\documentclass[10pt]{article}

\usepackage{fullpage}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{parskip}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\usepackage[section]{placeins}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{breakcites}
\usepackage{lineno}
\usepackage{hyphenat}





\PassOptionsToPackage{hyphens}{url}
\usepackage[colorlinks = true,
            linkcolor = blue,
            urlcolor  = blue,
            citecolor = blue,
            anchorcolor = blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\makeatletter
\patchcmd\@combinedblfloats{\box\@outputbox}{\unvbox\@outputbox}{}{%
  \errmessage{\noexpand\@combinedblfloats could not be patched}%
}%
\makeatother


\usepackage{natbib}




\renewenvironment{abstract}
  {{\bfseries\noindent{\abstractname}\par\nobreak}\footnotesize}
  {\bigskip}

\titlespacing{\section}{0pt}{*3}{*1}
\titlespacing{\subsection}{0pt}{*2}{*0.5}
\titlespacing{\subsubsection}{0pt}{*1.5}{0pt}


\usepackage{authblk}


\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[space]{grffile}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{tabulary}
\usepackage{booktabs,array,multirow}
\usepackage{amsfonts,amsmath,amssymb}
\providecommand\citet{\cite}
\providecommand\citep{\cite}
\providecommand\citealt{\cite}
% You can conditionalize code for latexml or normal latex using this.
\newif\iflatexml\latexmlfalse
\providecommand{\tightlist}{\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}}%

\AtBeginDocument{\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.PDF,.eps,.EPS,.png,.PNG,.tif,.TIF,.jpg,.JPG,.jpeg,.JPEG}}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[T2A]{fontenc}
\usepackage[ngerman,polish,english]{babel}



\usepackage{float}








\begin{document}

\title{Fabulous but Forgotten Fucoid Forests}



\author[1]{Mads Thomsen}%
\author[2]{Paul South}%
\author[3]{Peter Staehr}%
\affil[1]{University of Canterbury}%
\affil[2]{Cawthron Institute}%
\affil[3]{Aarhus Universitet}%


\vspace{-1em}



  
  \date{June 13, 2024}


\begingroup
\let\center\flushleft
\let\endcenter\endflushleft
\maketitle
\endgroup





\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{abstract}
1. Fucoid forests are areas dominated by marine brown seaweed in the
taxonomic order Fucales that, like the better-known marine foundation
species - corals, kelps, seagrasses, salt marshes, and mangroves - are
threatened by anthropogenic stressors. 2. Fucoid forests are fabulous
and important because they, like the better-known marine foundation
species (i) span large areas, bioregions, and ecosystems, (ii) provide
ecological functions such as high productivity and biodiversity, and
(iii) support a variety of ecosystem services including habitat for
commercial fishery species, food for humans and cultural values. 3.
Fucoid forests are, based on a new citation analysis, forgotten
worldwide, because they are described orders of magnitude less than the
better-known marine foundation species, in ecology and marine biology
textbooks, in Google Scholar and Scopus databases over scientific
literature, and in recent reports and reviews about seaweed forests. 4.
Fucoid forests would be less forgotten if more people acknowledge their
biological importance and societal value more often and equate their
importance to that of the better-known marine foundation species.
Perhaps name-recognition would also improve if fucoids are unified under
a non-taxonomic common name across teaching, research, management, and
conservation, like the better-known marine foundation species. We agree
with the marine scientists that have used `rockweed' as such a common
name to describe all fucoids, but other seaweed-experts disagree because
they (a) do not agree fucoids are forgotten, (b) dislike common names or
(c) argue rockweed should only describe fucoid species in the family
Fucaceae.%
\end{abstract}%



\sloppy


\textbf{Fabulous but Forgotten Fucoid Forests}

Viewpoint for `Ecology \& Evolution'

Mads S. Thomsen\textsuperscript{1,2}*, Peter A.U.
St\selectlanguage{ngerman}æhr\textsuperscript{2}, Paul M. South\textsuperscript{3}

\textsuperscript{1}Marine Ecology Research Group, School of Biological
Sciences, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

\textsuperscript{2}Aarhus University, Department of Ecoscience, 4000
Roskilde, Denmark.

\textsuperscript{3}Cawthron Institute, Nelson, New Zealand.

*Corresponding author: mads.thomsen@canterbury.ac.nz

\textbf{ABSTRACT}

\begin{enumerate}
\tightlist
\item
  Fucoid forests are areas dominated by marine brown seaweed in the
  taxonomic order Fucales that, like the better-known marine foundation
  species - corals, kelps, seagrasses, salt marshes, and mangroves - are
  threatened by anthropogenic stressors.
\item
  Fucoid forests are fabulous and important because they, like the
  better-known marine foundation species (i) span large areas,
  bioregions, and ecosystems, (ii) provide ecological functions such as
  high productivity and biodiversity, and (iii) support a variety of
  ecosystem services including habitat for commercial fishery species,
  food for humans and cultural values.
\item
  Fucoid forests are, based on a new citation analysis, forgotten
  worldwide, because they are described orders of magnitude less than
  the better-known marine foundation species, in ecology and marine
  biology textbooks, in Google Scholar and Scopus databases over
  scientific literature, and in recent reports and reviews about seaweed
  forests.
\item
  Fucoid forests would be less forgotten if more people acknowledge
  their biological importance and societal value more often and equate
  their importance to that of the better-known marine foundation
  species. Perhaps name-recognition would also improve if fucoids are
  unified under a non-taxonomic common name across teaching, research,
  management, and conservation, like the better-known marine foundation
  species. We agree with the marine scientists that have used `rockweed'
  as such a common name to describe all fucoids, but other
  seaweed-experts disagree because they (a) do not agree fucoids are
  forgotten, (b) dislike common names or (c) argue rockweed should only
  describe fucoid species in the family Fucaceae.
\end{enumerate}

\textbf{Keywords:} Foundation species, brown seaweed, marine forests,
habitat-formers, ecological functions, ecosystem services

\textbf{1. Introduction; a forgotten paper about a forgotten topic?} In
2017, an important review was published in Ecology \& Evolution, with
the objective of highlighting that underwater forests dominated by
fucoid seaweeds are vital ecosystems, but have been `forgotten' (Coleman
and Wernberg 2017). Today, this paper has been cited 73 times (Scopus
search, 31/1-2024), but only by marine biologists and only in research
papers that focused exclusively on marine ecosystems. This suggests that
take-home messages about the broad importance of fucoid forests have not
expanded into general branches of ecology and conservation, perhaps
because the paper focused on detailed fucoid biology in a regional
context (the subtidal reefs of temperate Australia).

In this viewpoint, we aim to restate and broaden the essential take home
message of Coleman \& Wernberg (2017) to \emph{all} readers of Ecology
\& Evolution: Fucoid forests are globally important ecosystems and
should not be forgotten!

