Data used in the analyses below (ecological condition, threat status, protection, distribution of activities, cumulative pressure from activities) are from the National Biodiversity Assessment 2018: Marine Realm Assessment. See the NBA 2018 website for access to the report.

 

EBSA Status Assessment and Management Recommendations

Ecological Condition, Threat Status, Current Protection and Key Features in the EBSA

Relevant Pressures and Activities (impact, extent) | Management Interventions Needed for the EBSA

Activity Evaluation Per Zone: Zoning Feasibility | Managament recommendations for MPAs

Management recommendations for MSP | Research Needs & Future Process

EBSA report download | Back to the SA EBSA status and management home page

 

 

EBSA overview

Cape Canyon and Associated Islands, Bays and Lagoon comprises a collection of special features, ecosystems and species that support a rich diversity and high productivity. Cape Canyon itself is the largest of two submarine canyons on the South African west coast and Langebaan is the only lagoon in the country. The area supports numerous threatened species and ecosystems, and many fragile, sensitive species.

 

Click here for the full EBSA description

 

[Top]

Ecological Condition, Threat Status, Current Protection and Key Features in the EBSA

As its name suggests, Cape Canyon, and Surrounding Islands, Bays and Lagoon has a particularly diverse collection of features and ecosystem types that need to be protected for the area to maintain the features and processes that give it its EBSA status. The criteria for which this EBSA ranks highly are: uniqueness and rarity, importance for life history stages, importance for threatened species and habitats, vulnerability and sensitivity, biological productivity and biological diversity. There are 32 ecosystem types represented, of which the mosaic (matrix of hard and soft substrate), rocky shores, rocky shelf and shelf edge, canyon and islands ecosystem types contain fragile species that are especially sensitive to damage. The lagoon also supports a number of bird species and provides shelter and nursery functions for many fish and invertebrates. Kelp forests also contribute to the nursery function of the EBSA and are also relatively sensitive to disturbance.

 

Cape Canyon and Surrounding Islands, Bays and Lagoon proportion of area in each ecological condition category.

 

Cape Canyon, and Surrounding Islands, Bays and Lagoon is mostly in good (17%) or fair (40%) ecological condition. However, just less than half the area (43%) is in poor ecological condition, largely along the shelf edge and in the shallower parts of the EBSA. Consequently, the bulk of the offshore extent is either Endangered (17%) or Vulnerable (47%), with the Endangered types along the shore or around the shelf edge. However, there are many ecosystem types that are Least Concern that cover a third (36%) of the EBSA.

 

 
 Cape Canyon and Surrounding Islands, Bays and Lagoon proportion of area in each ecosystem threat status category.

 

Cape Canyon and Surrounding Islands, Bays and Lagoon proportion of area in a Marine Protected Area (MPA).

 

Protection of features in MPAs has been considerably expanded and strengthened following the proclamation of the Operation Phakisa MPA network, with the EBSA area within reserves increasing by almost an order of magnitude from 1.1% to 8.4%. These new MPAs cover the Benguela Muds in the north west, a portion of Cape Canyon, and Robben Island. Existing protection was and is afforded to Langebaan Lagoon, Jutten, Malgas and Marcus Islands and Sixteen Mile Beach, and to Rocherpan in St Helena Bay.

 

Threat status, protection level and ecological condition of ecosystem types in the EBSA. Other key features are also listed.

Feature

Threat Status

Protection Level

Condition (%)

