Kimmeridge-Bay-Final-Draft asd

I7647865
ALS Guidelines Apply
Figure 1: Kimmeridge Bay (Brunsdon 2016)
Contents:
Dorset MPA’s and Kimmeridge Bay Biotope Map:
1.0 Part 1: Field Research
1.1 Kimmeridge Bay Fieldwork: Biotope Map produced using the National Marine Habitat
Classification of Britain & Ireland for Littoral Rock version 04.05 (Connor et al. 2004);
1.2 Assessment of species assemblage in relation to the JNCC National Marine Habitat
Classification;
1.3 Assessment of conservation importance of Chthamalus montagui & C. Stellatus;
2.0 Part 2: Discussion
2.1 Justification of Marine Protected Area management methods to conserve features of
conservation interest for along the Dorset coast;
2.2 The implementation of possible management methods at Studland Bay, Dorset;
3.0 Conclusions
References.

I7647865
Part 1: Kimmeridge Bay Field Research
Figure 2: ‘The Flats’ Kimmeridge Bay, Dorset (Brunsdon 2016).
N
Figure 3: ‘The Flats’ Wire Frame Map.

I7647865
Figure 4: Kimmeridge Flats Biotope Map produced using the ‘National Marine Habitat
Classification of Britain & Ireland for Littoral Rock version 04.05’ (Connor et al. 2004)
1.1 Kimmeridge Bay Marine Biotope Map

I7647865
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5
Biotope B:
JNCC: LR.HLR.MusB.Cht.Cht
EUNIS: A1.112
Classification difficult due to many similar classifications. Biotope classed as low energy littoral rock due to sheltered
nature and abundance of Fucus vesiculosus (59%) (Ballantine 1961) where winkles Littorina littorea and L. obtusata
found within biofilm. Substrata constituted mix of bedrock and sediments representing ‘mid eulittoral mixed substrata’
described in LR.LLR.F.Fves.X. Patella vulgata not present due to limited availability of larger rocks. LR.LLR.F.Fves.X
provides best, most representative classification. Padina pavonica considered UK BAP priority species found here (JNCC
2015; EUNIS 2016).
Biotope C:
JNCC: LR.LLR.F.Fves.X
EUNIS: A1.3132
Matched the description of littoral rock and was characterised by areas of exposed eulittoral bedrock including
sandstone (100%), Kimmeridge Shale (30/40%). Living species not found, nor any lichen zones or laminarian kelp
zones as described in similar classifications. Absence of species made this biotope easy to classify as Littoral Rock (A1)
(JNCC 2015; EUNIS 2016).
Featured similarly exposed eulittoral bedrock. Dense communities of Chthamulus montagui and C. stellatus found with
C. montagui located generally higher up shore. Damp crevices shelter winkles Melarhaphe neritoides and Littorina
saxatilis as described. Observed species fit the chosen classifications but without presence of red seaweeds Catenella
caespitosa, Bostrychia scorpioides, limpet, Patella vulgata and mussel, Mytilus edulis (JNCC 2015; EUNIS 2016).
Biotope A:
JNCC: LR
EUNIS: A1
1.2 Assessment of species assemblage in relation to the National Marine Habitat Classification
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5

I7647865
Biotope E:
JNCC: LR.MLR.BF.Fser
EUNIS: A1.2142
Featured distinct 74% coverage of Fucus serratus lying atop moderately exposed lower eulittoral bedrock (MLR).
Small concentrations of Corallina officinalis and Cladophora rupestris found in-between F. serratus. Limpet
Patella vulgata frequent in areas not covered by F. serratus. Wave exposure and variable salinity limited species
richness here and could explain absence of Mastocarpus stellatus and Ulva lactuca. In more sheltered (or
exposed) conditions, LR.LLR.F.Fserr.FS or LR.HLR.FT.FserT may give better classifications. LR.MLR.BF.Fser
provided more representative fit, being moderately exposed with high F. Serratus abundance (JNCC 2015; EUNIS
2016; Balantine 1961).
Biotope D:
JNCC: LR.HLR.FR.Coff.Puly
EUNIS: A1.122
Located within very exposed lower eulittoral bedrock (HLR). Bedrock surface studded with Patella ulyssiponensis
(8%) and Patella vulgata (18%). Corallina officinalis not abundant but present (4.4%). Bedrock contained cracks
and crevices sheltering anemone Actinia equine. Chthamalus stellatus frequent with 11% coverage. Species listed
above represent indicator species of LR.HLR.Fr.Coff.Puly hence inclusion. Other seaweed wracks; Himanthalia
elongata and sponge; Grantia compressa not present due to exposed nature of raised section of bedrock. Overall
a good classification fit given the lack of shaded areas (JNCC 2015; EUNIS 2016).
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5
E2 E3 E4 E5E1
1.3 Conservation importance assessment for Chthamalus montagui and Chthamalus stellatus
Barnacles Chthamalus montagui and C. stellatus reach their northern limits of distribution around the south coast of
the British Isles (Fig 5) (Crisp et al. 1981) where they are often found in two distinct lower intertidal zones on wave
exposed cliffs where distinct overlapping between species occurs. (Southward 1976; Crisp et al. 1981).
Since the discovery of two distinct species of Chthamalus, a number of research projects have been undertaken
focusing on reproduction and recruitment and settlement (Burrows et al. 1992; Pannacciulli 1995; Healy and Mcgrath
1998). Since this recognition, much of the work regarding reproductive biology has been concerned with their breeding
seasons. During the past decade the southern species of Chthamalus montagui and C. stellatus have become more
abundant than another barnacle species, Semibalanus balanoides in the UK’s south-west. Moreover, isolated
individuals have been located further along the UKs North Sea coastline reaching as far as Fife, Scotland. The drastic
range extensions experienced here have coincided with an increased amount of warmer Atlantic water entering this
region (Hulme et al. 2002).

I7647865
Figure 5: Distributions of Chthamalus montagui and C. Stellatus east for existing limits within the central English
Channel. Symbols along the south coast of England show the maximum mean-shore abundance observed during the
period 1994-1999. Symbols along the French coast demonstrate mean-shore abundance recorded during surveys
between 2000 and 2001. Table, bottom left includes abundance scale parameters (Herbert and Hawkins 2006).

I7647865
In terms of ecological and conservation importance, Chthamalus barnacles are almost the ideal species for studying
survival and recruitment under natural conditions (Connell 1961) and as such, have been used extensively to test
various ecological questions. The sessile behaviours of adult populations, their habitats, relative sizes and abundance
make Chthamalus a tractable model species from which experimentation can be applied. Chthamalus are also subject
to complex species interactions, and have complicated relationships with different rocky sub-stratas (Herbert and
Hawkins 2006) which determine their shoreline distribution. Connell (1961); Davis et al. (1998a), (1998b); Herbert et
al. (2007) have studied factors limiting ranges of Chthamalus, focusing on the interactions with competitor barnacle
Semibalanus balonoides and predation of snail, Thais lapillus (Pearson and Dawson 2003).
Chthamalus is commonly used in modelling for intertidal studies mainly due to its highly localised abundance.
Moreover, classification as a high shore species means it survives close to or at is physiological limit and can therefore
act as a potential biotic climate change indicator (Southward 1991; Southward et al. 1995; Herbert et al.
2003, 2007; Hawkins et al. 2008, 2009).
Differences in Chthamalus sizes between habitats enables direct observation of metabolic functions including;
reproductive output, oxygen consumption and ingestion rate (Schmidt-Nielsen, 1984; Brown et al. 2004; Woodward et
al. 2005). Chthamalus size is shown to be excellent at predicting larval production (Leslie et al. 2005), evaluating
barnacle vulnerability from dog whelk predation and vulnerability to limpet ‘bulldozing’ (Safriel et al. 1994).
Understanding these factors will greatly increase knowledge of population dynamics as well as species interactions on
rocky shorelines (Power et al. 2006; Mieszkowska et al. 2006).
As mentioned in many findings, barnacles, including Chthamalus are pivotal to population dynamics and the larger
community where they serve as competitors, facilitators, and prey (Connell 1961; Dayton 1971; Menge 1976).
Chthamalus has huge conservation importance primarily due to its prominence within studies of recruitment but also
because of intraspecific interactions, interactions with small scale heterogeneity of substratum (Crisp and Barnes
1954, Herbert and Hawkins 2006, Coombes et al. 2015) and sensitivity towards climate change (Poloczanska et al.
2008).
2.0 Discussion
2.1 Justification of management methods to conserve features of conservation interest for
selected Marine Protected Areas along the Dorset coast.
The marine and coastal waters of Dorset support habitats for a variety of species including many of important
conservation interest. The Dorset coastline stretches 285km between Lyme Regis and Christchurch and includes much
of the world renowned Jurassic Coast UNESCO World Heritage Site (Dorset Coastal Forum 2011). The marine
environment incorporated into this stretch of coastline is both rich and diverse, providing for a number of commercial
and recreational industries.
Throughout Dorset, a growing network of inshore and offshore MPAs have been or are in the process of being
established. These MPAs are underpinned by EU and national legislation which affords valuable protection to species
and habitats of conservation importance (Pikesley et al. 2016). The term MPA can encompass ‘Special Protection Area’
(SPAs), ‘Special Areas of Conservation’ (SACs) and ‘Marine Conservation Zones’ (MCZs). In order to achieve more
rational use of marine areas, MPAs must be planned and assessed against multiple criteria including spatial adequacy,
management objectives and regulation effectiveness (Pikesley et al. 2016). Moreover, there needs to be a balance
between socio-economic demands and marine conservation. Building sound supporting evidence is crucial for any
MPA decision making process which can be complex and fiscally demanding (Jones and Carpenter 2009).
Use of socio-economic data within MPA selection criteria and during its lifespan, separates MPAs from designations
derived under Birds and Habitats directives which are based purely on ecological science (Van Haastrecht and Toonen
2011). Together with ecological information, economic data gathered from MPAs can also be made available for use in
fisheries and extractive energy industries (Chapman et al. 2012).

I7647865
Therefore an MPA and its assessment process will not only consider the six ecosystem services (listed below) but also
provide useful on-going information which is one of the major benefits of MPA management.
1. Fisheries;
2. Recreation;
3. Research and education;
4. Regulation of pollution;
5. Environmental resilience;
6. Natural hazard protection;
MPAs vary enormously in terms of location however, most occur at intertidal or near-coastal waters. An important
characteristic of most UK marine protected areas, especially recently, is that they are multi use, rather than closed
areas (Gubbay 2006). This often presents challenges arising from the need to attribute impacts to human activities,
natural variability, climate change or a combination of these (MCCIP 2015). This essentially recognises that Dorset’s
marine environment is subject to intense use, and contains highly congested spaces where socio-economic factors
must be considered. Dorset is a hotspot for fisheries and marine based industries, and this has often led to extensive
stakeholder engagement and sometimes confrontation. However, the ultimate goal of MPAs remains the same, to
minimise the adverse impacts of legitimate social and economic uses whilst continuing to maximise the benefits for
nature conservation. For this reason, MPA management has been shown as an important instrument in the
maintenance of marine ecosystem functionality whist ensuring the conservation and integrity of important species and
habitats (Sobel and Dahlgreen 2004).
Dorset currently contains a number of different MPAs and MCZ jurisdictions including the; Lyme Bay MPA, Poole Rocks
MCZ, South Dorset MCZ and Chesil Beach and Stennis Ledges MCZ (Fig 6). MCZs protect areas of important marine
conservation value within which nationally rare or endangered species can be found.
Figure 6: Marine Protected Areas within Dorset (Dorset Wildlife Trust 2016)
Dorset currently contains three MCZs, two of which fall within the Southern IFCA fishing district. Introduced in 2013
these MCZs form part of a wider, ecologically coherent network of MPAs including Marine SPAs and Marine SACs such
as Chesil Beach and the Fleet Lagoon which are designed to satisfy international and European commitments (IFCA
2016).

