Zoological Institute Russian Academy of Sciences A variety of interactions in marine environment ABSTRACTS VOLUME TH FROM 49 EUROPEAN MARINE BIOLOGY SYMPOSIUM September 8−12, 2014 St. Petersburg, Russia St. Petersburg 2014 1 WELCOME Dear Participants, Zoological Institute RAS is pleased to welcome all of you in St. Petersburg, Russia at 49th EMBS. More than 200 scientists from 30 countreis will partici- pate at the Symposium presenting more than 70 oral talks and about 100 posters. We hope you enjoy the meeting and it will stimulate new ideas and inves- tigtions in the field of marine biology. We hope also that you will keep a splended memory from the wondwerful city of St. Petersburg. Organizers LOCAL ORGANIZING COMMITEE Academician professor Dr Sc Alexander Alimov Academician Dr Sc Sergey Golubkov Academician professor Dr Sc Gennady Matishov Academician professor Dr Sc Dmitry Pavlov Academician professor Dr Sc Oleg Pugachev Professor Dr Sc Nikolay Aladin Professor Dr Sc Arkady Balushkin Professor Dr Sc Stanislav Denisenko Professor Dr Sc Kirill Galaktionov Professor Dr Sc Mikhail Glubokovsky Professor Dr Sc Andrey Granovitch Professor Dr Sc Nikolay Maximovich Professor Dr Sc Boris Sirenko Professor Dr Sc Alexander Tzetlin Programming committee Dr Sc Andrew Naumov, Chair Dr Alexey Sukhotin, Vice-Chair Dr Daria Martynova, Executive Secretary Dr Nadezhda Berezina, Secretary Professor Dr Sc Victor Berger Dr Sc Vyacheslav Khalaman An official Service-Agent of EMBS 49 is MONOMAX PCO 2 KEY NOTE TALKS A COMPARISON ON THE DEGREE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF MARINE BIODI- VERSITY INDICATORS BY EUROPEAN COUNTRIES IN RELATION TO THE MARINE STRATEGY FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE (MSFD) Herman Hummel1, Matt Frost2, José A. Juanes3 et al.4 1Monitor Taskforce, NIOZ, Yerseke, Netherlands 2Marine Biological Association, Plymouth, United Kingdom 3Environmental Hydraulics Institute of the University of Cantabria, Santander, Spain 4see footnote In the last few years in the European countries of the EC the onset for the implementation of the Ma- rine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) has been given which has to result in a description and plan for reaching Good Environmental Status (GES) of the European marine water bodies by 2020. In a survey for 20 different European countries, the actual status and developments on Descriptor 1 of the MSFD (Biodiversity) or in related directives and legislation were determined by compiling and analyz- ing the documentation available for each country. Criteria for the analysis were the ecological relevance of a proposed biodiversity indicator as being rea- listically representing biodiversity, and level of implementation of an indicator as being still under discus- sion or already in operation. For the evaluation of the relevance of being a proper biodiversity indicator a value of 1 to 5 was given per indicator proposed by each country. Similarly, for the degree of implementation, i.e. the operationabil- ity, also a value of 1 to 5 was given. Marked differences were found between countries in the description and in the development of the in- dicators for marine biodiversity as well as in the degree of implementation. Although the MSFD descriptor for biodiversity seemed to be worked out rather exhaustively (itemized with many indicators) in many countries, at more detailed observation it became clear that most indica- tors are general statements and not fixed parameters nor specific species, as was often usual too in other official systems and classifications as the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The conclusion from the available documentation was that no consistent and harmonized approach for describing marine biodiversity with concrete indicators at a pan-European level can be found. Most European countries are not well prepared to introduce the MSFD and most descriptors are not properly bottom-up science driven, nor well-described, biodiversity indicators. The best prepared countries were UK and Latvia, the worst the Netherlands. The first two countries had involved many scientists in a bottom-up process to select relevant biodiversity indicators, the latter country used a top-down (political driven) approach resulting in hardly any relevant indicator for biodi- versity at all. A couple of countries outside the EC, as Turkey and Russia, showed a remarkable tendency for imple- menting a similar system as the MSFD in a more advanced way than their EC counterparts. Co-authors: Stela Ruci, Tirana, Albania / Taylan Cakmak, Gent, Belgium / Vivian Paraskevi Louizidou, Nicosia, Cyprus / Simone Fie Andersen, Copenhagen, Denmark / Annukka Eriksson, Helsinki, Finland / François Bordeyne, François Vandenbosch, Roscoff, France / Judith Kochmann, Frankfurt am Main, Germany / Christina