{"id":11532,"date":"2019-06-30T02:08:12","date_gmt":"2019-06-30T02:08:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/?p=11532"},"modified":"2020-12-17T21:22:31","modified_gmt":"2020-12-17T21:22:31","slug":"invertebrates-sharks-may-suffer-most-from-climate-changes-in-the-pacific-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/?p=11532","title":{"rendered":"Invertebrates, Sharks May Suffer Most From Climate Changes in the Pacific"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"
Limpets at Gardner Pinnacles in the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument.<\/sub><\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

A recent rapid assessment of 83 marine species from throughout the Pacific found that sharks \u2014 including the threatened oceanic whitetip \u2014 sea cucumbers, urchins and clams are highly vulnerable to expected climate change effects over the next few decades. Limpets, such as opihi, and the tiny Palolo worm are likely to suffer the most, it found. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The assessment, called the Pacific Islands Vulnerability Analysis (PIVA), was conducted by a team consisting mainly of local federally funded scientists and is similar to one done in 2016 for the Northeast continental shelf. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration\u2019s Fisheries Climate Science Strategy calls for regions across the country to conduct such assessments to help determine which species are the most vulnerable and where science and management should focus their efforts to reduce risk. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The work in the Northeast covered 82 fish and marine invertebrate species and examined their vulnerability to seven climate change factors, including ocean surface temperature, ocean surface salinity, surface air temperature, precipitation, surface pH, currents, and sea-level rise. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The scientists found that bay scallops and\nAtlantic salmon were the most vulnerable,\nscoring \u201cvery high\u201d in both their exposure\nand their sensitivity to those factors.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

More than half of the species were likely to be negatively affected by climate change, about two dozen species would experience neutral effects, and 14 species, including butterfish, black sea bass, and anchovies, were expected to benefit. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

For the Hawai\u2018i project, the scientists\nexpanded their analysis to include 18 climate\nchange factors, including changes in oxygen\nlevels and sea bottom temperature.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Last month, Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center fishery biologist Don Kobayashi, who worked on the assessment with colleagues Jonatha Giddens and Mark Nelson, provided the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council\u2019s Scientific and Statistical Committee with an overview of the project and its results. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

He explained that the team took the\nbest estimates of the species\u2019 distribution\nand combined that with NOAA forecasts\nof climate change effects (such as changes\nin ocean pH) to produce more than 5,200\nexposure maps that \u201cbasically show you how\nmuch climate change will be happening over\na species\u2019 range.\u201d\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The group assessed how sensitive each\nspecies was to each of those environmental\nchanges. It then combined their exposure\nand sensitivity scores to produce an overall\nvulnerability score.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Pacific project did not analyze corals\nor protected species (other than the oceanic\nwhitetip shark), because those are being\nhandled by a different group, Kobayashi\nsaid.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lower surface oxygen, high sea surface\ntemperature, and ocean acidification turned\nout to be the three factors that had the most\nimpact. Those factors \u201cbumped exposure\ninto the very high range for nearly all of\nour taxa,\u201d Kobayashi said.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The species covered six functional groups: deep slope, coastal, coral reef, pelagics, sharks, and invertebrates. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cCoastal was clustered toward the moderate [vulnerability realm]. Sharks were inching up into the high and very high,\u201d he said. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Oceanic whitetip, scalloped hammerhead, pelagic thresher, and silky sharks all were determined to face very high exposure to climate change factors and to be highly sensitive to them. Whitetip reef and gray reef sharks also faced very high exposure, but their sensitivity was assessed as moderate and low, respectively. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Sharks vulnerability scores composed of sensitivity and exposure variables. Overall climate vulnerability is denoted by color: low (green), moderate (yellow), high (orange), and very high (red). Certainty in score from bootstrapping is denoted by text font and text color: very high certainty (>95%, black, bold font), high certainty (90\u201395%, black, italic font), moderate certainty (66\u201390%, white or gray, bold font), low certainty (<66%, white or gray, italic font).
Credit: Courtesy of Don Kobayashi<\/sub><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe invertebrate group ranked as most vulnerable and pelagic and coastal groups ranked as least vulnerable. … The sensitivity of many coral reef fishes ranged between Low and Moderate, which is likely an underestimate given that reef species depend on a biogenic habitat that is itself extremely threatened by climate change,\u201d a summary of the assessment states. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWithin its limitations, this project advances our understanding of the research needs and the management options to sustain both marine life and seafood security in the Pacific Ocean and beyond,\u201d it states. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2018Ecosystem Context\u2019\n<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The assessment\u2019s results regarding pelagic fish species such as bigeye tuna suggest that while their exposure to climate change effects may be very high, the fish are only moderately or minimally sensitive to them. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But that assessment covers climate effects only through 2055, and compares only two time blocks \u2014 1956-2005 vs. 2006-2055 \u2014 to determine the relative changes in the\nenvironment.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Research by other current and former NOAA scientists suggests that by the end of the century, a large drop in primary productivity in the North Pacific will lead to a corresponding drop in the ability of the region around the subtropical gyre to support many species, including the pelagic species that the Hawai\u2018i longline fleet targets. (See the cover story<\/a> for more on this topic.) <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Such studies, Kobayashi explained in an email to Environment Hawai\u2018i<\/em>, evaluate environmental changes that occur out to 2100, \u201cand might do a more extreme comparison which will accentuate the small predicted changes over time. Neither approach is flawed.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

