The Estuarine Quality Paradox, Environmental Homeostasis and the difficulty of detecting anthropogenic stress in naturally stressed areas.

Estuaries have long been regarded as environmentally naturally stressed areas because of the high degree of variability in their physico-chemical characteristics, for example oxygen, temperature and salinity in the water column and bed sediment dynamics. However, their biota is well-adapted to cope with that stress and so the areas may be regarded as resilient because of that inherent variability; their ability to absorb stress without adverse effects is regarded here as Environmental Homeostasis. Hence these areas may only be regarded as stressful for marine or freshwater-adapted organisms and that for estuarine organisms this environmental stress is regarded as a subsidy whereby they successfully capitalise on the stressful conditions. In addition, using examples of the estuarine fauna and flora, this article indicates that the characteristics of natural stress in estuaries are similar to those for anthropogenic stress. An over-reliance on ecosystem structural features, such as diversity, in quality indicators therefore makes the detection of the anthropogenic stress more difficult. This difficulty is termed the Estuarine Quality Paradox. Because of these difficulties, the article argues that functional characteristics either as well as or rather than structural ones should be used in detecting environmental perturbations in estuaries.

[1]  T. D. Harrison,et al.  A method to assess the freshwater inflow requirements of estuaries and application to the Mtata estuary, South Africa , 2002 .

[2]  Robert Costanza,et al.  Ecosystem Health New Goals for Environmental Management , 1992 .

[3]  F. Chapin,et al.  EFFECTS OF BIODIVERSITY ON ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING: A CONSENSUS OF CURRENT KNOWLEDGE , 2005 .

[4]  V. N. Jonge,et al.  Causes, historical development, effects and future challenges of a common environmental problem: eutrophication , 2002, Hydrobiologia.

[5]  Robert Costanza,et al.  What is a healthy ecosystem? , 1999, Aquatic Ecology.

[6]  M. Elliott,et al.  Transitional waters : A new approach, semantics or just muddying the waters? , 2007 .

[7]  M. Elliott,et al.  The Need for Definitions in Understanding Estuaries , 2002 .

[8]  M. Elliott The analysis of macrobenthic community data , 1994 .

[9]  Ángel Borja,et al.  A Marine Biotic Index to Establish the Ecological Quality of Soft-Bottom Benthos Within European Estuarine and Coastal Environments , 2000 .

[10]  M. Wilkinson,et al.  Using attached macroalgae to assess ecological status of British estuaries for the European Water Framework Directive. , 2007, Marine pollution bulletin.

[11]  M. Elliott,et al.  Marine monitoring: Its shortcomings and mismatch with the EU Water Framework Directive's objectives. , 2006, Marine pollution bulletin.

[12]  Mar Ecol Ser Prog Physiological energetics of Mytilus edulis : Scope for Growth , 2006 .

[13]  R. Warwick A new method for detecting pollution effects on marine macrobenthic communities , 1986 .

[14]  E. Odum The strategy of ecosystem development. , 1969, Science.

[15]  J. Navarro The effects of salinity on the physiological ecology of Choromytilus chorus (Molina, 1782) (Bivalvia : Mytilidae) , 1988 .

[16]  Eugene P. Odum,et al.  Trends Expected in Stressed Ecosystems , 1985 .

[17]  Mats Blomqvist,et al.  Marine quality assessment by use of benthic species-abundance distributions: a proposed new protocol within the European Union Water Framework Directive. , 2004, Marine pollution bulletin.

[18]  R. Rosenberg,et al.  Macrobenthic succession in relation to organic enrichment and pollution of the marine environment , 1978 .

[19]  W. Stickle,et al.  Effects of salinity gradients on the tolerance and bioenergetics of juvenile blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus) from waters of different environmental salinities , 1992 .

[20]  Michael Elliott,et al.  The Estuarine Ecosystem: Ecology, Threats, and Management , 2004 .

[21]  J. Maes,et al.  A fish-based assessment tool for the ecological quality of the brackish Schelde estuary in Flanders (Belgium) , 2006, Hydrobiologia.

[22]  H. Regier,et al.  Ecosystem Behavior Under Stress , 1985, The American Naturalist.

[23]  D. Pauly,et al.  Measuring ecological stress: Variations on a theme by R.M. Warwick , 1990 .

[24]  S. Weisberg,et al.  An estuarine benthic index of biotic integrity (B-IBI) for Chesapeake Bay , 1997 .

[25]  Angel Borja,et al.  An approach to the intercalibration of benthic ecological status assessment in the North Atlantic ecoregion, according to the European Water Framework Directive. , 2007, Marine pollution bulletin.

[26]  D. Rhoads,et al.  Interpreting long-term changes in benthic community structure: a new protocol , 1986, Hydrobiologia.

[27]  Michael Elliott,et al.  European Environmental Management: Moving to an Ecosystem Approach , 2006, Integrated environmental assessment and management.

[28]  J. Word The infaunal trophic index, a functional approach to benthic community analyses , 1990 .

[29]  M. Robson,et al.  Efficacy of a multi-metric fish index as an analysis tool for the transitional fish component of the Water Framework Directive. , 2007, Marine pollution bulletin.

[30]  Jean-Claude Dauvin,et al.  Paradox of estuarine quality: benthic indicators and indices, consensus or debate for the future. , 2007, Marine pollution bulletin.

[31]  Beth A. Middleton,et al.  Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning: Synthesis and Perspectives , 2004 .

[32]  Michael Elliott,et al.  The derivation, performance and role of univariate and multivariate indicators of benthic change : Case studies at differing spatial scales , 2006 .

[33]  M. Wilkinson,et al.  Geographical variation in the distributions of macroalgae in estuaries , 1995, Netherland Journal of Aquatic Ecology.