# data[].attributes.body
Marine connectivity and functional connectivity are going to be key concepts and tools to assess success of simultaneous restoration interventions - so there is a growing interest from the applied sciences.

# data[].attributes.headline
MANUEL HIDALGO/LUCIA LOPEZ (WG2) SUGGESTION FOR SUMMARY PAPER

# data[].attributes.subject
MANUEL HIDALGO/LUCIA LOPEZ (WG2) SUGGESTION FOR SUMMARY PAPER

# data[].attributes.body
As there is a lot of confusion about the terms (e.g. structural versus functional connectivity), why not ask the wider scientific community (outside the SEA-UNICORN network) to understand what the terms mean to them and if the meaning change depending on the field of expertise? We could design a poll about the terminology and circulate it as widely as possible, we think the results could be very helpful to identify communication gaps (which are a big trouble for WG2 and WG3) and also to support the data synthesis.

# data[].attributes.headline
If you wanted to remember what we discussed about WG1 during the main Action kick-off meeting (4/12/2020), see  image here 

# data[].attributes.subject
If you wanted to remember what we discussed about WG1 during the main Action kick-off meeting (4/12/2020), see  image here 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SEA-UNICORN SysRev tentative course overview

# data[].attributes.body
Click here for collated responses from chat as well as the complete chat file (.txt) if you are interested

# data[].attributes.body
WG1 co-leader contact details: Anna Sturrock (anna.sturrock@essex.ac.uk) & Susanne Tanner (setanner@fc.ul.pt). Always email both of us and include 'SEA-UNICORN' in the subject line.
WG1 SHARED DRIVE (this google drive will contain ALL WG1 materials for the entire Action - e.g. meeting presentations, working database, literature folder): https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/17lAATRoA5wbCNanjZnYzpbyKlgAbh9ki?usp=sharing
Please add must-read MFC papers to the literature folder, and add ideas/comments about upcoming activities/deliverables to padlet below.
General info about COST: https://www.cost.eu/who-we-are/about-cost/
SEA-UNICORN MOU and other info here: https://www.cost.eu/actions/CA19107/#tabs|Name:overview
Slides from last week’s Action launch meeting: https://drive.google.com/drive/u/3/folders/1AWdUPsZ9JElBzLuDlVYz4_7Utk9NSPWr

# data[].attributes.body
11:05:08 From  PT - Susanne Tanner : https://padlet.com/setanner1/mnca3pfxkadqk6me
11:11:07 From  CHAIR - Audrey Darnaude : Ewan: identifying why MFC is relevant for deep sea oceans
11:14:10 From  UK Ewan Hunter : https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-020-01352-5
11:19:10 From  FR - Philippe Borsa : Audrey, how can we access the MoU you just mentioned?
11:20:41 From  Szymon Smolinski : MoU is available on the COST website: https://www.cost.eu/actions/CA19107/#tabs|Name:overview (please scroll down to action documents)
11:27:39 From  FR - Philippe Borsa : Thanks Szymon
11:29:07 From  FR- Katell Guizien : are we talking about traits altering the system functionning or traits shaping connectivity?
11:29:22 From  UK Ewan Hunter : Sorry, need to drop out for a call but will try and dial back in for the wrap up

# data[].attributes.body
Fred Viard: Caution with taxonomy used, include link to database eg WORMS, Fishbase

Add origin status  (invasive/native)

# data[].attributes.headline
to include in the data base: level of organization used (individuals (for example when use tracking) population (for example when consider genetics or biophysical models for one species), or community structure (for example when using distances in species composition or diversity)

# data[].attributes.subject
to include in the data base: level of organization used (individuals (for example when use tracking) population (for example when consider genetics or biophysical models for one species), or community structure (for example when using distances in species composition or diversity)

# data[].attributes.headline
Someone removed a post-it mentioning Fst when I was adding a comment. Lost the comment. I was writing, in substance, that it should be kept in mind that Fst may not be an appropriate metric to apply to "connectivity" issues. First, Fst was designed as a standard way of estimating allele frequency differences between populations and nothing else. Second, to derive gene flow estimates from Fst estimates requires a lot of hypotheses on population structure, mutation rates, generation time, reproductive structure etc. Third these gene flow estimates may not represent connectivity in the sense usually understood by this assembly. Fourth, still, Fst estimates represent highly valuable information. Philippe