For PIVA, he said the team followed the same approach as the Northeast for consistency, adding that the assessment can be viewed as \u201cnot presenting endpoint extremes, but more like the immediate, contemporary-human-lifespan-scale experience of climate change impacts.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the SSC meeting, Pacific Island\nFisheries Science Center director Mike Seki\nasked Kobayashi whether the assessment\nteam had given any thought to conducting\nan ecosystem vulnerability analysis that\ntakes into account climate change effects\non lower trophic levels.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cA lot of expected impacts are coming\nthrough the trophic relationships. It\u2019s hard to\nlook at climate impacts without looking at the\ncommunity,\u201d especially with regard to pelagic\nspecies, Seki said, adding, \u201cThe agencies tend\nto not look at the system as whole.\u201d\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI totally agree looking at an ecosystem context is the way to go,\u201d Kobayashi replied. He explained that in trying to assess potential ecological impacts, the assessment team looked not just at species of harvest interest, but also \u201cany species that could potentially serve as a big player in the ecosystem in some aspect.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThis is certainly a first crack at it,\u201d he\nsaid.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In his email, Kobayashi added that lower trophic level measurements of both productivity and chlorophyll were among the exposure variables analyzed by PIVA. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

And in the sensitivity scoring, the team also took productivity and ecosystem responses into account, he said. (Sensitivity attributes included habitat and prey specificity, sensitivity to ocean acidification and temperature, stock size\/status, adult mobility, spawning cycle, complexity in reproduction, early life history survival and settlement requirements, population\ngrowth rate, dispersal of early life stages,\nand other stressors.)\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cSo short answer, I don\u2019t think any\necosystem responses slip through the cracks\nof PIVA, even though we don\u2019t directly\ntalk about my favorite group of plankton,\u201d\nhe said.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Other Applications\n<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the SSC meeting, chair Jim Lynch asked\nKobayashi whether the assessment could be\napplied to the ongoing consultations that\nthe National Marine Fisheries Service is\nconducting in accordance with Section 7\nof the Endangered Species Act.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For example, the agency is in the midst\nof consultations for longline and purse\nseine fleets in the Western Pacific, which\nincidentally catch and kill oceanic whitetip\nsharks.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kobayashi said he didn\u2019t know about Section 7 applications, but thought PIVA could be useful in stock assessments, which he said often don\u2019t consider environmental factors enough. SSC member Milani Chaloupka agreed, noting that the exposure maps the team produced would be especially helpful. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Whether or how the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council will incorporate the assessment results into its annual recommendations on catch limits for those species that fall under NMFS management jurisdiction remains to be seen. And Kobayashi did not suggest that any such incorporation start now. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI\u2019m not suggesting the next step is a management strategy evaluation on bigeye tuna or oceanic whitetips. [We\u2019re just] trying to get an idea of what species we should look at and bring them into the PIVA scoring,\u201d he said. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Shifting Distributions,\nChanging Productivity\n<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Where will the bigeye tuna that the Hawai\u2018i longline fleet targets be in the coming decades as the ocean warms? And will there continue to be enough of them to support a robust commercial fishery? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Last November, recognizing that climate change may shift the distribution of harvested species and affect their productivity \u2014 be it through rising ocean temperatures, ocean acidification or some other factor \u2014 the National Marine Fisheries Service issued a technical memorandum describing a six-step process to help regions deal with the myriad scenarios\nthey\u2019re likely to encounter. The service\nrecommended they 1) detect and anticipate\nchanges, 2) understand mechanisms of\nchange, 3) evaluate risks and priorities, 4)\nconduct assessments and develop forecasts,\n5) communicate advice to manager and\nstakeholders, and 6) manage fisheries under\nchanging conditions. To achieve each of\nthose, the memo recommended a total of\n20 specific actions.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Northeast and Pacific vulnerability assessments are the kind of research the memo recommends be done under step 3. The Northeast study found that 55 of the 82 species were highly or very highly vulnerable to changes in their distribution. The Pacific study found that the distribution of pelagic species, most of the sharks, coastal scads and the giant trevally were\napt to shift.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To detect the kinds of changes that might influence productivity or distribution of key species (step 1), the annual Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) reports released by the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council have in recent years been tracking several indicators, such as ocean pH, phytoplankton size and abundance, and sea temperatures at the surface and at depth, among other things. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cBigeye have preferred thermal habitat, generally staying within temperatures ranging from 8 \u2013 14 \u00b0C while they are at depth. Changes in ocean temperature at depth will impact tuna, and in turn, potentially impact their catchability,\u201d according to the council\u2019s 2018 SAFE report for pelagic fisheries. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Last year, temperatures 200 \u2013 300 m deep were \u201cwithin the range of temperatures experienced over the past several decades (10.87 \u2013 11.58 \u00b0C) and are within the bounds of bigeye tuna\u2019s preferred deep daytime thermal habitat (8 \u2013 14 \u00b0C),\u201d the report states. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The data on ocean acidity \u2014 which can\naffect the ability of fish and their prey to\nbuild bones or other calcareous structures\n\u2014 was not so benign.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe ocean is roughly 9.4 percent more\nacidic than it was nearly 30 years ago at the\nstart of this time series,\u201d the report states.\n\u201c[S]mall variations seen over the course of\nthe year are now outside the range seen in\nthe first year of the time series [1990]. The\nhighest pH value reported for the most\nrecent year (8.0831) is lower than the lowest\npH value reported in the first year of the\ntime series (8.0845),\u201d it continued.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Trend in oceanic pH (black) at Station ALOHA from 1989-2017.
Credit: Western Pacific Fishery Management Council SAFE Report<\/sub><\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Management Implications\n<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the council\u2019s Scientific and Statistical\nCommittee meeting last month, Melissa\nKarp, of ECS Federal, LLC, on behalf of\nNMFS\u2019 Office of Science and Technology,\ndetailed the various step-related recommendations included in the memo. None of them amounted to a \u201csilver bullet,\u201d but they might allow regional fisheries to be \u201crobust to climate change,\u201d she said. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

