Climate Change: Warming Impacts on Marine Biodiversity

Hillebrand, Helmut; Brey, Thomas; Gutt, Julian; Hagen, Wilhelm; Metfies, Katja; Meyer, Bettina; Lewandowska, Aleksandra M.

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-60156-4_18

Cited by 41 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 109 publications

(119 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These phenological shifts are particularly important as they dictate the biotic and abiotic conditions to which offspring will be exposed. Consequently, larval survival could be impacted due to mismatch with prey (plankton) abundance or proper size spectrum, for example due to delayed spawning time, inducing starvation or slower growth (Asch et al ., 2019; Farmer et al ., 2015; Hillebrand et al ., 2018; Tanaka et al ., 2019). Moreover, a shortened spawning season as in burbot [ Lota lota (L. 1758)] leads to a narrower temporal window for hatching (Ashton et al ., 2019).…”

Section: Elevated Temperature and Female Fish: From Oogenesis To Egg mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, the comprehension of warming impacts on gametogenesis and their consequences on gamete quality is of great importance for aquaculture as well as reproductive ecology. However, while reproductive performance is a key attribute, it should be realized that populations might do poorly under climate change for other reasons, such as poleward displacement of important predators (Fossheim et al ., 2015), difficulties associated with long generation cycles (reduced possibility of adaptation), ecological specialization or overexploitation (Dulvy et al ., 2003; Hillebrand et al ., 2018), and temperature‐driven changes in reproductive timing and capacity will interact with these variables.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

From gametogenesis to spawning: How climate‐driven warming affects teleost reproductive biology

Alix

Kjesbu

Anderson

2020

Journal of Fish Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ambient temperature modulates reproductive processes, especially in poikilotherms such as teleosts. Consequently, global warming is expected to impact the reproductive function of fish, which has implications for wild population dynamics, fisheries and aquaculture. In this extensive review spanning tropical and cold‐water environments, we examine the impact of higher‐than‐optimal temperatures on teleost reproductive development and physiology across reproductive stages, species, generations and sexes. In doing so, we demonstrate that warmer‐than‐optimal temperatures can affect every stage of reproductive development from puberty through to the act of spawning, and these responses are mediated by age at spawning and are associated with changes in physiology at multiple levels of the brain–pituitary–gonad axis. Response to temperature is often species‐specific and changes with environmental history/transgenerational conditioning, and the amplitude, timing and duration of thermal exposure within a generation. Thermally driven changes to physiology, gamete development and maturation typically culminate in poor sperm and oocyte quality, and/or advancement/delay/inhibition of ovulation/spermiation and spawning. Although the field of teleost reproduction and temperature is advanced in many respects, we identify areas where research is lacking, especially for males and egg quality from “omics” perspectives. Climate‐driven warming will continue to disturb teleost reproductive performance and therefore guide future research, especially in the emerging areas of transgenerational acclimation and epigenetic studies, which will help to understand and project climate change impacts on wild populations and could also have implications for aquaculture.

show abstract

Section: Elevated Temperature and Female Fish: From Oogenesis To Egg mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

From gametogenesis to spawning: How climate‐driven warming affects teleost reproductive biology

Alix

Kjesbu

Anderson

2020

Journal of Fish Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the second half of the 21st century, the projected stabilization of biomass changes in the Arctic and Southern Ocean under RCP2.6 can be explained by changes in the forcing variables driven by strong climate change mitigation policies (van Vuuren et al, ), as indicated by the leveling off in projected SST and NPP trends (Supporting Information Figures S1 and S2). In contrast, under the high emissions scenario (RCP8.5), in which greenhouse gas emissions are projected to increase until 2100 (Riahi et al, ), the decline in projected total marine animal biomass in the Arctic may be attributed to continuing changes in the physical and biogeochemical environment, with consequences for the entire trophic network (Hillebrand et al, ). Indeed, longer term projections of changes in ocean ecosystems until 2300 suggest a strong decline in ocean productivity in the Northern Hemisphere and its shift toward the Southern Ocean (Moore et al, ; (Figure )).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Twenty‐first‐century climate change impacts on marine animal biomass and ecosystem structure across ocean basins