\textbf{2. What are fucoid forests?} Fucoids refers to species of
seaweeds that belong to the order Fucales (Phaeophycae, i.e., brown
macroalgae), a monophyletic taxonomic group represented by over 550
species from 51 genera and 9 families (Algabase 2 Dec 2023) (Bringloe et
al. 2020). Most fucoids are large species (by marine standards), that
separated over 60 million years ago from the other brown seaweeds
(Bringloe et al. 2020). By comparison, the better-known kelps are large
brown seaweed in the order Laminariales (Schiel and Foster 2006, Coleman
and Wernberg 2017), although some seaweed researchers emphasize
ecological function over taxonomy and therefore argue that the term
`kelps' should also include large non-laminarian brown seaweed (Fraser
2012, Wernberg and Filbee-Dexter 2019). Terrestrial forests are composed
of trees (large wooden angiosperms) that are foundational species of
great ecological importance (Ellison et al. 2005, Ellison 2019). In
marine biology, areas dominated by relatively large ecologically
important foundational species, such as seagrasses (marine angiosperms)
and seaweed (red, green, and brown marine macroalga) are generally
referred to as marine forests. Furthermore, in marine biology, forests
are typically interpreted in a seascape context, where the sizes of the
foundation species are viewed from the perspective of the animals that
live in, on, and around them (Boström et al. 2011, Tokeshi and Arakaki
2012, Wernberg and Filbee-Dexter 2019). Therefore, seagrasses and
seaweeds that are smaller than terrestrial trees are still functionally
`trees' (e.g., most marine forest in Australia and Europe are only a few
metres tall) (Smale et al. 2013, Bennett et al. 2015, Coleman and
Wernberg 2017). Thus, although some researchers split areas dominate by
large, intermediate, and small seaweeds, into forests, beds/meadows, and
lawns/turfs (Connell et al. 2014, Wernberg and Filbee-Dexter 2019),
respectively, areas inhabited by dense stands of fucoids still function
as `forests' for the many species living in them.

In short, areas dominated by fucoid seaweeds are fucoid forests.

\textbf{3. Why are fucoid forests important?} First, fucoids cover vast
areas, estimated to 2.57 million km\textsuperscript{2} (Fragkopoulou et
al. 2022). This area is larger than the estimated global coverages of
other marine foundational species, including the true laminarian kelps
(c. 1.70 million km\textsuperscript{2}), seagrasses (c. 1.65 million
km\textsuperscript{2}), coral reefs (c. 0.28 million
km\textsuperscript{2}), mangroves (c. 0.15 million
km\textsuperscript{2}) and salt marshes (c. 0.06 million
km\textsuperscript{2}) (Jayathilake and Costello 2018, Davidson et al.
2019, McKenzie et al. 2020, Bunting et al. 2022, Fragkopoulou et al.
2022). Indeed, fucoids are more widely distributed compared to many
other marine foundation species, because they are found worldwide in all
biogeographical realms (Fig. 1), creating dense forests along large
stretches of coastlines, such as in the Baltic sea (Torn et al. 2006),
Mediterranean sea (Ballesteros et al. 2009, Rendina et al. 2023),
Australia (Coleman and Wernberg 2017), New Zealand (Schiel 1990), many
tropical coastlines (Fragkopoulou et al. 2022), and even in the open
ocean (Brooks et al. 2018, Wang et al. 2019). For example, in 2018, more
than 20 million tons of floating \emph{Sargassum} \emph{natans}
and\emph{S. fluitans} covered c. 6,000 km\textsuperscript{2} in the
tropical part of the Atlantic ocean (Fig. 2), forming one of the largest
near-monospecific marine habitats on the planet (Wang et al. 2019).
Second, fucoids have evolved diverse eco-physiological traits allowing
them to create forests (a) from cold polar (e.g., \emph{Ascophyllum} )
to hot tropical (e.g., \emph{Turbinaria} ) latitudes, (b) in waves
exposed (e.g., \emph{Durvillaea} ) and sheltered (e.g., \emph{Hormosira}
) locations, (c) from desiccation stressed intertidal
(e.g.,\emph{Hormosira} ), to light stressed deep waters
(e.g.,\emph{Cystoseira} ), (e) on bottom substrates (most fucoids) and
the open pelagic (\emph{Sargassum} ), and (f) in both brackish waters
like the Baltic sea and estuaries (e.g., \emph{Fucus} ) and fully marine
oceans (all fucoids) (King 1981, Torn et al. 2006, Ballesteros et al.
2009, Thomsen and South 2019, Wang et al. 2019, Fragkopoulou et al.
2022, Pessarrodona and Grimaldi 2022). Furthermore, the ability of some
fucoids to grow vegetatively allows population to dominate as drift
fucoids in sheltered muddy systems, including marshes, mudflats, and
mangroves (e.g. \emph{Fucus, Hormosira} ), and even as epiphytes
attached to other fucoids species (\emph{Notheia} ) (e.g., Schiel and
Foster 2006, Tuya and Haroun 2006, Thomsen et al. 2015, Coleman and
Wernberg 2017, Martínez et al. 2018, Barboza et al. 2019, Cheung-Wong et
al. 2022). Indeed, form-functional trait values that typically increase
a species' ecological importance, are often higher for fucoids compared
to similar trait values associated with other marine foundation species.
For example, fucoids can be very large and heavy (70 kg and
\textgreater{}10 m fronds for \emph{Durvillaea} species) and long-lived
(\textgreater{}50 years for \emph{Ascophyllum} ) and can hold and
dominate space on long time scales (Åberg 1992, Hurd 2003, Menge et al.
2017, Vaux et al. 2023). Furthermore, fucoids, like other marine
foundation species, build complex biogenic habitat, represented by many
different morphological shapes and sizes of their holdfast, stipes, and
fronds (e.g., with bladed or branches morphologies and sometimes air
bladders and unique reproductive structures) (Fig. 2). Third, fucoids
are, unfortunately, around the world and like other marine foundation
species, threatened by stronger heatwaves, sediment-smothering,
overgrazing, biological invasions, coastal darkening and eutrophication
(Kautsky et al. 1986, Smale and Wernberg 2013, Valdazo et al. 2017,
Schiel et al. 2019, Valdazo et al. 2020, Thomsen et al. 2021, Verdura et
al. 2021, Fragkopoulou et al. 2022, Pessarrodona 2022, Wernberg et al.
2024). Fucoids should therefore be included in conservation and
restoration to the same extent as other marine foundation species
(Bellgrove et al. 2010, Bellgrove et al. 2017, Vergés et al. 2020, Eger
et al. 2022b, Whitaker et al. 2023). Fourth, fucoids provide ecological
functions (e.g., high productivity, supporting complex food webs and
biodiversity, modifying environmental conditions) and are consequently
considered indicator species for ecosystem health (Schiel and Foster
2006, Kersen et al. 2011, Schagerström et al. 2014, Coleman and Wernberg
2017, Vasconcelos et al. 2019, Benes and Bracken 2020, Pessarrodona et
al. 2022, Thomsen et al. 2022). Finally, fucoids also provide essential
ecosystem services, such as nutrient retention, carbon sequestration,
habitats for commercial fishery species, food for humans, and a variety
of cultural benefits (Fig. 3, Ugarte and Sharp 2001, Bellgrove et al.
2017, Coleman and Wernberg 2017, De La Fuente et al. 2019, Vergés et al.
2020, Duarte et al. 2022, Fragkopoulou et al. 2022).

