Projected impacts of climate change on marine fish and fisheries

Hollowed, Anne B.; Barangé, Manuel; Beamish, Richard; Brander, Keith; Cochrane, Kevern L.; Drinkwater, Kenneth F.; Foreman, Michael; Hare, Jonathan A.; Holt, Jason; Ito, Shin; Kim, Suam; King, Jacquelynne R.; Loeng, Harald; MacKenzie, Brian R.; Mueter, Franz J.; Okey, Thomas A.; Peck, Myron A.; Радченко, В. И.; Rice, Jake; Schirripa, Michael J.; Yatsu, Akihiko; Yamanaka, Yasuhiro

doi:10.1093/icesjms/fst081

Cited by 252 publications

(149 citation statements)

References 163 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

126

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Climate change brings additional difficulty to setting appropriate fishing targets (Brander 2010;Hollowed et al 2013). Delays in responding to changes brought about by climate change can result in increased probability of stock collapse, and the longterm cost of delay may offset any benefit due to short-term increases in fishing (Brown et al 2012) and may require adaptive management (Plaganyi et al 2011).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In what direction should the fishing mortality target change when natural mortality increases within an assessment?

Legault

Palmer

2016

Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traditionally, the natural mortality rate (M) in a stock assessment is assumed to be constant. When M increases within an assessment, the question arises how to change the fishing mortality rate target (F Target ). Per recruit considerations lead to an increase in F Target , while limiting total mortality leads to a decrease in F Target . Application of either approach can result in nonsensical results. Short-term gains in yield associated with high F Target values should be considered in light of potential losses in future yield if the high total mortality rate leads to a decrease in recruitment. Examples using yellowtail flounder (Limanda ferruginea) and Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) are used to demonstrate that F Target can change when M increases within an assessment and to illustrate the consequences of different F Target values. When a change in M within an assessment is contemplated, first consider the amount and strength of empirical evidence to support the change. When the empirical evidence is not strong, we recommend using a constant M. If strong empirical evidence exists, we recommend estimating F Target for a range of stock-recruitment relationships and evaluating the trade-offs between risk of overfishing and forgone yield.Résumé : Traditionnellement, le taux de mortalité naturelle (M) dans une évaluation de stock est présumé être constant. Quand M augmente dans une évaluation, cela soulève la question à savoir comment changer le taux cible de mortalité par pêche (F Target ). Des considérations relatives aux recrues individuelles mènent à une augmentation de F Target , alors que le fait de limiter la mortalité totale mène à une réduction de F Target . L'application d'une ou l'autre de ces approches peut se traduire par des résultats qui n'ont aucun sens. Les augmentations à court terme du rendement associées à des valeurs de F Target élevées devraient être évaluées par rapport aux réductions potentielles du rendement futur si le taux de mortalité totale élevé se traduit par une baisse du recrutement. Des exemples basés sur la limande à queue jaune (Limanda ferruginea) et la morue franche (Gadus morhua) sont utilisés pour démontrer que F Target peut changer quand M augmente dans une évaluation et pour illustrer les conséquences de différentes valeurs de F Target . Quand la possibilité de changer M dans une évaluation est examinée, il faut d'abord prendre évaluer la quantité et la force des preuves empiriques qui appuient ce changement. Si ces preuves ne sont pas fortes, nous recommandons d'utiliser un M constant. Si les preuves empiriques sont fortes, nous recommandons d'estimer F Target pour une gamme de relations stock-recrutement et d'évaluer les compromis entre le risque de surpêche et le rendement non réalisé. [Traduit par la Rédaction]

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In what direction should the fishing mortality target change when natural mortality increases within an assessment?

Legault

Palmer

2016

Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…mixotrophy | plankton | size | trophic transfer | biological pump M arine ecosystems provide essential nutrition to more than half the world's population via fisheries (1) and mediate global cycles of climatically important elements including carbon (2). Current models of marine biogeochemical cycles assume that the plankton can be clearly divided into two mutually exclusive guilds: the autotrophic phytoplankton and the heterotrophic zooplankton.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Marine mixotrophy increases trophic transfer efficiency, mean organism size, and vertical carbon flux