I7647865
Figure 7: Lyme Bay MPA. Solid line represents the closure boundary and the dashed lines indicate
areas of voluntary closure (Cousens 2015).
Planning is an essential part of any MPA/MCZs lifespan and it needs to be understood that some areas require different
management techniques as well as greater levels of protection and enforcement. The Lyme Bay MPA (Fig 7) for
example, was implemented in 2008 following sixteen years of design, planning and development. The area has
traditionally undergone a resource-use conflict (Stevens 2006) surrounding the socio-economic importance of scallop
dredging and the conservation value of the offshore reefs (Stevens et al 2014). Lyme Bay was identified as a marine
biodiversity hotspot by Hiscock and Breckels (2007) primarily for its sediment communities including; Pecten maximus,
Lutraria lutraria, Turritella communis and Callianassa subterranea which are found within the offshore sand and mud
sediments in Lyme Bay (Eagle and Hardiman 1977; Eagle et al. 1978). The MPA here, has however, been established
primarily for the protection of vulnerable reef communities which had been under threat from bottom towed fishing
gear including scallop dredging and trawling (Howarth and Stewart 2014; Douvere 2008).
Consequently, with the exception of static gears, hand diving and recreational uses, a 200km² area of seabed was closed
to mobile bottom-towed fishing gear. The MPA project led by DEFRA and Plymouth University’s Marine Institute (PUMI)
(Attrill et al. 2011) began with four main objectives (Table 1) before being revised in 2013 following concerns over
increased potting activity.
Considering the failure of a previous Voluntary Marine Conservation Area (VMCA), the potential successes of the new
MPA were uncertain given the level of disagreement between stakeholders, (Prior 2011) and the concerns over
whether the management methods would meet conservation objectives.
However, annual video surveys and Inshore Vessel Monitoring Systems (IVMS) conducted by PUMI have shown that
despite being in its early stages, the implementation of the MPA has led to new habitat formation as well as the
recovery of commercially valuable species such as Pecten maximus, Aequipecten opercularis and Gadus morhua
(Sheehan et al. 2013; Rees 2011).

I7647865
Objective Description
1 Assess the level of static fishing gear activity
which has a significant effect on the assemblage
of important reef features found within Lyme
Bay.
2 Evaluate the impact of static fishing gear activity
on the mobile organisms (fish and large
invertebrates) associated with key reef features
within the Lyme Bay MPA.
3 Assess how fishing gear density impacts upon
target species populations such as; whelks, brown
crabs and lobster within the Lyme Bay MPA.
4 Gage whether control no take areas are able to
produce a spill over effect to the surrounding reef
areas.
Table 1: Lyme Bay Management Objectives (DEFRA 2013a)
)
Pecten maximus in particular, showed a huge increase with densities almost equal to areas outside the reserve
demonstrating the importance of the reserve as a scallop biomass refuge.
The complete ban on dredging and towed fishing gears has been responsible for this increase in scallop biomass.
Landing values have also risen due to an increase in hand dived scallops using SCUBA diving equipment (Rees et al
2016). Increases in both scallop and crab species are common indicators of reef ecosystem recovery where their
increased abundance benefits other marine species.
Eunicella verrucosa, for example, one of the key species of conservation interest in Lyme Bay was also found to be 3.4
times more abundant within the reserve boundaries (Hinz et al. 2011). Webb (2015) added that development of
extensive sea fan forests together with potato crisp bryozoans reflected the continual recovery of the reserve, justifying
the management methods implemented.
Despite the obvious ecological successes of the Lyme Bay MPA, it must be remembered that many mobile gear
fishermen were displaced as a result of the original closure. Many have since reported lower levels of income and job
satisfaction since 2008 and have had to travel further into highly concentrated areas whilst relying on quota species
(Rees et al. 2016).
One of three MCZs found within the Dorset marine district, the South Dorset MPA (Fig 8) covers an approximate area of
193km² and is located roughly 17.5km off the coast of St Aldhelm’s Head (JNCC 2016a). The MPA primarily protects
broad-scale habitats, moderate energy circa-littoral rock (A4.2) and sub-tidal coarse sediment (A5.1) as well sub-littoral
chalk which is considered a ‘Habitat Feature of Conservation Importance’ (FOCI). Sub-tidal chalk within the reserve is
extremely rare considering the 50m depth of the offshore environment and the site currently, is the only location
protected beyond 12 nautical miles. Here, deeper water conditions promote a chalk seabed characterised by reefs and
sea caves (DEFRA 2013b). Species such as Pholas dactylus and Cliona celata can be found bored into the chalk. Once
these bores have emptied, they provide habitats for a range of species including the Maja brachydactyla and Pisidia
longicornis.
Chalk in particular is often soft, friable and easily eroded (BRIG 2008). Therefore, any intrusive mobile fishing gears are
likely to cause significant physical damage to the substrate, reducing structural complexity and potentially leading to a
loss of supporting habitats (Sewell and Hiscock 2005; Roberts et al. 2010). Methods to preserve features of
conservation interest here could, therefore be justified purely for ecological reasons.

