Intertidal Ecosystems conservation on a species by species level Exceptions are the so-called keystone species or ecological engineers, which were discussed in some detail earlier Either these species provide habitat directly or their activities serve to enhance local diversity because of their elimination of competitively dominant species For the most, however, emphasis on conservation of individual species is unlikely to be profitable First, for most species, we know too little about their requirements for habitat, food, and so on to be able to impose sensible managerial options Second, we know too little about their natural patterns of variability in time or space to be able to evaluate whether any managed populations are persisting with anything like their natural patterns of abundance Third, we certainly know too little about their interactions with other species to know which are essential to their continued wellbeing and which are not (i.e., which suite of species to try to conserve) In many cases, it has so far proven impossible to determine the geographical range of habitat occupied by a breeding population of intertidal animals, the extent to which there is interchange from one population to another, or the sources of recruits to any area that must be conserved Management of coastal biodiversity will better be focused on habitat Removing or reducing disturbances to patches of mangrove forest, rocky shores, mudflats, and beaches is one of the more feasible and cheaper options – it is usually easier to prevent access to areas than to try to control people’s behavior once they are in them The fauna and flora will then be left to the best they can under the circumstances Fortunately, many species living in shallow-water, marine habitats are able to deal with many disturbances to their habitat, as long as these are neither too frequent nor too extreme Evidence suggests that many can relatively rapidly recolonize areas once any disturbances are removed; such areas can then develop what appear to be functional ecological systems Whether all species return to such habitats is not known because it is generally not known what species were there before the disturbance Nevertheless, there is obviously a need for more research on interactions among species wherever possible, so that keystone or engineering species can be identified Where possible, management that will conserve these directly is likely to conserve those species that are dependent on them Therefore, legislation that protects rocky shores from foragers removing mussels and other large shellfish will not only protect the targeted species but also a diverse range of other animals and plants There is little chance that these could be protected on a species-by-species basis because too little is known about any individual species to mount a case for its protection Finally, with increasing understanding of the landscape ecology of coastal habitats and how ‘‘intertidal landscapes’’ interact, conservation of intertidal biodiversity is probably best within a mosaic of patches of different habitat There is considerable debate about the value of few, large versus many, small reserves for conservation of terrestrial species Which may be best is unknown for marine habitats and, in any case, there is no reason why what suits one species or set of species will suit another The best strategy will probably be to hedge one’s bets and try a range of different procedures Therefore, with the current lack of understanding, conserving patches of 343 habitat of different sizes and shapes, set at different distances apart, and subjected to as wide a range of environmental conditions as possible, will probably be the safest option until we know a lot more about our intertidal biodiversity Clearly, our understanding of the processes that influence and change biodiversity is increasing at a satisfactory pace Our ability to use these insights in the planning and management of conservation is, however, more limited The natural variability due to numerous processes and the large ranges over which larvae seem to disperse combine to make predictions difficult The urgent tasks for coastal systems in response to threats due to coastal development, aquaculture, disposal of wastes, and potential rises in sea level require more understanding of the scales of variability in the distributions and abundances of coastal species See also: Coastal Beach Ecosystems Disturbance, Mechanisms of Ecosystem Function Measurement, Aquatic and Marine Communities Ecosystem Function, Principles of Mangrove Ecosystems Marine Ecosystems Measurement and Analysis of Biodiversity References Anderson MJ (2001) A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance Austral Ecology 26: 32–46 Anderson MJ, Gorley RN, and Clarke KR (2008) Permanova ỵ for Primer: Guide to Software and Statistical Methods Plymouth, UK: Primer-E Brown AC and McLachlan A (1990) Ecology of Sandy Shores Amsterdam: Elsevier Brown AC and McLachlan A (2002) Sandy shore ecosystems and the threats facing them: Some predictions for the year 2025 Environmental Conservation 29: 62–77 Clarke KR (1993) Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure Australian Journal of Ecology 18: 117–143 Connell JH (1961) The influence of interspecific competition and other factors on the distribution of the barnacle Chthamalus stellatus Ecology 42: 710–723 Connell JH (1970) A predator–prey system in the marine intertidal region I Balanus glandula and several predatory species of Thais Ecological Monographs 40: 49–78 Connell JH (1978) Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs Science 199: 1302–1310 Connell JH (1985) The consequences of variation in initial settlement versus postsettlement mortality in rocky intertidal communities Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 93: 11–46 Connell SD and Gillanders BM (eds.) (2007) Marine Ecology Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press Fager EW (1972) Diversity: A sampling study American Naturalist 106: 293–310 Fairweather PG (1985) Differential predation on alternative prey and the survival of rocky intertidal organisms in New South Wales Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 109: 135–156 Foster MS and Schiel DR (1985) The ecology of giant kelp forests in California: A community profile U S Fisheries and Wildlife Service Biological Reports 85: 1–152 Gray JS (1993) Marine biodiversity: Patterns, threats conservation needs Biodiversity and Conservation 6: 153–175 Gray JS (2000) The measurement of marine species diversity, with an application to the benthic fauna of the Norwegian continental shelf Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 250: 23–49 Griffiths CL, Stenton-Dozey JME, and Koop K (1983) Kelp wrack and the flow of energy through a sandy beach ecosystem In: McLachlan A and Erasmus T (eds.) Sandy Beaches as Ecosystems, pp 547–556 The Hague: W Junk Hooper DU, Chapin FS, Ewel JJ, et al (2005) Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: A consensus of current knowledge Ecological Monographs 75: 3–35