In short, fucoids are important because they, like other marine
foundation species, cover vast areas, bioregions, and ecosystems,
provide vital ecological functions and ecosystem services, and are also
threatened by human activities.

\textbf{4. Are fucoid forests forgotten?} Coleman \& Wernberg (2017)
argued that subtidal fucoid forests in temperate Australia are forgotten
because they identified five times more research papers done on
laminarian kelps. Here we list more examples that suggest fucoid forests
are forgotten beyond subtidal forests in temperate Australia. First, our
citation analysis of Coleman \& Wernberg (2017) suggested that this
important review, did not, when presented to the broad readership of
Ecology and Evolution, move into the non-marine literature (see section
1). Perhaps, this is not surprising because other citation analyses
suggest that marine research is cited less frequently by terrestrial
researchers than vice versa (Menge et al. 2009b, a). Second, a new
keyword search in 10 biology, ecology and marine textbooks taught in
many university courses, showed that fucoids are mentioned orders of
magnitude less than other marine foundation species. We found that
across the 10 textbooks, `fucoid' was only referenced 4 times whereas
there were 193 references to `kelp', 1035 to coral, 45 to `seagrass',
198 to `mangrove' and 328 to `salt marsh' (including `saltmarsh') (Krebs
2014, Smith and Smith 2015, Campbell et al. 2017, Fowler et al. 2017,
Mittelbach and McGill 2019, Molles Jr and Sher 2019, Clark et al. 2020,
Begon and Townsend 2021). Similar discrepancies were found in five
marine textbooks used to teach future marine biologists, managers and
conservationists, with only 5 references to fucoid compared to 425 to
kelp, 2465 to coral, 914 to seagrass, 759 to mangrove, and 411 to salt
marsh/saltmarsh (Lalli and Parsons 1997, Verhoef and Morin 2010, Kaiser
et al. 2011, Ray and McCormick-Ray 2013, Castro and Huber 2019, Duffy
2021, Keddy and Laughlin 2021). Third, wider searches were done in
Scopus and Google Scholar (February 1, 2024) to compare the total
available information in reports, theses, and research papers between
fucoids and the better known-marine foundation species. We used the same
single word searches for each marine foundation species, but also
searched for available information related to management, by combining
individual marine foundation species with the keywords ``AND
conservation''. Across all keywords and search engines there was orders
of magnitude less information available for fucoids compared to other
marine foundation species, with 79-194× more hits for corals, 15-29×
more for seagrasses, 37-92× more for mangroves, 39-65× more for
saltmarshes (including salt marsh) and 9-16× more for kelps (Fig. 1A,
B). Finally, there have been recent, targeted efforts to value seaweed
forests more, resulting in several global reports and review papers
about their biology, ecology, threats, services, management,
restoration, and values to humans (e.g., Eger et al. 2022a, Eger et al.
2022b, al. 2023, Eger et al. 2023, Lutz 2023). However, these outputs
have focused almost exclusively on kelp (3,710 references to kelp vs. 10
to fucoids), even though fucoids are equally important foundational
species and often co-occur with the kelp (Coleman and Wernberg 2017).

In short, fucoids are forgotten because they are described orders of
magnitude less than similar important marine foundation species in
biology, ecology, and marine textbooks, in online search engines and in
recent global report and reviews about the broad importance of brown
seaweed forests.

\textbf{5. What can be done to better know, teach, study, value and
conserve forgotten fucoid forests?} Fucoid forests are simple to
describe (section 2), are important (section 3), but forgotten (section
4). However, fucoid forests would become better known if more people
(outside the world of seaweed experts, see Box 1) acknowledge their
biological importance and societal value more often. The aim of our
viewpoint is to make more people aware of fucoids and their importance,
like they are about kelps, corals, seagrasses, mangroves, seagrasses,
and salt marshes. Increased knowledge and appreciation of fucoid forests
could then spill over into broader teaching, research, management,
conservation and a better understanding of ecosystem interconnectedness
(Carr et al. 2003, Webb 2012). Finally, better knowledge and valuation
would perhaps also arise if fucoids are unified under a non-taxonomic
common name, just like corals, kelps, seagrasses, salt marshes, and
mangroves. Some marine scientists have previously used `rockweed' to
describe all fucoids (Estes et al. 1989, Steinberg et al. 1995, Van
Alstyne et al. 1999a, Van Alstyne et al. 1999b, Tegner and Dayton 2000,
Liu et al. 2012, Agatsuma 2014, Duffy 2021, Elsberry and Bracken 2021),
and fucoids and rockweeds are listed as synonyms in Webster's and The
Free Dictionaries (``rockweeds are any of various coarse brown algae in
the order Fucales'') (Anon. 2021b, a). We agree with these scientists
that the rockweed common name - with a published precedence - could
potentially increase awareness about fucoids (but also acknowledge that
floating \emph{Sargassum} forests are clearly not `attached to rocks',
see box 1). However, many seaweed experts dislike calling fucoids for
rockweed (box 1), because they do not agree fucoids are forgotten (but
see section 4), loathe common names (a critique that implies that coral,
seagrass, kelp, mangrove and salt marsh terminology should also be
abandoned) or they argue that rockweed should only describe fucoid
species in the Fucaceae family, as is often done in the northern
hemisphere (Chapman 1989, McCook and Chapman 1993, Murray and Denis
1997, Denis 2003, Larsen 2012).

In short, we hope fucoids will become better known and valued more. To
achieve this objective, more scientists, managers, and conservationists,
should elevate fucoids to the level of better-known marine foundation
species more often, irrespective of their study field. Perhaps calling
fucoids `rockweeds' (or a new common name), in scientific papers,
reports, popular articles, talks and wider media, could unify,
synthesize, and stimulate research and better communicate their broad
ecological and societal importance to a wider audience beyond seaweed
experts.

\textbf{ACKNOWLEDGEMENT}

M.S.T. was supported by the New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation
and Employment (Toka \selectlanguage{polish}ā\selectlanguage{english}kau toitu Kaitiakitanga -- building a sustainable
future for coastal reef ecosystems).

\textbf{CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT}

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

\textbf{OPEN RESEARCH STATEMENT}

Data will be made available in Dryad Repository: doiXXX.

\section*{\texorpdfstring{Box 1. Why many seaweed experts do not want to
call all fucoids
`rockweeds'}{Box 1. Why many seaweed experts do not want to call all fucoids rockweeds}}

{\label{box-1.-why-many-seaweed-experts-do-not-want-to-call-all-fucoids-rockweeds}}

Below are quotations from seaweed experts (friends, colleagues, editors,
and reviewers) stating their reasons for why previous versions of our
viewpoint, submitted to different marine-oriented journals, should be
rejected.

``It seems to me absurd to call rockweeds the floating \emph{Sargassum
natans/fluitans} , which have nothing to do with rock''.

\textbf{Reply: We agree with this logical objection but note that
pelagic \emph{Sargassums} are anomalies in the Fucales being only 2 out
of \textgreater{}550 species that create evolutionary persistent
floating forests. All biological classification has anomalies that can
motivate discussions about what is `normal'. In Fucales, the
pelagic\emph{Sargassum natans/fluitans} and epiphytic \emph{Nothiea
anomala}are atypical, but fucoids none-the-less.}

``I'm not a fan of using rockweed for subtidal fucoids which I think fit
more in the kelp forest category''.

