# Process-driven and biological characterisation and mapping of seabed habitats sensitive to trawling

Aurélie Foveau, Sandrine Vaz, Nicolas Desroy, Vladimir Kostylev

► To cite this version:

Aurélie Foveau, Sandrine Vaz, Nicolas Desroy, Vladimir Kostylev. Process-driven and biological characterisation and mapping of seabed habitats sensitive to trawling. PLoS ONE, 2017, 12 (10), 10.1371/journal.pone.0184486. [https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184485](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184485)

HAL Id: hal-01928459

https://hal.umontpellier.fr/hal-01928459

Submitted on 26 May 2021

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
RESEARCH ARTICLE

# Process-driven and biological characterisation and mapping of seabed habitats sensitive to trawling

Aurélie Foveau¹**, Sandrine Vaz²*, Nicolas Desroy¹‡, Vladimir E. Kostylev³‡

1 Laboratoire Environnement et Ressources Bretagne Nord, Ifremer, Dinard, France, 2 UMR MARBEC, Ifremer, Sète, France, 3 Geological Survey of Canada (Atlantic), Natural Resources Canada, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada

© These authors contributed equally to this work.

‡ These authors also contributed equally to this work.

* aurelie.foveau@ifremer.fr

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

## Abstract

The increase of anthropogenic pressures on the marine environment together with the necessity of a sustainable management of marine living resources have underlined the need to map and model coastal environments, particularly for the purposes of spatial planning and for the implementation of integrated ecosystem-based management approach. The present study compares outputs of a process-driven benthic habitat sensitivity (PDS) model to the structure, composition and distribution of benthic invertebrates in the Eastern English Channel and southern part of the North Sea. Trawl disturbance indicators (TDI) computed from species biological traits and benthic community composition were produced from samples collected with a bottom trawl. The TDI was found to be highly correlated to the PDS further validating the latter's purpose to identify natural process-driven pattern of sensitivity. PDS was found to reflect an environmental potential that may no longer be fully observable in the field and difference with *in situ* biological observations could be partially explained by the spatial distribution of fishery pressure on the seafloor. The management implication of these findings are discussed and we suggest that, used in conjunction with TDI approaches, PDS may help monitor management effort by evaluating the difference between the current state and the presumed optimal environmental status of marine benthic habitats.

## Introduction

The Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the European Union (EU) represents (including overseas territories) an area of about 28 million km², i.e. more than 20% of the World's EEZ [1]. This important sea area offers a significant proportion of marine resources to each member state and contributes to economic prosperity and social well-being [2]. In order to protect this marine environment in the context of sustainable development [3], an integrated European marine policy has been developed. One of the main tools of the policy is the Marine Strategy

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

### OPEN ACCESS

**Citation:** Foveau A, Vaz S, Desroy N, Kostylev VE (2017) Process-driven and biological characterisation and mapping of seabed habitats sensitive to trawling. PLoS ONE 12(10): e0184486.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184486

**Editor:** Judi Hewitt, University of Waikato, NEW ZEALAND

**Received:** January 19, 2017

**Accepted:** August 24, 2017

**Published:** October 5, 2017

**Copyright:** © 2017 Foveau et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

**Data Availability Statement:** All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

**Funding:** This study was partly supported by the INTERREG IV A project CHARM III (CHannel integrated Approach for marine Resource Management), the French research agency (ANR), through the project COMANCHE (Ecosystem interactions and anthropogenic impacts on great scallop populations in the English Channel) - ANR-2010-STRA-010.
**Competing interests:** The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Framework Directive (MSFD), adopted by the EU in July 2008 which aims to achieve a Good Environmental Status (GES) across Europe's marine environment by 2020. In order to achieve this, four European marine regions were defined based on geographical and environmental criteria [4]. The North East Atlantic Marine Region was further divided into four sub-regions, and the English Channel was mainly included in the region called the "Greater North Sea" (Fig 1) [5]. Each member state is required to develop a marine strategy for their waters, based on (1) an initial assessment of the current environmental status of marine waters; (2) the adjusted definition of GES; (3) the designation of targets and indicators to achieve GES; (4) the definition of monitoring programs to measure progress or achievement of GES [4]. Eleven descriptors were assigned to monitor GES [6], some of which, such as seafloor integrity, are important to assess sensitivity of ecosystems to fishing and other types of human pressures and ensure that structure and functions of ecosystems are safeguarded and that benthic ecosystems, in particular, are not adversely affected.

Many definitions of ecosystem sensitivity have already been developed [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. In all of these definitions, sensitivity is understood as (1) the vulnerability of an individual, a species, a population, a community or a habitat to an adverse impact of external factors, natural or anthropogenic (as opposite of stability); (2) the time necessary to return to the previous state (recoverability or resilience). As such, recoverability is a temporal term, dependant of processes like growth, recruitment or mortality while vulnerability is a state term, related to structures (e.g. body size or type) and functions such as mobility or defences. Sensitivity therefore encompasses both the strength of the effect of a particular impact (sometimes referred to as disturbance, perturbations or stress) on a receptor (e.g. species or habitats) and the recovery rate.

Process-driven seafloor habitat sensitivity (PDS) has been defined from the method developed by Kostylev and Hannah [14], which takes into account physical disturbances and availability of energy for growth and reproduction as structuring factors for benthic communities [15]. Kostylev and Hannah's model is a conceptual model, relating species' biological traits to environmental properties. The theoretical habitat template basis for this approach has already been formulated by Southwood [16] and established in multiple studies [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. In operational implementation, physical environment maps have been converted into a map of benthic habitat types, with assumption that each habitat type supports species communities with specific sensitivity to environmental pressures. For example, it is assumed that undisturbed low productivity habitats would more likely contain slowly growing and slowly reproducing sessile species, while highly disturbed habitats would be more suitable for mobile species with shorter life span and high reproduction rates [14]. This model was already applied in different geographic areas and with different biological groups (e.g. [14], [23] for Nova Scotia; [24] for Northern Spain; [25] for British Columbia; [26] for Canadian offshore; [27] for invertebrates in Alaska; [28] for North Atlantic fishes). This habitat modelling approach assimilates the scattered information on different physical variables (for example sediment grain size, seabed currents, mean water temperature) into a coherent two factors representation of seabed habitat types, in terms of relative values of seabed disturbance and scope for growth (theoretical amount of energy available for benthic growth and reproduction accounting for adaptation to adverse environment). *In situ* observations of benthic communities, however, remain necessary to validate and update the established models. In each particular application (e.g. new geographic region), this approach has to follow several steps: (1) identification of the environmental layers necessary for the construction of the model, (2) adjustment of these data sets, (3) model construction/adjustment following disturbance and scope for growth logic, (4) comparison of the model outputs with existing benthic communities and biological traits of key species and (5) comparison of model outputs with spatial
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig 1. Localisation of the study area.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184486.g001

distribution of human activities, having potential impacts on the environment (e.g. aggregate extraction, offshore wind farming, fisheries, for example). Because PDS outputs are based on idealised “natural” environment, we focus this paper on the comparison of the PDS results with other useful indicators of human impacts.

One of such indicators is a Trawl Disturbance Indicator (TDI), used on the European shelves, where intensive fishing has been undergoing for several decades over extensive areas [29], [30]. The indicator [31], [32], based on benthic species biological traits (mobility, fragility, position on substrata, average body size and feeding mode), was proposed for evaluating sensitivity of mega- and epifaunal communities to fishing activities impacting the seafloor (e.g. dredging and particularly bottom trawling). The selected biological traits were chosen because they determine individual vulnerability to trawling and they can be easily related to the fragility, recoverability and vulnerability concepts described earlier. Both the process-driven and biological traits approaches seem appropriate to investigate benthic habitat sensitivity. Moreover the differences between PDS, interpreted as a potential sensitivity descriptor, and TDI, which accounts for the abundance of sensitive species effectively observed, may be proposed as a helpful indicator to illustrate the distance that separates us from the good environmental status objectives.

The English Channel is suited to such an approach because of the abundance of data and variability of environment. It is a shallow epicontinental sea subjected to a megatidal regime
that constitutes a biogeographical transition zone between the Atlantic Ocean and the North Sea [33]. Rich benthic communities have been described in the two basins of the Channel, however improved knowledge on the sensitivity of marine habitats is required to underpin the management advice provided for managers (e.g. on marine protected areas), as well as to support other marine monitoring and assessment work. This area is strongly impacted by human activities, whether traditional (fisheries, navigation, sediment disposal) or emergent (aggregate extraction, marine renewable energy) [34], [35]. In this study, the impact of fishing activities was tested as it reflects the presence of numerous commercial key fish species, nursery habitats, spawning areas or migration routes and is a historical activity structuring local communities and ecosystems.

Therefore, the present study aims to evaluate sensitivity of benthic habitats to trawling impacts by using the two approaches 1) a process-driven approach to predict the distribution of sensitive benthic communities (PDS), and 2) an index derived from *in situ* observations focusing on relevant biological traits (TDI). Additionally, we aim to account for the effect of recent bottom fishing impacts (evaluated as observed seabed abrasion by bottom trawling) to explain potential differences between approaches 1 and 2. The results are discussed in the frame of their usefulness to the MFSD GES objectives.

# Methods

## Study area

The study area encompasses the entire English Channel, from the southern bight of the North Sea to the Atlantic Ocean and which is divided into western and eastern basins (Fig 1) [35]. Water depth does not exceed 100 m, except in the northern North Sea (the Norwegian Trench) and near the Cotentin Peninsula [36], [37]. Water exchanges are principally driven by the inflow of oceanic Atlantic waters, via the English Channel. Bathymetry and coastlines of the Channel result in a high tidal range and complex megatidal regime and specific hydrodynamics conditions (existence of fronts and gyres), which control advection processes, dispersion of living organisms or pollutants [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43].

Hydrodynamics strongly influences sedimentation processes. The English Channel has limited sediment sources and extensive reworking of the sediment cover [37]. Seabed is considered as a submarine erosion surface, with fine sediments (silt and mud) located in bays and estuaries and in the southern part of the North Sea [44], [45] while coarse sediments (gravel) dominate in offshore areas of the Channel [39], [46], [47]. The distribution of habitats, benthic communities and species in the Channel is driven by depth, seabed substrate and water masses, with Western basin 50 m deeper than the Eastern, and although the two basins could be seen as distinct, they are not independent ecosystems [35]. As one of the world's busiest straits for maritime shipping (accounting for 20% of global maritime traffic), the English Channel is also an overcrowded area subjected to strong anthropogenic pressures (resulting from fisheries, mineral extraction, offshore wind farms, pollution from maritime accidents, etc.) [48].