Good

Fair

Poor

Ecosystem Types

Cape Basin Abyss

LC

PP

100.0

0.0

0.0

Cape Bay

EN

MP

0.0

5.5

94.5

Cape Boulder Shore

VU

MP

4.8

35.2

60.1

Cape Exposed Rocky Shore

VU

MP

4.3

31.5

64.3

Cape Island

EN

MP

3.3

15.9

80.8

Cape Kelp Forest

VU

MP

1.7

24.3

74.0

Cape Lower Canyon

VU

NP

6.5

56.3

37.1

Cape Mixed Shore

VU

MP

5.0

40.0

54.9

Cape Rocky Inner Shelf

VU

MP

0.0

61.4

38.6

Cape Rocky Mid Shelf Mosaic

VU

MP

0.4

55.8

43.8

Cape Sandy Inner Shelf

VU

MP

26.2

3.8

69.9

Cape Sheltered Rocky Shore

EN

PP

1.6

5.0

93.4

Cape Upper Canyon

EN

MP

0.0

32.8

67.2

Cape Very Exposed Rocky Shore

NT

WP

15.4

73.5

11.1

Cool Temperate Estuarine Lagoon

VU

MP

99.5

0.5

0.0

Cool Temperate Estuarine Lake

EN

PP

0.0

0.0

100.0

Cool Temperate Predominantly Open

EN

NP

0.7

24.5

74.8

Namaqua Sandy Mid Shelf

LC

PP

0.0

100.0

0.0

Southeast Atlantic Lower Slope

LC

NP

95.1

4.9

0.0

Southeast Atlantic Mid Slope

LC

PP

0.0

100.0

0.0

Southeast Atlantic Upper Slope

LC

PP

0.0

4.7

95.3

Southern Benguela Dissipative Intermediate Sandy Shore

LC

WP

85.9

9.9

4.1

Southern Benguela Dissipative Sandy Shore

LC

WP

87.6

4.8

7.7

Southern Benguela Intermediate Sandy Shore

NT

PP

51.3

26.0

22.7

Southern Benguela Muddy Shelf Edge

EN

MP

0.0

0.0

100.0

Southern Benguela Outer Shelf Mosaic

LC

NP

0.0

71.2

28.8

Southern Benguela Reflective Sandy Shore

EN

MP

5.0

30.4

64.6

Southern Benguela Rocky Shelf Edge

VU

MP

0.5

30.7

68.9

Southern Benguela Sandy Outer Shelf

LC

PP

0.3

63.7

36.0

Southern Benguela Sandy Shelf Edge

VU

PP

0.0

0.0

100.0

St Helena Bay

VU

NP

0.0

52.9

47.1

Other Features

  • Fragile habitat-forming species, and other unique and potentially vulnerable benthic communities, including species such as cold-water corals and brittle stars
  • Seabirds, including several threatened species and Marine IBAs
  • Seals and seal colonies
  • Foraging cetaceans
  • Spawning and nursery habitat for Cape hakes

[Top]

 

Relevant Pressures and Activities (impact, extent)

  • There are 22 pressures present in this EBSA, of which shipping and tuna pole fishing are the only ones that cover the entire EBSA extent, and have the highest cumulative pressure profile.
  • Key pressures in this EBSA that most directly impact the features for which the EBSA is described include: small pelagics fishing, offshore trawling, linefishing (commercial and recreational), benthic (hake) longlining, and gillnetting. These activities will need to be managed particularly well in order to protect the fragile benthic biodiversity, fish assemblages, and spawning and nursery areas that in turn support top predators, for which this EBSA is recognised. For all of these pressures, the larger portion of the activity is located in the Impact Management Zone.
  • Sixteen of the 22 pressures each comprise <1% of the EBSA pressure profile, including: alien invasive species, west coast rock lobster harvesting, ports and harbours, coastal disturbance, wastewater discharge, pelagic longlining, coastal development, abalone harvesting, kelp harvesting, beach seining, mariculture, subsistence harvesting, naval dumping (ammunition), recreational shore angling, and oil and gas (exploration and production).
  • Activities in South Africa that are not present in this EBSA include: mining (prospecting and mining), dredge spoil dumping, mean annual runoff reduction, midwater trawling, oyster harvesting, prawn trawling, shark netting, south coast rock lobster harvesting, squid fishing and inshore trawling.

 

Map of cumulative pressure from all activities in the EBSA and surrounds. Darker reds indicate higher pressure intensity.

 

Pressure (in arbitrary cumulative pressure units, CPUs) summed for each pressure in the EBSA, per proposed EBSA biodiversity zone, ranked left (highest) to right (lowest) by the overall relative importance of pressures in this EBSA. Note that pressures from alien invasive species to oil and gas (exploration and production) each comprise <1% of the EBSA pressure profile.

[Top]

 

Management Interventions Needed for the EBSA

Improved place-based protection of EBSA features should be pursued. In support of this, the EBSA is divided into a Biodiversity Conservation Zone and an Environmental Impact Management Zone, both comprising several areas within the EBSA. The aim of the Biodiversity Conservation Zone is to secure core areas of key biodiversity features in natural / near-natural ecological condition. Strict place-based biodiversity conservation is thus directed at securing key biodiversity features in a natural or semi-natural state, or as near to this state as possible. Activities or uses that have significant biodiversity impacts are incompatible with the management objective of this zone. If the activity is permitted, it would require alternative Biodiversity Conservation Zones or offsets to be identified. If this is not possible, it is recommended that the activity is Prohibited. Where possible and appropriate, the Biodiversity Conservation Zones should be considered for formal protection e.g., Marine Protected Areas or Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures (OECM). The aim of the Environmental Impact Management Zone is to manage negative impacts on key biodiversity features where strict place-based measures are not practical or not essential. In this zone, the focus is management of impacts on key biodiversity features in a mixed-use area, with the objective to keep biodiversity features in at least a functional state. Activities or uses that have significant biodiversity impacts should be strictly controlled and/or regulated. Within this zone, ideally there should be no increase in the intensity of use or the extent of the footprint of activities that have significant biodiversity impacts. Where possible, biodiversity impacts should be reduced.

