You are here
Ecology and Vulnerability Coastal Fish
Map displays the estimated presence and absence of Bluefish, Striped Bass, and Black Sea Bass during the 1978-2016 Spring (green) and Fall (blue) Resource Trawling Surveys. Categories are based on the aggregation behavior of the species. Data provided by MA Division of Marine Fisheries.
Absent=0; Solitary=1 ; Low=2-25; Medium=26-100; High=101-500 (255 maximum for Striped Bass); and Very High=501-699 (maximum for Bluefish) or 501-15631 (maximum for Black Sea Bass).
HideMap displays the estimated presence and absence of Bluefish, Striped Bass, and Black Sea Bass during the 1978-2016 Spring (green) and Fall (blue) Resource Trawling Surveys. Categories are based...
Read More
Ecology and Vulnerability
Coastal Fish
Background
Many coastal fish in Massachusetts are commercially and recreationally targeted, and provide a number of economic benefits and ecosystem services. Examples of... Read More
Background
Many coastal fish in Massachusetts are commercially and recreationally targeted, and provide a number of economic benefits and ecosystem services. Examples of coastal fish in Massachusetts are:
- Bluefish
- Winter flounder
- Summer flounder
- Striped bass
- Black sea bass
Species such as winter flounder and striped bass are estuarine-dependent and spend a large portion of their lives in brackish water to spawn or feed 11. Other species, like bluefish, will utilize estuaries as nursery habitat during juvenile stages 7. Some coastal fish make seasonal movements between estuaries and open ocean habitats throughout the year. Since coastal fish use several habitats while they mature, seasonal movements between inshore and offshore waters put them at risk to a range of human and climate stressors.
Direct Human Impacts
Exploitation of coastal fish communities can have detrimental ecological and economic consequences 6. For example, commercial fisheries target and remove the largest individuals from fish populations, which has led to populations with fewer size and age classes, and in some cases sparked evolutionary changes such as smaller, faster maturing fish 16. Faster maturing fish typically have reduced overall growth and reach smaller maximum sizes. In addition to directed harvest, many fishing practices unintentionally catch non-target species or portions of populations (known as bycatch), increasing the overall mortality rates these species experience.
Recreational fishing can also have significant impacts on fish communities if anglers harvest fish at higher rates than commercial fishers 1. For example, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Council (ASMFC) recently reported that recreational harvest rates for striped bass, sea bass, bluefish, redfish, and tautog off the U.S. east coast were higher than those of commercial fisheries 1,4. Best practices are being developed and implemented for catch and release fishing in many states to help reduce mortality 5. Because many coastal fish populations are already stressed due to high fishing pressure, their sustainable management under the increasing impacts of climate change will pose additional challenges to managers.
Climate Impacts
Climate change events such as increased temperatures, changes in hydrology, increased periods of drought, and sea level rise are already impacting coastal fish communities 9. Coastal fish that depend on estuaries for critical life stages, such as larval or juvenile growth and development, are particularly at risk. Climate impacts on coastal fish populations in Massachusetts and throughout their Atlantic range will vary based on access to suitable habitat, water quality, and local and regional rates of environmental change.
Fish have the ability to tolerate and adapt to climate change by shifting their behavior, distribution, and timing in certain habitats or for survival and reproduction 3. Nonetheless, many species rely on temperature cues for behaviors and activities such as migration, spawning, and growth. It is largely unknown exactly if and how many species will be able to adjust to the rapid rates of temperature, oceanographic, and subsequent ecological changes that have already been set in motion. Indeed, increasing sea surface and bottom temperatures have been shown to negatively impact the health and abundance of historically important and iconic New England fishes such as Atlantic salmon 17 and winter flounder 19.
Climate-induced shifts in salinity and stratification are also affecting the seasonal availability of primary (phytoplankton) and secondary (zooplankton) producers. These changes at lower levels of the food web have already impacted juvenile and forage fish communities with cascading effects that radiate to higher level coastal fishes and top predators 13. Diadromous fish (species that spend part of their life in salt water and part of it in fresh water), marine invertebrates, and some mollusks and crabs, are some of the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, which may have negative consequences for larger coastal fish that eat them 9.
In response to warmer water temperatures, many recreationally and commercially important fish species have already shifted their ranges northward or to deeper cooler waters, resulting in fish such as black sea bass and Atlantic croaker being found in places where they were once rare or not previously found 2,9,10,14,15,18. Coastal fish that have already shown the greatest shifts in distribution tend to have shorter life cycles and smaller body sizes 2,12. Hence, climate change and fishing pressure can have similar, and potentially compounding effects on fish populations that may interact in ways that are difficult to predict 2.
In some cases, fishermen and fishing fleets have been unable to shift their harvest practices fast enough to keep pace with fish’s changing availability and seasonality due to regulations and socio-economic constraints 14. As fish species change when and where they are most abundant (and in some cases, new fisheries develop off Massachusetts), agile and adaptive management techniques should be practiced to maintain sustainable fisheries and enhance opportunities for fishing communities.
1. Beal, R.E., Desfosse, J.C., Field, J.D., Schick, A.M., 1998. 1998 Review of Interstate Fishery Management Plans. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Council, Washington, DC.
2. Bell, R.J., D.E. Richardson, J.A. Hare, P.D. Lynch, and P.S. Fratantoni. 2015. Disentangling the effects of climate, abundance, and size on the distribution of marine fish: an example based on four stocks from the Northeast US shelf. ICES Journal of Marine Science 72:1311-1322.
3. Bellard, C., C. Bertelsmeier, P. Leadley, W. Thuiller, and F. Courchamp. Impacts of climate change on the future of biodiversity. 2012. Ecology Letters 15:365-377.