## Benthic habitat natural sensitivity: Axes of the model and risk map

The model developed by Kostylev and Hannah [14] is based on reducing multiple environmental variables into two explanatory axes (Disturbance and Scope for Growth) reflecting environmental forces that condition the presence of certain biological traits and hence sensitivity of benthic habitats and associated communities to environmental impacts.

The "Disturbance" (Dist) axis reflects the magnitude of change (alteration or destruction) of physical structure of habitats (i.e. the physical stability of habitats through time), due to natural processes influencing the seabed. In this paper, we estimated disturbance from current-, wave-
and tide-induced sediment mobility as a ratio between the observed friction velocity and critical shear stress required to mobilise sediment particles. Environmental data layers were obtained from different sources, at different spatial and temporal resolution. The spatial resolution was standardised to a common grid of 0.03 x 0.03 decimal degrees, using resampling when required. The temporal resolutions were averaged or percentiles were used to illustrate the variables on a period of time that was relevant and closely matched those of the observed in situ biological data. The calculations were carried as follows.

The characteristic friction velocity was computed using the following data:

* depth: bathymetric data were obtained from the CHARM project, which were originally derived from SHOM navigation charts and transformed to raster with 1 km spatial resolution. Mean sea level data were obtained from MARS 3D hydrodynamic model and also transformed to raster (see [49]);

* waves: data were obtained from NORGAS model and compiled for years 2007 to 2009. The model has temporal resolution of 3 hours. Significant period and height data were calculated from the 90th percentile [50];

* bottom currents: data were obtained from 3D MANGA model (Previmer, Ifremer) and compiled for years 2004 to 2007. The temporal resolution is one hour. Data were used to compute first the daily average, then the 90th percentile, of the bottom currents over the available period [50].

The detailed calculation steps for the wave generated current, which used depth and waves, are given in S1 File.

Finally characteristic friction velocity was estimated for each map grid cell as:

$$ \text{Friction velocity} = [\text{wave generated current}] + [\text{bottom currents}] \quad (1) $$

with wave generated currents calculated from the depth, peak wave period and wave height parameters and the tidal currents at the bottom were assumed to be collinear with wave generated currents.

The critical shear stress was computed as a function of the grain size ($X = \log_{10}(\text{grain size in mm})$) and derived from the Hjulström diagram [51] empirically approximated by the equation:

$$ Y = -0.0272 \times X^4 - 0.0905 \times X^3 + 0.2411 \times X^2 + 0.4691 \times X + 1.8761 \quad (2) $$

Since hydrodynamic forces bring few changes to the overall sedimentary cover in the Channel [52], a mean grain size map for surficial sediments was obtained by assigning the observed mean grain size values from sediment samples [52] to each of the five sediment classes of a simplified sediment map but covering large geographical extent [39], [46].

The disturbance was then defined as the ratio between the intensity of friction (or characteristic friction velocity as defined in Eq 1) and the minimal current velocity needed to initiate sedimentary movement (critical shear stress defined as $10^Y$ with Y given by Eq 2).

The "Scope for Growth" (SfG) axis takes into account environmental stresses inducing a physiological cost to organisms and limiting their growth and reproduction potential. This axis estimates the remaining energy available for growth and reproduction of a species (the energy spent on adapting itself to the environment being already taken into account). The considerations in modelling SfG are conceptually related to the metabolic theory of ecology developed by Brown and collaborators [53]. In our implementation (e.g. [14]), SfG is not explicitly modelled as outcome of physiological processes in benthic communities, but is rather an
evaluation of the benthic environment through relevant proxies. In assessing SfG, we have considered the following factors:

* food availability to benthic communities: calculated from monthly means of satellite-derived chlorophyll-a data, from 1998 to 2006[43]. Data were corrected using the equation of Legendre and Michaud [54] (log [POC] = 2.27 + 0.35 log[Chla], applicable for depth shallower than 300 m) to obtain values for Particular Organic Carbon, considered as food for benthic organisms;

* monthly mean bottom water temperature and its range of variability (inter- and intra-annual variations) were calculated using data from 2000 to 2006. Data were obtained from NOAA satellite-derived sea surface temperature dataset (see [49]);

* mean bottom water salinity was calculated from outputs of ECOMARS-3D model for years 2000 to 2006, monthly, with a temporal resolution of six hours;

High hydrodynamic energy and shallow waters result in intense mixing of the water column and absence of stratified waters in the most of the study area [55]; therefore, we assumed that surface temperature and chlorophyll concentration are correlated to bottom values and we used it as a proxy to food availability as described above. So, chosen variables are believed to be relevant to the construction of the SfG axis.

Before compiling the different environmental layers to define the SfG axis, data were rescaled between 0 and 1 to express their effects on a relative scale (following the next equation:

*(Observed value of parameter—Parameter minimum) / (Parameter maximum—Parameter minimum)*. All grids were brought to the same spatial resolution. Since reclassification is sensitive to the geographical extent of the studied area (Fig 1), all layers were limited to the same spatial extent.

The SfG index was calculated as:

$$SfG = \frac{(F_a + SST + S - T_a - T_i)}{5}$$

where $F_a$ is the food availability; SST, the sea surface temperature; S, the salinity; $T_a$, the standard deviation between monthly mean temperature within a year (calculated for each year and averaged over the study period) and $T_i$ is the standard deviation of average annual temperatures between years

The SfG is an accumulative index, which allows characterization of the environment on a continuous scale between 'benign' (high Scope for Growth) and 'adverse' (low Scope for Growth).

Both disturbance and SfG indices were rescaled to 0–1 range.

The process-driven sensitivity (PDS) index corresponds to the inverse of distance from the origin of Dist-SfG quadrant, and can be visualised as a risk map that combines the two axes, according the formula:

$$Risk = \sqrt{(1 - SfG)^2 + (1 - Dist)^2}$$

The PDS index assigns the highest sensitivity (and consequently the highest risk to benthic community) to habitats with low natural disturbance and low SfG. The combination of these axes was done using Raster Calculator in ArcGIS 9.2.sp6 with Spatial Analyst toolbox. From this point onward, the PDS term clustered the Disturbance, Scope for Growth and Risk term (these terms could be used independently if needed).
## *In situ* observation of benthic fauna

IFREMER contributes to the collection of basic biological data in the Eastern English Channel and North Sea through its annual bottom trawl surveys, the CGFS (Channel Ground Fish Survey, carried out in October since 1988 on board of the RV *Gwen Drez* [56]) and the IBTS (International Bottom Trawl Survey, undertaken in January/February since 1970 on board of the RV *Thalassa* [57]). Since 2006, all megabenthic invertebrates captured in the trawl have been identified, counted and weighted. Additionally, in September 2014, IFREMER carried out a bottom trawl scientific survey, CAMANOC (Campagne Manche Occidentale [58]), on board of the RV *Thalassa* in the western English Channel, where megabenthic invertebrates caught in the trawl were also identified. This set of surveys all had a random stratified sampling strategy but with varying intensity depending on the covered survey area. Their data merged together cover the entire study area although there are much more observations and longer time series in the eastern part of the Channel than in the western part (Table 1 and Fig 2).

For all three surveys, the sampling gear used was a Very High Vertical Opening (VHVO) bottom trawl (or “GOV”), well adapted for catching demersal species (in particular fish and cephalopods), with a 10 mm mesh size at the cod-end for catching juveniles. The sampling strategy was using randomly stratified and standard 30 minutes hauls at 4 knot speed, evenly distributed over the whole study area. Demersal species and megafauna/epifauna caught in the bottom trawl were sorted, identified, counted and weighed. Although bottom trawl is seldom recognised as a valid sampling device for benthic invertebrate species, such observations are nonetheless believed to be particularly relevant as 1) they represent the benthic fauna fraction the most likely affected by bottom fishing and 2) they integrate assemblages’ composition over large areas (3–4 km) and are more representative of larger scale habitat structure. Bottom trawling mostly targets fish and cephalopods while mega-zooplancton and most other benthic invertebrates are considered a by-catch of this fishing technique and are discarded at sea. The present analysis focused on species assemblages limited to benthic invertebrates other than cephalopods, the composition of which adequately illustrates both habitats and impact gradients [59]. Species or taxonomical group biomass was chosen as indicator of the presence of colonial and encrusting species that cannot be quantified. Log-transformed biomasses were expressed as a proportion of the total benthic megafauna/epifauna biomass of each trawl to account for difference of capturability of benthic organisms depending on different seafloor and bottom gear types.

Moreover, the sampling was centred on the same period of time (autumn-winter), when the benthic communities are stable. Furthermore, some works proved that globally benthic

<table><caption>Table 1. Number of *in situ* observations used in this study.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Year</th><th colspan="3">SURVEY (number of trawls)</th></tr><tr><th>CAMANOC</th><th>CGFS</th><th>IBTS</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2007</td><td></td><td>18</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2008</td><td></td><td>91</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>2009</td><td></td><td>87</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>2010</td><td></td><td>97</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td></td><td>97</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>2012</td><td></td><td>84</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td></td><td>84</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>2014</td><td>35</td><td></td><td>17</td></tr></tbody></table>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184486.t001
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Fig 2. Station locations for the three scientific surveys carried in the study area.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184486.g002

communities are mostly stable over time at the scale of the English Channel [60], [61], [62],
[63].

No permissions were required as this study is based on already-existing datasets. *In situ* data did not involve endangered or protected species.

The species nomenclature used was standardized using WoRMS database. In order to avoid bias in the identification of fauna, some taxa were regrouped in higher levels, with minimal loss of information on the community structure [64], [65], [66]. The following procedure was used: all taxa expressed at the species level were first aggregated at the genus level. Then to be kept at that taxonomic level, a given genus had to be observed over at least 6 different years (consistently recorded over the 8 years' time series) otherwise it was iteratively regrouped into a higher taxonomic level (family, order, class, division) following the same criteria. If a given division group was observed in less than 6 different years, it was removed from the analyses. This resulted in removal of 48 taxa and into the aggregation of the 394 remaining taxa into 120 taxonomic groups (S1 Table).

## Biological traits

Biological traits of species were defined using the BIOTIC database [67] and from information given by Garcia [68], Le Pape *et al.* [69] and Brindamour *et al.* [70]. For missing biological traits, additional information was obtained from published literature. Taxa for which necessary information was not available were excluded from further analysis.

