Simple additive applications of unweighted criteria can, however, create problems in producing large numbers of candidate areas; this situation is likely in data-sparse situations such as the deep sea. Here we consider three possible solutions to address this issue: 1) to define thematic groups within the full set of criteria, 2) to rank the criteria, or 3) to combine them in non-additive ways. We propose that the full list of criteria can be thematically split into those that primarily describe biological characteristics

(criteria 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6), and those that primarily relate to anthropogenic threats (criteria 4 and 7); this separation is a similar selleck screening library interpretation to that suggested by a CBD working group (CBD, 2011). In the case of seamounts, specifically the benthic fauna, we also considered Avasimibe chemical structure that greater emphasis on criteria 1–3 would, theoretically, provide a more ecologically informative outcome (Table 1). However, it must be stressed that this ranking may need to be different for different ecosystems. Finally, we explored methods of combining criteria by comparing the number and spatial distribution of candidate EBSAs resulting from different permutations of criteria. Without prejudging the future development and refinements of the process to identify EBSAs under the CBD,

we have identified a sequence of four steps to identify EBSAs (Fig. 1), which are described below. (1) Identify the area to be examined We anticipate that the EBSA identification method will be used over a range of spatial scales extending from smaller areas within EEZs to extensive High Seas regions.

As an initial step in the process, existing biogeographic information can be examined to identify underlying regional patterns in biodiversity. Understanding the biogeography of an area is particularly important at ocean-basin scales and when it is envisaged that representative EBSAs may be selected to be part of a network of MPAs. The most recent and comprehensive benthic-based biogeographical classification is that of Watling et al. (2013), which Tobramycin is an update of the “Global Open Oceans and Deep Seabed (GOODS) biogeographical classification” (UNESCO, 2009). This classification identifies benthic biogeographical regions in all world oceans and can be used to spatially partition the benthic realm, including by depth. It covers lower bathyal (800–3 500 m), abyssal (3500–6000 m) and hadal (>6 000 m) depth zones, but does not include the upper bathyal (200–800 m). The latest biogeography of the shallow pelagic realm (<200 m) is the one produced by Spalding et al. (2012) which is based largely on the earlier GOODS (UNESCO, 2009).