# data[].attributes.subject
Someone removed a post-it mentioning Fst when I was adding a comment. Lost the comment. I was writing, in substance, that it should be kept in mind that Fst may not be an appropriate metric to apply to "connectivity" issues. First, Fst was designed as a standard way of estimating allele frequency differences between populations and nothing else. Second, to derive gene flow estimates from Fst estimates requires a lot of hypotheses on population structure, mutation rates, generation time, reproductive structure etc. Third these gene flow estimates may not represent connectivity in the sense usually understood by this assembly. Fourth, still, Fst estimates represent highly valuable information. Philippe

# data[].attributes.body
AUS - Cynthia Riginos : Any database terms should attempt to map to standard biodiversity ontologies such as DarwinCore - then the information will be cross compatible with other databases and sources of information

# data[].attributes.headline
to include in the data base: if there is information of the traits of the considered species

# data[].attributes.subject
to include in the data base: if there is information of the traits of the considered species

# data[].attributes.headline
comment by Tamar: connectivity "metric" being used, what is used as measure of connectivity

# data[].attributes.subject
comment by Tamar: connectivity "metric" being used, what is used as measure of connectivity

# data[].attributes.body
Ewan Hunter: Interesting deep-sea research perspective paper:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-020-01352-5

We could take advantage of the literature review that will allow us to identify the gaps in MFC and write a high impact perspective paper on why MFC is relevant and outline future (next decade) avenues to advance MFC research

# data[].attributes.body
FR- Katell Guizien : I agree with start by an inventory of already published review paper linked to MARINE connectivity and analyzed what could be the added value of a new review paper made by the UNICORN group

# data[].attributes.body
Important to clarify how different methods are suitable for different spatial & temporal scales, magnitudes & types of connectivity, relevance for life stage and connectivity process (e.g. estimates dispersal, estimates dispersal plus recruitment into population, etc). Clarifying variance and uncertainty would be important too! The major impediment in synthesising across methods is these mismatches of scale and scope of inference.

# data[].attributes.body
Rita V: Level of review of MFC data?
do we want to know what/where/how of each study, or do we want to extract measures/results of what was studied?
Tamar:
Depending on the question.
Quantitative vs qualitative reviews

# data[].attributes.body
Regarding the titles (questions to tackle) for Review papers:

we have the main (big) questions (see MoU) so now we need to break them into smaller (more specific) sub-questions that to be addressed. These can be more specific in terms of thematic, taxonomic group, geographical area...

Nb : this exercise could also be used to prepare the MOOC on MFC and identify which areas we're going to cover in it

# data[].attributes.headline
Careful that the level of detail/depth in the review needs to suit the amount of work that the group can put into it

# data[].attributes.subject
Careful that the level of detail/depth in the review needs to suit the amount of work that the group can put into it

# data[].attributes.body
Phillippe Borsa: Here is a suggestion: Regarding litterature reviews on marine functional connectivity, I suggest to launch individual & preliminary literature reviews on marine functional connectivity, where everyone interested in the WG1 will be free to choose their approach, database, keywords and so on (that would be step 1). Then someone (e.g. you) would collect the responses after some deadline and compile and summarize these (that would be step 2). Then (step 3), we would organize a new meeting to share the preliminary results and based on these, do some brainstorming about the questions we want to ask, define the database we want to explore, define the search equation (i.e. fields + keywords + booleans), and decide on how the tasks will be distributed for the real literature review(s) that we will have decided.

Let me know what you think about this way to proceed. You may have already envisaged all this and thought farther, or you may have other ideas. No problem, just tell me.
Philippe

# data[].attributes.body
As stated in the MoU, areas that are not (or rarely) covered  yet in reviews on connectivity = drivers of MFC + inter-specific MFC

# data[].attributes.body
Gerrit Nanninga: Our definition of MFC could be based on recent literature

# data[].attributes.body
We need to agree among us (= MFC scientists) on what MFC information we can gather, with what level of detail (partial? lifetime?), about who (individual? pop? community?) or what (mico-habitats? Ecosystems? Regions?) and where (ocean or eco-region or continent or oceanic domain).