The five functional traits (Position, Feeding, Motility, Size, Fragility) were selected based on the knowledge of the response of benthic taxa to trawling disturbance (Table 2) [31]. They
<table><caption>Table 2. Five categories of biological traits and their respective scoring scheme (from [31]).</caption><thead><tr><th>Sensitivity scores</th><th>Position</th><th>Feeding</th><th>Motility</th><th>Size</th><th>Fragility</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0</td><td>Deep burrowing</td><td>Scavengers</td><td>Highly mobile (swimming)</td><td>Small &lt; 5 cm</td><td>Hard shell, burrow, vermiform, regeneration</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Surface burrowing (first cm)</td><td>Deposit feeders/ predators</td><td>Mobile (crawling)</td><td></td><td>Flexible</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Surface</td><td></td><td>Sedentary</td><td>Medium 5–10 cm</td><td>No protection</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Emergent</td><td>Filter feeders</td><td>Sessile (attached)</td><td>Large &gt; 10 cm</td><td>Fragile shell/structure</td></tr></tbody></table>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184486.t002

reflect respectively the ability to avoid direct gear impact, to benefit from trawling for feeding, to escape gear, likelihood to get caught by the net and ability to resist trawling/dredging action. Each of these characteristics is either advantageous to survival or demonstrates sensitivity to trawling. To allow quantitative analysis, a score was assigned to each category, varying from low vulnerability (0) to high vulnerability (3). Scores across all five categories were then summed for each taxon (the highly vulnerable taxon could reach the maximum score of 15) and this value was considered as a species-specific index (SI) of sensitivity to trawling disturbance [71].

When taxonomic groupings, at higher taxonomic level (such as family, order, class or division) were considered, the homogeneity of SI within each group was assessed by following means: if the standard deviation (SD) of any given indicator score (e.g. position, feeding and so on) for a group was above 1.5, and if the SD of the SI for the species in the group was above 2.5, the group was removed from the analysis. For some group, this could result in their removal, such as Bivalvia group which was found to be too heterogeneous as it accounted for 22 different initial taxa with very different functional traits (SI Table), or their conservation, such as Polychaeta for which we maintained species well catched by the gear. The maximum value of the regrouped species indicators was chosen to avoid over-looking particular species sensitivity traits. Finally, a weighted average of each taxon indicators was computed using their relative biomass data for each trawl observation, then summed to obtain the trawl disturbance indicator, TDI). Thus, this TDI incorporates organisms that are mostly considered as by-catch, since the type of bottom trawl used is mostly targeting demersal fish and cephalopods. Some of those organisms are highly vulnerable to trawling, e.g. sponges, bryozoans, large ascidians or hydroids (higher TDI values) while others have low vulnerability (lower TDI values; they could even benefit from trawling disturbances and exhibit high survival rates when discarded), e.g. sea stars, hermit and swimming crabs.

TDI is calculated as:

$$TDI_x = \sum_{i=1}^{N_x} \frac{Bi_x}{Bn_x} \times SI_i$$

with TDI<sub>x</sub>, TDI of the x<sup>th</sup> observation; N<sub>x</sub>, the number of taxons in the x<sup>th</sup> observation; Bi<sub>x</sub>, biomass of the i<sup>th</sup> taxon in the x<sup>th</sup> observation; Bn<sub>x</sub>, total biomass of the x<sup>th</sup> observation and SI<sub>i</sub>, SI of the i<sup>th</sup> taxon.
## Fishing pressure

The distribution of impact of fishing on the seafloor was estimated from aggregated fishing effort data in 3x3' resolution, expressed as total hours fished. Original data were obtained from international Vessel Monitoring System for ground-towed gears (beam trawlers, dredgers and otter trawlers). This work was undertaken by the ICES Working Group of Spatial Fishery Data following OSPAR request on mapping of bottom fishing intensity using VMS data [72], [73]. The area of abrasion of the seabed was computed from vessel speed, fishing duration and gear type and expressed as the percentage of the total area of each 3x3' cells. A spatial layer of the maximum percentage of bottom surface sustaining superficial abrasion by trawling was computed over the 2009 to 2013 period (Fig 3). Fishing pressure will be therefore referred as abrasion from this point onward.

## Statistical analyses

*In situ* data (both species composition and TDI were coupled to the predicted layers resulting from the PDS approach (SfG, Dist and Risk) and to the fishing pressure (abrasion) layers based on geographical location.

## BIO-Env procedure

The BIOENV analysis [74] compares the distance/similarity matrices between two sets of data having either samples or variables in common, and informs on environmental variables that

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Fig 3. Trawling abrasion estimation for the English Channel.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184486.g003
best correlate to sample similarities of the biological community. The BIO-ENV analysis has already been used in previous studies [75], [76], [77] to relate community structure to environmental predictors. We compared similarity matrices of different combination of 13 environmental parameters, including initial variables (i.e. depth, waves, bottom currents, sediments, mean temperature, interannual and intraannual temperature variability, mean salinity and food availability), modelled descriptors (i.e. disturbance, scope for growth and risk) and abrasion, to a similarity matrix of the community based on relative species biomass. Spearman rank correlation coefficient was calculated between the two matrices (environmental similarity and community similarity). Thus, the best combinations of environmental variables was identified (ordered by Spearman correlation coefficient values) and subjected to a permutation test to determine its statistical significance. The tests were performed using PRIMER 6 software [78].

## Principal components analysis (PCA) and Redundancy analysis (RDA)

PCA was undertaken to explore and illustrate the relationships between the nine environmental descriptors used to construct the PDS indices and the PDS indices (disturbance, scope for growth and risk) themselves and abrasion. This PCA was computed on the correlation matrix between these nine variables. The same approach was undertaken to explore the relationship between PDS indices, TDI and abrasion.

PCA can also be seen as an indirect gradient analysis that employs a linear response model to produce a simple approximation of the species response along an environmental gradient [79]. It was performed on the Hellinger distance matrix of the relative biomass composition data [80], [81], [82]. PDS (disturbance, scope for growth and risk), TDI and abrasion were represented passively on the biplot as supplementary variables. Redundancy analysis (RDA) is a direct extension of multiple regressions to modelling multivariate response data [82]. It is a constrained version of PCA in that the ordination axes are linear combinations of the explanatory variables. This method was used in combination with Monte-Carlo permutation tests to explore the multi-linear relationships between benthic community and PDS indices. In the Monte-Carlo permutation test, the reference distribution is simulated by repeatedly permuting the samples. A statistical test (F-ratio) is computed for the original data and compared with those of permuted data. The value of the significance test is the probability that the response is independent from the tested explanatory variable. Variance partitioning was used to determine the proportion of variation attributable to or shared among different variables [81], [83].

## Generalised Linear Model (GLM)

The relationship between the different modelled indicators was explored by means of Spearman correlation coefficient tests. This non-parametric test is based on ranks and does not assume any particular shape in the relationship. Visual exploration of the shape of the relationships did not lead us to consider that non-linear models would make much interpretable difference and a linear approach was preferred. A Generalised Linear Model (GLM, [84]) linking the TDI as a response to both PDS indices was first developed. TDI value was log-transformed to improve its distribution and a Gaussian link function was chosen. A second model adding abrasion resulting from seabed impacting fishing effort to the PDS indices was also developed. This later model was then used to produce a predicted TDI map, covering the entire studied area using both PDS indices maps and the abrasion map as predictors.

These multivariate and univariate analyses were implemented in R (R-3.2.1, 2015) using the vegan [85] and MASS [86] packages.
# Results

## Process-driven sensitivity (PDS)

**Disturbance.** The map of disturbance index showed areas with relatively stable surficial sediments as well as areas which are relatively more disturbed (Fig 4) [87].

Naturally disturbed areas (in yellowish and reddish colors in the map) correspond to sand-banks located in the southern North Sea or near the Dover Strait where even relatively weak currents can easily re-suspend fine sediment particles. Areas characterised as stable (in blueish colours) correspond to coarser, gravel dominated sediments, which are difficult to re-suspend even when strong current friction occurs. Because of this interaction between sediment grain size and current, in the study region, the habitats characterised as low disturbance (Fig 4) correspond to areas with coarse grained sediments and high tidal current friction.

**Scope for growth.** Areas with high scope for growth (red colours) are located near the coasts where food availability and, to a lesser extent, temperature-derived variables, are the most favourable (as assumed in our model) for benthic organisms (Fig 5) [87]. The role of food availability is highlighted by strong SfG values (Fig 5) observed near estuaries and river plumes.

**Risk of habitat damage.** The risk map (Fig 6) [87] combined both processes described above and is interpreted as a process-driven sensitivity of benthic habitats and associated communities to trawling damage. Low risk (blue colours) was found in the bay of Seine (Fig 1), as well as sandbanks and coastal areas. The major part of the English Channel is covered by habitats that can be considered from medium to high risk (Fig 6, from orange to red colours).

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Fig 4. Map of disturbance index for the English Channel.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184486.g004
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Fig 5. Map of Scope for growth of the English Channel.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184486.g005

**Relationship between initial descriptors and PDS.** Nine environmental predictors were used to construct the PDS: depth, waves, bottom currents (currents), sediments (grain size), mean temperature (SST), inter-annual temperature variability (Ti), intra-annual temperature variability (Ta), mean salinity (S), food availability (Fa), which resulted in modelling three PDS indicators: disturbance (Dist), scope for growth (SfG) and risk. The relationships between the different predictors used to produce the PDS and the PDS indicators themselves were illustrated using a PCA (Fig 7). The first two PCA axes represented respectively 62.5% and 19.7% of the variance. Disturbance, Scope for Growth, Risk and abrasion from bottom impacting fisheries were added as supplementary variables (blue and red arrows).

In the present study, we found that scope for growth is mostly related to food availability and intra-annual temperature variability as well as negatively correlated to depth while disturbance has negative relationship with bottom currents and grain size. Risk was negatively correlated to disturbance and scope for growth, as per definition (Fig 7). Seabed abrasion, being an anthropogenic impact, did not seem to be related to any of the PDS indices.

## Community structure and PDS, TDI and fishing abrasion

**BIO-Env procedure.** The 13 variables used in the analysis (Fig 7) were tested in a BIO-ENV procedure to evaluate their relation to benthic community structure. Among the environmental variables considered, the combination of bottom currents, waves, intra-annual temperature variability (Ta), disturbance (Dist) and scope for growth (SfG) were identified as best explaining species composition ($\rho$ = 0.384), explaining 14.8% of community variability (S2 Table). In this analysis, bottom currents, intra-annual temperature variability and
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Fig 6. Map of risk/ sensitivity of benthic habitats and communities to trawling damage.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184486.g006

Disturbance were always selected by the procedure. Selection frequency varied for the other variables: scope for growth (62%), waves (61.5%), inter-annual temperature (Ti, 30.8%), depth, sediments and salinity (23.1%). Risk, abrasion and food availability were never selected. This correlation decreased when environmental variables were considered individually. When considered individually (all Bio-Env values not presented here), the most important variables were, in order of decreasing correlation, depth (ρ = 0.340), intra-annual temperature (ρ = 0.311), food availability (ρ = 0.279), bottom currents (ρ = 0.268) and risk (ρ = 0.220). The individual correlation values for SfG and Disturbance are respectively ρ = 0.217 and ρ = 0.173. The correlation of community similarity with the combination of SfG and Dist was ρ = 0.239, meaning that it explains 5.7% of variability. The strong relationship between disturbance and bottom currents suggested that these variables were probably equivalent in term of explanatory power of the community structure. Similarly scope for growth was positively correlated to intra-annual temperature and food availability and negatively related to depth. The fact these came out as the most relevant predictors of the benthic community structure confirmed the predictive power of the PDS indices.

The relationship between the three PDS indicators and functional sensitivity traits was analysed using PCA (Fig 8) and Spearman correlation tests (S4 Table). Sensitivity, mobility, position and fragility showed some significant positive correlation with each other while their relations to size were much weaker if any. The first two axes represented respectively 44% and 21% of the variation.

Scope for growth and disturbance were significantly correlated (ρ = 0.554) to each other and, by design, negatively correlated to risk (ρ <-0.8). Mobility, position, fragility and feeding were positively and significantly correlated to each other and their variation was reflected in
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 7.** Results of PCA analysis for PDS predictors and indices. Disturbance, Scope for Growth, Risk and seabed abrasion are shown as supplementary variables.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184486.g007

the overall TDI. Size was less correlated to other indices with positive and negative relationship depending on the index considered (Table 3). Risk and TDI were found to be significantly cor- related (ρ = 0.237). Abrasion was found to be significantly correlated (ρ = 0.239) to risk and significantly negatively correlated to TDI (ρ = -0.261). Visual exploration of the shape of the relationships did not lead us to consider that non-linear models (such as CCA or GAM) would make much interpretable difference.

The relationship between genera of benthic mega-epifauna and PDS indicators was ana-
lysed using PCA (Fig 9). The first two axes represented respectively 14% and 11% of the varia-
tion, highlighting the lack of strong gradient and structure in observed community. It is
therefore expected that a large part of the variation in the community structure will remain
unexplained and should be considered as white noise at the spatial scale of the study.

Relative biomass of *Necora*, *Liocarcinus*, *Ophiura* and *Asterias* was correlated with high SfG and natural disturbance (i.e. low risk). At the opposite, genus *Aequipecten* is linked to high risk areas (Fig 6). Genus *Psammechinus* is associated with high fishing effort impacting seafloor.
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Fig 8. Results of PCA analysis of functional traits vs PDS indices, TDI and abrasion.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184486.g008

Genus *Flustra*, *Ophiotrix*, *Maja*, *Cancer* and Demosponge species were associated with higher TDI (all functional traits but size). They were not correlated to variables selected to define disturbance or scope for growth and weakly negatively correlated to abrasion. Finally, genus *Astearias* is strongly dominant and negatively correlated to TDI (all functional traits but size)

The variance partitioning and Monte-Carlo permutation procedures showed that disturbance and scope for growth axis explain significantly 5% and 8% of the community structure variance respectively, out of which 3% are shared between the both. Interestingly, fishery driven abrasion pressure explained about 2% of the variance illustrating its relatively small but still significant correlation with the community structure.

A GLM model was built to link the TDI to risk and abrasion (S3 Table). Both explanatory variables were found statistically significant (p < 0.001) and the addition of abrasion into this model increased its predictive ability. The Spearman correlation between the measured TDI and TDI predicted by the GLM model rose from 0.24 to 0.38 when the abrasion was used.

Regression coefficients of this model were used to produce a map of estimated TDI from the risk and abrasion distribution maps (Fig 10).
<table><caption>Table 3. Spearman correlation matrix between the functional sensitivity traits and the other factors.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Mobility</th><th>Fragility</th><th>Position</th><th>Size</th><th>Feeding</th><th>TDI</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Depth</td><td>0.001</td><td>-0.005</td><td>-0.016</td><td>-0.019</td><td>0.030</td><td>0.057</td></tr><tr><td>Waves</td><td>0.081</td><td>0.039</td><td>0.037</td><td>0.058</td><td>-0.004</td><td>0.057</td></tr><tr><td>Currents</td><td>-0.017</td><td>0.085*</td><td>0.006</td><td>-0.089*</td><td>0.064</td><td>0.041</td></tr><tr><td>Sediments</td><td>0.003</td><td>0.058</td><td>0.019</td><td>-0.023</td><td>0.045</td><td>0.037</td></tr><tr><td>SST</td><td>-0.058</td><td>-0.040</td><td>0.006</td><td>-0.020</td><td>-0.016</td><td>-0.078*</td></tr><tr><td>Ta</td><td>0.060</td><td>-0.021</td><td>0.053</td><td>0.100</td><td>-0.003</td><td>0.049</td></tr><tr><td>Ti</td><td>0.037</td><td>0.017</td><td>0.043</td><td>-0.003**</td><td>-0.024</td><td>-0.002</td></tr><tr><td>S</td><td>-0.016</td><td>-0.005</td><td>-0.039</td><td>0.003</td><td>0.011</td><td>0.017</td></tr><tr><td>Fa</td><td>0.019</td><td>0.014</td><td>0.040</td><td>-0.012</td><td>-0.016</td><td>-0.008</td></tr><tr><td>Dist</td><td>0.013</td><td>-0.040</td><td>0.007</td><td>0.007</td><td>-0.027</td><td>-0.020</td></tr><tr><td>SfG</td><td>-0.003</td><td>0.007</td><td>0.003</td><td>-0.045</td><td>-0.025</td><td>-0.032</td></tr><tr><td>Risk</td><td>-0.011</td><td>0.020</td><td>-0.013</td><td>0.009</td><td>0.033</td><td>0.027</td></tr><tr><td>Abrasion</td><td>0.068</td><td>-0.015</td><td>0.063</td><td>0.087*</td><td>0.012</td><td>0.037</td></tr></tbody></table>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184486.t003

Highest values of estimated TDI are located in the coarser sediment areas and the overall spatial pattern appeared to be a contraction of the area of high risk identified in the initial PDS map (Fig 6).

## Discussion

A considerable rise in seabed habitat mapping has followed the recognised need for accurate spatial benthic marine environmental data to inform an ecosystem-based approach to ocean management [88]. The application of the modified approach developed by Kostylev and Hannah [14] to the English Channel habitats seems pertinent as this conceptual model summarizes environmental parameters that could be easily related to biological traits. The correct implementation of this approach requires modelling of two descriptors: the scope for growth and the natural disturbance.

## Relationship between PDS indicators and the Channel environment

The developed habitat model reflects the main ecological characteristics of the benthic habitats expected to arise from the effects of natural processes on biological traits of benthic species. Habitats with low natural disturbance are areas with low reworking of the surficial sediment by natural processes, allowing the establishment of a rich sessile epifauna community, with K-strategy species being common. Habitats with low SfG impose a cost for species to grow and reproduce because of shorter supply of food and higher energy expenses for adaptation to environmental stresses. In habitats combining low disturbance and low SfG, large suspension-feeder species with long life span and slow growth can often be found [14], [89]: these species are more vulnerable to added (anthropogenic) disturbance.

## Process-driven sensitivity in the English Channel

Coarse surficial sediments are dominant in the English Channel, such as pebble sized gravel [39], [46]. The whole English Channel is characterized by a relatively low level of natural seabed disturbance, which may favour the development of benthic biomass [14]. Areas where

<footnote>**p<0.01,</footnote>

<footnote>*p<0.05</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 9.** Results of PCA analysis of the taxonomic composition data with fragility, feeding, mobility, size, position. Disturbance (Dist), scope for growth (SfG), risk, TDI and abrasion are represented as supplementary variables.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184486.g009

disturbance is high have unstable substrates because of finer sediment grain size and higher hydrodynamic energy. They mainly correspond to the fine sediment areas in the southern bight of the North Sea and coastal areas near the Dover strait and the south-western coasts of England. In these shallow areas, storms cause active sediment resuspension due to wave action [90], [91]. At the same time, areas characterized by high scope for growth are located along the coasts mostly due to high food availability and favourable water temperatures. Other areas may therefore be associated with potentially slower recovery of benthic communities from bottom disturbances and biomass removals [14].

## Environmental processes modelled

Our results (e.g. Bio-Env) have shown that Disturbance and Scope for Growth significantly explain spatial variability in benthic community by integrating most relevant environmental variables (such as waves, currents, temperature, sediments and salinity).
<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>Fig 10. Map of estimated TDI predicted from the risk and abrasion distribution.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184486.g010

In other studies, the importance of individually selected environmental variables depended on the considered location, and on their ability to limit or influence character of species assemblages. For example, in the Baltic Sea, salinity is the factor significantly responsible of the benthic community distribution [92]. On the German Bank (Scotian shelf), Todd and Kostylev [77] reported that the single variable that best explained the distribution of bottom fauna was the summer oxygen saturation level. In our study, the oxygen saturation is nearly constant all the year, due to shallow depths and mixed waters masses, as was also observed by Borja et al. [93] and Galparsoro *et al.* [24] on Spanish coasts. The English Channel, located in a temperate region with no extreme hydrological variations through the year, can be considered as a moderately stable area. As a consequence, wave action, tidal currents and the resulting sediment dynamics become the main factors influencing benthic assemblages. The effects of wave- and tide-generated currents are enhanced by the overall shallow depth (<150 m), as observed in other studies [24], [94]. These environmental variables are integrated in the calculation of disturbance (waves, currents and sediment) and scope for growth (depth) axes.

