Good’ quality).

Figure 21. Range of image FOV (m2) across broadscale habitats for each image quality class (assigned by the analyst during image processing).

The final image quality parameter threshold was chosen to optimise both the number of sampling stations with a sufficient number of images and taxonomic detail retained (see Table 12). A FOV of 0.6 m2 and VA of 70% were chosen as the thresholds for image quality parameters. Due to the very low number of images of sufficient quality for ‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock’ in comparison to ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’, the two broadscale habitats were merged for the following steps in the process.

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 65 Table 12. The number of stations with a set number of images retained after applying various field of view thresholds.

FOV 0.6 m2, VA 65% FOV 0.5 m2, VA 70% FOV 0.4 m2, VA 75% No. Images No. Stations No. Stations No. Stations 1 91 91 90 5 85 80 71 6 83 77 64 7 80 71 55 8 74 61 50 10 60 50 38

Quantitative data subset Species accumulation curves per tow were computed using the filtered dataset. The image FOV and VA were combined to give the actual viewed area in m2 of each image. A plot of species accumulation with increasing area covered by images were used to determine the standard sample area per transect to include in the final dataset (Figure 22). The species accumulation curves were calculated in R (v. 3.3.2, R Core Team, 2017) using the accumcomp function in the ‘BiodiversityR’ package (Kindt and Coe, 2005). The species accumulation curves (shown below) indicated that a sampled area of approximately 4 – 5 m2 was required to sufficiently describe diversity along a transect. Very few transects had enough images to achieve this area. As a compromise, a standard area range of 2 – 3 m2 was selected, to minimise area dependence in quantitative estimates. Images for each transect were randomly sub- sampled until the maximum area of 3 m2 was achieved for a transect. Transects that did not reach a minimum area of 2 m2 were rejected. A total of 58 transects were included in the final dataset.

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 66

Figure 22. Species accumulation curves for transects with a minimum of 15 images, with estimated confidence intervals (2 x st. dev.). The selected standard sample cumulative area range is highlighted in blue. The final taxon matrix was truncated according to the protocols laid out in the following section. SACFOR abundance from individual images in each transect were pooled into one abundance value per taxon by taking the median numeric SACFOR value across all included images.

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 67 Appendix 2. Epifauna data truncation protocol applied to seabed imagery data

Still image data were acquired from the drop camera survey carried out in 2015. Initially, all assigned taxon names were collated with accompanying counts of occurrences in each data set. All taxon names were linked to an entry in an aggregation matrix forming a truncation matrix that was used as a basis for decisions. The taxonomic entries in the data were compared to the taxonomic reference collection of example stills, provided by the contractor in support of their identification decisions, to examine which taxon entries were exclusive of others. Taxa were recorded over many taxonomic levels between species and phyla. In some cases, especially for Arthropods, Cnidarians, Echinoderms and Molluscs, the taxonomic level used for uncertain identifications was prohibitively high (Class or Order level) to allow for truncation to the lowest common denominator. The coarser taxonomic categories were used for individuals that were small or partially obscured. Instead of aggregating taxa up to the coarsest level and losing all the taxonomic detail below, those entries were dealt in two ways depending on the intended use of the output dataset: 1. The very general taxonomic categories were removed entirely from the community matrix used for multivariate statistics. Inclusion of the overlapping high-level taxa would introduce too much noise into an analysis which relies on taxa being exclusive. 2. The entries were kept alongside the lower taxonomic categories in the community matrix used for calculating diversity statistics and species accumulation curves. The likelihood of overestimating diversity by adding the taxa is much lower than underestimating diversity by removing them. Otherwise, epifauna data preparation and truncation in both dataset followed the steps detailed below: 1. All fish, cephalopods and eggs were removed. Other taxa were combined to the highest common taxonomic level with some exceptions detailed below (examples included). 2. Porifera were reduced to morphotypes (following Turner et al., 2016). Generally, each morphotype was represented by one dominant species, with very few observations of a secondary species and most observations were not made at genus or species level. 3. Large and easily distinguishable taxa identified to species or genus were kept separate, even when other taxa were truncated to a higher taxonomic category, where there was no chance of overlap. 4. Where a Class/Order level was used for a taxon that was clearly different from taxa identified to a more detailed level below it, the higher-level taxon was kept separate, instead of truncating all taxa to the highest denominator.

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 68 5. Where an uncertain species identification overlapped with a morphotype, the species was truncated to morphotype (e.g. Palmiskenea skenei was included in Erect bryozoa, which always referred to a small orange bryozoan visually similar to P. skenei). 6. An Alcyonacean species present at the site was identified as the northern sea fan (Swiftia pallida) in image analysis, based on its physical appearance (small size of individuals and white colour; see Figure 23). Physical samples of two colonies collected by ROV at Haig Fras by National Oceanography Centre (NOC) and Cefas on the RRS James Cook cruise 124 (JC124) between 10th – 12th August 2015 (Huvenne et al., 2016), and analysed by APEM, however, were identified as the pink sea fan (Eunicella verrucosa); consequently, the identification was changed from S. pallida to E. verrucosa.

Figure 23. In-situ images of the two Alcyonacean individuals (a, b) sampled by ROV on JC124, and a map showing the sampling location (c).

The final truncatation table for the still image dataset is provided in Table 13, detailing the truncation decisions and rationales.

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 69 Table 13. Full truncation table, showing decisions made for the still image dataset. Original taxon is given as recorded by the image analyst, with qualifiers. N = number of images with < 0.5 m2 FOV and ≥ 70% of image visible, in which each taxon was observed. Taxonomic classification is sourced from the WoRMS database. Truncation notes outline the rationale behind each truncation decision.

Original taxon name Qualifier N Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species Truncated name Truncated name Truncation notes (diversity (community analysis) analysis) Polychaeta tube 623 Annelida Polychaeta Polychaeta (other) Polychaeta (other) Kept separate from other Polychaetes, as this seems to refer to small tubes in conjunction with soft sediment pockets ( not Serpulidae, Sabellidae, Terebellidae or Polynoidae).

Polychaeta ?Ditrupa sp 0 Annelida Polychaeta Remove Remove Delete - does not appear in selected images. Spirobranchus sp; tube 0 Annelida Polychaeta Sabellida Serpulidae Spirobranchus Remove Remove Delete - does not appear in selected images. Polynoidae 1 Annelida Polychaeta Phyllodocida Polynoidae Polynoidae Polynoidae No change needed Sabella pavonina 0 Annelida Polychaeta Sabellida Sabellidae Sabella pavonina Sabellidae Sabellidae Merged to lowest common denominator Sabella pavonina tube 6 Annelida Polychaeta Sabellida Sabellidae Sabella pavonina Sabellidae Sabellidae Sabellidae 4 Annelida Polychaeta Sabellida Sabellidae Sabellidae Sabellidae Salmacina dysteri or Filograna 15 Annelida Polychaeta Sabellida Serpulidae Salmacina dysteri Salmacina dysteri Salmacina dysteri Very different from other Serpulidae, note that could be Filograna sp or sp? Salmacina dysteri Serpulidae 636 Annelida Polychaeta Sabellida Serpulidae Serpulidae Serpulidae No change needed Terebellidae 11 Annelida Polychaeta Terebellida Terebellidae Terebellidae Terebellidae No change needed Amphipoda 1 Arthropoda Malacostraca Amphipoda Amphipoda Amphipoda No change needed Decapoda 14 Arthropoda Malacostraca Decapoda Remove Remove Delete - taxon too indistinct. Cancer pagurus 0 Arthropoda Malacostraca Decapoda Cancridae Cancer pagurus Remove Remove Delete - does not appear in selected images. Inachus 0 Arthropoda Malacostraca Decapoda Inachidae Inachus Remove Remove Delete - does not appear in selected images. Palinurus elephas 0 Arthropoda Malacostraca Decapoda Palinuridae Palinurus elephas Remove Remove Delete - does not appear in selected images. Portunidae 0 Arthropoda Malacostraca Decapoda Portunidae Remove Remove Delete - does not appear in selected images. Brachyura 7 Arthropoda Malacostraca Decapoda Brachyura Brachyura Combined to Brachyura, not distinct enough in images, Brachyura most Inachidae 3 Arthropoda Malacostraca Decapoda Inachidae Brachyura Brachyura likely includes examples of both taxa. Ebalia 10 Arthropoda Malacostraca Decapoda Leucosiidae Ebalia Brachyura Brachyura Galatheoidea 3 Arthropoda Malacostraca Decapoda Galatheoidea Galatheoidea Galatheoidea most likely refers to impartial view of Munida rugosa. Munida rugosa 22 Arthropoda Malacostraca Decapoda Munididae Munida rugosa Galatheoidea Galatheoidea Combined to lowest common denominator.

Paguridae 187 Arthropoda Malacostraca Decapoda Paguridae Paguridae Paguridae No change needed Caridea 30 Arthropoda Malacostraca Decapoda Caridea Caridea No change needed Brachiopoda 411 Brachiopoda Brachiopoda Brachiopoda Merged Brachiopoda yellow/silt 39 Brachiopoda Brachiopoda Brachiopoda covered Bryozoa Encrusting 913 Bryozoa Bryozoa Bryozoa Merged all encrusting Bryozoa as colour was not specified for large (encrusting) (encrusting) number of observations. Bryozoa orange 655 Bryozoa Bryozoa Bryozoa encrusting (encrusting) (encrusting) Bryozoa red encrusting 12 Bryozoa Bryozoa Bryozoa (encrusting) (encrusting) Cellepora pumicosa 0 Bryozoa Gymnolaemata Cheilostomatida Celleporidae Cellepora pumicosa Bryozoa Bryozoa (encrusting) (encrusting) Bryozoa Erect 142 Bryozoa Bryozoa (erect) Bryozoa (erect) Merged the tentative ID of Palmiskenea to erect Bryozoa, which seems Palmiskenea skenei tentative 27 Bryozoa Gymnolaemata Cheilostomatida Bryocryptellidae Palmiskenea skenei Bryozoa (erect) Bryozoa (erect) to refer to a similar growth form. Bryozoa turf 114 Bryozoa Bryozoa (turf) Bryozoa (turf) Refers to specific indistinct turf. Pentapora foliacea 12 Bryozoa Gymnolaemata Cheilostomatida Bitectiporidae Pentapora foliacea Pentapora foliacea Pentapora foliacea No change needed Porella compressa 5 Bryozoa Gymnolaemata Cheilostomatida Bryocryptellidae Porella compressa Porella Porella Merged to lowest common denominator Porella 452 Bryozoa Gymnolaemata Cheilostomatida Bryocryptellidae Porella Porella Porella Buguloidea 9 Bryozoa Gymnolaemata Cheilostomatida Buguloidea Buguloidea Merged to lowest common denominator Bugula 4 Bryozoa Gymnolaemata Cheilostomatida Bugulidae Bugula Buguloidea Buguloidea Caberea boryi 6 Bryozoa Gymnolaemata Cheilostomatida Candidae Caberea boryi Caberea boryi Caberea boryi No change needed Omalosecosa ramulosa 0 Bryozoa Gymnolaemata Cheilostomatida Celleporidae Omalosecosa ramulosa Omalosecosa Omalosecosa No change needed ramulosa ramulosa Reteporella 49 Bryozoa Gymnolaemata Cheilostomatida Phidoloporidae Reteporella Reteporella Reteporella No change needed Alcyonidium diaphanum 316 Bryozoa Gymnolaemata Ctenostomatida Alcyonidiidae Alcyonidium diaphanum Alcyonidium Alcyonidium No change needed diaphanum diaphanum Trisopterus luscus 4 Chordata Actinopterygii Gadiformes Gadidae Trisopterus luscus Remove Remove Removing all mobile chordates