I7647865
Possible management
options
Consequences to
habitat/feature
Will the option help to
meet the conservation
objective?
Certainty
Maintain Recover
Unrestricted access If fishing occurs, abundance
of epifauna may be reduced
resulting in damage to the
feature and potentially to
the underlying substrate.
The
conservation
objective is
unlikely to be
met under this
management
option.
The
conservation
objective is
unlikely to be
met under this
management
option.
Medium certainty. There is no
direct evidence and it has been
necessary to make assumptions
based on knowledge of similar
habitats or comparable pressures.
There is good reason to believe
that the assumptions are justified
(eg. occurrence of species with
similar characteristics).
Managed access If fishing effort does not
increase, the habitat may be
maintained in a modified state.
Recovery may also be expected
to take place at a natural pace.
If appropriate
management
is applied, this
option may
help to
achieve the
conservation
objective
If appropriate
management
is applied, this
option may
help to
achieve the
conservation
objective
Medium certainty. There is no
direct evidence and it has been
necessary to make assumptions
based on knowledge of similar
habitats or comparable pressures.
There is good reason to believe
that the assumptions are justified
(eg. occurrence of species with
similar characteristics).
No access The habitat will not be subject to
further modification. If there are
no other unregulated pressures,
recovery would be expected to
take place at a natural pace.
This option
will help to
achieve the
conservation
objective
This option
will help to
achieve the
conservation
objective
High certainty. Inevitable
conclusions based on the
application of common sense.
Figure 8: South Dorset MPA Designation Map (GovUK 2013a)
Although species such as Cliona celata are relatively unaffected by towed fishing gears (Roberts et al. 2010), several
species of sessile epifauna such as; Dendrodoa grossularia and Stolonica socialis are vulnerable to damage from towed
gears (JNCC 2011a). A summary of possible management options concerning access for the South Dorset MPA’s chalk
communities is displayed below (Table 2).
Table 2: Possible Management Options for Chalk communities (includes littoral and subtidal)
(JNCC 2011a)

I7647865
Features General Management approach
Intertidal coarse sediment Maintain in favourable condition
High energy intertidal rock Maintain in favourable condition
Native Oyster (Ostrea edulis) Recover to favourable condition
Pink sea-fan (Eunicella verrucosa) Recover to favourable condition
High energy infralittoral rock Maintain in favourable condition
Figure 9: Chesil Beach and Stennis Ledges MCZ Designation Map (GovUK 2013b)
One of two MCZs within Dorset’s Southern IFCA district Chesil Beach and Stennis Ledges MCZ stretches from
Abbotsbury to the Isle of Portland. The MCZ incorporates a 37km² area extending seawards (points C and D) (Fig 9)
including Stennis Ledges reef complex. The area is characterised by several features (Table 3) but predominantly by
rocky subtidal habitats where species of sponge and sea moss are located as well as the nationally important Eunicella
verrucosa coral. The area also provides habitats for inshore and intertidal fisheries species including; Homarus
gammarus and Dicentrarchus labrax. The environment also contains several sea wrecks including that of the Royal
Adelaide and Dorothea providing historic conservation importance and valuable marine habitats (Hinchcliffe 1999).
Table 3: Chesil Beach and Stennis Ledges MCZ Habitat Features (DEFRA 2013c)
file:///C:/Users/i7647865/Downloads/Chesil%20Beach%20and%20Stennis%20Ledges%20MCZ%2
0Factsheet%20MCZ031%20v4.pdf
Perhaps the most important species found here in terms of conservation is Eunicella verrucosa. Known as Pink Sea Fan,
it is one of two gorgonian corals distributed around UK (Freiwald 2004). Its marine importance is reflected by its
Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species classification (Wood 2008). Eunicella verrucosa is extremely slow growing but
also highly vulnerable to damage from beam trawling, dredging and boat anchoring (JNCC 2016b). Within the UK, the
greatest fall in condition of Eunicella verrucosa has occurred within Lyme Bay and Chesil Beach, primarily due to mobile
fishing gear damage of underlying reef-beds (Hall-Spencer et al. 2007; Wood 2008).

I7647865
MCZ implementation here will no doubt make the enforcement of national legislation easier within the Southern IFCA
district and help the operation of further management (Natural England 2014). Although commercial fishing cannot be
banned within this MCZ, methods such as bottom trawling will almost certainly be forbidden. The Chesil Beach MCZ
creates a MPA network with Lyme Bay where Stevens et al. (2014) has shown notable increases in Eunicella verrucosa
(636%). Moreover increased abundance of Ross corals (385%) and branching sponges (414%) provide evidence of
improved nursery areas and structures for larval development (Morpurgo 2013).
Dorset also contains many marine areas unprotected by MPA designation. One example is Studland Bay (Fig 10) which
has been a resubmitted MCZ candidate since 2014. The bay is sandy and relatively shallow (5m depth, 2km from shore)
and provides ideal habitats for seagrass Zostera marina (Crown Estate 2012). Seagrass habitats are considered the
most productive of shallow sedimentary environments (Davison and Hughes 1998) where their root networks provide
important ecological niches for species such as the Hippocampus guttulatus and Raja undulata (DEFRA 2015).
2.2 The implementation of possible measures for both intertidal and subtidal habitats with
relevant justifications:
Figure 10: Studland Bay rMCZ Boundary (DEFRA 2015)
Studland Bay is particularly important for seahorses Hippocampus guttulatus and Hippocampus hippocampus, but is
threatened by recreational activities within the bay and externally from Poole Harbour. Studies have demonstrated the
impacts of anchoring and mooring showing significant mechanical damage to seagrasses, (Walker et al. 1989; Hastings
et al. 1995; Rhodes et al. 2005) which are generally slow to re-colonise (Borum et al. 2004). Absence of seagrasses
mean wave velocities are no-longer reduced, resulting in increased suspended sediment and turbidity levels (Van der
Heide et al. 2007). This can have devastating consequences on seahorses (Western Morning News 2014).
Simply banning vessels is impossible due to the recreational importance of the area. However, implementing
environmentally friendly mooring areas could provide a management method which prevents widespread habitat
disturbance without sacrificing the recreational benefits. The mooring trial exercised at Moreton Bay, Australia (2009-
2011) might be a good case study to examine (SEQ 2015) if the MCZ classification is granted.

