4.5 Review

A Review of Rhodolith/Maerl Beds of the Italian Seas

期刊

DIVERSITY-BASEL
卷 15, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/d15070859

关键词

coralline algae; rhodophyta; precious habitat

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Italian coralline algal beds are calcareous formations that host a high biodiversity, but only seven of these sensitive habitats are part of Marine Protected Areas. Therefore, there is a need for increased research and monitoring activities to effectively protect these valuable habitats.
Coralline algal beds are comprised of biogenic calcareous formations considered a habitat of high conservation interest, hosting a high great biodiversity. To assess the status of this habitat in the Italian seas, we report results from a systematic analysis of the available scientific literature. Italian rhodolith/maerl beds are reported on 31 Italian sites mostly located around islands, shoals, banks, terraces, and gentley sloping shelves, from 9 m to 130 m water depth (with a mean depth of about 56 m). The dominant species occurring in the Italian submarine sites are Phymatolithon calcareum and Lithothamnion corallioides, with a rich associated fauna including sponges, bryozoans, hydrozoans, polichaetes, molluscs, amphipods, gastropods, echinoderms. Despite the high biodiversity characterizing the Italian rhodolith/maerl beds, only seven submarine sites hosting this sensitive habitat are part of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). This evidence highlights the need for actions focused on the implementation of effective management and proper conservation measures to preserve such precious habitats. Protection of this habitat cannot be effectively provided without access to multidisciplinary data (e.g., geospatial, biological, geophysical, geomorphological data) capable of assessing its spatial distribution and biological characteristics over wide areas. An increased research effort to improve the production of fine-scale distribution maps and monitoring activities is therefore needed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据