As far as possible, the Biodiversity Conservation Zone was designed deliberately to avoid conflicts with existing activities. It also includes nine MPAs that are wholly or partially within the EBSA: Rocherpan MPA; Langebaan Lagoon MPA; Sixteen Mile Beach MPA; Malgas Island MPA; Marcus Island MPA; Jutten Island MPA; Benguela Mud MPA; Cape Canyon MPA; and Robben Island MPA. The activities permitted within these MPAs are not considered as part of the EBSA management recommendations because these are as per their respective gazetted regulations, which are available here: Langebaan Lagoon MPA; Sixteen Mile Beach MPA; Malgas Island MPA; Marcus Island MPA; Jutten Island MPA; Benguela Mud MPACape Canyon MPA; and Robben Island MPA.

 

Proposed zonation of the EBSA into Conservation (medium green) and Impact Management (light green) Zones. MPAs are overlaid in orange outlines, with the extent within the EBSA given in dark green. Click on each of the zones to view the proposed management recommendations.

 

Protection of features in the rest of the Conservation Zone may require additional Marine Protected Area declaration/expansion. Other effective conservation measures should also be applied via Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) to ensure that the existing activities/uses are appropriately controlled to ensure compatibility of activities with the environmental requirements for achieving the management objectives of the EBSA Biodiversity Conservation and Environmental Impact Management Zones.

Based on the compatibility of sea-use activities with the management objective of each EBSA zone (see table below, from the sea-use guidelines of the National Coastal and Marine Spatial Biodiversity Plan), it is recommended for MSP that compatible activities are managed as General activities, which are those that are permitted and regulated by current general rules and legislation. Activities that are conditional are recommended to be managed as Consent activities, which are those that can continue in the zone subject to specific regulations and controls, e.g., to avoid unacceptable impacts on biodiversity features, or to avoid intensification or expansion of impact footprints of uses that are already occurring and where there are no realistic prospects of excluding these activities. Activities that are not compatible are recommended to be Prohibited, where such activities are not allowed or should not be allowed (which may be through industry-specific regulations) because they are incompatible with maintaining the biodiversity objectives of the zone. These recommendations are subject to stakeholder negotiation through the MSP process, recognizing that there will likely need to be significant compromises among sectors. It is emphasized, as noted above, that if activities that are not compatible with the respective EBSA zones are permitted, it would require alternative Biodiversity Conservation Zones or offsets to be identified. If this is not possible, it is recommended that the activity is Prohibited.

 

List of all sea-use activities, grouped by their Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) zones, and scored according to their compatibility with the management objective of the EBSA’s Biodiversity Conservation Zone (i.e., Critical Biodiversity Area, CBA) and Environmental Impact Management Zone (i.e., Ecological Support Area, ESA). Activity compatibility is given as Y = yes, compatible, C = conditional or N = not compatible, with major activities that are present in the EBSA shaded in grey.

There are also some pressures on biodiversity features within the EBSA that originate from activities outside of these EBSA or beyond the jurisdiction of MSP. In support of maintaining the ecological integrity of and benefits delivered by the key biodiversity features, these other activities need to be appropriately managed by complementary initiatives.

 

Recommendations for other activities beyond the jurisdiction of MSP management to support securing key biodiversity features within the EBSA.

[Top]

 

Activity Evaluation Per Zone: Zoning Feasibility

Proposed zonation of the EBSA, with the cumulative intensity footprint of activities within the EBSA (sorted highest to lowest) given relative to the national footprint of those activities to illustrate feasibility of management interventions.

