1.1 Why Monitor Kelp Forest Ecosystems
As key marine habitats along approximately 36% of the world’s coastlines (Figure 1, Jayathilake & Costello, 2021), kelp forests support immense biodiversity 1, have cultural significance to many Indigenous Peoples and coastal communities, and influence the chemical and physical characteristics of coastal ecosystems 2.
The extent, condition, and services provided by kelp forest ecosystems therefore have significant impacts on ocean health as well as the wellbeing of coastal and non-coastal societies (3; 4; 5).
Economically, kelp forests provide between USD $64,000 and $147,000 per hectare per year and are globally worth $500 billion 6. Changes in kelp forest extent and condition are often linked to changes in cultural and commercially important species such as abalone, lobster, and other fishes (7; 8; 9). Kelp forest loss is linked to local biodiversity loss; key coastal fisheries often closed following the decline of a kelp forest, such as in California (10) and Japan (11). Kelp forest decline can also reduce tourism, cultural identities, nutrient and carbon cycling, jobs, recreational opportunities, and other benefits provided by kelp forests. Monitoring kelp forest ecosystems can therefore provide understanding about changes in these benefits and create appropriate management plans if those benefits are at risk.
Figure 1. Global map of kelp forest distribution. This map was modified and adapted from Smale (2019), Eger et al. (2022), and Eger et al. (2023).
1.1.1 Research and Long-Term Monitoring
Attributes and functions of kelp forests inherently interest ecological researchers. Robustly and consistently monitoring these ecosystems provides quality data for addressing scientific research questions and testing ecological theories. Collecting standardized information also enables better data pooling, easier collaborations, and easier answering of questions to be answered at regional and/or global scales. Repeated standardized data collection at the same site over time provides valuable information about seasonal variability, ecosystem health, and the drivers of that health.
1.1.2 Conservation Tracking
Marine managers require data on kelp forest ecosystems to assess the outcomes of interventions such as protection or restoration, to create environmental accounts, to inform management strategies and priorities, and ultimately to track progress towards local and international management targets such as the targets two and three (i.e., 30x30) of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
1.1.3 Decision Making
As ecosystem services are increasingly considered in decision making, these services are increasingly given a market or economic value, either to communicate their importance or create financial instruments such as carbon or biodiversity credits to fund conservation and restoration efforts. Good ecological data is the foundation of any such instrument and a monitoring and verification framework is needed to report and validate the creation of any kelp forest finance mechanism.
1.1.4 Conservation Finance
Private organizations are increasingly considering conservation finance mechanisms such as carbon credits, biodiversity credits, payments for ecosystem services, and blue bonds. While the specifics of these mechanisms differ, they are based on quantifying and then monetizing attributes of an ecosystem (e.g., carbon capture, biodiversity, fisheries production). A monitoring and reporting framework therefore underpins the development and use of any of these mechanisms. Eger et al. (2022) have outlined steps and processes related to kelp forest restoration.
1.1.5 Monitoring by Different End Use
The needs of a monitoring program will vary depending on the nature of the project involved. For example, a research program might need short-term, highly detailed information, while a conservation program might need longer-term data focused on only one or two key indicator variables over a larger area. Table 1 provides a summary of how a monitoring program might be designed to meet different end users’ needs.
Table 1. Different requirements for different motivations for monitoring.
| Research & Monitoring | Conservation Tracking | Decision Making | Conservation Finance | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency | Low | High | High | Low–Medium |
| Accuracy | High | Medium | High | High |
| Scale | Low | Medium–High | High | Low–High |
1.2 Developing a Kelp Forest Monitoring and Verification Framework
As the need for quality data on the extent, condition, and benefits of kelp forest ecosystems increases, it is imperative that we develop a standardized approach for collecting such information. Using a standardized reporting framework can help understand the impact of conservation interventions, inform evidence-based decision making, reduce reporting biases, allow for standardized tracking of restoration projects globally and comparability of data, ensure sufficient information is collected, and increase information-sharing across projects.