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 70

Original taxon name Qualifier N Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species Truncated name Truncated name Truncation notes (diversity (community analysis) analysis) Gadidae 3 Chordata Actinopterygii Gadiformes Gadidae Remove Remove Molva molva 0 Chordata Actinopterygii Gadiformes Lotidae Molva molva Remove Remove Merluccius merluccius 0 Chordata Actinopterygii Gadiformes Merlucciidae Merluccius merluccius Remove Remove Lophius piscatorius 0 Chordata Actinopterygii Lophiiformes Lophiidae Lophius piscatorius Remove Remove Anarhichas lupus 1 Chordata Actinopterygii Perciformes Anarhichadidae Anarhichas lupus Remove Remove Blenniidae 0 Chordata Actinopterygii Perciformes Blenniidae Remove Remove Gobiidae 1 Chordata Actinopterygii Perciformes Gobiidae Remove Remove Labrus bergylta 0 Chordata Actinopterygii Perciformes Labridae Labrus bergylta Remove Remove Labrus mixtus 0 Chordata Actinopterygii Perciformes Labridae Labrus mixtus Remove Remove Microstomus kitt 0 Chordata Actinopterygii Pleuronectiformes Pleuronectidae Microstomus kitt Remove Remove Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis 0 Chordata Actinopterygii Pleuronectiformes Scophthalmidae Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis Remove Remove Pleuronectiformes 6 Chordata Actinopterygii Pleuronectiformes Remove Remove Chelidonichthys cuculus 0 Chordata Actinopterygii Scorpaeniformes Triglidae Chelidonichthys cuculus Remove Remove Triglidae 1 Chordata Actinopterygii Scorpaeniformes Triglidae Remove Remove Teleostei 2 Chordata Actinopterygii Remove Remove Diazona violacea 23 Chordata Ascidiacea Aplousobranchia Diazonidae Diazona violacea Diazona violacea Diazona violacea Very distinct species with no morphotype overlap with other Ascidians observed in images. Ascidiacea Colonial 35 Chordata Ascidiacea Ascidiacea Ascidiacea Merging all colonial Ascideans (colonial) (colonial) Polyclinidae 3 Chordata Ascidiacea Aplousobranchia Polyclinidae Ascidiacea Ascidiacea (colonial) (colonial) Ascidiacea Solitary 54 Chordata Ascidiacea Ascidiacea Ascidiacea Merging all solitary Ascideans; all of the same large body type and have (solitary) (solitary) similar colour morphs. 'Ascidea Solitary' (which has most observations) Ascidia virginea 3 Chordata Ascidiacea Phlebobranchia Ascidiidae Ascidia virginea Ascidiacea Ascidiacea could be any of them. (solitary) (solitary) Ciona intestinalis 10 Chordata Ascidiacea Phlebobranchia Cionidae Ciona intestinalis Ascidiacea Ascidiacea (solitary) (solitary) Polycarpa 0 Chordata Ascidiacea Stolidobranchia Styelidae Polycarpa Ascidiacea Ascidiacea (solitary) (solitary) Actiniaria green 0 Cnidaria Anthozoa Actiniaria Remove Remove Delete - not in selected images ?fluoroescent Bolocera tuediae 0 Cnidaria Anthozoa Actiniaria Actiniidae Bolocera tuediae Remove Remove Delete - not in selected images Urticina felina 0 Cnidaria Anthozoa Actiniaria Actiniidae Urticina felina Remove Remove Delete - not in selected images Actiniaria 43 Cnidaria Anthozoa Actiniaria Actiniaria Actiniaria Keeping all separate Actiniarians for diversity analysis with additional Urticina 3 Cnidaria Anthozoa Actiniaria Actiniidae Urticina Urticina Actiniaria Actiniaria category - this does overlap with most of the specific taxa ID'd, but the majority of anemones have been identified at that level. Capnea sanguinea 9 Cnidaria Anthozoa Actiniaria Capneidae Capnea sanguinea Capnea sanguinea Actiniaria Combining all Actiniaria for community analysis where the small number Edwardsiidae 2 Cnidaria Anthozoa Actiniaria Edwardsiidae Edwardsiidae Actiniaria of observations of specific taxa will obfuscate the similarity between Mesacmaea mitchellii 1 Cnidaria Anthozoa Actiniaria Haloclavidae Mesacmaea mitchellii Mesacmaea Actiniaria sites. mitchellii Adamsia palliata 1 Cnidaria Anthozoa Actiniaria Hormathiidae Adamsia palliata Adamsia palliata Actiniaria Hormathia coronata 1 Cnidaria Anthozoa Actiniaria Hormathiidae Hormathia coronata Hormathia Actiniaria coronata Metridium dianthus 2 Cnidaria Anthozoa Actiniaria Metridiidae Metridium dianthus Metridium dianthus Actiniaria Sagartia elegans 3 Cnidaria Anthozoa Actiniaria Sagartiidae Sagartia elegans Sagartiidae Actiniaria Sagartia 1 Cnidaria Anthozoa Actiniaria Sagartiidae Sagartia Sagartiidae Actiniaria Sagartiidae 4 Cnidaria Anthozoa Actiniaria Sagartiidae Sagartiidae Actiniaria Alcyonium digitatum 6 Cnidaria Anthozoa Alcyonacea Alcyoniidae Alcyonium digitatum Alcyonium Alcyonium No change needed digitatum digitatum Alcyonium glomeratum 2 Cnidaria Anthozoa Alcyonacea Alcyoniidae Alcyonium glomeratum Alcyonium Alcyonium No change needed glomeratum glomeratum Alcyonium 1 Cnidaria Anthozoa Alcyonacea Alcyoniidae Alcyonium Alcyonium Alcyonium Checked image - this appears to be Alcyonium digitatum digitatum digitatum Swiftia pallida 91 Cnidaria Anthozoa Alcyonacea Plexauridae Swiftia pallida Eunicella Eunicella Physical sample ID'd as Eunicella verrucosa verrucosa Corynactis viridis 108 Cnidaria Anthozoa Corallimorpharia Corallimorphidae Corynactis viridis Corynactis viridis Corynactis viridis No change needed Virgularia mirabilis 0 Cnidaria Anthozoa Pennatulacea Virgulariidae Virgularia mirabilis Remove Remove Delete - not in selected images Caryophyllia smithii 895 Cnidaria Anthozoa Scleractinia Caryophylliidae Caryophyllia smithii Caryophyllia Caryophyllia No change needed (Caryophyllia) (Caryophyllia) smithii smithii Cerianthidae 0 Cnidaria Anthozoa Spirularia Cerianthidae Cerianthidae Cerianthidae No change needed

