Climate Change Impacts on Fisheries and Aquaculture 2017
DOI: 10.1002/9781119154051.ch23
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Impacts of Climate Change on Pelagic Fish and Fisheries

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 242 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Concurrent decreases in surface salinity combined with rising temperatures are expected to drive increased seasonal stratification (i.e., MLD; Pershing et al, 2021 ), which, based on our findings, has the potential to affect the distribution, abundance, and aggregating behavior of forage fishes in this system. Climate‐induced warming has already induced detectable broadscale and seasonal distribution shifts across the trophic web in the NES, from plankton (Chust et al, 2014 ), fish, and macroinvertebrates (Friedland et al, 2020 ) to predatory fishes (Muhling et al, 2017 ) and marine mammals (Pendleton et al, 2022 ), and is expected to influence the distributions of key forage fishes included in this study, such as sand lance, herring, and menhaden (Hare et al, 2016 ; Staudinger et al, 2020 ; Suca, Wiley, et al, 2021 ). These distribution shifts are not expected to occur symmetrically and may not result in wholescale northward shifts of the present community.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Concurrent decreases in surface salinity combined with rising temperatures are expected to drive increased seasonal stratification (i.e., MLD; Pershing et al, 2021 ), which, based on our findings, has the potential to affect the distribution, abundance, and aggregating behavior of forage fishes in this system. Climate‐induced warming has already induced detectable broadscale and seasonal distribution shifts across the trophic web in the NES, from plankton (Chust et al, 2014 ), fish, and macroinvertebrates (Friedland et al, 2020 ) to predatory fishes (Muhling et al, 2017 ) and marine mammals (Pendleton et al, 2022 ), and is expected to influence the distributions of key forage fishes included in this study, such as sand lance, herring, and menhaden (Hare et al, 2016 ; Staudinger et al, 2020 ; Suca, Wiley, et al, 2021 ). These distribution shifts are not expected to occur symmetrically and may not result in wholescale northward shifts of the present community.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…marine community biodiversity. Changes in the pelagic ecosystem induced by global warming, fishing pressure or any other environmental driver may lead to a decrease in the health status of native pelagic fishes (Shephard et al 2014, Muhling et al 2017.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similarly, landings of Atlantic chub mackerel in the Atlantic Iberian waters have increased during the last few decades (Martins et al 2013, Villamor et al 2017, ICES 2020, likely associated with an increase in stock size and its northward expansion linked to global warming. The arrival of new species in ecosystems can have a major impact on trophic balances and the dynamics of other species (Cheung et al 2009, Hollowed et al 2013, Muhling et al 2017). The Atlantic chub mackerel is an opportunistic pelagic species that feeds mainly on euphausiids and decapod crustaceans, but also significantly on eggs, larvae and juveniles of other pelagic and demersal fish species (Torres et al 2013).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The mean temperature is the other factor generating the species shift. Many researchers (Brander et al, 2003;Muhling et al, 2017) have already described the changes in the spatial distribution of pelagic fishes due to an increase in sea surface temperature. Vivekanandan et al (2009) observed the poleward shifts of yet another major clupeid in the region, the Indian Oil Sardine (Sardinella longiceps), due to the warming of the tropics.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%