\textbf{Reply: Most researchers do not consider all fucoids as kelps
(typically true kelp = Laminariales), and to include all fucoids under
the kelp umbrella creates new inconsistencies with well-known intertidal
(like \emph{Fucus}, \emph{Ascophyllum},
\emph{Hormosira},\emph{Cystophora}) and pelagic (\emph{Sargassum
natans}/\emph{fluitans}) fucoids, that virtually never are considered as
`kelp' in the scientific literature.}

``I think that there are plenty of fucoids with common names that the
general public really relate to e.g., crayweed, Neptune's necklace, bull
kelp and it would be a shame to lose these at the expense of broader
names and support''.

\textbf{Reply. Calling all fucoids for rockweeds would not affect common
species names. Common names have hierarchical organizations just like
taxonomic names do. For example, Wakame is a common name for a specific
kelp species (\emph{Undaria pinnatifida}), just like Crayweed would, by
similar logic, be a common name for a specific rockweed species
(\emph{Phyllospora comosa}).}

``I was on a previous (dismally failed) quest to call fucoids
`fucaleans'. After being lambasted by reviewers and journal editors, I
gave up. Fucoids it is!''.

\textbf{Reply. We argue that this suggestion for a common name sounds
too similar to the taxonomic names (Fucales \textasciitilde{} fucoids
\textasciitilde{} fucaleans) and therefore does little to increase
name-awareness.}

``I have tried to find additional reviewers, but I regret to tell you I
was not able to find other reviewers to evaluate your manuscript''.

\textbf{Reply. This suggest to us that many seaweed experts are not
interested in discussing and addressing possible reasons for the
citation deficits reported here.}

``For me it's a mistake the simplification of the taxonomic concepts, as
in the identity of each group there is an inherent explanation of its
functionality''.

\textbf{Reply. First, this critique would then also apply to corals,
mangroves, saltmarsh, and kelps -- terms that this reviewer might
abandon following the logic that the simplification of taxonomic
concepts is a mistake (despite being used millions of times, see our
search-engine analyses). Second, the critique does not acknowledge that
divergent evolution results in functions that do not always match
taxonomy.}

``There are many algae growing in rocky reefs so in my opinion giving
the name of rockweeds to the fucaleans (sic) would even decrease the
value of these algae''.

\textbf{Reply. This critique makes little sense because it implies that
perceived values of corals, mangroves, saltmarsh, seagrass. and kelp are
decreased (not increased) because they have well-established common
names.}

``I always start my talks that \emph{not all algae are the same} but
there are some that are structural, so, a general name as rockweeds,
that equivalates (sic) all of them is in my opinion a great mistake''.

\textbf{Reply. This critique is an example of the `splitter vs. lumper'
debate. Any object can be considered both universal and unique depending
on the classification system used to describe the object. We disagree
that nature should only be described in a narrow splitter-context. We
argue instead that naming fucoids as rockweeds facilitate a hierarchical
common name approach that can be useful when communicating with
non-experts (e.g., crayweed - rockweed - brown seaweed - seaweed -
marine plant (in a functional context) - plant - biological organism).}

``Dear authors, as you will read, the issue raised with your commentary
is a matter of strong debate, as I also noticed when younger marine
botanists declined to review your manuscript asking me to send it to
more experienced researchers, feeling uncomfortable with it''.

\textbf{Reply. This suggests (again) to us that many seaweed experts are
not interested in discussing and addressing possible reasons for the
citation deficits reported here - but also that the academic seaweed
establishment are perceived to be dogmatic, potentially impeding young
scientists to express their opinions (the rockweed name suggestion is an
opinion, not a scientific fact that is right or wrong).}

``I strongly disagree with the proposal the authors present in this
manuscript, and I recommend that the manuscript should be rejected''.

\textbf{Reply. This suggests (again) to us that many seaweed experts are
not interested in discussing and addressing possible reasons for the
citation deficits -- but also that some seaweed experts appear to be
dogmatic scientist that reject rather than discuss opinions they
disagree with.}

``I disagree about the statement that fucoid algae are less known than
corals, seagrasses, kelps, mangroves, and salt marshes''.

\textbf{Reply. This critique simply ignored our citation analyses, which
demonstrated orders of magnitude fewer references to fucoids in
textbooks, reports, and scientific papers.}

``Here in Europe the importance of fucoids is largely acknowledged and
nobody has any problem to call them with specific names''.

\textbf{Reply. This critique again, ignored our citation analyses which
demonstrated orders of magnitude fewer references to fucoids in
textbooks, reports, and scientific papers.}

``Rockweeds is a term that merely means seaweeds growing on rock; this
expression can be equally applied to all other species of macroalgae
growing on bedrocks''.

\textbf{Reply. This critique ignores both the long tradition from the
North Atlantic of calling all species in the Fucaceae family rockweeds
as well as several common dictionary definitions (shown in the
manuscript). Given that it is well-established that Fucaceae are
rockweeds, we do not understand why it is highly contentious to extend
this common name to a single higher taxonomic level (i.e., from family
to order).}

``I have never heard anybody complaining that these names are difficult
to remember''.

\textbf{Reply. It is, of course, difficult to complain about things we
do not know about (i.e., if someone has never heard about fucoids they
cannot complain that it is a difficult name to remember). Furthermore,
the critique appears (again) to ignore our citation analyses which
demonstrated orders of magnitude fewer references to fucoids in
textbooks, reports, and scientific papers.}

``\ldots{}in the same way I don't see why this term should be
universally applied at global level''.

\textbf{Reply. Given that (a) it is well-established and generally
accepted that Fucaceae are rockweeds, and (b) there is precedence for
calling all Fucales for rockweeds both in the scientific literature and
in dictionaries (as we show with references in the manuscript), we do
not understand why it is so contentious to extend the common name to a
single higher taxonomic level (from family to order).}

``I find it irritating to see that names derived from Latin and ancient
Greek are considered technical names and treated as if they were
something bothersome''.

\textbf{Reply. Our personal decades-long experience interacting with
children, students, the public, non-experts, and managers alike,
suggests to us that taxonomic names are more difficult to remember than
common names. Obviously, as marine seaweed `experts' we can navigate
fucoid taxonomies, but, despite our academic training, we may
nevertheless have more trouble doing the same for Rhizophoraceae,
Acroporidae and Cymodoceaceae (but if we know they are `mangroves',
`corals' and `seagrass' we instantly recognize their importance).}

``A large part of the words making the vocabulary of modern European
languages, including English, derive from Latin and ancient Greek; these
are languages that have made a large part of the modern western
civilization. I don't see why words derived from Latin of ancient Greek
should be dismissed in the scientific language either.\emph{Eliminating}
them in favour of other terms seems to me more a barbarization than a
simplification''.