## Ecological interpretation of PDS

PDS map may help predict which biological traits will be most likely to occur depending on the site environmental characteristics. Most of the English Channel exhibits low to medium scope for growth levels and low natural disturbance levels. Organisms living in a low disturbance environment with low scope for growth are potentially long-lived, slow-growing, slow reproducing and have limited dispersal [14]. These species are likely to be more vulnerable to human activities, such as trawling, dredging, mineral extraction or direct fishing. In contrast,
in this study, coastal areas were often identified as highly disturbed and characterised by high
scope for growth, resulting in communities favouring either adversity tolerant species or spe-
cies defined as *r* strategists (opportunistic species) [95]. According O’Boyle *et al.* [96], it would
be convenient if scope for growth was associated to community recoverability and disturbance
—to habitat vulnerability. However, some elements involved in modelling of sensitivity (risk)
may be relevant to both SfG and Disturbance and thus a one-to-one correspondence may not
always be valid. Notwithstanding this, low scope for growth generally infers low community or
species recoverability from impact while high habitat stability is associated to organisms’ rela-
tive vulnerability to physical disturbance. Thus, highly sensitive benthic communities would
likely be found in stable, adverse environments while benthic communities with low sensitivity
should be found in disturbed, benign environments [14]. The areas with low Scope for Growth
and high Disturbance will support communities with species tolerant to adversity. The areas
with high Scope for Growth and low Disturbance will support communities with mixed r/K
strategies species. We assume that moderately sensitive communities would be found in the
other areas of the English Channel, the characteristics of which depend upon the relative
degree of influence of scope for growth and disturbance. Because of the approach, we charac-
terised sensitivity on a relative, not absolute, scale; the terms high/low/moderate apply within
the constraints of the studied areas, with reference to end points of characterisation.

PDS link to taxonomic composition and TDI

Spatial heterogeneity at scales finer than the map resolution is often perceived as a limitation to the development of habitat maps [97]. Most published studies on benthic communities are very detailed and focus on small-scale patterns of diversity, distribution and structure of coastal biota [24], [98]. Information on offshore benthic species and assemblages at large-scale is required for spatial planning of conservation and human activities or for integrated assessment such as MSFD. The use of scientific surveys, aiming at monitoring fish stock, enables gaining this knowledge from the observation of macro-epifauna and megafauna over wide geographical areas (see [59] for review). Moreover, the impact of fishing on infauna, which is typically used for quantitative benthic studies [99], was shown to be undetectable in some habitats [100], further supporting the use of bottom trawl observations for monitoring benthic sensitivity [89]. However, the integration of observations over large areas, as in the case of bottom trawling, may also generate certain randomness in the observations of usually over-dispersed organisms. This would result in a large amount of unexplained variance in the data as was found in this study. Still, the use of bottom trawl samples, integrating mega-epifauna over large distances (about 4 km in average), was proven useful here to address mesoscale variability and describe bio-regional patterns. At the same time, there is a concern that certain biological traits are underrepresented in the trawl samples-e.g. encrusting species and deep burrowing infauna. However, this fact only interferes with our interpretation of the influence of environmental factors on community structure, while the interpretation of TDI is unaffected, as the trawling samples by their very nature recover the organisms the most affected by trawling. The use of TDI to identify the most sensitive taxa and measure the observed *in situ* sensitivity was particularly useful. It highlighted areas where community sensitivity to additional impacts may be important (see [101], [102], [103] for examples). It is notable that there is a significant correlation between the assessed risk to seabed communities and habitats and estimated TDI values. This justifies the use of habitat template-based PDS approach to characterisation of benthic habitats and confirms that it portrays habitat and community sensitivity properly. Because we calculated “Risk” as the distance from the disturbed productive environment along habitat template axes, it implicitly incorporates assumption on change of life history and
biological traits of benthic animals. Correlation to TDI values proves that indeed our opera-
tional characterisation of environment captured assumed related changes in biological traits.
In particular, it showed that it is species which are most likely to be affected by trawling (large
fragile sessile filter feeders) which are prevalent in 'high risk' areas. The PDS predictors were
also significantly correlated to the community composition and species associated with areas
of higher disturbance (e.g. *Liocarcinus*, *Pagurus* or *Asterias*), where the re-establishment and
the survival of the organisms could be affected [104]. Mobile predators and scavengers could
be attracted to such areas by potential prey [105] damaged by trawling and thus benefit in
these feeding areas from trawling activities [106], [107].

Some other species, such as sponges, are linked to high sensitivity areas (low Disturbance, low SfG) because these medium-large size, long life span, suspension feeding and low mobility species need more stable environments to live. Recovery of these species may take a long time in case of large-scale disturbance [108].

Note that the first two PCA axes represented 14% and 11% of the variation in community structure respectively, and Bio-Env analysis showed that about 15% of the community structure variability is explained by environmental factors. These values seem low, but the objective of the Bio-Env method is in defining suites of variables which ‘best explain’ the biotic structure, and actual values depend on taxonomic resolution and accuracy of the environmental descriptors used. In the top ranked combinations, Disturbance was always selected, followed by SfG (selected 62% of time) and by waves climatology (61.5% of time), suggesting that our estimation of Disturbance and Scope for Growth was meaningful.

Limitations of the PDS

The assumption of ‘natural environment’ is a common limitation in habitat mapping in gen-
eral, as temporal dynamics, climate change, natural ecosystem dynamics and human activities
all affect the types and abundances of organisms living in a region at a particular time. Seafloor
impacts of fishing (by trawling or dredging) was shown to be the most important human pres-
sure in terms of its spatial extent and level of impact [109], [110], [111], [112]. Bottom trawling
gear produce scours on the seabed, the depth and width of which depends both on sediment
and gear type [113], [114], [115], [116], [117]. The use of bottom trawling gear is associated
with detrimental impacts on the marine benthos [114], [118], [119], [120], [121] and biomass,
abundance and cover of macro-fauna and -flora on soft and coarse sediments have been
shown to be negatively correlated with trawling intensity [122]. Focusing on the impact of fish-
ing on the seafloor has particular implication on the ecosystem functioning as upright sessile
epifauna (scoring 10–15 out of 15 on the sensitivity scale used in our study and so is particu-
larly sensitive to fishing pressure). Such structure-building organisms have been shown to
enhance habitat complexity and biodiversity and play an important role as settlement substrate
for juveniles of many species [89]. At the same time, in places such as estuaries, overfishing is
believed to have caused the ecological destruction of suspension feeder assemblages [123] and
resulted in the shifting baseline conditions of fisheries, leading to inter-generational changes
in perception of the state of the environment [124]. Although most of the decline has likely
occurred before modern monitoring started [125], Lambert et al. [126] were able to predict an
average of 17% (varying from 0 to 66%) decrease in size and an average of 8% (0 to 34%)
decrease in biomass of epifaunal communities as a result of fishing. Fishing may also be not
detected (or have no impact) in areas with high natural disturbance [127], [128]. Nevertheless,
the benthic communities currently observed are likely to also reflect the chronic pressure of
bottom fishing on the seafloor [73].
However, in the light of the present results, the PDS may now no longer be fully observable in the field as a result of the ongoing human impacts of marine habitats. Natural marine habitats in trawled areas may have ceased to exist several decades ago and what can be observed nowadays might be a semi-natural habitat (similar to terrestrial grasslands) forced into a pseudo-climax by the intense and chronic use of bottom impacting fishing gear. In these conditions, it is difficult to *a posteriori* evaluate the effect of this human use, since reference points of anterior states are no longer available. Still the PDS may represent a good proxy of how natural processes alone would shape benthic communities and what the state of environment would be if it were not impacted by human activity.

In addition, the use of biological traits indicating trawling impact (such as TDI) in conjunction to spatial distribution of abrasion may reveal areas already seriously impacted, and those, still sheltered and sensitive, where conservation effort would be welcome. Similarly such knowledge may prevent fishing effort shift to sensitive areas following spatially limited fishing closure [138] and could inform marine spatial planning and ecosystem-based management [139]. Finally, the use of recurrent bottom trawl scientific surveys and TDI may constitute a good and cost effective monitoring technique within the MSFD to observe the effect of management measures for restoration of benthic habitat to less degraded states. The repeated evaluation of the distance (i.e. lack of correlation) between PDS and TDI would be a very helpful indicator in relation to the good environmental status objectives. As abrasion is reduced, the reduction of the distance between PDS and TDI would indicate a restoration of the benthic ecosystem composition towards a more “natural” state. In contrast, a fishery impacted state is indicated as long as the addition of abrasion, as a supplementary explanatory variable, improves the statistical relationship between TDI (observed *in situ*) and PDS (proxy of the natural state). We suggest that seabed management practices should aim for a reduction of the distance between TDI and PDS in areas where abrasion was shown to be negatively correlated with TDI.

## Conclusions

The PDS developed by Kostylev and Hannah [14] (i) avoids subdivisions of each physical layer into classes and the resulting map is a continuum where the gradients arise naturally from data layer compilation and (ii) models explanatory factors accepted by ecological community as main selective forces responsible for definition of biological traits of species. Considering its robustness, this method could be a useful tool for management [93], [140], [141] and for marine spatial planning [142], [143]. It could answer the need of the ecosystem-based approach, where process-driven mapping of representative habitat types would form a fundamental base for management [144]. Used in conjunction with TDI approaches applied to the most sensitive part of the benthic fauna, PDS may enable monitoring of management effort through evaluation of the distance that still separates impacted marine benthic habitats from the desired environmental status.

## Supporting information

S1 Table. Taxon grouping and associated functional traits scoring: The maximum value of the regrouped species functional traits scoring was retained for each group, when taxonomic groupings were considered, the group indicator homogeneity was checked using standard deviation. If the SD of any given indicator for a group was above 1.5 and if the SD of the summed value over all 5 indicators was above 2.5, the group was removed from the analysis. This resulted in the removal of Bivalvia group which was found to be too heterogeneous
as it accounted for 22 different initial taxa with very different functional.
(XLSX)

**S2 Table.** 10 best results of the Bio-Env analysis.
(XLSX)

**S3 Table.** GLM results for TDI* ~ Risk + Abrasion, \*log-transformed values.
(XLSX)

**S4 Table.** Spearman correlation matrix between the functional biological traits.
(XLSX)

**S1 File.** Calculations steps for estimating the friction velocity.
(DOCX)

**Acknowledgments**

The authors are grateful to all the scientists who brought help for the research of environmen-
tal layers, the projects leaders of CGFS, IBTS and CAMANOC scientific surveys, the scientific
staff and vessel crews who participated to these surveys. They also acknowledge anonymous
reviewers that provide great help in improving the manuscript. This study was partly sup-
ported by the European Union under INTERREG IVA CHARM III project (Channel inte-
grated Approach for marine Resource Management) and the French research agency (ANR),
through the project COMANCHE (Ecosystem interactions and anthropogenic impacts on
great scallop populations in the English Channel)-ANR-2010-STRA-010.

