Infaunal communities in Baltic infralittoral sand not dominated by bivalves
Quick facts
Red List habitat type | code BAL32 |
---|---|
Threat status | |
Europe | Least Concern |
EU | Least Concern |
Relation to |
|
Source | European Red List habitat factsheet |
European Red List of habitats reports | |
European Red List of habitats (Excel table) |
Summary
This is a Baltic Sea benthic habitat in the photic zone where at least 90% of the substrate is sand according to the HELCOM HUB classification. There is a lack of macrovegetation or epibenthic macrofauna but crustaceans, polychaetes and insect larvae may dominate the infauna. The habitat is present in areas of high energy associated with wave action or currents.
Where polychaetes dominate the infauna two associated biotopes with different dominant species of polychaetes (at least 50% of the biomass of the infaunal polychaetes) can be identified. ‘Baltic photic sand dominated by lugworms (Arenicola marina)’ (AA.J3M2) usually at a depth of 1 – 5 meters, in high exposure and in salinities over 10 psu. It is distributed in only in the western Baltic Sea, in the Sound and the Belt Sea. ‘Baltic photic sand dominated by multiple infaunal polychaete species: Pygiospio elegans, Marenzelleria spp. and Hediste diversicolor’ (AA.J3M4) distributed in the whole Baltic Sea. Where crustaceans dominate the infauna one associated biotope has been identified: ‘Baltic photic sand dominated by sand digger shrimp (Bathyporeia pilosa)’ (AA.J3N3). Depth of this biotope is typically from 1 to 10 meters, and it is encountered in areas of moderate to high wave exposure with salinity over 4 psu. Another biotope ‘Baltic photic sand dominated by midge larvae (Chironomidae)’ (AA.J3P1) is identified by a large representation of Midge larvae (Chironomidae).
Indicators of quality:
Both biotic and abiotic indicators have been used to describe marine habitat quality. These include: the presence of characteristic species as well as those which are sensitive to the pressures the habitat may face; water quality parameters; levels of exposure to particular pressure, and more integrated indices which describe habitat structure and function, such as trophic index, or successional stages of development in habitats that have a natural cycle of change over time.
There are no commonly agreed indicators of quality for this habitat, although particular parameters may have been set in certain situations e.g. protected features within Natura 2000 sites, where reference values have been determined and applied on a location-specific basis. Diversity, abundance and biomass of fauna are potential indicators of quality.
Threat status
Synthesis of Red List assessment
The overall assessment for this EUNIS level 4 habitat has been based on the HELCOM (2013) assessments for the associated HELCOM HUB biotopes. Draft assessments were derived using a weighted approach whereby the HELCOM assessment outcomes were assigned a score. This was averaged across the relevant biotopes. The outcomes were reviewed by Baltic experts to reach a final conclusion. HELCOM (2013) assessed the four associated biotopes as Least Concern (A1). With no additional data on changes in extent or quality of this habitat the current expert opinion is an assessment of Least Concern for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.
EU | |
Red List Category | Red List Criteria |
Least Concern | - |
Europe | |
Red List Category | Red List Criteria |
Least Concern | - |
Confidence in the assessment
Pressures and threats
- No threats or pressures
- No threats or pressures
Habitat restoration potential
Trends in extent |
|
Average current trend in quantity |
|
Stable ![]() |
Stable ![]() |
EU28 | EU28+ |
Trends in quality |
|
Average current trend in quality |
|
Stable ![]() |
Stable ![]() |
EU28 | EU28+ |
Conservation and management needs
List of conservation and management needs
- No measures
- No measures needed for the conservation of the habitat/species
Distribution
Geographic occurrence and trends
Seas | Present or presence uncertain | Current area of habitat (Km2) | Recent trend in quantity (last 50 years) | Recent trend in quality (last 50 years) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Baltic Proper | Present | Unknown | Stable | Stable |
Belt Sea | ||||
Gulf of Bothnia | ||||
Gulf of Finland | ||||
Gulf of Riga | ||||
The Sound |
Extent of Occurrence, Area of Occupancy and habitat area
Extent of Occurrence (EOO) (Km2) | Area of Occupancy (AOO) | Current estimated Total Area | Comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|
EU28 | >50,000 | Unknown | Unknown | This habitat is present in all the Baltic sub-basins however there is insufficient information for accurate calculation of EOO and AOO. |
EU28+ | Unknown | Unknown | This habitat is present in all the Baltic sub-basins however there is insufficient information for accurate calculation of EOO and AOO. |
EOO = the area (km2) of the envelope around all occurrences of a habitat (calculated by a minimum convex polygon).
Characteristic species
Species scientific name | English common name | Species group |
---|---|---|
Arenicola marina | Invertebrates | |
Bathyporeia pilosa | Invertebrates | |
Monoporeia affinis | Invertebrates | |
Mya arenaria | Invertebrates | |
Travisia forbesii | Invertebrates |