 

Even though almost 80% of the country’s mariculture takes place within this EBSA, it all falls within the proposed Impact Management Zone, and thus is recommended to continue in the EBSA with appropriate management as a Consent activity. It currently does not exist in the Conservation Zone and is thus recommended to be Prohibited in this zone. Gillnetting and beach seining in the EBSA also comprise a substantial proportion of the national footprint for these activities, and are recommended to continue as Consent activities in both EBSA zones, subject to careful controls in the Conservation Zone particularly. Similarly, more than a third of the country’s tuna pole fishing takes place in the EBSA but it is recommended to continue as a Consent activity in both zones. Other activities relating to biological resource use that have more than 10% of the national footprint within the EBSA and are proposed as Consent activities include: small pelagic fishing, kelp harvesting, abalone harvesting, west coast rock lobster harvesting, benthic (hake) longline fishing, and offshore trawling. Similar Consent activities that comprise less than 10% of the national footprint include subsistence harvesting and linefishing (commercial and recreational) and recreational shore angling. The bulk of the footprint of these extractive activities are in the Impact Management Zone. Where these activities do not currently exist in the Conservation Zone (recreational shore angling) or are incompatible with the management objectives of the Conservation Zone (ports and harbours, offshore trawling), they are recommended to be Prohibited in this zone.

Dumping ammunition at sea historically occurred within the EBSA, but is no longer an active activity in South Africa. The sites where ammunition was dumped are within the Conservation Zone where it is listed as a Consent activity. The EBSA includes the major Saldanha Bay Port and several minor harbours within the Impact Management Zone. Port and harbour activities should be carefully managed to avoid unacceptable impacts on adjacent Conservation Zones. Particularly, careful management of mariculture operations and ports and harbours are necessary to avoid the introduction of additional alien invasive species. General ship movement can continue in both the Conservation and Impact Management Zone under current legislation. Shipping is recommended to continue in both the Conservation and Impact Management Zone under current general rules and legislation. Thus, in all cases, the EBSA zonation has no or minimal impact on the national footprint for the listed marine activities.

There are also several activities that are largely outside the EBSA but have downstream impacts to the biodiversity within the EBSA, e.g., from mean annual runoff reduction, coastal development, coastal disturbance, and wastewater discharge. The impacts should be managed, but principally fall outside the direct management and zoning of the EBSA. These existing activities are proposed as Consent activities for both EBSA zones, recognising that they should ideally be dealt with in complementary integrated coastal zone management in support of the EBSA. For example, investment in eradicating the alien invasive species could aid in improving the ecological condition of rocky and mixed shores, improving benefits for subsistence and recreational harvesting; and rehabilitation of degraded dunes and formalising access points could support improved habitat for nesting shorebirds, and enhanced benefits for coastal protection during storm surges. Similarly, improved estuary management through development of appropriate freshwater flow requirements, estuarine management plans and wastewater management regulations can improve the ecological condition of the surrounding marine environment, in turn, improving water quality and safe conditions for human recreation and mariculture.

 

Management recommendations for MPAs

Since the inception of the MARIMSA Project, protection has increased in the EBSA with the declaration of the Benguela Mud, Cape Canyon, and Robben Island MPAs in 2019. This builds on existing protection already afforded by the Rocherpan, Langebaan Lagoon, Sixteen Mile Beach, Markus Island, Malgas Island, Jutten Island, and Table Mountain National Park MPAs, and land-based protected areas in the area. It is recommended that existing management is strengthened in the older MPAs, and that full operationalisation of the new MPAs is implemented, including management plans, resourcing, and adequate staffing and law enforcement. Potential MPA expansion within the EBSA should be explored to ensure that the features for which the EBSA was described receive adequate protection. See Future Process below for more details.

 

Existing and new marine protected areas (MPAs) in the Cape Canyon and Associated Islands, Bays and Lagoon EBSA. Land-based protected areas are also shown (from DFFE 2021).

[Top]

Management recommendations for MSP

Developing the biodiversity sector’s input to the national Marine Spatial Planning process

Following the initial management recommendations proposed for Cape Canyon and Associated Islands, Bays and Lagoon, outlined above, South Africa iteratively developed a National Coastal and Marine Spatial Biodiversity Plan (NCMSBP; Harris et al. 2022a,b) that underpinned the Marine Biodiversity Sector Plan (DFFE 2022). The latter constitutes the biodiversity sector’s input into the national Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) process. The NCMSBP comprises a Map of Critical Biodiversity Areas and Ecological Support Areas (abbreviated to CBA Map), and a set of sea-use guidelines that indicate activity compatibility with the management objectives of each of the CBA Map categories. These two components form the basis for the proposed biodiversity zones and management recommendations for the Marine Area Plans. EBSAs are an integral part of the NCMSBP, and thus the Biodiversity Sector Plan. Therefore, these products informed the proposed zoning and sea-use guidelines for EBSAs in the MSP process.

