• Energy Research
• IE close

Information on past trends is essential to inform future predictions and underpin attribution needed to drive policy responses. It has long been recognised that sustained observations are essential for disentangling climate-driven change from other regional and local-scale anthropogenic impacts and environmental fluctuations or cycles in natural systems. This paper highlights how data rescue and re-use have contributed to the debate on climate change responses of marine biodiversity and ecosystems. It also illustrates via two case studies the re-use of old data to address new policy concerns. The case studies focus on (1) plankton, fish and benthos from the Western English Channel and (2) broad-scale and long-term studies of intertidal species around the British Isles. Case study 1 using the Marine Biological Association of the UK's English Channel data has shown the influence of climatic fluctuations on phenology (migration and breeding patterns) and has also helped to disentangle responses to fishing pressure from those driven by climate, and provided insights into ecosystem-level change in the English Channel. Case study 2 has shown recent range extensions, increases of abundance and changes in phenology (breeding patterns) of southern, warm-water intertidal species in relation to recent rapid climate change and fluctuations in northern and southern barnacle species, enabling modelling and prediction of future states. The case is made for continuing targeted sustained observations and their importance for marine management and policy development.

We briefly review how coastal ecosystems are responding to and being impacted by climate change, one of the greatest challenges facing society today. In adapting to rising and stormier seas associated with climate change, coastal defence structures are proliferating and becoming dominant coastal features, particularly in urbanised areas. Whilst the primary function of these structures is to protect coastal property and infrastructure, they inevitably have a significant secondary impact on the local environment and ecosystems. In this review we outline some of the negative and positive effects of these structures on physical processes, impacts on marine species, and the novel engineering approaches that have been employed to improve the ecological value of these structures in recent years. Finally we outline guidelines for an environmentally sensitive approach to design of such structures in the marine environment.

AbstractAimArtificial coastal defence structures are proliferating in response to rising and stormier seas. These structures provide habitat for many species but generally support lower biodiversity than natural habitats. This is primarily due to the absence of environmental heterogeneity and water‐retaining features on artificial structures. We compared the epibiotic communities associated with artificial coastal defence structures and natural habitats to ask the following questions: (1) is species richness on emergent substrata greater in natural than artificial habitats and is the magnitude of this difference greater at mid than upper tidal levels; (2) is species richness greater in rock pools than emergent substrata and is the magnitude of this difference greater in artificial than natural habitats; and (3) in artificial habitats, is species richness in rock pools greater at mid than upper tidal levels?LocationBritish Isles.MethodsStandard non‐destructive random sampling compared the effect of habitat type and tidal height on epibiota on natural rocky shores and artificial coastal defence structures.ResultsNatural emergent substrata supported greater species richness than artificial substrata. Species richness was greater at mid than upper tidal levels, particularly in artificial habitats. Rock pools supported greater species richness than emergent substrata, and this difference was more pronounced in artificial than natural habitats. Rock pools in artificial habitats supported greater species richness at mid than upper tidal levels.Main conclusionsArtificial structures support lower biodiversity than natural habitats. This is primarily due to the lack of habitat heterogeneity in artificial habitats. Artificial structures can be modified to provide rock pools that promote biodiversity. The effect of rock pool creation will be more pronounced at mid than upper tidal levels. The challenge now is to establish at what tidal height the effect of pools becomes negligible and to determine the rock pool dimensions for optimum habitat enhancement.