# data[].attributes.body
we should define concrete terms and  the questions to facilitate search and select the papers

# data[].attributes.headline
List of seminal papers on MFC - "must read" literature

# data[].attributes.subject
List of seminal papers on MFC - "must read" literature

# data[].attributes.body
Over the last decades, advances in Theoretical Ecology have resulted in the broad notion of ‘connectivity’ being divided into two intertwined components: the ‘structural connectivity’, a notion purely related to the physical characteristics of the landscape without any consideration of the attributes of the organisms that inhabit it, and the ‘functional connectivity’, defined as the response of organisms to the various elements of the landscape and encompassing the distribution, importance and direction of their migratory flows among habitat patches (Tischendorf & Fahrig 2000, Auffret et al 2015). So, while human activity is usually the cause of changes in structural connectivity, it is functional connectivity that determines the demographic, ecological and evolutionary interdependency of populations and communities, thereby modulating the ecological effects of habitat loss or fragmentation, and ultimately sealing the fate of species and ecosystems (Lowe & Allendorf 2010, Auffret et al 2015).

# data[].attributes.body
List of some relevant articles used for writing the proposal (not exhaustive, more will come):
Challenge
1.Appeltans W et al. The magnitude of global marine species diversity. Curr. Biol. 22, 2189–2202 (2012).
2.Brierley AS & Kingsford MJ. Impacts of Climate Change on Marine Organisms and Ecosystems. Curr. Biol. 19, R602–R614 (2009).
3.Costello MJ et al. Biodiversity: The Known, Unknown, and Rates of Extinction. Curr. Biol. 25 (9), R368-R371 (2015).
4.Halpern BS et al. Evaluating and ranking the vulnerability of global marine ecosystems to anthropogenic threats. Conserv. Biol. 21, 1301–1315 (2007).
5.Lotze HK et al. Depletion, Degradation, and Recovery Potential of Estuaries and Coastal Seas. Science 5781, 1806–1810 (2006).
6.McCauley DJ et al. Marine defaunation: Animal loss in the global ocean. Science 347, (2015).
7.Riginos C et al. Effects of geography and life history traits on genetic differentiation in benthic marine fishes. Ecography (Cop.). 34, 566–575 (2011).
8.Worm B et al. Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science 314, 787–790 (2006).

State of the art
1.Archambault B et al. Adult-mediated connectivity affects inferences on population dynamics and stock assessment of nursery-dependent fish populations. Fish. Res. 181, 198–213 (2016).
2.Bryan-Brown DN et al. Patterns and trends in marine population connectivity research. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 585, 243–256 (2017).
3.Grip K. International marine environmental governance: A review. Ambio 46, 413–427 (2017).
4.Massol F et al. How life-history traits affect ecosystem properties: effects of dispersal in metaecosystems. Oikos 126, 532–546 (2017).
5.Säwström C et al. Coastal connectivity and spatial subsidy from a microbial perspective. Ecol. Evol. 6, 6662–6671 (2016).
6.Selkoe KA et al. A decade of seascape genetics: Contributions to basic and applied marine connectivity. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 554, 1–19 (2016).

Innovation
1.Beger M et al. Conservation planning for connectivity across marine, freshwater, and terrestrial realms. Biol. Conserv. 143, 565–575 (2010).
2.Gaggiotti OE et al. Diversity from genes to ecosystems: A unifying framework to study variation across biological metrics and scales. Evol. Appl. 1–18 (2018).
3.Gounand I et al. Meta-Ecosystems 2.0: Rooting the Theory into the Field. Trends Ecol. Evol. 33, 36–46 (2018).
4.Makino A et al. Integrated planning for land-sea ecosystem connectivity to protect coral reefs. Biol. Conserv. 165, 35–42 (2013).
5.Matthews B et al. Toward an integration of evolutionary biology and ecosystem science. Ecol. Lett. 14, 690–701 (2011).
6.Pilosof S et al. The multilayer nature of ecological networks. Nature Ecology & Evolution volume 1, Article number: 0101 (2017).
7.Thompson RM et al. Food webs: Reconciling the structure and function of biodiversity. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 689–697 (2012).
8.Young OR et al. The globalization of socio-ecological systems: An agenda for scientific research. Global Environmental Change 16, 304–316 (2006).
9.Welt N et al. Bridging food webs, ecosystem metabolism, and biogeochemistry using ecological stoichiometry theory. Front. Microbiol 8, 1–14 (2017).