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 71 Original taxon name Qualifier N Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species Truncated name Truncated name Truncation notes (diversity (community analysis) analysis) Parazoanthus anguicomus 0 Cnidaria Anthozoa Zoantharia Parazoanthidae Parazoanthus anguicomus Remove Remove Delete - not in selected images Zoantharia 3 Cnidaria Anthozoa Zoantharia Zoantharia Zoantharia No change needed Tubularia indivisa 0 Cnidaria Hydrozoa Anthoathecata Tubulariidae Tubularia indivisa Remove Remove Delete - not in selected images Hydrozoa clumps / 881 Cnidaria Hydrozoa Hydrozoa (small) Hydrozoa (small) Specific aggregations of small Hydrozoans solitary Hydrozoa turf 1026 Cnidaria Hydrozoa Hydrozoa (turf) Hydrozoa (turf) Specific low lying turf Bougainvilliidae 2 Cnidaria Hydrozoa Anthoathecata Bougainvilliidae Bougainvilliidae Bougainvilliidae No change needed Plumularioidea 14 Cnidaria Hydrozoa Leptothecata Plumularioidea Plumularioidea Merging Plumularioidea with members of Aglaopheniidae - (other) (other) Plumulariidae in images shows 'feather shape' so this category is Aglaophenia 5 Cnidaria Hydrozoa Leptothecata Aglaopheniidae Aglaophenia Plumularioidea Plumularioidea Plumularioidea excluding Nemertisia spp. (other) (other) Lytocarpia myriophyllum 71 Cnidaria Hydrozoa Leptothecata Aglaopheniidae Lytocarpia myriophyllum Plumularioidea Plumularioidea (other) (other) Aglaopheniidae 6 Cnidaria Hydrozoa Leptothecata Aglaopheniidae Plumularioidea Plumularioidea (other) (other) Haleciidae 15 Cnidaria Hydrozoa Leptothecata Haleciidae Haleciidae Haleciidae No change needed Nemertesia antennina 120 Cnidaria Hydrozoa Leptothecata Plumulariidae Nemertesia antennina Nemertesia Nemertesia Merged to lowest common denominator Nemertesia ramosa 15 Cnidaria Hydrozoa Leptothecata Plumulariidae Nemertesia ramosa Nemertesia Nemertesia Nemertesia 165 Cnidaria Hydrozoa Leptothecata Plumulariidae Nemertesia Nemertesia Nemertesia Abietinaria abietina 47 Cnidaria Hydrozoa Leptothecata Sertulariidae Abietinaria abietina Sertulariidae Sertulariidae Merged to lowest common denominator Diphasia alata 7 Cnidaria Hydrozoa Leptothecata Sertulariidae Diphasia alata Sertulariidae Sertulariidae Sertularia 1 Cnidaria Hydrozoa Leptothecata Sertulariidae Sertularia Sertulariidae Sertulariidae Sertulariidae 129 Cnidaria Hydrozoa Leptothecata Sertulariidae Sertulariidae Sertulariidae Echinodermata indet 0 Echinodermata Remove Remove Delete - not in selected images Luidia sarsii 0 Echinodermata Asteroidea Paxillosida Luidiidae Luidia sarsii Remove Remove Delete - not in selected images Luidia 0 Echinodermata Asteroidea Paxillosida Luidiidae Luidia Remove Remove Delete - not in selected images Asteroidea 114 Echinodermata Asteroidea Asteroidea Asteroidea A random check of images indicated that individuals identified as Asterias rubens 10 Echinodermata Asteroidea Forcipulatida Asteriidae Asterias rubens Asterias rubens Asteroidea Asteroidea are mainly small Asterias type starfish, the category is kept for diversity analysis with individual Asteroidea taxa with no potential Marthasterias glacialis 1 Echinodermata