Substrate limitation of a habitat-forming genus Fucus under different water clarity scenarios in the northern Baltic Sea

Canopy-forming macroalgae living on rocky bottoms provide valuable ecosystem services but long-term eutrophication has narrowed their distribution and depth zonation in the Baltic Sea. The spatial distribution of macroalgae is shaped by many factors, such as light, salinity, nutrients and wave exposure. In addition, the lack of suitable hard substrates limits the distribution of algae in many areas. Analysing how the spatial distribution of macroalgae is modified by changes in environmental conditions is relevant for focusing management actions. To quantify the resultant distribution under various environmental and management scenarios, both current environmental conditions and substrate limitation need to be considered. We estimated the potential distribution area of bladderwrack Fucus spp. under 11 water transparency scenarios in 9 Finnish sea areas differing in morphology and eutrophication status. The prevailing averaged long-term water transparency conditions were interpreted from satellite images. Ten scenarios were calculated based on hypothetical changes in euphotic depth from −50% to +50% of the present. Species distribution modelling was used to assess the potential distribution areas of Fucus. In addition, to quantify the influence of substrate limitation, we estimated the average substrate limitation with two correction methods: (i) by using field data from underwater videos within the predicted distribution areas and (ii) by using a habitat model representing the distribution of reefs (i.e. rocky bottoms) in the study area. The decrease of euphotic depth by 50% from the present level narrowed the distribution area of Fucus by 24–53% in the Southwestern archipelago, 55–70% in the Gulf of Finland, 37–66% in the Bothnian Sea and 59–100% in Kvarken. An increase in euphotic depth significantly broadened the spatial distribution of Fucus. Decreasing share of suitable hard substrate along depth gradient however hinders broadening of the distribution area. If all areas were suitable for growth, a 50% increase in euphotic depth would expand the distribution area by 124–803%, depending on area. When only suitable substrates were taken into account, this percentage remained at 9–270%. We conclude that substrate limitation needs to be taken into account when estimating macroalgal species distribution in the marine environment. We show how this can be done also when comprehensive bottom substrate maps are not available. Our results are valuable when setting the targets for environmental management plans, and for balancing the local management measures in a cost effective manner.