Changing Climate, Shifting Fisheries

Photo credit: NOAA Restoration Center, Chris Doley

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


A new model has been developed to study rising ocean temperatures and fishing rates on a single fish population, which might also forecast the combined impact of climate change and fishing on other species. NOAA researchers developed the model to forecast the future of the Atlantic croaker fishery in the mid Atlantic under various climate and fishing scenarios. The results for various temperature and fish population scenarios through 2100:

  • At current fishing levels, the spawning population of Atlantic croaker will increase between 60 and 100 percent.
  • The center of the Atlantic croaker population will shift 30 to 65 miles north.
  • The maximum sustainable yield will increase 30 to 100%.

Lead author Jon Hare of the Northeast Fisheries Science Center lab in Rhode Island explains:

“Some fish populations will increase and others decrease as a result of climate change. Understanding and quantifying the effect of climate change on populations, in combination with the effect of exploitation, is a major challenge to rebuilding and maintaining sustainable fisheries in the coming decades.”

Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus) is a coastal marine fish of the eastern US supporting an $8 million commercial fishery annually. Previous studies have shown a strong link between croaker abundance and winter temperatures.

The population model was based on the expectation that ocean temperatures will increase through the 21st century. It was also based on the hypothesis that recruitment—the survival of juveniles to adulthood—is determined by water temperatures. Although Atlantic croaker spawn in the ocean, their larvae migrate to Delaware Bay, Chesapeake Bay, and Pamlico Sound, where they overwinter. Winter temperatures in the bays strongly affect larval survival.

The problem with current fisheries models is twofold. First, they tend to be short-sighted, says Jon Hare:

“Most stock assessments that inform fishery management decisions do not include the effect of a changing environment because they are conducted annually or every few years and do not provide a long-term view.”

On the other hand, climate models tend to forecast on 50 to 100 timescales, and that’s too long for fisheries management, says Hare:

“Fishery management does not operate on these long time scales, and shorter-term forecasts are required. In the future, a range of climate forecasts that include both the effects of fishing and climate on fish populations over time intervals of 5 to 20 years, 20 to 50 years and 50 to 100 years could be provided. These kinds of coupled models will help provide the best scientific advice for managing fisheries under changing climate conditions in the future.”

The paper‘s in the March 2010 issue of Ecology Applications published by the Ecological Society of America.
 

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate