Global assessment of marine and freshwater recreational fish reveals mismatch in climate change vulnerability and conservation effort

Abstract

Recreational fisheries contribute substantially to the sociocultural and economic well‐being of coastal and riparian regions worldwide, but climate change threatens their sustainability. Fishery managers require information on how climate change will impact key recreational species; however, the absence of a global assessment hinders both directed and widespread conservation efforts. In this study, we present the first global climate change vulnerability assessment of recreationally targeted fish species from marine and freshwater environments (including diadromous fishes). We use climate change projections and data on species’ physiological and ecological traits to quantify and map global climate vulnerability and analyze these patterns alongside the indices of socioeconomic value and conservation effort to determine where efforts are sufficient and where they might fall short. We found that over 20% of recreationally targeted fishes are vulnerable to climate change under a high emission scenario. Overall, marine fishes had the highest number of vulnerable species, concentrated in regions with sensitive habitat types (e.g., coral reefs). However, freshwater fishes had higher proportions of species at risk from climate change, with concentrations in northern Europe, Australia, and southern Africa. Mismatches in conservation effort and vulnerability were found within all regions and life‐history groups. A key pattern was that current conservation effort focused primarily on marine fishes of high socioeconomic value rather than on the freshwater and diadromous fishes that were predicted to be proportionately more vulnerable. While several marine regions were notably lacking in protection (e.g., Caribbean Sea, Banda Sea), only 19% of vulnerable marine species were without conservation effort. By contrast, 72% of freshwater fishes and 33% of diadromous fishes had no measures in place, despite their high vulnerability and cultural value. The spatial and taxonomic analyses presented here provide guidance for the future conservation and management of recreational fisheries as climate change progresses.

Application of a trait‐based climate change vulnerability assessment to determine management priorities at protected area scale

“…Since conservation prioritization within the park has previously focused on non‐climatic threats alone, threats to these species may not be covered by existing conservation measures. As concluded from an assessment of global fishes (Nyboer et al, 2021), assessing climate change vulnerability of individual species can reveal large mismatches in current conservation efforts and degrees of climate change vulnerability.…”

“…However, trait‐based assessments are applicable to small‐ranged and under‐sampled species, while also being the least time‐intensive and cheapest approach, increasing their practicality for conservation practitioners (Foden et al, 2018; Foden & Young, 2016). The outputs of the assessment can be combined with species distribution data to determine where and why species are vulnerable, aiding conservation planning and intervention (Foden et al, 2013; Nyboer et al, 2021). Such assessments have been used globally (Böhm et al, 2016; Foden et al, 2013; Hossain et al, 2019; Kopf et al, 2017; Zhang et al, 2019) and regionally (Cabrelli et al, 2014; Case et al, 2015; Chin et al, 2010; Gardali et al, 2012; Hare et al, 2016; Jamwal et al, 2021; Meng et al, 2016; Mims et al, 2018; Nyboer et al, 2019; Nyboer et al, 2021; Tingley et al, 2013; Triviño et al, 2013) for a variety of taxa including birds, reptiles, amphibians, corals, primates and fish, among others.…”

“…The outputs of the assessment can be combined with species distribution data to determine where and why species are vulnerable, aiding conservation planning and intervention (Foden et al, 2013; Nyboer et al, 2021). Such assessments have been used globally (Böhm et al, 2016; Foden et al, 2013; Hossain et al, 2019; Kopf et al, 2017; Zhang et al, 2019) and regionally (Cabrelli et al, 2014; Case et al, 2015; Chin et al, 2010; Gardali et al, 2012; Hare et al, 2016; Jamwal et al, 2021; Meng et al, 2016; Mims et al, 2018; Nyboer et al, 2019; Nyboer et al, 2021; Tingley et al, 2013; Triviño et al, 2013) for a variety of taxa including birds, reptiles, amphibians, corals, primates and fish, among others. Despite being well suited to application in PAs, trait‐based vulnerability assessments to our knowledge have yet to be applied to inform priorities at the scale of a single PA.…”

Freshwater conservation: Lost in limnology?

“…Other authors have made recommendations for protecting and restoring freshwater ecosystems built on the work of Aldo Leopold and his concept of the 'land ethic' (Cooke et al, 2021) The conservation and management of freshwater ecosystems are lagging behind when compared with their marine (and terrestrial) counterparts. An imbalance in the conservation efforts between marine and freshwater populations has been increasingly observed (Kalinkat et al, 2017;Nyboer et al, 2021). van Rees et al (2021) made the following observation: 'Freshwater biodiversity is disproportionately threatened and underprioritized relative to the marine and terrestrial biota, despite supporting a richness of species and ecosystems with their own intrinsic value and providing multiple essential ecosystem services.…”

Overturning stereotypes: The fuzzy boundary between recreational and subsistence inland fisheries

“…Second, inland recreational fisheries occur on a wide range of water bodies and are accessible across diverse spectra of age, ability, socioeconomic status, ethnicity and gender (Hunt & Ditton, 2002; Hutt & Neal, 2010), making them likely to exemplify the fuzzy boundary. Finally, inland recreational fisheries are disproportionately threatened by climate change, catchment disturbances and other non‐fishing‐related changes (Nyboer et al, 2021), making it essential to recognize the services that they provide and to account for consumption‐oriented recreational harvest in management. Greater awareness of these issues can motivate shifts in environmental protection and natural resource management policies.…”