**Author Contributions**

**Conceptualization:** Aurélie Foveau, Sandrine Vaz.

**Data curation:** Aurélie Foveau, Sandrine Vaz.

**Formal analysis:** Aurélie Foveau, Sandrine Vaz, Vladimir E. Kostylev.

**Funding acquisition:** Sandrine Vaz, Nicolas Desroy.

**Investigation:** Aurélie Foveau, Nicolas Desroy.

**Methodology:** Aurélie Foveau, Sandrine Vaz, Vladimir E. Kostylev.

**Resources:** Aurélie Foveau, Sandrine Vaz, Nicolas Desroy.

**Software:** Aurélie Foveau, Sandrine Vaz.

**Supervision:** Vladimir E. Kostylev.

**Validation:** Aurélie Foveau, Sandrine Vaz, Nicolas Desroy, Vladimir E. Kostylev.

**Visualization:** Aurélie Foveau, Sandrine Vaz, Nicolas Desroy, Vladimir E. Kostylev.

**Writing – original draft:** Aurélie Foveau, Sandrine Vaz, Nicolas Desroy, Vladimir E.
Kostylev.

**Writing – review & editing:** Aurélie Foveau, Sandrine Vaz, Nicolas Desroy, Vladimir E.
Kostylev.

**References**

1. UNESCO-IOC. European Union 2016 [April 2016]. http://www.unesco-ioc-marinesp.be/msp_around_ the_world/european_union.
2. Glegg G, Jefferson R, Fletcher S. Marine governance in the English Channel (La Manche): Linking science and management. Mar Pollut Bull. 2015; 95(2): 707–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul. 2015.02.020 PMID: 25819447

3. JNCC. EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive 2015 [June 2016]. http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5193.

4. European Commission [May 2007]. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/eu-coast-and-marine-policy/marine-strategy-framework-directive/index_en.htm

5. ICES. ICES Advice 2016, Book 6. Chapter 6.1. Greater North Sea Ecoregion—Ecosystem overview [May 2017]. https://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/Greater_North_Sea_Ecoregion-Ecosystem_overview.pdf

6. Council Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008, establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). Official Journal of the European Union, L164: 19–40. 22 pp.

7. Holling CS. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 1973; 4(1): 1–23.

8. Hiscock K, Jackson A, Lear D. Assessing seabed species and ecosystem sensitivities: existing approaches and development, October 1999 edition. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the UK, 1999 1. http://www.marlin.ac.uk/assets/pdf/MarLINReport1.pdf

9. Laffoley DA, Connor DW, Tasker ML, Bines T. Nationally important seascapes, habitats and species. A recommended approach to their identification, conservation and protection. Peterborough: JNCC, 2000. http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/ENRR392.pdf

10. OSPAR. Annex V to the OSPAR Convention. Criteria for the Identification of Species and Habitats in need of Protection and their Method of Application (The Texel-Faial Criteria). OSPAR, 2003 03/17/1-E. http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/ANNEX05_Texel_Faial%20criteria.pdf

11. Tyler-Walters H, Hiscock K. Impact of human activities on benthic biotopes and species. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the UK, 2005. http://www.marlin.ac.uk/assets/pdf/CDEP84_5_244FinalRpt screen.pdf

12. Tillin HM, Hull SC, Tyler-Walters H. Development of a sensitivity matrix (pressures-MCZ/MPA features). Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the UK, 2010 22. http://www.marlin.ac.uk/assets/pdf/MB0102_Task3-PublishedReport.pdf

13. Tillin HM, Tyler-Walters H. Assessing the sensitivity of subtidal sedimentary habitats to pressures associated with marine activities. Phase 2 Report—Literature review and sensitivity assessments for ecological groups for circalittoral and offshore Level 5 biotopes. Peterborough: JNCC, 2014 512B. http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/Report%20512-B_phase2_web.pdf

14. Kostylev VE, Hannah C. Process-Driven Characterization and Mapping of Seabed Habitats. In: Todd BJ, Greene HG, editors. Mapping the Seafloor for Habitat Characterization: Geological Association of Canada; 2007. p. 171–184.

15. Kube J, Powilcit M, Warzocha J. The importance of hydrodynamic processes and food availability for the structure of macrofauna assemblages in the Pomeranian Bay (Southern Baltic Sea). Arch Hydrobiol. 1996; 138: 213–228.

16. Southwood TRE. Habitat, the templet for ecological strategies? J Anim Ecol. 1977; 46(2): 337–365.

17. Southwood TRE. Tactics, strategies and templets. Oikos. 1988; 52(1): 3–18.

18. Grime JP. Evidence for the existence of three primary strategies in plants and its relevance to ecological and evolutionary theory. Am Nat. 1977; 111(982): 1169–1194.

19. Grime JP. Plant strategies and vegetation processes. Chichester: John Wiley & Son; 1979. 222 p.

20. Margalef R, Estrada M, Blasco D. Functional morphology of organisms involved in red tides, as adapted to decaying turbulence. In: Taylor DL, Seliger HH, editors. Toxic Dinoflagellate Blooms. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1979. p. 89–94.

21. Huston MA. Biological diversity: The coexistence of species on changing landscapes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1994. 704 p.

22. Reynolds SC. Metabolic sensitivities of lacustrine ecosystems to anthropogenic forcing. Aquat Sci. 1999; 61(3): 183–205.

23. Kostylev VE, Todd BJ, Longva O, Valentine PC. Characterization of benthic habitat on northeastern Georges Bank, Canada. In: Barnes PW, Thomas JP, editors. Benthic habitats and the effects of fishing. 41: American Fisheries Society Symposium; 2005. p. 890.

24. Galparsoro I, Borja Á, Kostylev VE, Rodríguez JG, Pascual M, Muxika I. A process-driven sedimentary habitat modelling approach, explaining seafloor integrity and biodiversity assessment within the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci. 2013; 131: 194–205.
25. Gregr EJ, Gryba R, Li MZ, Alidina H, Kostylev VE, Hannah CG. A benthic habitat template for Pacific Canada's continental shelf. Can Tech Rep Hydrogr Ocean Sci. 2016; 312: vii + 37 p.

26. Kostylev VE, Hannah CG, Soukhovtsev V, Dickson C. Canada wide benthic scope for growth: Preliminary classification. Can Tech Rep Hydrogr Ocean Sci. 2015; 305: vi + 24 p.

27. Gregr EJ, editor. An ecological classification of benthic habitat in Pacific Canadian shelf waters. GEO-HAB; Marine Geological and Biological Habitat Mapping; 2008; Sitka, Alaska, USA.

28. Fisher JAD, Frank KT, Kostylev VE, Shackell NL, Horsman T, Hannah CG. Evaluating a habitat template model's predictions of marine fish diversity on the Scotian Shelf and Bay of Fundy, Northwest Atlantic. ICES J Mar Sci. 2011; 68(10): 2096-2105.

29. Lee J, South AB, Jennings S. Developing reliable, repeatable, and accessible methods to provide high-resolution estimates of fishing-effort distributions from vessel monitoring system (VMS) data. ICES J Mar Sci. 2010; 67(6): 1260-1271.

30. Jennings S, Lee J. Defining fishing grounds with vessel monitoring system data. ICES J Mar Sci. 2012; 69(1): 51-63.

31. de Juan S, Demestre M, Thrush S. Defining ecological indicators of trawling disturbance when everywhere that can be fished is fished: A Mediterranean case study. Mar Policy. 2009; 33(3): 472-478.

32. de Juan S, Demestre M. A Trawl Disturbance Indicator to quantify large scale fishing impact on benthic ecosystems. Ecol Indic. 2012; 18: 183-190.

33. Forbes E. The distribution of marine life, illustrated chiefly by fishes and molluscs and radiata. In: Johnston AK, editor. The physical atlas of natural phenomena. Edinburgh: W. & A.K. Johnston; 1958.

34. Dauvin J-C. History of benthic research in the English Channel: From general patterns of communities to habitat mosaic description. J Sea Res. 2015; 100: 32-45.

35. Dauvin J-C. Are the eastern and western basins of the English Channel two separate ecosystems? Mar Pollut Bull. 2012; 64: 463-471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.12.010 PMID: 22245434

36. Cabioch L. Contribution à la connaissance des peuplements benthiques de la Manche occidentale. Cah Biol Mar. 1968; 9(5): 493-720.

37. Rees HL, Eggleton JD, Rachor E, Vanden Berghe E, editors. Structure and dynamics of the North Sea benthos. Copenhagen: ICES; 2007.

38. Paphitis D, Bastos AC, Evans G, Collins MB. The English Channel (La Manche): evolution, oceanography and sediment dynamics—a synthesis. In: Whittaker JE, Hart MB, editors. Micropalaeontology, Sedimentary Environments and Stratigraphy: A Tribute to Dennis Curry (1912–2001). TMS004: Geological Society of London; 2010. p. 99–132.

39. Le Provost C, Fornerino M. Tidal spectroscopy of the English Channel with a numerical model. J Phys Oceanogr. 1985; 15(8): 1009-1031.

40. Larsonneur C, Bouysse P, Auffret J-P. The superficial sediments of the English Channel and its Western Approaches. Sedimentology. 1982; 29(6): 851-864.

41. Webber NB. Hydrography and water circulation in the Solent. In: Burton JD, editor. The Solent Estuary System: An Assessment of Present Knowledge. C. 22. San Marino: Huntington Publications; 1980. p. 25-36.

42. Curry D. The rock floor of the English Channel and its significance for the interpretation of marine unconformities. Proc Geol Assoc. 1989; 100(3): 339-352.

43. Pingree RD, Griffiths DK. Currents driven by a steady uniform wind stress on the shelf seas around the British Isles. Oceanol Acta. 1980; 3(2): 227-236.

44. Salomon J-C, Breton M. Courants résiduels de marée dans la Manche. Oceanol Acta. Special issue. 1991; 11: 47-53.

45. Lesourd S, Lesueur P, Brun-Cottan J-C, Auffret J-P, Poupinet N, Laignel B. Morphosedimentary evolution of the macrotidal Seine estuary subjected to human impact. Estuaries. 2001; 24(6): 940-949.