I7647865
References:
Attrill, M., Austen, M., Bayley, D., Carr, H., Downey K., Fowell, S., Gall, S., Hattam C., Holland L., Jackson E.,
Langmead, O., Mangi, S., Marshall, C., Munro, C., Rees, S., Rodwell, L., Sheehan, E., Stevens, J.,
Stevens, T., and Strong, S., 2011. Lyme Bay – a Case-Study: Measuring Recovery of Benthic Species;
Assessing Potential “Spillover” Effects and Socio-Economic Changes, 2 Years after the Closure.
Response of the Benthos to the Zoned Exclusion of Bottom Towed Fishing Gear and the Associated
Socio-Economic Effects in Lyme Bay. Final Report 1. June 2011, Report to the Department of
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs from the University of Plymouth-led consortium. Plymouth
University.
Ballantine, W., 1961. A biologically-defined exposure scale for the comparative description of rocky shores,
[Online], available from:
http://moodle.itchen.ac.uk/bioweb/General%20resources/Marine%20Biology%20resources/Habitat
/Ballantines%20Exposure%20Scale.pdf, [Accessed 28/11/16].
Borum, J., Duarte, C., Krause-Jensen, D., and Greve, T., 2004. European Seagrasses: An introduction to
monitoring and management, The Monitoring & Management of European Seagrasses (M&MS)
project.
BRIG, 2008. UK Biodiversity Action Plan; Priority Habitat Descriptions, [Online], available from:
http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/UKBAP_PriorityHabitatDesc-Rev2011.pdf, [Accessed 27/11/16].
Brown J., Gillooly, J., Allen, A., Savage, V., West, G., 2004. Toward a metabolic theory of ecology, Ecology,
85, pp1771–1789.
Brunsdon, J., 2016. Personal photo collection.
This report reveals that within Dorset, a series of MPA sites are currently in place, protecting ecologically important
and sensitive benthos, particularly from beam trawling, bottom towed fishing gears and dredging. Protection within
the region is likely to increase with a number of proposed MCZs currently being considered including rMCZs in Studland
Bay and Kimmeridge Bay.
Fishery populations and the condition of marine environments in Dorset, will no doubt benefit from reduced sea
disturbance; a direct consequence of the greater protection afforded to the region. Protection will increase the
number of ecosystem services including provisional, regulation and cultural services. Nature orientated activities such
as diving and recreational angling will benefit from an enhanced user experience and protection of marine resources
will further research into the longer term impacts of anthropogenic activities.
Although MPAs contribute important roles to both conservation and fisheries management, they cannot be viewed
one-dimensionally as a single cure-all for marine ecosystems. MPAs vary enormously in terms of activities and intensity
and therefore, generalisations about the ability of MPAs to meet specific needs should not be made. Finding a balance
between the socio-economic benefits and conservation value of a marine area is essential for justifying management
methods. Ultimate success is dependent on the types of human activities, scale and the level of protection afforded
within an MPA.
3.0 Conclusions

I7647865
Burrows, M., Hawkins, S., and Southward, A., 1992. A comparison of reproduction in co-occurring
chthamalid barnacles, Chthamalus stellatus (Poli) and Chthamalus montagui, Journal of Experimental
Marine Biology and Ecology, 160(2), pp229-249.
Chapman, D., Haines, R., Moore, F., Redhead, J., Gibson, A., Herdson, R., Lawson, J., Lewin, S., Morizet, B.,
Pryor, A., Somerville, R., Vaughan, G., Vaughan, M., Wells, S., Whitfield, G., and Williams, M., 2012.
Impact Assessment Materials in Support of the Regional Marine Conservation Zone Project, Natural
England, Sheffield, [Online], available from:
http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/2071071, [Accessed 27/11/16].
Coombes, M., La Marca, E., Naylor, L., and Thompson, R., 2015. Getting into the groove: Opportunities to
enhance the ecological value of hard coastal infrastructure using fine-scale surface textures,
Ecological Engineering, 77, pp314-323.
Connell, J., 1961. The influence of interspecific competition and other factors on the distribution of the
barnacle Chthamalus stellatus, Ecology, 42(4), pp710-723.
Connor, D., Allen, J., Golding, N., Howell, K., Lieberknecht, L., Northern, K., and Reker, J., 2004. The Marine
Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland Version 04.05. In: JNCC (2015) the Marine Habitat
Classification for Britain and Ireland Version 15.03 [Online], available from:
jncc.defra.gov.uk/MarineHabitatClassification, [Accessed 15/11/16].
Cousens, S., 2015. Monitoring the recovery of benthic species, assessing potential spillover effects and
socio economic changes of the Lyme Bay MPA, [Presentation] (Personal communication, 27 January
2015)
Crisp, D., and Barnes, H., 1954. The orientation and distribution of barnacles at settlement with particular
reference to surface contour, The Journal of Animal Ecology, pp142-162.
Crisp, D., Southward, A., Southward, E., 1981. On the distribution of the intertidal barnacles Chthamalus
stellatus, Chthamalus montagui and Euraphia depressa, Journal of Marine Biological Association of
the UK, 61, pp359–380.
Dayton, P., 1971. Competition, disturbance, and community organization: the provision and subsequent
utilization of space in a rocky intertidal community, Ecological Monographs, pp351-389.
Davis, A., Jenkinson, L., Lawton, J., Shorrocks, B. and Wood, S, 1998a. Making mistakes when predicting
shifts in species range in response to global warming, Nature, 391, pp783–786.
Davis, A., Lawton, J., Shorrocks, B. and Jenkinson, L., 1998b. Individualistic species responses invalidate
simple physiological models of community dynamics under global environmental change, Journal of
Animal Ecology, 67, pp600–612.
DEFRA, 2013a. Lyme Bay Experimental Potting Project - MB5204, [Online], available from:
http://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Com
pleted=0&ProjectID=18771, [Accessed 25/11/16].