Ward

Follows

2016

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

267

275

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mixotrophic plankton, which combine the uptake of inorganic resources and the ingestion of living prey, are ubiquitous in marine ecosystems, but their integrated biogeochemical impacts remain unclear. We address this issue by removing the strict distinction between phytoplankton and zooplankton from a global model of the marine plankton food web. This simplification allows the emergence of a realistic trophic network with increased fidelity to empirical estimates of plankton community structure and elemental stoichiometry, relative to a system in which autotrophy and heterotrophy are mutually exclusive. Mixotrophy enhances the transfer of biomass to larger sizes classes further up the food chain, leading to an approximately threefold increase in global mean organism size and an ∼35% increase in sinking carbon flux.arine ecosystems provide essential nutrition to more than half the world's population via fisheries (1) and mediate global cycles of climatically important elements including carbon (2). Current models of marine biogeochemical cycles assume that the plankton can be clearly divided into two mutually exclusive guilds: the autotrophic phytoplankton and the heterotrophic zooplankton. According to this view, phytoplankton are responsible for all photosynthetic carbon fixation, ultimately controlled by the supply and consumption of inorganic nutrients.There is clear evidence that such a strict dichotomy between producers and consumers does not reflect the true nature of marine microbial communities. Autotrophic and heterotrophic traits are not mutually exclusive, and a large and increasing number of plankton taxa have been shown to simultaneously exploit both inorganic resources and living prey (3). These mixotrophic plankton, found throughout the eukaryotic tree of life (4), and particularly in the 2-to 200-μm size range (5-7), can sustain photosynthesis even when chronically outcompeted for the most-limiting inorganic nutrient, in clear contrast to the way we typically describe and model marine systems (8).Although mixotrophy is known to be common throughout the global ocean (6, 7), its contribution to net community production is difficult to quantify, and its integrated impact on global biogeochemical cycles remains unknown. Numerical simulations provide a platform to address these questions, but to date, no global ocean models have resolved this important lifestyle. Here, we examine the global role of mixotrophy in a numerical "thought experiment," comparing two simulations of the marine plankton food web in the global ocean (9) that differ only in their representation of trophic strategy (Fig. 1). The traditional "two-guild" model encapsulates the default view of the marine ecosystem, with each of the 10 simulated size classes divided into separate phytoplankton and zooplankton populations. In the alternative "mixotrophy" model, this unrealistically strict distinction is not made, and each size class contains just one population that is capable of both inorganic resource uptake and predation, dependent ...

show abstract

“…Ecologists are increasingly being asked to provide advice in this regard to support conservation and management decisions (Hollowed et al, 2013;Barange et al, 2014;García Molinos et al, 2015). Understanding and predicting these effects requires knowledge of the processes that determine the distribution and abundance of species, the structure and functioning of ecosystems within which they occur, and their past and present dynamics (Southward et al, 1995;Mieszkowska et al, 2006;Lima et al, 2007;Doney et al, 2012;Murphy et al, 2012).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Synergistic Approach for Evaluating Climate Model Output for Ecological Applications

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increasing concern about the impacts of climate change on ecosystems is prompting ecologists and ecosystem managers to seek reliable projections of physical drivers of change. The use of global climate models in ecology is growing, although drawing ecologically meaningful conclusions can be problematic. The expertise required to access and interpret output from climate and earth system models is hampering progress in utilizing them most effectively to determine the wider implications of climate change. To address this issue, we present a joint approach between climate scientists and ecologists that explores key challenges and opportunities for progress. As an exemplar, our focus is the Southern Ocean, notable for significant change with global implications, and on sea ice, given its crucial role in this dynamic ecosystem. We combined perspectives to evaluate the representation of sea ice in global climate models. With an emphasis on ecologically-relevant criteria (sea ice extent and seasonality) we selected a subset of eight models that reliably reproduce extant sea ice distributions. While the model subset shows a similar mean change to the full ensemble in sea ice extent (approximately 50% decline in winter and 30% decline in summer), there is a marked reduction in the range. This improved the precision of projected future sea ice distributions by approximately one third, and means they are more amenable to ecological interpretation. We conclude that careful multidisciplinary evaluation of climate models, in conjunction with ongoing modeling advances, should form an integral part of utilizing model output.

show abstract

Projected impacts of climate change on marine fish and fisheries

Cited by 252 publications

References 163 publications

In what direction should the fishing mortality target change when natural mortality increases within an assessment?

In what direction should the fishing mortality target change when natural mortality increases within an assessment?

Marine mixotrophy increases trophic transfer efficiency, mean organism size, and vertical carbon flux

A Synergistic Approach for Evaluating Climate Model Output for Ecological Applications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About