Asteroidea Forcipulatida Asteriidae Marthasterias glacialis Marthasterias Asteroidea overlap with other categories. All Asteroidea combined for community glacialis analysis. Stichastrella rosea 23 Echinodermata Asteroidea Forcipulatida Stichasteridae Stichastrella rosea Stichastrella rosea Asteroidea Luidia ciliaris 1 Echinodermata Asteroidea Paxillosida Luidiidae Luidia ciliaris Luidia ciliaris Asteroidea Henricia 1 Echinodermata Asteroidea Spinulosida Echinasteridae Henricia Henricia Asteroidea Porania pulvillus 52 Echinodermata Asteroidea Valvatida Poraniidae Porania pulvillus Porania (Porania) Asteroidea pulvillus Crossaster papposus 9 Echinodermata Asteroidea Valvatida Solasteridae Crossaster papposus Crossaster Asteroidea papposus Antedon bifida 171 Echinodermata Crinoidea Comatulida Antedonidae Antedon bifida Crinoidea Crinoidea Merged to lowest common denominator Crinoidea 67 Echinodermata Crinoidea Crinoidea Crinoidea Echinoidea 32 Echinodermata Echinoidea Echinoidea Merged to lowest common denominator Echinus esculentus 77 Echinodermata Echinoidea Camarodonta Echinidae Echinus esculentus Echinoidea Echinoidea Gracilechinus acutus 5 Echinodermata Echinoidea Camarodonta Echinidae Gracilechinus acutus Echinoidea Echinoidea Spatangus purpureus 0 Echinodermata Echinoidea Spatangoida Spatangidae Spatangus purpureus Remove Remove Delete - not in selected images Holothuriidae 0 Echinodermata Holothuroidea Aspidochirotida Holothuriidae Holothuriidae Holothuriidae Merged to lowest common denominator Holothuriidae burrowing 2 Echinodermata Holothuroidea Aspidochirotida Holothuriidae Holothuriidae Holothuriidae Ophiuroidea 368 Echinodermata Ophiuroidea Ophiuroidea Ophiuroidea Keeping all separate Ophiuroids for diversity analysis with additional Amphiura 3 Echinodermata Ophiuroidea Ophiurida Amphiuridae Amphiura Amphiura Ophiuroidea Ophiuroidea category - this does overlap with most of the specific taxa ID'ed, but in many cases more than one Ophiuroid taxon is observed in Ophiactidae arms in 141 Echinodermata Ophiuroidea Ophiurida Ophiactidae Ophiactidae Ophiuroidea each image. The additional category is not expected to inflate species crevices richness unduly. Ophiura species are combined at the genus level . Ophiocomina nigra 106 Echinodermata Ophiuroidea Ophiurida Ophiocomidae Ophiocomina nigra Ophiocomina nigra Ophiuroidea Combining all Ophiuroidea for community analysis. Ophiothrix fragilis 56 Echinodermata Ophiuroidea Ophiurida Ophiotrichidae Ophiothrix fragilis Ophiothrix fragilis Ophiuroidea Ophiura albida 190 Echinodermata Ophiuroidea Ophiurida Ophiuridae Ophiura albida Ophiura Ophiuroidea Ophiura ophiura 11 Echinodermata Ophiuroidea Ophiurida Ophiuridae Ophiura ophiura Ophiura Ophiuroidea Ophiura 284 Echinodermata Ophiuroidea Ophiurida Ophiuridae Ophiura Ophiura Ophiuroidea Atrina fragilis 0 Mollusca Bivalvia Ostreida Pinnidae Atrina fragilis Remove Remove Delete - not in selected images Pecten maximus 0 Mollusca Bivalvia Pectinida Pectinidae Pecten maximus Remove Remove Delete - not in selected images Pectinidae 1 Mollusca Bivalvia Pectinida Pectinidae Bivalvia Bivalvia Merged to lowest common denominator

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 72 Original taxon name Qualifier N Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species Truncated name Truncated name Truncation notes (diversity (community analysis) analysis) Bivalvia 1 Mollusca Bivalvia Bivalvia Bivalvia Octopoda 0 Mollusca Cephalopoda Octopoda Remove Remove Removing Cephalopods Gastropoda 473 Mollusca Gastropoda Gastropoda Gastropoda (other) Keeping Gastropoda in diversity analysis as there are large numbers identified at that level, although this includes unidentified members of Calliostoma zizyphinum 79 Mollusca Gastropoda Calliostomatidae Calliostoma zizyphinum Trochoidea Gastropoda (other) both Trochoidea and Buccinidae, which are kept separate for diversity analysis, it is unlikely to inflate taxon counts as many more gastropods are likely to be present than can be identified. All Gastropods that are not Trochidae 125 Mollusca Gastropoda Trochidae Trochoidea Gastropoda (other) nudibranchs are combined for community analysis.

Buccinidae 4 Mollusca Gastropoda Neogastropoda Buccinidae Buccinidae Gastropoda (other)

Nudibranchia 32 Mollusca Gastropoda Nudibranchia Nudibranchia Nudibranchia Keeping Nudibranchia as a separate category for diversity analysis, due Eubranchus farrani 1 Mollusca Gastropoda Nudibranchia Fionidae Eubranchus farrani Eubranchus farrani Nudibranchia to low numbers of individual taxa observed. Flabellina is merged at genus level. All combined to Nudibranchia for community analysis. Flabellina (formerly 4 Mollusca Gastropoda Nudibranchia Flabellinidae Flabellina Flabellina Nudibranchia Coryphella) sp Flabellina pedata 5 Mollusca Gastropoda Nudibranchia Flabellinidae Flabellina pedata Flabellina Nudibranchia Goniodorididae 1 Mollusca Gastropoda Nudibranchia Goniodorididae Goniodorididae Nudibranchia Hero formosa 1 Mollusca Gastropoda Nudibranchia Heroidae Hero formosa Hero formosa Nudibranchia Janolus cristatus 5 Mollusca Gastropoda Nudibranchia Proctonotidae Janolus cristatus Janolus cristatus Nudibranchia Polyplacophora 72 Mollusca Polyplacophora Polyplacophora Polyplacophora No change needed Nemertea 2 Nemertea Nemertea Nemertea No change needed

Porifera arborescent 121 Porifera Porifera Porifera Merging arborescent sponges together as it is difficult to distinguish (arborescent) (arborescent) between species and genus from images Axinella arborescent 2 Porifera Demospongiae Axinellida Axinellidae Axinella Porifera Porifera (arborescent) (arborescent) Axinellidae arborescent 7 Porifera Demospongiae Axinellida Axinellidae Porifera Porifera (arborescent) (arborescent) Raspailia ramosa arborescent 0 Porifera Demospongiae Axinellida Raspailiidae Raspailia ramosa Remove Remove Delete - not in selected images Porifera flabellate 61 Porifera Porifera (flabellate) Porifera (flabellate) Merging flabellate sponges together as numerous observations at that Axinella infundibuliformis flabellate 176 Porifera Demospongiae Axinellida Axinellidae Axinella infundibuliformis Porifera (flabellate) Porifera (flabellate) level, which could be either of the mentioned taxa.. Phakellia sp; flabellate 4 Porifera Demospongiae Axinellida Axinellidae Phakellia Porifera (flabellate) Porifera (flabellate) Porifera globular 5 Porifera Porifera (globular) Porifera (globular) Porifera globular observed in images is always smooth, so combining Tethya sp; globular 9 Porifera Demospongiae Tethyida Tethyidae Tethya Porifera (globular) Porifera (globular) with Tethya, but keeping Polymastia separate, as globular was never applied to anything with the appearance of Polymastia. Polymastia boletiformis globular 21 Porifera Demospongiae Polymastiida Polymastiidae Polymastia boletiformis Polymastia Polymastia boletiformis boletiformis

Porifera papillate 84 Porifera Porifera (papillate) Porifera (papillate) Merging papillate sponges together as numerous observations at that Polymastia mamillaris papillate 0 Porifera Demospongiae Polymastiida Polymastiidae Polymastia mamillaris Porifera (papillate) Porifera (papillate) level, which could be either of the mentioned taxa.. Polymastia sp; papillate 14 Porifera Demospongiae Polymastiida Polymastiidae Polymastia Porifera (papillate) Porifera (papillate) Porifera repent 61 Porifera Porifera (repent) Porifera (repent) No change needed Porifera tubular 4 Porifera Porifera (tubular) Porifera (tubular) No change needed Hemimycale columella encrusting 7 Porifera Demospongiae Poecilosclerida Hymedesmiidae Hemimycale columella Hemimycale Hemimycale Encusting sponges have all been named as specific taxa, so are kept columella columella separate rather than merging Halichondia at genus. Hymedesmia sp; encrusting 70 Porifera Demospongiae Poecilosclerida Hymedesmiidae Hymedesmia Hymedesmia Hymedesmia Halichondria panicea encrusting 10 Porifera Demospongiae Suberitida Halichondriidae Halichondria panicea Halichondria Halichondria Halichondria encrusting 12 Porifera Demospongiae Suberitida Halichondriidae Halichondria Halichondria Halichondria Cliona celata massive 0 Porifera Demospongiae Clionaida Clionaidae Cliona celata Cliona celata Cliona celata Massive sponges have all been named as specific taxa, so are kept Dysidea fragilis massive 10 Porifera Demospongiae Dictyoceratida Dysideidae Dysidea fragilis Dysidea fragilis Dysidea fragilis separate. Haliclona viscosa (Rhizoniera) 10 Porifera Demospongiae Haplosclerida Chalinidae Haliclona viscosa Haliclona viscosa Haliclona viscosa massive Suberites sp; massive 3 Porifera Demospongiae Suberitida Suberitidae Suberites Suberites Suberites Desmacidon fruticosum massive 0 Porifera Demospongiae Poecilosclerida Desmacididae Desmacidon fruticosum Remove Remove Delete - not in selected images Pachymatisma johnstonia massive 0 Porifera Demospongiae Tetractinellida Geodiidae Pachymatisma johnstonia Remove Remove Delete - not in selected images Porifera pedunculate 0 Porifera Remove Remove Delete - not in selected images

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 73 Original taxon name Qualifier N Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species Truncated name Truncated name Truncation notes (diversity (community analysis) analysis) Rhodophyta encrusting 50 Rhodophyta Rhodophyta Rhodophyta No change needed (encrusting) (encrusting) Rhodophyta foliose 1 Rhodophyta Rhodophyta Rhodophyta No change needed (foliose) (foliose) Egg case 1 Delete - not relevant to dataset Egg mass indet 5 Delete - not relevant to dataset

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 74 Appendix 3. Full taxon list from still images and video.

