Harris, LRSkowno, ALSink, KJVan Niekerk, LaraHolness, SDMonyeki, MMajiedt, P2023-01-242023-01-242022-10Harris, L., Skowno, A., Sink, K., Van Niekerk, L., Holness, S., Monyeki, M. & Majiedt, P. 2022. An indicator-based approach for cross-realm coastal biodiversity assessments. <i>African Journal of Marine Science, 44(3).</i> http://hdl.handle.net/10204/125861814-232X1814-2338https://doi.org/10.2989/1814232X.2022.2104373http://hdl.handle.net/10204/12586Ecosystem status assessments are generally separated into realm-specific analyses (terrestrial, freshwater, estuarine or marine), but without integrating these into a coherent assessment of coastal biodiversity across the land-sea interface. Trends in assessment indicators in coastal versus non-coastal areas have also rarely been considered. In this study we aimed to compile the first cross-realm national biodiversity assessment for the South African coast using three key indicators. The ecological condition, ecosystem threat status, and ecosystem protection level of coastal ecosystem types (n = 186) were determined and compared with those of non-coastal ecosystem types (n = 444). Nearly half (46.9%) of the South African coastal habitat has been degraded compared with 20% of non-coastal areas. Proportionately, there are three-times (60%) as many threatened coastal ecosystem types (or 55% by area) as there are threatened non-coastal ecosystem types (19%, 6% by area). Despite the impacted state of coastal biodiversity, protection levels are generally higher in the coastal zone (87% of ecosystem types have some protection) compared with non-coastal areas (75%), although fewer coastal ecosystem types have met their biodiversity targets (24%, vs 28% for non-coastal ecosystem types). These results illustrate the importance of using a cross-realm approach for status assessments, management and conservation of coastal biodiversity. The assessment methods described are flexible and widely applicable to other regions.AbstractenCoastal managementEcological conditionsEcological indicatorsEcosystem protection levelEcosystem threat statusIUCN Red List of EcosystemsArticleHarris, L., Skowno, A., Sink, K., Van Niekerk, L., Holness, S., Monyeki, M., & Majiedt, P. (2022). An indicator-based approach for cross-realm coastal biodiversity assessments. <i>African Journal of Marine Science, 44(3)</i>, http://hdl.handle.net/10204/12586Harris, LR, AL Skowno, KJ Sink, Lara Van Niekerk, SD Holness, M Monyeki, and P Majiedt "An indicator-based approach for cross-realm coastal biodiversity assessments." <i>African Journal of Marine Science, 44(3)</i> (2022) http://hdl.handle.net/10204/12586Harris L, Skowno A, Sink K, Van Niekerk L, Holness S, Monyeki M, et al. An indicator-based approach for cross-realm coastal biodiversity assessments. African Journal of Marine Science, 44(3). 2022; http://hdl.handle.net/10204/12586.TY - Article AU - Harris, LR AU - Skowno, AL AU - Sink, KJ AU - Van Niekerk, Lara AU - Holness, SD AU - Monyeki, M AU - Majiedt, P AB - Ecosystem status assessments are generally separated into realm-specific analyses (terrestrial, freshwater, estuarine or marine), but without integrating these into a coherent assessment of coastal biodiversity across the land-sea interface. Trends in assessment indicators in coastal versus non-coastal areas have also rarely been considered. In this study we aimed to compile the first cross-realm national biodiversity assessment for the South African coast using three key indicators. The ecological condition, ecosystem threat status, and ecosystem protection level of coastal ecosystem types (n = 186) were determined and compared with those of non-coastal ecosystem types (n = 444). Nearly half (46.9%) of the South African coastal habitat has been degraded compared with 20% of non-coastal areas. Proportionately, there are three-times (60%) as many threatened coastal ecosystem types (or 55% by area) as there are threatened non-coastal ecosystem types (19%, 6% by area). Despite the impacted state of coastal biodiversity, protection levels are generally higher in the coastal zone (87% of ecosystem types have some protection) compared with non-coastal areas (75%), although fewer coastal ecosystem types have met their biodiversity targets (24%, vs 28% for non-coastal ecosystem types). These results illustrate the importance of using a cross-realm approach for status assessments, management and conservation of coastal biodiversity. The assessment methods described are flexible and widely applicable to other regions. DA - 2022-10 DB - ResearchSpace DP - CSIR J1 - African Journal of Marine Science, 44(3) KW - Coastal management KW - Ecological conditions KW - Ecological indicators KW - Ecosystem protection level KW - Ecosystem threat status KW - IUCN Red List of Ecosystems LK - https://researchspace.csir.co.za PY - 2022 SM - 1814-232X SM - 1814-2338 T1 - An indicator-based approach for cross-realm coastal biodiversity assessments TI - An indicator-based approach for cross-realm coastal biodiversity assessments UR - http://hdl.handle.net/10204/12586 ER -26190