\textbf{Reply. We agree entirely that scientist should continue to use
taxonomic names in our scientific work (we never suggested to
'eliminate' Fucales/fucoid terminology). However, personal experience
interacting with humans outside our research world, suggest to us that
taxonomic names can be more difficult to remember. For example, we have
personally experienced that the importance of Rhizophoraceae,
Acroporidae, Cymodoceaceae and Alariaceae is harder to explain to and
remember for school and university students, compared to teaching them
about mangroves, corals, seagrass, and kelp.}

\subsection*{REFERENCES}

{\label{references}}

\selectlanguage{ngerman}Åberg, P. 1992. A demographic study of two populations of the seaweed
Ascophyllum nodosum. Ecology:1473-1487.

Agatsuma, Y. 2014. Population dynamics of edible sea urchins associated
with variability of seaweed beds in northern Japan. Auqa-BioScience
Monographs \textbf{7} :47-78.

al., E. e. 2023. A roadmap for protecting and restoring 4 million
hectares of kelp forests by 2040. Kelp Forest Alliance, Sydney,
Australia.28.

Anon. 2021a. Rockweeds: Any of various brown algae of the order Fucales
growing chiefly on rocks in coastal areas, such as bladder wrack
or\emph{Ascophyllum nodosum} .
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/rockweed.

Anon. 2021b. Rockweeds: Any of various brown algae of the order Fucales
growing chiefly on rocks in coastal areas, such as bladder wrack
or\emph{Ascophyllum nodosum} .
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rockweed.

Ballesteros, E., J. Garrabou, B. Hereu, M. Zabala, E. Cebrian, and E.
Sala. 2009. Deep-water stands of Cystoseira zosteroides C. Agardh
(Fucales, Ochrophyta) in the Northwestern Mediterranean: Insights into
assemblage structure and population dynamics. Estuarine, coastal and
shelf science \textbf{82} :477-484.

Barboza, F. R., J. Kotta, F. Weinberger, V. Jormalainen, P. Kraufvelin,
M. Molis, H. Schubert, H. Pavia, G. M. Nylund, and L. Kautsky. 2019.
Geographic variation in fitness\selectlanguage{english}-related traits of the bladderwrack Fucus
vesiculosus along the Baltic Sea\selectlanguage{english}-North Sea salinity gradient. Ecology
and Evolution \textbf{9} :9225-9238.

Begon, M., and C. R. Townsend. 2021. Ecology - from individuals to
ecosystems, 5th edition. John Wiley.

Bellgrove, A., P. F. McKenzie, H. Cameron, and J. B. Pocklington. 2017.
Restoring rocky intertidal communities: Lessons from a benthic
macroalgal ecosystem engineer. Marine Pollution Bulletin\textbf{117}
:17-27.

Bellgrove, A., P. F. McKenzie, J. L. McKenzie, and B. J. Sfiligoj. 2010.
Restoration of the habitat-forming fucoid alga Hormosira banksii at
effluent-affected sites: competitive exclusion by coralline turfs.
Marine Ecology Progress Series \textbf{419} :47-56.

Benes, K., and M. E. S. Bracken. 2020. Interactive effects of large\selectlanguage{english}-and
local\selectlanguage{english}-scale environmental gradients on phenotypic differentiation.
Ecology \textbf{101} :e03078.

Bennett, S., T. Wernberg, S. D. Connell, A. J. Hobday, C. R. Johnson,
and E. S. Poloczanska. 2015. The `Great Southern Reef': social,
ecological and economic value of Australia's neglected kelp forests.
Marine and Freshwater Research \textbf{67} :47-56.

Bostrom, C., S. J. Pittman, C. Simenstad, and R. T. Kneib. 2011.
Seascape ecology of coastal biogenic habitats: advances, gaps, and
challenges. Marine Ecology Progress Series \textbf{427} :191-217.

Bringloe, T. T., S. Starko, R. M. Wade, C. Vieira, H. Kawai, O. De
Clerck, J. M. Cock, S. M. Coelho, C. Destombe, and M. Valero. 2020.
Phylogeny and evolution of the brown algae. Critical Reviews in Plant
Sciences \textbf{39} :281-321.

Brooks, M. T., V. J. Coles, R. R. Hood, and J. F. R. Gower. 2018.
Factors controlling the seasonal distribution of pelagic Sargassum.
Marine Ecology Progress Series \textbf{599} :1-18.

Bunting, P., A. Rosenqvist, L. Hilarides, R. M. Lucas, and N. Thomas.
2022. Global mangrove watch: Updated 2010 mangrove forest extent (v2.
5). Remote Sensing \textbf{14} :1034.

Campbell, N. A., J. B. Reece, L. A. Urry, M. L. Cain, S. A. Wasserman,
P. V. Minorsky, and R. B. Jackson. 2017. Biology: A Global Approach, 11.
Aufl., Global Edition, Harlow.

Carr, M. H., J. E. Neigel, J. A. Estes, S. Andelman, R. R. Warner, and
J. L. Largier. 2003. Comparing marine and terrestrial ecosystems:
implications for the design of coastal marine reserves. Ecological
Applications \textbf{13} :90-107.

Castro, P., and M. E. Huber. 2019. Marine biology, 11th edition.
McGraw-Hill Education.

Chapman, A. R. O. 1989. Abundance of Fucus spiralis and ephemeral
seaweeds in a high eulittoral zone: effects of grazers, canopy and
substratum type. Marine Biology \textbf{102} :565-572.

Cheung-Wong, R. W. Y., J. Kotta, D. A. Hemraj, and B. D. Russell. 2022.
Persistence in a tropical transition zone? Sargassum forests alternate
seasonal growth forms to maintain productivity in warming waters at the
expense of annual biomass production. Science of The Total
Environment\textbf{851} :158154.

Clark, M. A., J. Choi, and M. Douglas. 2020. Biology, (OpenStax).
OpenStax.

Coleman, M. A., and T. Wernberg. 2017. Forgotten underwater forests: the
key role of fucoids on Australian temperate reefs. Ecology and
Evolution\textbf{7} :8406-8418.

Connell, S., M. Foster, and L. Airoldi. 2014. What are algal turfs?
Towards a better description of turfs. Marine Ecology Progress
Series\textbf{495} :299-307.

Davidson, N. C., A. A. Van Dam, C. M. Finlayson, and R. J. McInnes.
2019. Worth of wetlands: revised global monetary values of coastal and
inland wetland ecosystem services. Marine and Freshwater
Research\textbf{70} :1189-1194.

De La Fuente, G., M. Chiantore, V. Asnaghi, S. Kaleb, and A. Falace.
2019. First ex situ outplanting of the habitat-forming seaweed
Cystoseira amentacea var. stricta from a restoration perspective.
PeerJ\textbf{7} :e7290.

Denis, T. G. 2003. Effects of human foot traffic on the standing stock,
reproduction, and size structure of southern California populations of
the intertidal rockweed Silvetia compressa (O. Fucales). Effects of
Human Foot Traffic on the Standing Stock, Reproduction, and the Size
Structure of Populations of the Intertidal Rockweed Silvetia compressa
(O. Fucales).

Duarte, C. M., J. P. Gattuso, K. Hancke, H. Gundersen, K. Filbee\selectlanguage{english}-Dexter,
M. F. Pedersen, J. J. Middelburg, M. T. Burrows, K. A. Krumhansl, and T.
Wernberg. 2022. Global estimates of the extent and production of
macroalgal forests. Global Ecology and Biogeography\textbf{31}
:1422-1439.