 

Schematic diagram illustrating that the National Coastal and Marine Spatial Biodiversity Plan will inform the Marine Area Plans through the Marine Biodiversity Sector Plan (DFFE 2022), and will be iteratively updated and refined based on feedback. The process for deriving the sea-use guidelines is also shown, indicating that it is based on an assessment of activity compatibility with the management objective of Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA) Natural, CBA Restore and Ecological Support Areas (ESAs). Marine Protected Area (MPA) expansion, focussing on CBAs, will also take place in a separate but related process. The outcomes of the Marine Spatial Planning and MPA expansion processes will be incorporated into the Marine Area Plans and will be fed back into future updates of the National Coastal and Marine Spatial Biodiversity Plan.

[Top]

Proposed Zones

The proposed biodiversity zones for the EBSA in MSP comprises two types: a Strict Biodiversity Conservation Zone; and a Biodiversity Impact Management Zone. The former has three sub-categories: Marine Protected Area; Biodiversity Conservation Area; and Biodiversity Restoration Area. All of these zones and sub-categories are found in Cape Canyon and Associated Islands, Bays, and Lagoon.

There are 10 MPAs that are wholly or partly in this EBSA: Benguela Mud, Cape Canyon, Robben Island, Langebaan Lagoon, Jutten Island, Malgas Island, Marcus Island, Sixteen Mile Beach, Rocherpan, and a small portion of Table Mountain National Park MPA. These MPAs are managed according to their respective gazetted management regulations. The Strict Biodiversity Conservation Zone includes a Biodiversity Conservation Area, where the management objective of this zone is to maintain the sites in natural or near-natural ecological condition. Because this area is well used by other sectors, a much larger portion of the Strict Biodiversity Conservation Zone comprises a Biodiversity Restoration Area, where the management objective of the zone is to improve the ecological condition of the sites and, in the long term, restore them to a natural / near-natural state, or as near to that state as possible. As a minimum, avoid further deterioration in ecological condition and maintain options for future restoration. The rest of the EBSA is a Biodiversity Impact Management Zone. This is a multi-use area that may already be heavily impacted, but needs to be kept ecologically functional because it is still important for marine biodiversity patterns, ecological processes, and ecosystem services. Therefore, the management objective is to avoid further deterioration in ecological condition.

 

Proposed biodiversity zones for the Cape Canyon and Associated Islands, Bays and Lagoon EBSA for South Africa’s Marine Area Plans.

 

Proposed Sea-Use Guidelines

All sea-use activities were listed and evaluated according to their compatibility with the management objective of each of the proposed biodiversity zones. Where various aspects of an activity have a different impact on the environment, these were reflected separately, e.g., impacts from petroleum exploration are different to those from production. Activity compatibility was based largely on the ecosystem-pressure matrix from the NBA 2018 (Sink et al. 2019), which is a matrix of expert-based scores of the functional impact and recovery time for each activity on marine ecosystems (adapted from Halpern et al. 2007). Activities were then classified into those that are Compatible, Not Compatible or have Restricted Compatibility with the management objectives of each proposed biodiversity zone. This classification followed a set of predefined principles that account for the severity and extent of impact, similar to the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems criterion C3 (Keith et al. 2013). Some exceptions and adjustments were made based on initial discussions as part of the MSP process.

 

Sea-use guidelines for Cape Canyon and Associated Islands, Bays and Lagoon. List of all sea-use activities, grouped by their broad sea use and Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) Zones, and categorised according to their compatibility with the management objective of Strict Biodiversity Conservation Zone: Biodiversity Conservation Area (SBCZ: BCA); Strict Biodiversity Conservation Zone: Biodiversity Restoration Area (SBCZ: BRA); and the Biodiversity Impact Management Zone (BIMZ). Activity compatibility is given as Y = yes, compatible, R = restricted compatibility, or N = not compatible. Strict Biodiversity Conservation Zone: Marine Protected Areas (SBCZ: MPA) are managed according to their gazetted regulations.