Bryndum-Buchholz

Tittensor

Blanchard

et al. 2018

Global Change Biology

170

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change effects on marine ecosystems include impacts on primary production, ocean temperature, species distributions, and abundance at local to global scales. These changes will significantly alter marine ecosystem structure and function with associated socio‐economic impacts on ecosystem services, marine fisheries, and fishery‐dependent societies. Yet how these changes may play out among ocean basins over the 21st century remains unclear, with most projections coming from single ecosystem models that do not adequately capture the range of model uncertainty. We address this by using six marine ecosystem models within the Fisheries and Marine Ecosystem Model Intercomparison Project (Fish‐MIP) to analyze responses of marine animal biomass in all major ocean basins to contrasting climate change scenarios. Under a high emissions scenario (RCP8.5), total marine animal biomass declined by an ensemble mean of 15%–30% (±12%–17%) in the North and South Atlantic and Pacific, and the Indian Ocean by 2100, whereas polar ocean basins experienced a 20%–80% (±35%–200%) increase. Uncertainty and model disagreement were greatest in the Arctic and smallest in the South Pacific Ocean. Projected changes were reduced under a low (RCP2.6) emissions scenario. Under RCP2.6 and RCP8.5, biomass projections were highly correlated with changes in net primary production and negatively correlated with projected sea surface temperature increases across all ocean basins except the polar oceans. Ecosystem structure was projected to shift as animal biomass concentrated in different size‐classes across ocean basins and emissions scenarios. We highlight that climate change mitigation measures could moderate the impacts on marine animal biomass by reducing biomass declines in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Ocean basins. The range of individual model projections emphasizes the importance of using an ensemble approach in assessing uncertainty of future change.

show abstract

“…For instance, new evidence suggests that red wolves (Canis rufus) that are currently protected under ESA are likely hybrids of gray wolves (C. lupus) and coyotes (C. latrans) (Waples, Kays, Fredrickson, Pacifici, & Mills, 2018;Wayne & Shaffer 2016). Second, incidents of hybridization have increased and will continue to increase in nature as climate change shifts species distributions and brings together previously isolated species and populations (Crispo et al, 2011;Garroway et al, 2010;Hillebrand et al, 2018;Moritz & Agudo 2013;Pauls, Nowak, Bálint, & Pfenninger, 2013;Pecl et al, 2017). Third, the lack of recognition of hybrids can be a lost opportunity to protect entities that can maintain vital ecosystem functions.…”

Section: Legal Framework That Impedes the Use Of Hybridization In Conmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hybridization as a conservation management tool

Chan

Hoffmann

Oppen

2019

CONSERVATION LETTERS

119

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The recent extensive loss of biodiversity raises the question of whether organisms will adapt in time to survive the current era of rapid environmental change, and whether today's conservation practices and policies are appropriate. We review the benefits and risks of inter‐ and intraspecific hybridization as a conservation management tool aimed at enhancing adaptive potential and survival, with particular reference to coral reefs. We conclude that hybridization is underutilized and that many of its perceived risks are possibly overstated; the few applications of hybridization in conservation to date have already shown positive outcomes. Moreover, perceptions of potential risk change significantly when the focus of conservation is on preserving the adaptive potential of a species/population, instead of preserving the species in its original state. Further, we suggest that the uncertain legal status of hybrids as entities of protection can be costly to society and ecosystems, and that a legislative revision of hybrids and hybridization is overdue. We present a decision tree to help assess when and where hybridization can be a suitable conservation tool, and whether inter‐ or intraspecific hybridization is the preferred option.

show abstract

Climate Change: Warming Impacts on Marine Biodiversity

Cited by 41 publications

References 109 publications

From gametogenesis to spawning: How climate‐driven warming affects teleost reproductive biology

From gametogenesis to spawning: How climate‐driven warming affects teleost reproductive biology

Twenty‐first‐century climate change impacts on marine animal biomass and ecosystem structure across ocean basins

Hybridization as a conservation management tool

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About