I7647865
DEFRA, 2013b. South Dorset MCZ factsheet, available from:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/marine-conservation-zone-2013-designation-south-
dorset, [Accessed 25/11/16].
DEFRA, 2013c. Chesil Beach and Stennis Ledges Marine Conservation Zone Factsheet, [Online], available
from: http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/5501887130370048, [Accessed
27/11/16].
DEFRA, 2015. Studland Bay Candidate Marine Conservation Zone not proposed for designation in the
second tranche, January 2015, Consultation on Sites Proposed for Designation in the Second Tranche
of Marine Conservation Zones, [Online], available from:
https://consult.defra.gov.uk/marine/tranche2mczs/supporting_documents/Studland%20Bay%20cM
CZ%20site%20summary.pdf, [Accessed 28/11/16].
Dorset Coastal Forum, 2011. Dorset Coast Strategy 2011-2021, [Online], available from:
https://www.dorsetforyou.gov.uk/article/415321/Dorset-Coast-Strategy, [Accessed 20/11/16].
Dorset Wildlife Trust, 2016. Marine Protected Areas, [Online], available from:
http://www.dorsetwildlifetrust.org.uk/mpas.html, [Accessed 26/11/16].
Douvere, F., 2008. The importance of marine spatial planning in advancing ecosystem-based sea use
management. Marine Policy, 32, pp762–71.
Eagle, R., Hardiman, P., 1976. Some observations on the relative abundance of species in the benthic
community, Galway, Pergamon Press, pp197–208.
Eagle, R., Hardiman, P., Norton, M., Nunny, R., 1978. The field assessment of dumping wastes at sea: A
survey of the sewage sludge disposal area in Lyme Bay. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food,
Directorate of Fisheries Research, 42, pp22.
EUNIS, 2016. EUNIS habitat type hierarchical view, [Online], available from:
http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/habitats-code-browser.jsp, [Accessed 19/11/16].
Freiwald, A., Fosså, J., Grehan, A., Koslow, T., Roberts, J., 2004. Cold-water Coral Reefs, UNEP-WCMC,
Cambridge, UK, [Online], available from: URL: http://www.unep-wcmc.org/resources/publications/
UNEP_WCMC_bio_series/22.htm, [Accessed 29/11/16].
Gubbay, S., 2006. Marine Protected Areas. A review of their use for delivering marine biodiversity benefits.
English Nature Research Reports, No 688, [Online], available from:
http://www.mseproject.net/fisheries/cat_view/2-resources/25-impact-assessment/11-benefits-of-
mpas/29-additional-info?limit=10&limitstart=0&order=name&dir=DESC, [Accessed 27/11/16].
Gov.uk, 2013a. Marine conservation zone 2013 designation: South Dorset, [Online], available from:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/marine-conservation-zone-2013-designation-south-
dorset, [Accessed 26/11/16].
Gov.uk, 2013b. Marine conservation zone 2013 designation: Chesil Beach and Stennis Ledges, [Online],
available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/marine-conservation-zone-2013-
designation-chesil-beach-and-stennis-ledges, [Accessed 27/11/16].

I7647865
Hall-Spencer, J., Pike, J., and Munn, C., 2007. Diseases affect cold-water corals too: Eunicella verrucosa
(Cnidaria: Gorgonacea) necrosis in SW England, Diseases of aquatic organisms, 76(2), pp87-97.
Hastings, K., Hesp, P., and Kendrick, G., 1995. Seagrass loss associated with boat moorings at Rottnest
Island, Australia, Ocean and Coastal Management, 26(3), pp225 – 246.
Hawkins, S., Moore, P., Burrows, M., Poloczanska, E., Mieszkowska, N., Herbert, R., Jenkins, S., Thompson,
R., Genner, M., and Southward, A., 2008. Complex interactions in a rapidly changing world:
responses of rocky shore species to recent climate change, Climate Research, 37, pp123-133.
Hawkins, S., Sugden, H., Mieszkowska, N., Moore, P., Poloczanska, E., Leaper, R., Herbert, R., Genner, M.,
Moschella, P., Thompson, R., Jenkins, S., Southward, A., Burrows, M., 2009. Consequences of
climate-driven biodiversity changes for ecosystem functioning of North European rocky shores,
Marine Ecology Progress Series, 396, pp245-259.
Healy, B., and McGrath, D., 1998 Marine Fauna of County Wexford, Ireland: The fauna of rocky shores and
sandy beaches, Irish Fisheries Investigations (New Series), 2, pp1–58.
Herbert, R., Hawkins, S., Sheader, M., and Southward, A., 2003. Range Extension and Reproduction of the
Barnacle Balanus Perforatus in the Eastern English Channel, Journal of the Marine Biological
Association of the UK, 83, pp73-82.
Herbert, R., and Hawkins, S., 2006. Effect of rock type on the recruitment and early mortality of the
barnacle Chthamalus montagui, Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 334(1), pp96-
108.
Herbert, R., Southward, A., Sheader, M. and Hawkins, S., 2007. Influence of Recruitment and Temperature
on Distribution of Intertidal Barnacles in the English Channel, Journal of the Marine Biological
Association of the UK, 87, pp487-499.
Hinchcliffe, J., and Hinchcliffe, V., 1999. Dive Dorset. Teddington, Middlesex: Underwater World
Publications, p72.
Hinz, H., Tarrant, D., Ridgeway, A., Kaiser, M., and Hiddink, J., 2011. Effects of scallop dredging on
temperate reef fauna, Marine Ecology Progress Series, [Online], 432, pp91-102, available from:
http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps2011/432/m432p091.pdf, [Accessed 27/11/16]
Hiscock, K., and Breckels, M., 2007. Marine Biodiversity Hotspots: identification and protection.
Godalming: WWF UK, [Online], available from: www.wwf.org.uk/marineact, [Accessed 27/11/16].
Howarth, L., and Stewart, B., 2014. The dredge fishery for scallops in the United Kingdom (UK): effects on
marine ecosystems and proposals for future management. Report to the Sustainable Inshore
Fisheries Trust. Marine Ecosystem Management Report no. 5, University of York, [Online], available
from:
http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/79233/1/Howarth_and_Stewart_2014_Ecosystem_effects_managem
ent_of_UK_scallop_fisheries.pdf, [Accessed 27/11/16].

