Question

the marine realm is different that terrestrial systems. explain six ways the marine realm is different and describe direct consequences on (or solutions taken by) marine life

Answer 1

Marine realm is different from terrestrial ecosystem in Very large regions of coastal, benthic or pelagic ocean across which biotas are internally coherent at higher taxonomic levels, as a result of a shared and unique evolutionary history. Realms have high levels of endemism, including unique taxa at generic and family levels in some groups. Driving factors behind the development of such unique biotas include water temperature, historical and broadscale isolation, and the proximity of the benthos.

Direct consequences on marine life :-

1.Conservation actions in the riparian zone will often benefit both freshwater and terrestrial realms because riparian zones connect these two realms through ecosystem processes and cross‐system threats.

2.

3.Explore potential cobenefits and tradeoffs in cross‐realm planning.

4.Review lierature on cross‐realm planning to highlight research progress and gaps;Present a conceptual framework for considering cobenefits and tradeoffs between multiple realms; andIdentify challenges and opportunities to advance cross‐realm planning.

5.

Existing examples of cross‐realm planning have not explicitly estimated the potential benefits of actions to multiple realms. We have identified three key technical steps toward planning more effectively and efficiently across realms:

Qualitatively assess the existing threats to each realm, the actions to mitigate those threats, and the extent to which these threats and actions are similar or dissimilar and propagate their effects across realms;Construct action–response curves for actions under consideration, related to explicit objectives. If data are not available to develop whole curves, it will be necessary to identify at least one point on each curve related to a specific level of response;Use existing or purpose‐built software to optimize the allocation of actions spatially, according to the distribution of threats, conservation features, and the expected cobenefits or tradeoffs accruing to each realm based on the response curves, considering also socioeconomic costs and benefits, if possible.

Crucially, the conservation benefits arising from these technical advances will be realized only if governance arrangements are also made more amenable to cross‐realm planning. Approaches are being developed to review the adequacy of governance against broad environmental outcomes (e.g., Dale et al. 2013) and these can be adapted to planning across realms; but some broad requirements are already obvious. One is to strengthen collaborations among agencies and funding streams currently tasked with realm‐specific management, identifying and removing constraints on effective cross‐realm operations. A second is to maintain the financial support to organizations such as catchment management authorities that were established explicitly for cross‐realm planning, building sustained capacity within these groups to use, adapt, and help design technical methods for integrating terrestrial and freshwater actions. A third requirement is to adapt existing institutions or build new ones to manage the equitable sharing of the benefits and costs (environmental, financial, and social) of cross‐realm planning, recognizing that actions applied in one place, possibly requiring extractive activities to be curtailed, will often yield benefits in different places.

6.

We know that realms are linked physically, biologically, socially, and economically, and that actions in one realm invariably affect others. Until we are better at accounting for interactions across realms, our planning and conservation actions will be less cost‐effective than they could be. Data deficiencies will clearly prevent the construction of accurate models of cross‐realm interactions in the short term, but progress can be made with the technical steps above. Following these steps will make explicit the assumptions and understanding that are presently implicit or absent, and the resulting models will have heuristic value through being scrutinized and challenged. Ultimately, success will depend on adapting governance structures, and this will require high‐level commitment to integrated management, adequate funding, and reform of sometimes entrenched power structures.