The full taxonomic hierarchy is given for all observed taxa in Table 14. The level that is highlighted in bold is the level recorded in the data set. Where more than one level is highlighted, observations have been recorded at multiple taxonomic levels.

Table 14. The full list of taxa from all still images and video segments collected on CEND0915.

Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species

Porifera Demospongiae Axinellida Axinellidae Raspailiidae Raspailia ramosa Clionaida Clionaidae Cliona celata Dictyoceratida Dysideidae Dysidea fragilis Haplosclerida Chalinidae Haliclona viscosa Poecilosclerida Desmacididae Desmacidon fruticosum Hymedesmiidae Hemimycale columella Hymedesmia spp.

Polymastiida Polymastiidae Polymastia boletiformis Polymastia mamillaris

Polymastia spp.

Suberitida Halichondriidae Halichondria panicea Suberitidae Suberites spp. Tethyida Tethyidae Tethya spp. Tetractinellida Geodiidae Pachymatisma johnstonia

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 75 Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species

Cnidaria Anthozoa Actiniaria Actiniidae Bolocera tuediae Urticina felina

Actinostolidae Stomphia coccinea Capneidae Capnea sanguinea Edwardsiidae Haloclavidae Mesacmaea mitchellii Hormathiidae Adamsia palliata Hormathia coronata

Metridiidae Metridium dianthus Sagartiidae Sagartia spp. Sagartia elegans Sagartia troglodytes

Alcyonacea Alcyoniidae Alcyonium spp. Alcyonium digitatum

Alcyonium glomeratum

Gorgoniidae Eunicella verrucosa Corallimorpharia Corallimorphida Corynactis viridis e Pennatulacea Virgulariidae Virgularia mirabilis Scleractinia Caryophylliidae Caryophyllia smithii Spirularia Cerianthidae Zoantharia Parazoanthidae Parazoanthus anguicomus Hydrozoa Anthoathecata Bougainvilliidae Tubulariidae Tubularia indivisa Leptothecata Aglaopheniidae Aglaophenia spp. Lytocarpia myriophyllu m Haleciidae Plumulariidae Nemertesia antennina Nemertesia ramosa

Nemertesia spp.

Sertulariidae Abietinaria abietina Diphasia alata Sertularia spp.

Brachiopoda Nemertea Polyplacophora

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 76 Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species

Bryozoa Gymnolaemat Cheilostomatida Bitectiporidae Pentapora foliacea a Bryocryptellidae Palmiskenea skenei Porella compressa

Bugulidae Bugula spp. Candidae Caberea boryi Celleporidae Cellepora pumicosa Omalosecosa ramulosa

Phidoloporidae Reteporella Ctenostomatida Alcyonidiidae Alcyonidium diaphanum

Mollusca Bivalvia Ostreida Pinnidae Atrina fragilis Pectinida Pectinidae Pecten maximus Aequipecten opercularis

Cephalopoda Octopoda Eledonidae Eledone cirrhosa Sepiida Sepiidae Sepia officinalis

Gastropoda Neogastropoda Buccinidae Nudibranchia Fionidae Eubranchus farrani Flabellinidae Flabellina pedata Flabellina spp.

Goniodorididae Heroidae Hero formosa Proctonotidae Janolus cristatus Calliostomatidae Trochidae Calliostoma zizyphinum Annelida Polychaeta Phyllodocida Polynoidae Sabellida Sabellidae Sabella pavonina

Myxicola spp. Serpulidae Salmacina dysteri Spirobranchus spp.

Terebellida Terebellidae

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 77 Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species

Arthropoda Malacostraca Amphipoda Decapoda Atelecyclidae Atelecyclus rotundatus

Cancridae Cancer pagurus

Caridae Inachidae Inachus spp. Leucosiidae Ebalia spp.

Majidae Munididae Munida rugosa Paguridae Palinuridae Palinurus elephas

Polychelidae Portunidae

Echinodermat Asteroidea Forcipulatida Asteriidae Asterias rubens a Marthasterias glacialis

Stichasteridae Stichastrella rosea Paxillosida Luidiidae Luidia ciliaris Luidia sarsii Luidia spp.

Spinulosida Echinasteridae Henricia spp. Valvatida Poraniidae Porania pulvillus Solasteridae Crossaster papposus Solaster endeca

Crinoidea Comatulida Antedonidae Antedon bifida Echinoidea Camarodonta Echinidae Echinus esculentus Gracilechinus acutus

Spatangoida Spatangidae Spatangus purpureus Holothuroidea Aspidochirotida Holothuriidae Ophiuroidea Ophiurida Amphiuridae Amphiura spp. Ophiactidae Ophiocomidae Ophiocomina nigra Ophiotrichidae Ophiothrix fragilis Ophiuridae Ophiura albida Ophiura ophiura

Ophiura spp.