I7647865
Hulme, M., Jenkins, G., Lu, X., Turnpenny, J., Mitchell, T., Jones, R., Lowe, J., Murphy, M., Hassell, D.,
Boorman, P., McDonald, R., and Hill, S., 2002. Climate change scenarios for the UK: the UKCIP02
scientific report Tyndall Centre UEA, Norwich, UK.
IFCA, 2016. Marine Conservation Zones, [Online], available from: http://www.southern-ifca.gov.uk/marine-
conservation-zones, [Accessed 25/11/16].
Jones, P., and Carpenter, A., 2009. Crossing the divide: The challenges of designing an ecologically coherent
and representative network of MPAs for the UK. Marine Policy, [Online], 33(5), pp737-743.
JNCC, 2011a. Advice from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and Natural England with regard to
fisheries impacts on Marine Conservation Zone habitat features, [Online], available from:
http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/1105%20MARINE%20CONSERVATION%20ZONES%20AND%20FISHERIES
-FINAL.pdf, [Accessed 28/11/16].
JNCC, 2011b. UK Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Habitat Descriptions, [Online], available from:
http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/UKBAP_PriorityHabitatDesc-Rev2010.pdf, [Accessed 19/11/16].
JNCC, 2015. The Marine Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland Version 15.03 [Online], available from:
jncc.defra.gov.uk/MarineHabitatClassification, [Accessed 19/11/16].
JNCC, 2016a. South Dorset MPA, [Online], available from: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-7138, [Accessed
20/11/16].
JNCC, 2016b. Pink sea-fan, [Online], available from: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5663, [Accessed
27/11/16].
Leslie, H., Breck, E., Chan, F., Lubchenco, J. and Menge, B., 2005. Barnacle reproductive hotspots linked to
nearshore ocean conditions, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, 102(30), pp10534-10539.
Mangi, S., Hattam, C., Rodwell, L., Rees, S., Stehfest, K., 2009. Lyme Bay - A Case Study: Measuring
Recovery of Benthic Species, Assessing Potential Spill-Over Effects and Socio-Economic Changes.
Defra and Natural England, [Online], available from:
randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=MB0101_9959_ANN.pdf, [Accessed 27/11/16].
MCCIP, 2015. Marine Climate Change Impacts: Implications for implementation of marine biodiversity
legislation, [Online], available from:
http://www.mccip.org.uk/media/1611/mccip_special_topic_report_card_-2015.pdf, [Accessed
27/11/16].
Menge, B., 1976. Organization of the New England rocky intertidal community: role of predation,
competition, and environmental heterogeneity. Ecological Monographs, 46(4), pp355-393.
Mieszkowska, N., Leaper, R., Moore, P., Kendall, M., Burrows, M., Lear, D., Poloczanska, E., Hiscock, K.,
Moschella, P., Thompson, R., Herbert, R., Laffoley, D., Baxter, J., Southward, A., and Hawkins, S.,
2006. Marine biodiversity and climate change: assessing and predicting the influence of climatic
change using intertidal rocky shore biota. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 202
(ROAME No. F01AA402).

I7647865
Morpurgo, H., 2013. Taking the 'conservation' out of Marine Conservation Zones, [Online], available from:
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2191870/taking_the_conservation_out_of_mari
ne_conservation_zones.html, [Accessed 27/11/16].
Natural England, 2014. Site Improvement Plan Chesil Beach & the Fleet, [Online], available from:
publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/5436996537286656, [Accessed 28/11/16].
Pannacciulli, F., 1995. Population Ecology and genetics of European Species of Intertidal Barnacles. Ph.D
Thesis, University of Liverpool.
Pearson, R., and Dawson, T., 2003. Predicting the impacts of climate change on the distribution of species:
are bioclimate envelope models useful? Global ecology and biogeography, 12(5), pp361-371.
Pikesley, S., Godley, B., Latham, H., Richardson, P., Robson, L., Solandt, J., Trundle, C., Wood, C., and Witt,
M., 2016. Pink sea fans (Eunicella verrucosa) as indicators of the spatial efficacy of Marine Protected Areas
in southwest UK coastal waters, Marine Policy, 64, pp38-45.
Poloczanska, E., Hawkins, S., Southward, A., and Burrows, M., 2008. Modelling the response of populations
of competing species to climate change, Ecology, 89(11), pp3138-3149.
Power, A., Delany, J., McGrath, D., Myers, A., and O'Riordan, R., 2006. Patterns of adult abundance in
Chthamalus stellatus (Poli) and C. montagui Southward (Crustacea: Cirripedia) emerge during late
recruitment, Journal of experimental marine biology and ecology, 332(2), pp151-165.
Prior, S., 2011. Investigating the use of voluntary marine management in the protection of UK marine
biodiversity, Report to The RSPB, Sandy, UK.
Rees, S., 2011. The Value of Marine Conservation, [Online], available from:
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/29817008.pdf, [Accessed 27/11/16].
Rees, S., Attrill, M., Austen, M., Mangi, S., Richards, J., and Rodwell, L., 2010. Is There A Win–Win Scenario
for Marine Nature Conservation? A Case Study of Lyme Bay, England. Ocean & Coastal Management,
53, pp135-145.
Rees, S., Mangi, S., Hattam, C., Gall, S., Rodwell, L., Peckett, F., Attrill, M., 2015. The Socio-Economic Effects
of a Marine Protected Area on the Ecosystem Service of Leisure and Recreation, Marine Policy, 62:
pp144-152.
Rees, S., Ashley, M., Evans, L., Mangi, S., Rodwell, L., Attrill, M., Langmead, O., Sheehan, E., Rees, A., 2016.
An evaluation framework to determine the impact of the Lyme Bay Fisheries and Conservation
Reserve and the activities of the Lyme Bay Consultative Committee on ecosystem services and
human wellbeing. A report to the Blue Marine Foundation by research staff the Marine Institute at
Plymouth University, Exeter University and Cefas.
Rhodes, B., Moore, R., Jackson, E., Foggo, A., and Frost, M., 2005. The impact of swinging boat moorings on
Zostera marina beds and associated infaunal macroinvertebrate communities in Salcombe, Devon.
Report by University of Plymouth, Faculty of Science in collaboration with English Nature, Devon.