She recommended that regions capitalize on advancements in models, citing the Alaska Climate Change Integrated Modeling (ACLIM) project that looks to predict climate-driven changes in the Bering Sea. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cACLIM uses global climate models\nand climate enhanced biological models,\nas well as economic models that give the\nbig picture,\u201d she said.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With regard to management, she said regions need to plan for future scenarios using results from risk assessments. \u201cSome species may be crossing jurisdictional boundaries. Plan for emerging fisheries if new species enter your regions [and] run scenarios with adjacent jurisdictions,\u201d she said. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

She also recommended the use of near-\nreal-time data that fishermen can use to\navoid areas with predicted high abundance\nof protected resources and, therefore, lower\nbycatch and \u201callow for smaller area closures\nthat are more dynamic.\u201d\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

SSC member Ray Hilborn, an outspoken skeptic of large marine protected areas, said he was really happy with the memo\u2019s\nrecommendations.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt\u2019s very clear stocks are subject to directional change and distribution and fluctuating … higher and lower productivity. It\u2019s time to move beyond everything is stationary,\u201d he said. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Given the unpredictability of stock\nperformance, he said, \u201cI\u2019d be concerned if\nNOAA was to spend a lot of resources to\npredict what changes will take place. … It\u2019s\nmore important to adapt to the changes\nthat take place.\u201d\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

SSC member Kurt Schaefer of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission added that trying to determine shifts in species distributions will be a monumental and expensive undertaking. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even so, NMFS plans to start compiling\nspecies distribution information across the\nnation. \u201cI agree that\u2019s a big effort, but that\u2019s\nan important effort,\u201d Karp said.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

SSC member Erik Franklin of the University of Hawai\u2018i\u2019s School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology said he was more concerned with potential declines in productivity, and maybe shifts in species composition, as a result of nearshore habitat loss. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

He asked Karp whether NMFS was\nplanning to issue a similar memorandum\nfor insular areas. Karp replied that she\u2019d not\nthought about it, beyond what\u2019s already\nbeen done in the PIVA.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Marlowe Sabater, the council\u2019s marine\necosystem scientist, asked Karp what\nNMFS\u2019s next step will be policy-wise.\n\u201cIs this something headquarters is going\nto recommend to each region to start\nadopting … for any kind of management\ndecisions?\u201d\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Patrick Lynch, also with the service\u2019s science and technology office, said Sabater shouldn\u2019t expect anything too formal. \u201cWe released the tech memo as a guidance framework. … It\u2019s up to the regions to do what they will with these recommendations.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2014Teresa Dawson<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A recent rapid assessment of 83 marine species from throughout the Pacific found that sharks — including the threatened oceanic whitetip — sea cucumbers, urchins and clams are highly vulnerable to expected climate change effects over the next few decades. … Continued<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":11522,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,455,17],"tags":[3],"class_list":["post-11532","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-climate-change","category-july-2019","category-marine","tag-teresa-dawson"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11532","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=11532"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11532\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/11522"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11532"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11532"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11532"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}