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 78 Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species

Chordata Actinopterygii Gadiformes Balistidae Gadidae Raniceps raninus Trisopterus luscus

Lotidae Molva molva Merlucciidae Merluccius merluccius Lophiiformes Lophiidae Lophius piscatorius Perciformes Anarhichadidae Anarhichas lupus Blenniidae Gobiidae Labridae Ctenolabrus rupestris Labrus bergylta

Labrus mixtus

Pholidae Pholis gunnellus Pleuronectiformes Pleuronectidae Microstomus kitt Scophthalmidae Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis Scorpaeniformes Triglidae Chelidonichthy cuculus s Elasmobranchi Carcharhiniforme Scyliorhinidae Scyliorhinus canicula i s Ascidiacea Aplousobranchia Diazonidae Diazona violacea Polyclinidae Phlebobranchia Ascidiidae Ascidia virginea Cionidae Ciona intestinalis Stolidobranchia Styelidae Polycarpa spp. Rhodophyta

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 79 Appendix 4. Seafloor litter monitoring.

Table 15. Standardised categories and sub-categories for sea-floor litter as defined by OSPAR/ICES/IBTS for the North East Atlantic and Baltic. Guidance on Monitoring of Marine Litter in European Seas, a guidance document within the Common Implementation Strategy for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, MSFD Technical Subgroup on Marine Litter, 2013.

A: Plastic B: Metals C: Rubber D: Glass/ E: Natural F: Miscellaneous Ceramics products/ Clothes

A1. Bottle B1. Cans C1. Boots D1. Jar E1. Clothing/ F1. Wood (food) rags (processed)

A2. Sheet B2. Cans C2. Balloons D2. Bottle E2. Shoes F2. Rope (beverage)

A3. Bag B3. Fishing C3. Bobbins D3. Piece E3. Other F3. Paper/ related (fishing) cardboard

A4. Caps/ lids B4. Drums C4. Tyre D4. Other F4. Pallets

A5. Fishing line B5. C5. Other F5. Other (monofilament) Appliances

A6. Fishing line B6. Car (entangled) parts

A7. Synthetic B7. Cables Related size categories rope A: ≤ 5*5 cm = 25 cm2 A8. Fishing net B8. Other B: ≤ 10*10 cm = 100 cm2 C: ≤ 20*20 cm = 400 cm2 A9. Cable ties D: ≤ 50*50 cm = 2500 cm2 A10. Strapping E: ≤ 100*100 cm = 10000 cm2 band F: ≥ 100*100 cm = 10000 cm2 A11. Crates and containers

A12. Plastic diapers

A13. Sanitary towels/ tampons

A14. Other

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 80 Appendix 5. Non-indigenous species (NIS).

Table 16. Taxa listed as non-indigenous species (present and horizon) which have been selected for assessment of Good Environmental Status in GB waters under MSFD Descriptor 2 (Stebbing et al., 2014).

Species name List Species name List Acartia (Acanthacartia) tonsa Present Alexandrium catenella Horizon Amphibalanus amphitrite Present Amphibalanus reticulatus Horizon Asterocarpa humilis Present Asterias amurensis Horizon Bonnemaisonia hamifera Present Caulerpa racemosa Horizon Caprella mutica Present Caulerpa taxifolia Horizon Crassostrea angulata Present Celtodoryx ciocalyptoides Horizon Crassostrea gigas Present Chama sp. Horizon Crepidula fornicata Present Dendostrea frons Horizon Diadumene lineata Present Gracilaria vermiculophylla Horizon Didemnum vexillum Present Hemigrapsus penicillatus Horizon Dyspanopeus sayi Present Hemigrapsus sanguineus Horizon Ensis directus Present Hemigrapsus takanoi Horizon Eriocheir sinensis Present Megabalanus coccopoma Horizon Ficopomatus enigmaticus Present Megabalanus zebra Horizon Grateloupia doryphora Present Mizuhopecten yessoensis Horizon Grateloupia turuturu Present Mnemiopsis leidyi Horizon Hesperibalanus fallax Present Ocenebra inornata Horizon Heterosigma akashiwo Present Paralithodes camtschaticus Horizon Homarus americanus Present Polysiphonia subtilissima Horizon Rapana venosa Present Pseudochattonella verruculosa Horizon Sargassum muticum Present Rhopilema nomadica Horizon Schizoporella japonica Present Telmatogeton japonicus Horizon Spartina townsendii var. anglica Present Styela clava Present Undaria pinnatifida Present Urosalpinx cinerea Present Watersipora subatra Present

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 81 Table 17. Additional taxa listed as non-indigenous species in the JNCC ‘Non-native marine species in British waters: a review and directory’ report by Eno et al. (1997) which have not been selected for assessment of Good Environmental Status in GB waters under MSFD Descriptor 2.

Species name (1997) Updated name (2017) Thalassiosira punctigera Thalassiosira tealata Coscinodiscus wailesii Odontella sinensis Pleurosigma simonsenii Grateloupia doryphora Grateloupia filicina var. luxurians Grateloupia subpectinata Pikea californica Agardhiella subulata Solieria chordalis Antithamnionella spirographidis Antithamnionella ternifolia Polysiphonia harveyi Neosiphonia harveyi Colpomenia peregrine Codium fragile subsp. atlanticum Codium fragile subsp. tomentosoides Codium fragile subsp. atlanticum Gonionemus vertens Clavopsella navis Pachycordyle navis Anguillicoloides crassus Goniadella gracilis Marenzelleria viridis Clymenella torquata Hydroides dianthus Hydroides ezoensis Janua brasiliensis Pileolaria berkeleyana Ammothea hilgendorfi Elminius modestus Austrominius modestus Eusarsiella zostericola Corophium sextonae Rhithropanopeus harrissii Potamopyrgus antipodarum Tiostrea lutaria Tiostrea chilensis Mercenaria mercenaria Petricola pholadiformis Mya arenaria

Haig Fras SAC Monitoring Report 2015 82

© Crown Copyright 2019