I7647865
Roberts, C., Smith, C., Tillin, H., Tyler-Walters, H., 2010. Review of existing approaches to evaluate marine
habitat vulnerability to commercial fishing activities. Environment Agency report No SC080016/R3,
[Online], available from: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/assets/pdf/Review-of-sensitvity-Roberts-etal-
2010.pdf, [Accessed 27/11/16].
Safriel, U., Erez, N., and Keasar, T., 1994. How do limpets maintain barnacle-free submerged artificial
surfaces? Bulletin of marine science, 54(1), pp17-23.
Schmidt-Nielsen, K, 1984. Seiten Scaling: Why is Animal Size So Important? Cambridge University Press,
p241.
SEQ, 2015. ‘Environmentally Friendly Moorings’, [Online], available from:
http://www.seqcatchments.com.au/resources-general-reports.html, [Accessed 28/11/16].
Sewell, J., and Hiscock, K., 2005. Effects of fishing within UK European Marine Sites: guidance for nature
conservation agencies. Report to the Countryside Council for Wales, English Nature and Scottish
Natural Heritage from the Marine Biological Association. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association,
pp195.
Sheehan, E., Stevens, T., Gall, S., Cousens, S., and Attrill, M., 2013. Recovery of a Temperate Reef
Assemblage in a Marine Protected Area following the Exclusion of Towed Demersal Fishing, PLoS
ONE, 8(12).
Sobel, J., and Dahlgren, C., 2004. Marine Reserves. A Guide to Science, Design and Use. Washington: Island
Press.
Southward, A., 1976. On the taxonomic status and distribution of Chthamalus stellatus (Cirripedia) in the
north-east Atlantic region: with a key to the common intertidal barnacles of Britain, Journal of
marine biological association of the United Kingdom, 56, pp1007–1028.
Southward, A., 1991. Forty years of changes in species composition and population density of barnacles on
a rocky shore near Plymouth, Journal of marine biological association of the United Kingdom, 71(3),
pp495–513.
Southward, A., Hawkins, S., Burrows, M., 1995. Seventy years observations of changes in distribution and
abundance of zooplankton and intertidal organisms in the western English Channel in relation to
rising sea temperature, Journal of thermal biology, 20(1), pp127–155.
Stevens, T., 2006. Independent scoping study: Options for spatial management of scallop dredging impacts
on hard substrates in Lyme Bay. The Marine Institute, University of Plymouth, (Report for the South
West Inshore Scallopers Association).
Stevens, T., Sheehan, E., Gall, S., Fowell, S., and Attrill, M., 2014. Monitoring benthic biodiversity
restoration in Lyme Bay marine protected area, Design, sampling and analysis, Marine Policy, 45,
pp310-317.
The Crown Estate, 2012. Survey and monitoring of seagrass beds, Studland Bay, Dorset Second seagrass
monitoring report, A report by Seastar Survey Ltd. for The Crown Estate and Natural England,
[Online], available from:

I7647865
https://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/media/5290/Seastar%20survey%20Studland%20Bay%20second
%20seagrass%20monitoring%20report.pdf, [Accessed 28/11/16].
Van der Heide, T., van Nes, E., Geerling, G., Smolders, A., Bouma, T., and van Katwijk, M., 2007. Positive
Feedbacks in Seagrass Ecosystems: Implications for Success in Conservation and Restoration,
Ecosystems, 10, pp1311-1322.
Van Haastrecht, E., and Toonen, H., 2011. Science-Policy Interactions in MPA Site Selection in the Dutch
Part of the North Sea, Environmental Management, [Online], 47(4), pp656–670.
Walker, D., Lukatelich, R., Bastyn, G., and McComb, A., 1989. Effect of Boat Mooring on seagrass Beds near
Perth, Western Australia. Aquatic Biology, 36, pp69 – 77.
Webb, C., 2015. Devon Sea-search Annual Report 2015, [Online], available from:
http://www.seasearch.org.uk/downloads/Devon%202015%20summary%20report.pdf, [Accessed
25/11/16].
Western Morning News, 2014. ‘Seahorses disappear from Studland Bay’, [Online], available from:
http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/seahorses-disappear-studland-bay/story-23087722-
detail/story.html#comments, [Accessed 28/11/16].
Wood, C., 2008. Sea-search Pink Sea Fan Surveys 2004/6, [Online], available from:
http://www.seasearch.org.uk/downloads/seafan2004-2006.pdf, [Accessed 27/11/16].
Woodward, G., Ebenman, B., Emmerson, M., Montoya, J., Olesen, J., Valido, A., Warren P., 2005. Body-size
in ecological networks, Trends in ecology and evolution, 20, pp402–409.

Kimmeridge-Bay-Final-Draft asd

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Kimmeridge-Bay-Final-Draft asd

Similar to Kimmeridge-Bay-Final-Draft asd (20)

More from Joshua Brunsdon

More from Joshua Brunsdon (9)

Kimmeridge-Bay-Final-Draft asd