The Dutch part of the North Sea is predominantly sandy or muddy and its benthic life consists of animal species adapted to these sediments. Life on and around shipwrecks shows a strong contrast because it is made up of species preferring hard substratum. Consequently, wreck fauna adds significantly to the total biodiversity. Moreover, it contains several higher taxa such as sponges, hydroids, sea anemones, bryozoans and nudibranchs, which are hardly represented on sandy and muddy substrates. Also the fish community seems to be enriched as we encounter high numbers of fish like Gadoids swimming close to wrecks, a phenomenon well known to the sport-fishing community. Not surprisingly, wrecks have been compared to ‘oases in a desert’.

However, wrecks are considered artificial substrates and as such do not gain much protection in frameworks such as the European Habitat Directive, which often focus on more ‘natural’ communities. We may ask ourselves whether this is correct: next to the added value in terms of biodiversity, the biological communities of wrecks and other hard-substrate objects such as oil rigs resemble communities that have been present in the past such as oyster banks and exposed peat (‘moorlog’). These substrata have almost disappeared during the last century probably due to anthropogenic activities.

What is the ecological relevance of life on and around shipwrecks in your country?

More Godfried Van Moorsel's questions See All
Similar questions and discussions