46. Méar Y, Poizot E, Murat A, Lesueur P, Thomas M. Fine-grained sediment spatial distribution on the basis of a geostatistical analysis: Example of the eastern Bay of the Seine (France). Cont Shelf Res. 2006; 26(19): 2335-2351.

47. Vaslet D, Larsonneur C, Auffret J-P, cartographers. Carte des sédiments meubles superficiels de la Manche 1/500 000. Carte géologique de la marge continentale. Orléans: BRGM Ifremer; 1979.

48. Martin CS, Carpentier A, Vaz S, Coppin F, Curet L, Dauvin J-C, et al. The Channel habitat atlas for marine resource management (CHARM): an aid for planning and decision-making in an area under strong anthropogenic pressure. Aquat Living Resour. 2009; 22(4): 499-508.

49. Carpentier A, Coppin F, Curet L, Dauvin J-C, Delavenne J, Dewarumez J-M, et al. Atlas des Habitats des Ressources Marines de la Manche Orientale—CHARM II / Channel Habitat Atlas for marine
Resource Management—CHARM II. Boulogne-sur-Mer: Ifremer, 2009. http://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/2009/rapport-7377.pdf

50. Rivier A. Evaluation de l'action de la houle et du courant sur les fonds marins dans le cadre de la réalisation de cartographie d'habitats marins. Brest: Ifremer, 2010.

51. Hjulström F. Studies on the morphological activity of rivers as illustrated by the river Fyris. Etud Rhod. 1935; 11(2): 255-256.

52. Foveau A. Habitats et communautés benthiques du bassin oriental de la Manche: état des lieux au début du XXIème siècle [Thèse de doctorat]. Lille: Lille1; 2009. https://ori-nuxeo.univ-lille1.fr/nuxeo/site/esupversions/c9deed06-a0b4-425b-8afc-47dae7850050

53. Brown JH, Gillooly JF, Allen AP, Savage VM, West GB. Toward a metabolic theory of ecology. Ecology. 2004; 85(7): 1771-1789.

54. Legendre L, Michaud J. Chlorophyll a to estimate the particulate organic carbon available as food to large zooplankton in the euphotic zone of oceans. J Plankton Res. 1999; 21(11): 2067-2083.

55. Pingree R, Griffiths DK. Tidal fronts on the shelf seas around the British Isles. J Geophys Res. 1978; 83: 4615-4622.

56. Coppin F, Travers-Trolet M. (1989). CGFS: Channel Ground Fish Survey. http://dx.doi.org/10.18142/11

57. Verin Y (1992). IBTS International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS). http://dx.doi.org/10.17600/6040010

58. Travers-Trolet M, Verin Y (2014). CAMANOC cruise, RV Thalassa. http://dx.doi.org/10.17600/14001900

59. Ellis JR, Rogers SI, editors. Distribution and structure of faunal assemblages and their associated physical conditions on the Atlantic continental shelf of the British Isles 2004.

60. Rees HL, Pendle MA, Waldock R, Limpenny DS, Boyd SE. A comparison of benthic biodiversity in the North Sea, English Channel, and Celtic Seas. ICES J Mar Sci. 1999; 56: 228-246.

61. Sanvicente-Anorve L, Leprêtre A, Davoult D. Diversity of benthic macrofauna in the eastern English Channel: comparison among and within communities. Biodivers Conserv. 2002; 11: 265-282.

62. Capasso E, Jenkins SR, Frost M, Hinz H. Investigation of benthic community change over a century-wide scale in the western English Channel. J Mar Biol Assoc UK. 2010; 90(6): 1161-1172; https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315409991020

63. Kröncke I, Reiss H, Eggleton JD, Aldridge J, Bergman MJN, Cochrane S, Craeymeersch JA, Degraer S, Desroy N, Dewarumez J-M, Duineveld GCA, Essink K, Hillewaert H, Lavaleye MSS, Moll A, Nehring S, Newell R, Oug E, Pohlmann T, Rachor E, Robertson M, Rumohr H, Schratzberger M, Smith R, Berghe EV, van Dalfsen J, van Hoey G, Vincx M, Willems W, Rees HL (2011). Changes in North Sea macrofauna communities and species distribution between 1986 and 2000. Estuar Coast Shelf S. 2011; 94(1): 1-15. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2011.04.008

64. Brind'Amour A, Laffargue P, Morin J, Vaz S, Foveau A, Le Bris H. Morphospecies and taxonomic sufficiency of benthic megafauna in scientific bottom trawl surveys. Cont Shelf Res. 2014; 72: 1-9.

65. Bacci T, Trabucco B, Marzialetti S, Marusso V, Lomiri S, Vani D, Virno Lamberti C. Taxonomic sufficiency in two case studies: where does it work better? Mar Ecol. 2009; 30 (suppl1): 13-19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0485.2009.00324.x

66. Dauvin J-C, Gomez-Gesteira JL, Salvande Fraga M. Taxonomic sufficiency: an overview of its use in the monitoring of sublittoral benthic communities after oil spills. Mar Pollut Bull. 2003; 46: 552-555. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-326X(03)00033-X PMID: 12735952

67. MARLIN. 2014 [May 2014]. http://www.marlin.ac.uk/biotic/.

68. Garcia C. Approche fonctionnelle des communautés benthiques du bassin oriental de la Manche et du sud de la mer du Nord [Thèse de doctorat]. Lille: Lille1; 2010. https://ori-nuxeo.univ-lille1.fr/nuxeo/site/esupversions/95757ab9-3271-46b9-a52f-c8c6a18a7faa

69. Le Pape O, Baulier L, Cloarec A, Martin J, Le Loch F, Desaunay Y. Habitat suitability for juvenile common sole (Solea solea, L.) in the Bay of Biscay (France): A quantitative description using indicators based on epibenthic fauna. J Sea Res. 2007; 57(2-3): 126-136.

70. Brind'Amour A, Rouyer A, Martin J. Functional gains of including non-commercial epibenthic taxa in coastal beam trawl surveys: A note. Cont Shelf Res. 2009; 29(8):1189-1194.

71. Foveau A, Llapasset M, Desroy N, Vaz S. Life history traits' scoring to calculate a trawl disturbance indicator on mega- epibenthic fauna. Seanoe; 2016. http://www.seanoe.org/data/00335/44632/

72. ICES. Report of the Working Group on Spatial Fisheries Data (WGSFD). Copenhagen: ICES, 2015 ICES CM 2015/SSGEPI:18. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/SSGEPI/2015/01%20WGSFD%20-%20Report%20of%20the%20Working%20Group%20on%20Spatial%20Fisheries%20Data.pdf
73. Eigaard OR, Bastardie F, Breen M, Dinesen G, Hintzen N, Laffargue P, Nielsen J, et al. Estimating seabed pressure from demersal trawls, seines, and dredges based on gear design and dimensions. ICES J Mar Sci 2015; 73 (Suppl. 1) i27–i43.

74. Clarke KR, Ainsworth M. A method of linking multivariate community structure to environmental vari-ables. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 1993; 92: 205–219.

75. Bremner J, Rogers SI, Frid CLJ. Matching biological traits to environmental conditions in marine ben-thic ecosystems. J Mar Syst. 2006; 60(3-4): 302–316.

76. Shumchenia EJ, King JW. Comparison of methods for integrating biological and physical data for marine habitat mapping and classification. Cont Shelf Res. 2010; 30(16): 1717–1729.

77. Todd BJ, Kostylev VE. Surficial geology and benthic habitat of the German Bank seabed, Scotian Shelf, Canada. Cont Shelf Res. 2011; 31(2, Supplement): S54–S68.

78. Clarke KR, Gorley RN. PRIMER v6: User manual/Tutorial. Plymouth UK: PRIMER-E Ltd; 2006. p. 192.

79. Ter Braak CJF, Šmilauer P. CANOCO reference manual and CanoDraw for Windows user's guide: software for canonical community ordination. version 4.5 ed 2002.

80. Legendre P, Gallagher ED. Ecologically meaningful transformations for ordination of species data. Oecologia. 2001; 129(2): 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420100716 PMID: 28547606

81. Borcard D, Gillet F, Legendre P. Numerical Ecology with R. 1 ed. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2011. 306 p.

82. Legendre P, Legendre L. Numerical Ecology. 3rd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2012. 1006 p.

83. Borcard D, Legendre P, Drapeau P. Partialling out the Spatial Component of Ecological Variation. Ecology. 1992; 73(3): 1045–1055.

84. McCullagh P, Nelder JA. Generalized Linear Models. 2 ed. Hall/CRC C, editor. London: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 1990. 532 p.

85. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin PR, O'Hara RB, et al. vegan: Community Ecol-ogy Package. R package version 2.3–4 ed 2016.

86. Venables WN, Ripley BD. Modern Applied Statistics with S. 4 ed. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2002. 498 p.

87. Foveau A, Vaz S, Desroy N. English Channel process-driven seafloor habitat sensitivity. IFREMER, 2016. http://doi.org/10.12770/eba76470-7dd5-4984-bfa8-c9df6a69276b.

88. Heap AD, Harris PT. Geological and biological mapping and characterisation of benthic marine envi-ronments—Introduction to the special issue. Cont Shelf Res. 2011; 31: S1–S3.

89. Bradshaw C, Collins P, Brand AR. To what extent does upright sessile epifauna affect benthic biodi-versity and community composition? Mar Biol. 2003; 143(4): 783–791.

90. Green MO, Vincent CE, McCave IN, Dickson RR, Rees JM, Pearsons ND. Storm sediment transport: observations from the British North Sea shelf. Cont Shelf Res.1995; 15(8): 889–912.

91. Eisma D, Kalf J. Dispersal, concentration and deposition of suspended matter in the North Sea. J Geol Soc. 1987; 144(1): 161–178.

92. Gogina M, Zettler ML. Diversity and distribution of benthic macrofauna in the Baltic Sea: Data inven-tory and its use for species distribution modelling and prediction. J Sea Res. 2010; 64(3): 313–321.

93. Borja Á, Galparsoro I, Irigoien X, Iriondo A, Menchaca I, Muxika I, et al. Implementation of the Euro-pean Marine Strategy Framework Directive: A methodological approach for the assessment of envi-ronmental status, from the Basque Country (Bay of Biscay). Mar Pollut Bull. 2011; 62(5): 889–904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.03.031 PMID: 21507430

94. Dolbeth M, Cardoso PG, Ferreira SM, Verdelhos T, Raffaelli D, Pardal MA. Anthropogenic and natural disturbance effects on a macrobenthic estuarine community over a 10-year period. Mar Pollut Bull. 2007; 54(5): 576–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2006.12.005 PMID: 17240405

95. McArthur RH, Wilson EO. The Theory of Island Biogeography. 1 ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1967. 215 p.