Duffy, J. E. 2021. Ocean Ecology: Marine Life in the Age of Humans.
Princeton University Press.

Eger, A. M., C. Layton, T. A. McHugh, M. Gleason, and N. Eddy. 2022a.
Kelp restoration guidebook: lessons learned from kelp restoration
projects around the world. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA,
USA.:85.

Eger, A. M., E. M. Marzinelli, R. Beas-Luna, C. O. Blain, L. K. Blamey,
J. E. K. Byrnes, P. E. Carnell, C. G. Choi, M. Hessing-Lewis, and K. Y.
Kim. 2023. The value of ecosystem services in global marine kelp
forests. Nature communications \textbf{14} :1894.

Eger, A. M., E. M. Marzinelli, H. Christie, C. W. Fagerli, D. Fujita, A.
P. Gonzalez, S. W. Hong, J. H. Kim, L. C. Lee, and T. A. McHugh. 2022b.
Global kelp forest restoration: past lessons, present status, and future
directions. Biological Reviews \textbf{97} :1449-1475.

Ellison, A. M. 2019. Foundation species, non-trophic interactions, and
the value of being common. Iscience \textbf{13} :254-268.

Ellison, A. M., M. S. Bank, B. D. Clinton, E. A. Colburn, K. Elliott, C.
R. Ford, D. R. Foster, B. D. Kloeppel, J. D. Knoepp, G. M. Lovett, J.
Mohan, D. A. Orwig, N. L. Rodenhouse, W. V. Sobczak, K. A. Stinson, J.
K. Stone, C. M. Swan, J. Thompson, B. Von Holle, and J. R. Webster.
2005. Loss of foundation species: consequences for the structure and
dynamics of forested ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and
Environment\textbf{3} :479-486.

Elsberry, L. A., and M. E. Bracken. 2021. Functional redundancy buffers
mobile invertebrates against the loss of foundation species on rocky
shores. Marine Ecology Progress Series \textbf{673} :43-54.

Estes, J. A., D. O. Duggins, and G. B. Rathbun. 1989. The ecology of
extinctions in kelp forest communities. Conservation Biology\textbf{3}
:252-264.

Fowler, S., R. Roush, and J. Wise. 2017. Concepts of Biology (OpenStax).
OpenStax.

Fragkopoulou, E., E. A. Serrao, O. De Clerck, M. J. Costello, M. B.
Araujo, C. M. Duarte, D. Krause\selectlanguage{english}-Jensen, and J. Assis. 2022. Global
biodiversity patterns of marine forests of brown macroalgae. Global
Ecology and Biogeography.

Fraser, C. 2012. Is bull-kelp kelp? The role of common names in science.
New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research\textbf{46}
:279-284.

Hurd, C. L. 2003. Bull kelp. in 'The living reef: the ecology of New
Zealand's rocky reefs' Edited by Andrew, Neil and Francis, Malcolm.
Craig Potton Publishing.

Jayathilake, D. R. M., and M. J. Costello. 2018. A modelled global
distribution of the seagrass biome. Biological Conservation\textbf{226}
:120-126.

Kaiser, M. J., S. Jennings, D. N. Thomas, and D. K. A. Barnes. 2011.
Marine ecology: processes, systems, and impacts. Oxford University
Press.

Kautsky, N., H. Kautsky, U. Kautsky, and M. Waern. 1986. Decreased depth
penetration of Fucus vesiculosus (L.) since the 1940's indicates
eutrophication of the Baltic Sea. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser \textbf{28} :1-8.

Keddy, P. A., and D. C. Laughlin. 2021. A framework for community
ecology: species pools, filters and traits. Cambridge University Press.

Kersen, P., J. Kotta, M. Bu\selectlanguage{polish}č\selectlanguage{english}as, N. Kolesova, and Z. De\selectlanguage{polish}ķ\selectlanguage{english}ere. 2011.
Epiphytes and associated fauna on the brown alga Fucus vesiculosus in
the Baltic and the North Seas in relation to different abiotic and
biotic variables. Marine Ecology \textbf{32} :87-95.

King, R. J. 1981. The free-living Hormosira banksii (Turner) Decaisne
associated with mangroves in temperate eastern Australia.

Krebs, C. J. 2014. Ecology; the experimental analysis of distribution
and abundance, 6th edition.

Lalli, C., and T. R. Parsons. 1997. Biological oceanography: an
introduction. Elsevier.

Larsen, P. F. 2012. The macroinvertebrate fauna of rockweed (Ascophyllum
nodosum)-dominated low-energy rocky shores of the northern Gulf of
Maine. Journal of Coastal Research \textbf{28} :36-42.

Liu, L., M. Heinrich, S. Myers, and S. A. Dworjanyn. 2012. Towards a
better understanding of medicinal uses of the brown seaweed Sargassum in
Traditional Chinese Medicine: A phytochemical and pharmacological
review. Journal of ethnopharmacology \textbf{142} :591-619.

Lutz, S. 2023. Into the Blue: Securing a Sustainable Future for Kelp
Forests. Nairobi.149.

Mart\selectlanguage{ngerman}ínez, B., B. Radford, M. S. Thomsen, S. D. Connell, F. Carreño, C.
J. A. Bradshaw, D. A. Fordham, B. D. Russell, C. F. D. Gurgel, and T.
Wernberg. 2018. Distribution models predict large contractions of
habitat\selectlanguage{english}-forming seaweeds in response to ocean warming. Diversity and
Distributions \textbf{24} :1350-1366.

McCook, L. J., and A. R. O. Chapman. 1993. Community succession
following massive ice-scour on a rocky intertidal shore: recruitment,
competition and predation during early, primary succession. Marine
Biology \textbf{115} :565-575.

McKenzie, L. J., L. M. Nordlund, B. L. Jones, L. C. Cullen-Unsworth, C.
Roelfsema, and R. K. F. Unsworth. 2020. The global distribution of
seagrass meadows. Environmental Research Letters \textbf{15} :074041.

Menge, B. A., M. E. S. Bracken, J. Lubchenco, and H. M. Leslie. 2017.
Alternative state? Experimentally induced F ucus canopy persists 38 yr
in an A scophyllum\selectlanguage{english}-dominated community. Ecosphere \textbf{8} :e01725.

Menge, B. A., F. Chan, S. Dudas, D. Eerkes-Medrano, K. Grorud-Colvert,
K. Heiman, M. Hessing-Lewis, A. Iles, R. Milston-Clements, and M. Noble.
2009a. Do terrestrial ecologists ignore aquatic literature? Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment \textbf{7} :182-183.

Menge, B. A., F. Chan, S. Dudas, D. Eerkes-Medrano, K. Grorud-Colvert,
K. Heiman, M. Hessing-Lewis, A. Iles, R. Milston-Clements, and M. Noble.
2009b. Terrestrial ecologists ignore aquatic literature: asymmetry in
citation breadth in ecological publications and implications for
generality and progress in ecology. Journal of Experimental Marine
Biology and Ecology \textbf{377} :93-100.

Mittelbach, G. G., and B. J. McGill. 2019. Community ecology. Oxford
University Press.