Pavloudi, Irak- lion, Greece / Laura Carugati, Ancona, Italy / Carlos Castellanos Perez, Bologna, Italy / Simonetta Fraschetti, Simonet- ta Scorrano, Lecce, Italy / Fabio Crocetta, Marlene Jahnke, Naples, Italy / Madara Alberte, Riga, Latvia / Winnie van Zanten, Utrecht, Netherlands / Laurence de Clippele, Bergen, Norway / Dagmara Wójcik, Gdynia, Poland / Monika Orchowska, Sopot, Poland / Valentina Kirienko Fernandes de Matos, Horta, Azores, Portugal / João / Franco, Porto, Portugal / Fedor Bolshakov, Alexandra Chava, Artem Isachenko, Anna Iurchenko, Artem Poromov, Tatiana Prokhoro- va, Moscow, Russia / Valentina Pitacco, Piran, Slovenia / Patricia Pérez García, José Antonio Sanabria Fernández, Cádiz, Spain / Consolación Fernández, José M Rico, Oviedo, Spain / Beatriz Echavarri, Xabier Guinda, Araceli Puente, Camino Fernández de la Hoz, Cristina Galvan Arbeiza, Maria Merino, Elvira Ramos Manzanos, Paloma Fernández Valdor, Santander, Spain / David Corta Diego, Torrelavega, Spain / Fernando Aneiros González, Vigo, Spain / Elizabeth Grace Tunka Eronat, Izmir, Turkey / Sara Mendez, Portsmouth, UK / Anna Diamant, Kyiv; Ukraine 3 PARASITES ON THE EDGE: PATTERNS AND PROCESSES IN PARASITE TRANSMISSION IN ARCTIC COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS K. V. Galaktionov Zoological Institute RAS, Laboratory of Parasitic Worms and White Sea Biological Station, St. Petersburg State University, Department of Invertabrate Zoology, St. Petersburg, Russia Parasites compose about 50% of the total biodiversity. It is becoming clear that they may influence the composition, structure and dynamics of populations and communities of free-living organisms. In particu- lar, parasites dramatically affect coastal marine ecosystems. Parasite transmission there has recently re- ceived close attention but there studies have mostly been confined to the temperate zone, with only a few carried out in the Arctic and the Subarctic. The interest in the area, however, is steadily growing, not the least because of the global climate warming, which is especially pronounced there. Prolongation of the warm season, the reduction of the ice cover and the changing structure of currents are likely to modify the structure and dynamics of the Arctic marine ecosystems. Such modifications, which are already being recorded, are likely to involve the parasites as well. In my communication I will characterize the circula- tion of parasites in the coastal ecosystems of the Arctic seas, highlighting specific features in their species composition, life cycles and transmission ways. The focus will be on the parasites of seabirds from the coasts of Franz Josef Land, Svalbard, Novaya Zemlya and Vaigach. The role of biotic and abiotic factors, including anthropogenic ones, in the formation of parasitic infection of coastal marine invertebrates will be analyzed. I will show that this process is governed by a complex interaction of large-scale factors (e.g., surface seawater temperature) and local factors (the biotope, host species community structure at a given site etc.). Trematodes, the most common parasites in coastal communities, will serve as a background for highlighting the key role of temperature in the parasite transmission. A consequence of climate warming that will be considered is the widening of the “transmission window”, that is, the duration of the warm period when parasites can develop and infect new hosts. This widening may result in a cascade effect, with infection transmission intensifying along the chain of hosts involved in the parasite’s life cycle. REGIME SHIFTS IN MARINE BENTHIC ASSEMBLAGES Lisandro Benedetti-Cecchi Department of Biology, University of Pisa, Via Derna 1, 56126 Pisa, Italy Regime shifts involve abrupt and persistent changes in the structure and functioning of species as- semblages and they are increasingly described in marine benthic ecology. Examples include the shift of coral reefs into macroalgal stands, the replacement of canopy algae by turf-forming species and the trans- formation of algal stands into barren habitat. These phenomena are typical of complex system with nonli- near dynamics and suggests common underlying causes leading to catastrophic transitions, such as posi- tive feedbacks maintaining alternative states and tipping points. These transitions are often associated with significant losses in ecosystem services, so the ability to anticipate them has profound implications for ecosystem management and conservation. Generic indicators of incipient regime shifts have been de- rived building on the prediction from catastrophe theory that recovery from small perturbations − i.e. resilience − should slow down in the proximity of a tipping point, a phenomenon known as critical slowing down. As a consequence of critical slowing down, a system approaching a catastrophic bifurcation