96. O'Boyl R, Kostylev VE, Breeze H, Hall T, Herbert G, Worcester T, et al., editors. Developing an Eco-system-Based Management Framework for Benthic Communities: A Case Study of the Scotian Shelf 2005: ICES.

97. Foster Smith B, Connor D, Davies J. MESH Guide: what is habitat mapping?. http://www.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/pdf/GMHM1-6%20What%20are%20the%20limitations%20of%20habitat%20mapping.pdf

98. Davies JS, Stewart HA, Narayanaswamy BE, Jacobs C, Spicer J, Golding N, et al. Benthic assem-blages of the Anton Dohrn Seamount (NE Atlantic): defining deep-sea biotopes to support habitat
mapping and management efforts with a focus on vulnerable marine ecosystems. PLoS ONE. 2015; 10(5): e0124815. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0124815 PMID: 25992572

99. Queiros A, Hiddink JG, Kaiser MJ, Hinz H. Effects of chronic bottom trawling disturbance on benthic biomass, production and size spectra in different habitats. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol. 2006; 335(1): 91-103.

100. Bilyard GR. The value of benthic infauna in marine pollution monitoring studies. Mar Pollut Bull. 1987; 18(11): 581-585.

101. de Juan S, Lo Iacono C, Demestre M. Benthic habitat characterisation of soft-bottom continental shelves: Integration of acoustic surveys, benthic samples and trawling disturbance intensity. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci. 2013; 117: 199-209.

102. Bolam SG, Coggan RC, Eggleton J, Diesing M, Stephens D. Sensitivity of macrobenthic secondary production to trawling in the English sector of the Greater North Sea: A biological trait approach. J Sea Res. 2014; 85: 162-177.

103. Bolam SG, Eggleton JD. Macrofaunal production and biological traits: Spatial relationships along the UK continental shelf. J Sea Res. 2014; 88: 47-58.

104. Negrello Filho OA, Lana PC. Short-term stability of estuarine benthic assemblages: are storms pattern-defining events? Zoologia. 2013; 30(3): 266-272.

105. Ramsay K, Kaiser MJ, Hughes RN. Changes in hermit crab feeding patterns in response to trawling disturbance. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 1996; 144: 63-72.

106. Günther C-P. Dispersal of intertidal invertebrates: a strategy to react to disturbances of different scales? Neth J Sea Res. 1992; 30: 45-56.

107. Rees EIS, Nicholaidou A, Laskaridou P. The effects of storms on the dynamics of shallow water benthic associations. In: Keegan BF, O Ceidigh P, Boaden PJS, editors. Biology of benthic marine organisms: 11th European Symposium on Marine Biology. Oxford: Pergamon Press; 1977. p. 465-74.

108. Lambert GI, Jennings S, Kaiser MJ, Davies TW, Hiddink JG. Quantifying recovery rates and resilience of seabed habitats impacted by bottom fishing. J Appl Ecol. 2014; 51(5): 1326-1336.

109. Collie JS, Escanero GA, Valentine PC. Effects of bottom fishing on the benthic megafauna of Georges Bank. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 1997; 155: 159-172.

110. Rijnsdorp AD, Buys AM, Storbeck F, Visser EG. Micro-scale distribution of beam trawl effort in the southern North Sea between 1993 and 1996 in relation to the trawling frequency of the sea bed and the impact on benthic organisms. ICES J Mar Sci. 1998; 55(3): 403-419.

111. Dinmore TA, Duplisea DE, Rackham BD, Maxwell DL, Jennings S. Impact of a large-scale area closure on patterns of fishing disturbance and the consequences for benthic communities. ICES J Mar Sci. 2003; 60(2): 371-380.

112. Eastwood PD, Mills CM, Aldridge JN, Houghton CA, Rogers SI. Human activities in UK offshore waters: an assessment of direct, physical pressure on the seabed. ICES J Mar Sci. 2007; 64(3): 453-463.

113. Churchill JH. The effect of commercial trawling on sediment resuspension and transport over the Middle Atlantic Bight continental shelf. Cont Shelf Res. 1989; 9(9): 841-865.

114. Hall SJ, Basford DJ, Robertson MR. The impact of hydraulic dredging for razor clams *Ensis* sp. on an infaunal community. Neth J Sea Res. 1990; 27(1): 119-125.

115. Nédélec C, Prado J. Definition and classification of fishing gear categories. Rome: FAO, 1990 222.

116. Hall SJ. Physical disturbance and marine benthic communities: life in unconsolidated sediments. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev. 1994; 32: 179-239.

117. Vanstaen K, Limpenny D, Lee J, Eggleton J, Brown A, Stelzenmüller V. The scale and impact of fishing activities in the Eastern English Channel: an initial assessment based on existing geophysical survey data. Lowestoft: CEFAS, 2008 C3092.

118. Currie DR, Parry GD. Impacts and efficiency of scallop dredging on different soft substrates. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 1999; 56: 539-550.

119. Shephard S, Goudey CA, Read A, Kaiser MJ. Hydrodredge: Reducing the negative impacts of scallop dredging. Fish Res. 2009; 95(2-3): 206-209.

120. Kaiser MJ, Spencer BE. Fish scavenging behavior in recently trawled areas. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 1994; 112: 41-49.

121. Kaiser MJ, Spencer BE. Survival of by-catch from a beam-trawl. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 1995; 126: 31-38.

122. Svane I, Hammett Z, Lauer P. Impacts of trawling on benthic macro-fauna and -flora of the Spencer Gulf prawn fishing grounds. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci. 2009; 82(4): 621-631.
123. Jackson JBC, Kirby MX, Berger WH, Bjorndal KA, Botsford LW, Bourque BJ, et al. Historical Overfishing and the Recent Collapse of Coastal Ecosystems. Science. 2001; 293(5530): 629. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1059199 PMID: 11474098

124. Pauly D. Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. Trends Ecol Evol. 1995; 10(10): 430. PMID: 21237093

125. Roberts C. The unnatural history of the sea. Washington: Island Press, 2010.

126. Lambert GI, Jennings S, Kaiser MJ, Hinz H, Hiddink JG. Quantification and prediction of the impact of fishing on epifaunal communities. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2011; 430: 71–86.

127. Kaiser MJ, Clarke KR, Hinz H, Austen MCV, Somerfield PJ, Karakassis I. Global analysis of response and recovery of benthic biota to fishing. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2006; 311: 1–14.

128. Rijnsdorp AD, Bastardie F, Bolam SG, Buhl-Mortensen L, Eigaard OR, Hamon K, et al. Towards a framework for the quantitative assessment of trawling impacts on the sea bed and benthic ecosystems. Ices J Mar Sci. 2015; 73(1): 27–38.

129. Girardin R, Vermard Y, Thébaud O, Tidd A, Marchal P. Predicting fisher response to competition for space and resources in a mixed demersal fishery. Ocean Coast Manag. 2015; 106: 124–135.

130. Vermard Y, Rivot E, Mahévas S, Marchal P, Gascuel D. Identifying fishing trip behaviour and estimating fishing effort from VMS data using Bayesian Hidden Markov Models. Ecol Model. 2010; 221(15): 1757–1569.

131. Marchal P, Bartelings H, Bastardie F, Batsleer J, Delaney A, Girardin R, et al. Mechanisms of change in human behaviour. IFREMER, 2014.

132. Sanchez P, Demestre M, Ramon M, Kaiser MJ. The impact of otter trawling on mud communities in the northwestern Mediterranean. ICES J Mar Sci. 2000; 57(5): 1352–1358.

133. Reiss H, Greenstreet SPR, Sieben K, Ehrich S, Piet GJ, Quirijns F, et al. Effects of fishing disturbance on benthic communities and secondary production within an intensively fished area. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2009; 394: 201–213.

134. Demestre M, Sanchez P, Kaiser M. The behavioural response of benthic scavengers to otter-trawling disturbance in the Mediterranean. In: Kaiser MJ, de Groot SJ, editors. Effects of Fishing on Non-Target Species and Habitats. Oxford: Blackwell Science; 2000. p. 121–129.

135. Frid CLJ, Harwood KG, Hall SJ, Hall JA. Long-term changes in the benthic communities on North Sea fishing grounds. J Mar Sci. 2000; 57: 1303–1309.

136. Kaiser MJ, Ramsay K, Richardson CA, Spence FE, Brand AR. Chronic fishing disturbance has changed shelf sea benthic community structure. J Anim Ecol. 2000; 69: 494–503.

137. La Rivière M, Aish A, Gauthier O, Grall J, Guérin L, Janson A-L, et al. Méthodologie pour l'évaluation de la sensibilité des habitats benthiques aux pressions anthropiques. Paris: MNHN, 2015 69.

138. Hiddink JG, Hutton T, Jennings S, Kaiser MJ. Predicting the effects of area closures and fishing effort restrictions on the production, biomass, and species richness of benthic invertebrate communities. ICES J Mar. Sci. 2006; 63(5): 822–830.

139. Jennings S, Lee J. Defining fishing grounds with vessel monitoring system data. ICES J Mar Sci. 2012; 69(1): 51–63.

140. Rice J, Arvanitidis C, Ángel B, Frid CLJ, Hiddink JG, Krause J, et al. Marine strategy framework Directive—Task Group 6 Report—Seafloor integrity. European Commission ICES, 2010 EUR 24334 EN -2010.

141. Van Hoey G, Borja A, Birchenough S, Buhl-Mortensen L, Degraer S, Fleischer D, et al. The use of benthic indicators in Europe: From the Water Framework Directive to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Mar Pollut Bull. 60(12): 2187–2196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.09.015 PMID: 21051051

142. Ehler C, Douvere F. Marine Spatial Planning: a step-by-step approach toward ecosystem-based management. Paris: UNESCO, 2009 53.

143. European Union. Maritime spatial planning 2010 [May 2016]. http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/policy/maritime_spatial_planning/index_en.htm.

144. Roff JC, Taylor ME, Laughren J. Geophysical approaches to the classification, delineation and monitoring of marine habitats and their communities. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshwat Ecosyst. 2003; 13(1): 77–90.