Molles Jr, M. C., and A. A. Sher. 2019. Ecology: Concepts and
Applications, 8th edition. McGraw-Hill.

Murray, S. N., and T. G. Denis. 1997. Vulnerability, of the rockweed
Pelvetia compressa to anthropogenic disturbance on southern California
rocky shores. Phycologia \textbf{36} :75-76.

Pessarrodona, A. 2022. Functional extinction of a genus of
canopy-forming macroalgae (C ystophora spp.) across Western Australia.
Regional Environmental Change \textbf{22} :130.

Pessarrodona, A., J. Assis, K. Filbee-Dexter, M. T. Burrows, J.-P.
Gattuso, C. M. Duarte, D. Krause-Jensen, P. J. Moore, D. A. Smale, and
T. Wernberg. 2022. Global seaweed productivity. Science
Advances\textbf{8} :eabn2465.

Pessarrodona, A., and C. M. Grimaldi. 2022. On the ecology of Cystophora
spp. forests. Journal of Phycology \textbf{58} :760-772.

Ray, G. C., and J. McCormick-Ray. 2013. Marine conservation: science,
policy, and management. John Wiley \& Sons.

Rendina, F., A. Falace, G. Alongi, M. C. Buia, J. Neiva, L. Appolloni,
G. Marletta, and G. F. Russo. 2023. The Lush Fucales Underwater Forests
off the Cilento Coast: An Overlooked Mediterranean Biodiversity Hotspot.
Plants \textbf{12} :1497.

Schagerstrom, E., H. Forslund, L. Kautsky, M. Parnoja, and J. Kotta.
2014. Does thalli complexity and biomass affect the associated flora and
fauna of two co-occurring Fucus species in the Baltic Sea? Estuarine,
coastal and shelf science \textbf{149} :187-193.

Schiel, D. R. 1990. Macroalgal assemblages in New Zealand: structure,
interactions and demography. Hydrobiologia \textbf{192} :59-76.

Schiel, D. R., T. Alestra, S. Gerrity, S. Orchard, R. Dunmore, J.
Pirker, S. Lilley, L. Tait, M. Hickford, and M. Thomsen. 2019. The
Kaik\selectlanguage{polish}ō\selectlanguage{english}ura earthquake in southern New Zealand: Loss of connectivity of
marine communities and the necessity of a cross-ecosystem perspective.
Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems\textbf{29}
:1520-1534.

Schiel, D. R., and M. S. Foster. 2006. The population biology of large
brown seaweeds: ecological consequences of multiphase life histories in
dynamic coastal environments. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst.\textbf{37}
:343-372.

Smale, D., M. S. Thomsen, S. Bennett, C. M. Duarte, A. Eger, K.
Filbee-Dexter, B. Flack, H. Gundersen, K. Hancke, C. Hepburn, A.
Jackson, N. King, C. Lavoie, P. Moore, K. Norderhaug, K. Schoenrock, A.
J. Smit, J. A. V\selectlanguage{ngerman}ásquez, A. Watanabe, and T. Wernberg. 2023. Biodiversity
and ecosystem services. United Nations Environment Programme. Into the
Blue: Securing a Sustainable Future for Kelp Forests. Nairobi:45-70.

Smale, D. A., M. T. Burrows, P. Moore, N. O'Connor, and S. J. Hawkins.
2013. Threats and knowledge gaps for ecosystem services provided by kelp
forests: a northeast A tlantic perspective. Ecology and
Evolution\textbf{3} :4016-4038.

Smale, D. A., and T. Wernberg. 2013. Extreme climatic event drives range
contraction of a habitat-forming species. Proceedings of the Royal
Society B: Biological Sciences \textbf{280} :20122829.

Smith, T. M., and R. L. Smith. 2015. Elements of ecology, 9th edition.
Pearson.

Steinberg, P. D., J. A. Estes, and F. C. Winter. 1995. Evolutionary
consequences of food chain length in kelp forest communities.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences \textbf{92} :8145-8148.

Tegner, M., and P. Dayton. 2000. Ecosystem effects of fishing in kelp
forest communities. ICES Journal of Marine Science \textbf{57} :579-589.

Thomsen, M. S., A. H. Altieri, C. Angelini, M. J. Bishop, F. Bulleri, R.
Farhan, V. M. Frühling, P. E. Gribben, S. B. Harrison, Q. He, M.
Klinghardt, J. Langeneck, B. Lanham, L. Mondardini, Y. Mulders, S.
Oleksyn, A. Ramus, D. R. Schiel, T. Schneider, A. Siciliano, B. R.
Silliman, D. A. Smale, P. South, T. Wernberg, S. Zhang, and G. Zotz.
2022. Heterogeneity within and among co-occurring foundation species
increases biodiversity. Nature communications \textbf{13} :1-9.

Thomsen, M. S., I. Metcalfe, P. South, and D. R. Schiel. 2015. A
host-specific habitat former controls biodiversity across ecological
transitions in a rocky intertidal facilitation cascade. Marine and
Freshwater Research \textbf{67} :144-152.

Thomsen, M. S., L. Mondardini, F. Thoral, D. Gerber, S. Montie, P. M.
South, L. Tait, and D. Schiel. 2021. Cascading impacts of earthquakes
and extreme heatwaves have destroyed populations of an iconic marine
foundation species. Diversity and Distributions.

Thomsen, M. S., and P. M. South. 2019. Communities and Attachment
Networks Associated with Primary, Secondary and Alternative Foundation
Species; A Case Study of Stressed and Disturbed Stands of Southern Bull
Kelp. Diversity \textbf{11} :56.

Tokeshi, M., and S. Arakaki. 2012. Habitat complexity in aquatic
systems: fractals and beyond. Hydrobiologia \textbf{685} :27-47.

Torn, K., D. Krause-Jensen, and G. Martin. 2006. Present and past depth
distribution of bladderwrack (Fucus vesiculosus) in the Baltic Sea.
Aquatic Botany \textbf{84} :53-62.

Tuya, F., and R. J. Haroun. 2006. Spatial patterns and response to wave
exposure of shallow water algal assemblages across the Canarian
Archipelago: a multi-scaled approach. Marine Ecology Progress
Series\textbf{311} :15-28.

Ugarte, R. A., and G. Sharp. 2001. 6. A new approach to seaweed
management in eastern Canada: The case of Ascophyllum nodosum. Cahiers
de Biologie Marine \textbf{42} :63-70.

Valdazo, J., M. A. Viera-Rodríguez, F. Espino, R. Haroun, and F. Tuya.
2017. Massive decline of Cystoseira abies-marina forests in Gran Canaria
Island (Canary Islands, eastern Atlantic). Scientia Marina\textbf{81}
:499-507.

Valdazo, J., M. A. Viera-Rodríguez, and F. Tuya. 2020. Seasonality in
the canopy structure of the endangered brown macroalga Cystoseira
abies-marina at Gran Canaria Island (Canary Islands, eastern Atlantic).
European Journal of Phycology \textbf{55} :253-265.

Van Alstyne, K., J. McCarthy III, C. Hustead, and D. Duggins. 1999a.
Geographic variation in polyphenolic levels of Northeastern Pacific
kelps and rockweeds. Marine Biology \textbf{133} :371-379.

