Research ArticleECOLOGY

Improved fisheries management could offset many negative effects of climate change

See allHide authors and affiliations

Science Advances  29 Aug 2018:
Vol. 4, no. 8, eaao1378
DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aao1378
  • Fig. 1 Percent change in MSY under RCPs 2.6, 4.5, 6.0, and 8.5.

    The red dashed line indicates global percent change (weighted mean) in MSY. Gray lines represent change in MSY for all 915 global stocks.

  • Fig. 2 Percentage of species stocks that move into, out of, or both into and out of one or more countries’ EEZs by 2100 for each RCP.
  • Fig. 3 Differences in harvest, profit, and biomass, relative to “No Adaptation” for RCP 6.0 in 2100 (see fig. S1 for results under the other RCPs).
  • Fig. 4 Percent difference in biomass, harvest, and profit relative to today across RCP scenarios.

    Each color represents a different management scenario.

  • Fig. 5 Difference in harvest and biomass under the Full Adaptation strategy in 2100 relative to today for RCP 6.0.

    The bubble size corresponds to current MSY, and the colors indicate fishery category based on current biomass and fishing mortality rate relative to BMSY and FMSY, respectively. The fishery categories are defined as follows: Healthy (F/FMSY < 1, B/BMSY ≥ 1), Emerging (F/FMSY ≥ 1, B/BMSY ≥ 1), Recovering (F/FMSY < 1, B/BMSY < 1), and Overfished (F/FMSY ≥ 1, B/BMSY < 1). A transparent bubble indicates a decrease in maximum sustainable yield in 2100 relative to today, whereas a solid bubble indicates an increase (see fig. S2 for results under the other RCPs). MT, metric tons.

  • Table 1 Percentage of stocks where biomass, harvest, or profit is higher in the future (2100) than today when Full Adaptation is implemented.
    RCP 2.6RCP 4.5RCP 6.0RCP 8.5
    Biomass68.6%67.2%65.5%57.3%
    Harvest42.2%40.3%37.6%25.7%
    Profit55.0%52.2%48.6%32.9%

Supplementary Materials

  • Supplementary material for this article is available at http://advances.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/4/8/eaao1378/DC1

    Supplementary Materials and Methods

    Supplementary Text

    Fig. S1. Differences in harvest, profit, and biomass relative to No Adaptation for all RCPs.

    Fig. S2. Differences in harvest and biomass under a Full Adaptation strategy in 2100 relative to today for all RCPs.

    Fig. S3. Temporal changes in thermal envelopes within projected species ranges.

    Fig. S4. Scatterplot and resulting regression lines from the linear models fitting biomass change to range size change for 11 unexploited marine species.

    Fig. S5. Effect of the choice of different carrying capacity/range size ratios on harvest, profit, and biomass for each management alternative relative to No Adaptation for RCP 6.0.

    Fig. S6. Differences in harvest, profit, and biomass relative to No Adaptation for all RCPs.

    Fig. S7. Differences in harvest, profit, and biomass relative to No Adaptation for different assumptions regarding prices and costs under RCP 6.0.

    Fig. S8. Differences in harvest, profit, and biomass relative to No Adaptation for all RCPs.

    Fig. S9. Differences in profit by latitude.

    Table S1. RCPs considered in this study along with the models used for computation of respective mean ensembles.

    References (3450)

  • Supplementary Materials

    This PDF file includes:

    • Supplementary Materials and Methods
    • Supplementary Text
    • Fig. S1. Differences in harvest, profit, and biomass relative to No Adaptation for all RCPs.
    • Fig. S2. Differences in harvest and biomass under a Full Adaptation strategy in 2100 relative to today for all RCPs.
    • Fig. S3. Temporal changes in thermal envelopes within projected species ranges.
    • Fig. S4. Scatterplot and resulting regression lines from the linear models fitting biomass change to range size change for 11 unexploited marine species.
    • Fig. S5. Effect of the choice of different carrying capacity/range size ratios on harvest, profit, and biomass for each management alternative relative to No Adaptation for RCP 6.0.
    • Fig. S6. Differences in harvest, profit, and biomass relative to No Adaptation for all RCPs.
    • Fig. S7. Differences in harvest, profit, and biomass relative to No Adaptation for different assumptions regarding prices and costs under RCP 6.0.
    • Fig. S8. Differences in harvest, profit, and biomass relative to No Adaptation for all RCPs.
    • Fig. S9. Differences in profit by latitude.
    • Table S1. RCPs considered in this study along with the models used for computation of respective mean ensembles.
    • References (3450)

    Download PDF

    Files in this Data Supplement:

Stay Connected to Science Advances

Navigate This Article