# data[].attributes.body
Maybe we could ask the participants from each big research discipline (e.g. Genetics, Natural tags, Artificial tags, modelers) to discuss first among themselves (during the meeting or before) what is their whole toolbox for measuring or predicting MFC (= what kind of MFC data /knowledge each specific tool/method can provide - and at what spatial/temporal scale) so one of them could then expose this to the other disciplines to order identifying which tools go together in all disciplines.

# data[].attributes.body
10:59:00	 From  ES_Guiomar Rotllant : Another question, after the break we will talk also about the gap knowledge
11:00:39	 From  UK Ewan Hunter : Anna/Susanne, my apologies, I may have to drop out at 11:30
11:06:31	 From  UK - Anna Sturrock : Padlet link if you want to view/add to it (but no worries you just prefer to talk!!) : https://padlet.com/annasturrock/wm2iit3e3y0f40sp
11:08:20	 From  ES_Guiomar Rotllant : I would like to talk about the gaps in research
11:10:43	 From  UK-Stefano Mariani : May I also make a general comment?
11:11:12	 From  Aus - Bronwyn Gillanders : They have done some parentage analysis on the Great Barrier Reef and Papua New Guinea with fish - Serge Planes and others
11:11:23	 From  FR-Christophe Lett : Bryan-Brown et al's (2017) review on marine popualtion connectivityhttps://doi.org/10.3354/meps12418

11:13:05	 From  IE Deirdre Brophy : I think bringing the different disciplines together would be quite new
11:13:49	 From  Aus - Bronwyn Gillanders : I think a perspective piece would be useful.
11:14:45	 From  HR-ANAMARIA ŠTAMBUK : I think we need to take into account that we need to be aligned with a WG3 and think also in terms of operational connectivity data when doing metaanalyses and defining our approaches
11:20:13	 From  UK - Audrey Geffen : considering the comment about approach - keyword search vs using a diverse group of experts - consider the other major supra-national bodies that do this (IUCN, IPCC) and see how their approach succeeds
11:21:10	 From  DEN - Peter Grønkjær : I second Bronwyns idea of a perspective article with focus on integrating the different tools. This would be a good use of the very varied expertice we have in our group
11:22:49	 From  FR - Sylvie Lapègue : Maybe our first thought could be about limits and gaps to build on that
11:23:54	 From  IL - Gil Rilov : Being a community ecologist, i think that a focus on community connectivity would be interesting - in the context of recovery from disturbance. As different species in a specific ecosystem have different levels of connectivity (because of different life histories and larval duration and behavior) this can affect recovery rates. The question that can be reviewed and answered is: what is known about this aspect of functional connectivity and what are the knowledge gaps. This is very relevant to marine conservation.
11:27:14	 From  HR-ANAMARIA ŠTAMBUK : I am involved in the WG3 already
11:27:42	 From  FR-Christophe Lett : I fully agree with Gil Rilov it is still not clear for me how to go from marine connectivity studies, which are mostly population studies, to community, which is likely more relevant for conservation
11:27:51	 From  UK - Audrey Geffen : When we divide things by question/application then we often miss the tools that can work for different cases. When we focus on tools/methods then we flail around without a goal (application)
11:29:02	 From  UK-Stefano Mariani : SOME QUESTIONS:
11:29:13	 From  UK-Stefano Mariani : - population connectivity (single species)
11:29:24	 From  UK-Stefano Mariani : - population connectivity (multi-species)
11:29:31	 From  UK-Stefano Mariani : - community connectivity
11:29:51	 From  UK-Stefano Mariani : - what philosophies/methods can address the above?
11:30:08	 From  CHAIR - Audrey Darnaude : food web Connectivity 
11:30:23	 From  UK-Stefano Mariani : - what problems can the above questions solve? Why is to worth investing?
11:31:04	 From  FR-Sof Ah : I would think about patterns (ie multispecies connectivity, what do we learn from that and what are the patterns related to life history traits and possibly shared biogeography history), which may lead to processes (drivers)
11:31:15	 From  ES_Guiomar Rotllant : To talk to community as Audrey said have to be latter that we have progressed at research level
11:31:29	 From  FR-Sof Ah : and eventually applications (how to concile multiple patterns in conservation)

# data[].attributes.headline
HOW DO WE ORDER OUR THOUGHTS/LEARNING WITHIN THE ACTION?

# data[].attributes.subject
HOW DO WE ORDER OUR THOUGHTS/LEARNING WITHIN THE ACTION?

# data[].attributes.body
I think we start with a workshop focused on (1) Defining MFC and terminology --> (2) Get a broader understanding of each other's disciplines and how they are used in MFC assessments and their general nuances/limitations..

THEN I think we identify the critical needs and knowledge gaps (in terms of science but more importantly in terms of application/management/conservation) --> use our collective knowledge to identify ways that we can integrate methods or develop new approaches to try and more effectively address these big issues (obviously learning from studies that have already done this effectively).

But I still feel like we need to have the initial step be to get on a level playing field and better understand what each other does.

# data[].attributes.body
which and haw many parameters should be included, supporting genetic connectivity

# data[].attributes.body
The Challenges Associated With Connectivity in Ecosystem Processes

https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00364

# data[].attributes.headline
Francisco: We have a unique opportunity to combine methods!!!!

# data[].attributes.subject
Francisco: We have a unique opportunity to combine methods!!!!

# data[].attributes.body
NEED TO KEEP THINKING AT ECOSYSTEM LEVEL & ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING!

# data[].attributes.body
Careful to avoid bias bc of who is involved
Sample preservation
Can be issues with loss of data from the original study. Think about DOI for data repository as a field (not just paper DOI?)

# data[].attributes.headline
HOW DO WE ORDER OUR THOUGHTS/LEARNING WITHIN THE ACTION?

# data[].attributes.subject
HOW DO WE ORDER OUR THOUGHTS/LEARNING WITHIN THE ACTION?

# data[].attributes.body
DEFINE THE GOALS + NEED --> KNOWLEDGE GAPS --> REVIEWS/GLOSSARY --> INTEGRATION

# data[].attributes.body
Bryan-Brown et al's (2017) review on marine popualtion connectivityhttps://doi.org/10.3354/meps12418

# data[].attributes.body
Identify studies integrating MFC methods. Check out the African Connecivity Studies - this review had studies missing from Bryan-Brown's paper... Focused on barriers and pathways. Expert knowledge

# data[].attributes.body
Different types of connectivity can 'oppose' each other. Diff methods contradict each other. Need to make sure we address this. And also to also keep in close alignment with WG3

# data[].attributes.body
Lots of reviews already there - we need to something better!
Step back - soul search about what is really needed?

# data[].attributes.body
1 metabarcoding/ plankton samples --> sequence --> list of spp & quantity of species. Quite advanced in bacteria but not in other spp

2 Parental genetics - not so much in marine systems

3 Telemetry - animal behaviour - complicated in sea

# data[].attributes.headline
ACTIVITY 2: Training school in SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES (~Apr 2021)

# data[].attributes.subject
ACTIVITY 2: Training school in SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES (~Apr 2021)

# data[].attributes.headline
ACTIVITY 3: Workshop on data compilation for SEA-UNICORN MFC database 

# data[].attributes.subject
ACTIVITY 3: Workshop on data compilation for SEA-UNICORN MFC database 

# data[].attributes.headline
ACTIVITY 1: Workshop focused on UNIFYING MFC TERMINOLOGY

# data[].attributes.subject
ACTIVITY 1: Workshop focused on UNIFYING MFC TERMINOLOGY