 

Proposed management recommendations for activities with each of the different compatibility ratings:

  • Compatible: Activities should be allowed and regulated by current general rules. Notwithstanding, there should still be duty of care, possibly requiring monitoring and evaluation programmes, to avoid unintended cumulative impacts to the biodiversity features for which this area is recognised.
  • Restricted compatibility: A robust site-specific, context-specific assessment is required to determine the activity compatibility depending on the biodiversity features for which the site was selected. Particularly careful attention would need to be paid in areas containing irreplaceable to near-irreplaceable features where the activity may be more appropriately evaluated as not permitted. The ecosystem types in which the activities take place may also be a consideration as to whether or not the activity should be permitted, for example. Where it is permitted to take place, strict regulations and controls over and above the current general rules and legislation would be required to be put in place to avoid unacceptable impacts on biodiversity features. Examples of such regulations and controls include: exclusions of activities in portions of the zone; avoiding intensification or expansion of current impact footprints; additional gear restrictions; and temporal closures of activities during sensitive periods for biodiversity features.
  • Not compatible: The activity should not be permitted to occur in this area because it is not compatible with the management objective. If it is considered to be permitted as part of compromises in MSP negotiations, it would require alternative Strict Biodiversity Conservation Zones and/or offsets to be identified. However, if this is not possible, it is recommended that the activity remains prohibited within the Strict Biodiversity Conservation Zone.

[Top]

Research Needs

There is ongoing research on the distributions of fragile, sensitive and vulnerable habitat-forming species in the area, although it is unlikely to have bearing on the revised boundaries. Otherwise, there are no specific research needs for this EBSA in addition to those for all EBSAs.

 

Future Process

There needs to be full operationalisation and practical implementation of the Benguela Mud, Cape Canyon, and Robben Island MPAs, including management plans, staffing, and resources. There also needs to be full operationalisation and practical implementation of the proposed zoning in the national marine spatial plan, with gazetted management regulations following the proposed management recommendations outlined above. Possible MPA expansion within the EBSA should be explored, with relevant areas included into focus areas that can be considered further in a dedicated MPA expansion process with adequate and meaningful stakeholder engagement. Further alignment between land-based and marine biodiversity priorities should also be strengthened, e.g., through the cross-realm planning in the CoastWise project. This EBSA is also part of a World Heritage Site proposal that is being developed.

[Top]

References

DFFE, 2021. South African Protected Areas Database (SAPAD). Available at: https://egis.environment.gov.za/protected_and_conservation_areas_database.

DFFE, 2022. Biodiversity Sector Plan: Input for Marine Spatial Planning (MSP). Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, Cape Town.

Halpern, B.S., Selkoe, K.A., Micheli, F., Kappel, C.V., 2007. Evaluating and Ranking the Vulnerability of Global Marine Ecosystems to Anthropogenic Threats. Conservation Biology 21, 1301–1315.

Harris, L.R., Holness, S.D., Kirkman, S.P., Sink, K.J., Majiedt, P., Driver, A., 2022. National Coastal and Marine Spatial Biodiversity Plan Version 1.2 (Released: 12-04-2022). Nelson Mandela University, Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, and South African National Biodiversity Institute, South Africa.

Harris, L.R., Holness, S.D., Kirkman, S.P., Sink, K.J., Majiedt, P., Driver, A., in press. A robust, systematic approach for developing the biodiversity sector’s input for multi-sector Marine Spatial Planning. Ocean & Coastal Management.

Keith, D.A., Rodríguez, J.P., Rodríguez-Clark, K.M., Nicholson, E., Aapala, K., Alonso, A., Asmussen, M., Bachman, S., Basset, A., Barrow, E.G., Benson, J.S., Bishop, M.J., Bonifacio, R., Brooks, T.M., Burgman, M.A., Comer, P., Comín, F.A., Essl, F., Faber-Langendoen, D., Fairweather, P.G., Holdaway, R.J., Jennings, M., Kingsford, R.T., Lester, R.E., Nally, R.M., McCarthy, M.A., Moat, J., Oliveira-Miranda, M.A., Pisanu, P., Poulin, B., Regan, T.J., Riecken, U., Spalding, M.D., Zambrano-Martínez, S., 2013. Scientific Foundations for an IUCN Red List of Ecosystems. PLoS ONE 8, e62111.

Sink, K.J., Holness, S., Skowno, A.L., Franken, M., Majiedt, P.A., Atkinson, L.J., Bernard, A., Dunga, L.V., Harris, L.R., Kirkman, S.P., Oosthuizen, A., Porter, S., Smit, K., Shannon, L., 2019. Chapter 7: Ecosystem Threat Status, In South African National Biodiversity Assessment 2018 Technical Report Volume 4: Marine Realm. eds K.J. Sink, M.G. van der Bank, P.A. Majiedt, L.R. Harris, L.J. Atkinson, S.P. Kirkman, N. Karenyi. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12143/6372.

[Top]