Van Alstyne, K. L., J. J. McCarthy III, C. L. Hustead, and L. J. Kearns.
1999b. Phlorotannin allocation among tissues of northeastern Pacific
kelps and rockweeds. Journal of Phycology \textbf{35} :483-492.

Vasconcelos, J. B., T. N. de Vasconcelos Reis, A. d. L. M. Cocentino, A.
J. A. Mallea, G. M. Martins, A. I. Neto, and M. T. Fujii. 2019.
Macroalgal responses to coastal urbanization: relative abundance of
indicator species. Journal of Applied Phycology \textbf{31} :893-903.

Vaux, F., C. I. Fraser, D. Craw, S. Read, and J. M. Waters. 2023.
Integrating kelp genomic analyses and geological data to reveal ancient
earthquake impacts. Journal of the Royal Society Interface\textbf{20}
:20230105.

Verdura, J., J. Santamaría, E. Ballesteros, D. A. Smale, M. E. Cefalì,
R. Golo, S. de Caralt, A. Vergés, and E. Cebrian. 2021. Local\selectlanguage{english}-scale
climatic refugia offer sanctuary for a habitat\selectlanguage{english}-forming species during a
marine heatwave. Journal of Ecology \textbf{109} :1758-1773.

Verges, A., A. H. Campbell, G. Wood, L. Kajlich, A. M. Eger, D. Cruz, M.
Langley, D. Bolton, M. A. Coleman, and J. Turpin. 2020. Operation
Crayweed: Ecological and sociocultural aspects of restoring Sydney's
underwater forests. Ecological Management \& Restoration\textbf{21}
:74-85.

Verhoef, H. A., and P. J. Morin. 2010. Community ecology: processes,
models, and applications. Oxford University Press.

Wang, M., C. Hu, B. B. Barnes, G. Mitchum, B. Lapointe, and J. P.
Montoya. 2019. The great Atlantic Sargassum belt. Science\textbf{365}
:83-87.

Webb, T. J. 2012. Marine and terrestrial ecology: unifying concepts,
revealing differences. Trends in ecology \& evolution\textbf{27}
:535-541.

Wernberg, T., and K. Filbee-Dexter. 2019. Missing the marine forest for
the trees. Marine Ecology Progress Series \textbf{612} :209-215.

Wernberg, T., M. S. Thomsen, J. Baum, M. J. Bishop, J. F. Bruno, M. A.
Coleman, K. Filbee-Dexter, K. Gagnon, Q. He, D. Murdiyarso, K. Rogers,
B. Silliman, D. A. Smale, S. Starko, and M. A. Vanderklift. 2024.
Impacts of climate change on marine foundation species. Annual Review of
Marine Sciences.

Whitaker, S. G., R. F. Ambrose, L. M. Anderson, R. J. Fales, J. R.
Smith, S. Sutton, and R. J. Miller. 2023. Ecological restoration using
intertidal foundation species: Considerations and potential for rockweed
restoration. Ecosphere \textbf{14} :e4411.

\subsection*{Figures}

{\label{figures}}

\textbf{Fig. 1: Fucoid literature compared to other marine foundation
species and the global distribution of fucoids.} A. Search engine hits
(1 Feb 2024) comparing fucoids to other coastal foundational taxa
`alone' (A) and with ``AND conservation'' (B). Global distribution of
fucoids in GBIF (C, 637,617 georeferenced records, February 28, 2024).
Land records may represent locations of stored specimens whereas coastal
absences partly reflect lack of reporting (e.g., fucoids do occur along
coastlines in Namibia, Angola, northern Chile, and southern Peru). Open
water observations could be rafting of buoyant drift aggregations
like\emph{Sargassaum fluitans/natans} in the Atlantic or
\emph{Durvillaeaantarctica} in the Southern Ocean. True absences may
occur around Antarctica and perhaps the most northern Russia, Greenland
and Canada.

\textbf{Hosted file}

\verb`image1.emf`  available at \url{https://authorea.com/users/772987/articles/859500-fabulous-but-forgotten-fucoid-forests}

\textbf{Fig. 2: Collage depicting ecological and socioeconomic
importance of fucoids.} 1. Intertidal forests of the world's largest
fucoid (\textgreater{}10 m \emph{Durvillaea} ). 2. The world's smallest
fucoid (\textless{}5 cm \emph{Notheia anomala} ) as an obligate epiphyte
on its fucoid host, \emph{Hormosira} \emph{banksii} . 3. Subtidal fucoid
forests of reintroduced and restored \emph{Phyllospora
comosa}(`Operation Crayweed' , Verges et al. 2020), 4. Fucoid beach
wrack, arising from the world's largest seaweed forest of
pelagic\emph{Sargassum} spp\emph{.} , 5. Diverse fucoid forests in
Kaikoura with 12 cooccurring fucoid species (\emph{Hormosira banksii} ,
\emph{Notheia anomala} , \emph{Landsburgia quercifolia, Sargassum
sinclarii, 2 Marginariella species,} 2 \emph{Carpophyllum}
species\emph{,} 2\emph{Durvillaea} species, and 3 \emph{Cystophora}
species). 6. Same location as in `5' showing destroyed fucoid forests
after a natural disaster (seismic uplift in November 2016). 7. Fucoid
holdfasts inhabited by \textgreater{}50 invertebrate species
(\emph{Durvillaea} ). 8. Same location as in `7' showing a dying fucoid
`ghost' holdfast leading to regional extinction after the 2017/18 Tasman
Sea heatwave. 9-13 Examples of fucoid `beds' (literally) for charismatic
animals - a polar bear resting on arctic \emph{Fucus} wrack, a fur seal
and snares penguins resting on intertidal \emph{Durvillaea} in New
Zealand and its subantarctic islands, and juvenile Loggerhead turtles
and co-evolved camouflaged \emph{Sargassum} frog fish resting on,
feeding within, and avoiding predators in floating pelagic
\emph{Sargassum} forests. 14-15. Fucoids as socioeconomic resources
showing historical and present-day harvest of beach wrack and living
fucoid forests. 16. Fucoid (cochayuyo/\emph{Durvillaea antarctica)} as a
dish eaten today and 14,000 years ago by the first settlers of South
America, fossilized in the Verde-caves and has perpetuated common
vernacular with `remojar el cochayuyo' (i.e., `soaking the cochayuyo')
being slang for sexual intercourse. Photo 1-3, 5-9, 10 by M. Thomsen, 4,
9, 11-16 are (c)alamy Stock Photo Inc. www.alamy.com (ID numbers; 2J0618Y,
BK6YHM, C02031, A04M5Y, W85DCC, FG6YE7, 2CB2CCN, and M4Y7XT,
respectively).\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/image2/image2}

\end{center}
\end{figure}



\textbf{Hosted file}

\verb`image3.emf`  available at \url{https://authorea.com/users/772987/articles/859500-fabulous-but-forgotten-fucoid-forests}

Fig 3. Key ecosystem services in \textbackslash{}soutkelp fucoid
rockweed forests (modified slightly from Fig. 3.2 in Smale et al. 2023 -
source GRID-Arendal 2022).

\selectlanguage{english}
\FloatBarrier
\end{document}