4. Cooke, S.J., and I.G. Cowx. 2006. Contrasting recreational and commercial fishing: Searching for common issues to promote unified conservation of fisheries resources and aquatic environments. Biological Conservation 128:93-108.
5. Cooke, S.J., G.D. Raby, M.R. Donaldson, S.G. Hinch, C.M. O’Connor, R. Arlinghaus, A.J. Danylchuk, K.C. Hanson, T.D. Clark, and D.A. Patterson. 2013. The physiological consequences of catch-and-release angling; perspectives on experimental design, interpretation, extrapolation, and relevance to stakeholders. Fisheries management and Ecology 20:268-287.
6. Eikeset, A.M., Richter, A., E.S. Dunlop, U. Dieckmann, and N.C. Stenseth. 2013. Economic repercussions of fisheries-induced evolution. PNAS 110:12259-12264.
7. Fahay, M.P., P.L. Berrien, D.L. Johnson, and W.W. Morse. 1999. Bluefish, Pomatomus saltatrix, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-144.
8. Greene, C.H., A.J. Pershing, T.M. Cronin, and N. Ceci. Arctic Climate Change and Its Impacts on the Ecology of the North Atlantic. Ecology 89:S24-S38.
9. Hare J.A., W.E. Morrison, M.W. Nelson, N.M. Stachura, E.J. Teeters, R.B Griffis, et al. 2016. A Vulnerability Assessment of Fish and Invertebrates to Climate Change on the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf. PLoS ONE 11: e0146756. doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0146756
10. Nye, J.A., J.S. Link, J.A. Hare, and W.J. Overholtz. 2009. Changing in spatial distribution of fish stocks in relation to climate change and population size on the Northeast United States continental shelf. Marine Ecology Progress Series 393:111-129.
11. Pereira, J.J., R. Goldberg, J.J. Ziskowski, P.L. Berrien, W.W. Morse, and D.L. Johnson. 999. Winter Flounder, Pseudopleuronectes americanus Life History and Habitat Characteristics. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-138.
12. Perry, A.L., P.J. Low, J.R. Ellis, and J.D. Reynolds. 2005. Climate Change and Distribution Shifts in Marine Fishes. American Association for the Advancement of Science 308:1912-1915.
13. Pershing, A.J., C.H. Greene, J.W. Jossi, L. O’Brien, J.K.T. Brodziak, and B.A. Baily. 2005. Interdecadal variability in the Gulf of Maine zooplankton community, with potential impacts on fish recruitment. ICES Journal of Marine Science 62:1511-1523.
14. Pinksy, M.L., and M. Fogarty. 2012. Lagged social-ecological responses to climate and range shifts in fisheries. Climate Change 115:883-891.
15. Rijnsdorp, A.D., M.A. Peck, G.H. Engelhard, C. Mollmann, and J.K. Pinnegar. 2009. Resolving the effect of climate change on fish populations. ICES Journal of Marine Science. pp. 14.
16. Sharpe, D.M.T., and A.P. Hendry. 2009. Life history change in commercially exploited fish stocks: an analysis of trends across studies. Evolutionary Applications ISSN 1752-4571. Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2:260-275.
17. Todd, CD, Hughes, SL, Marshall, CT, Macleans, JC, Lonerhan, Michael E, Biuw, EM. 2008. Detrimental effects or recent ocean surface warming on growth condition of Atlantic salmon. Global Change Biology. 14: 958-970.
18. Walsh, H.J., D.E. Richardson, K.E. Marancik, and J.A. Hare. 2015. Long-Term Changes in the Distribution of Larval and Adult Fish in the Northeastern U.S. Continental Shelf. PLoS One 10:e0137382. pp. 31.
19. Collie JS, Wood AD, Jeffries HP. Long-term shifts in the species composition of a coastal fish community. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 2008; 65(7): 1352-1365. doi: 10.1139/F08-048
Although this species was identified as not vulnerable to climate change, the following factors increase vulnerability:
- Increasing ocean surface temperature
- Ocean... Read More
Although this species was identified as not vulnerable to climate change, the following factors increase vulnerability:
- Increasing ocean surface temperature
- Ocean acidification
- Early life history requirements
Hare J.A., W.E. Morrison, M.W. Nelson, N.M. Stachura, E.J. Teeters, R.B Griffis, et al. 2016. A Vulnerability Assessment of Fish and Invertebrates to Climate Change on the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf. PLoS ONE 11: e0146756. doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0146756
This species was identified as highly vulnerable to climate change because of the following factors:
- Increasing ocean surface temperature
- Ocean acidification ... Read More
This species was identified as highly vulnerable to climate change because of the following factors:
- Increasing ocean surface temperature
- Ocean acidification
- Increased air temperature
- Complex spawning cycle
- Early life history requirements
Hare J.A., W.E. Morrison, M.W. Nelson, N.M. Stachura, E.J. Teeters, R.B Griffis, et al. 2016. A Vulnerability Assessment of Fish and Invertebrates to Climate Change on the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf. PLoS ONE 11: e0146756. doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0146756
This species was identified as moderately vulnerable to climate change because of the following factors:
- Increasing ocean surface temperature
- Ocean acidification... Read More
This species was identified as moderately vulnerable to climate change because of the following factors:
- Increasing ocean surface temperature
- Ocean acidification
- Increasing air temperature
Hare J.A., W.E. Morrison, M.W. Nelson, N.M. Stachura, E.J. Teeters, R.B Griffis, et al. 2016. A Vulnerability Assessment of Fish and Invertebrates to Climate Change on the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf. PLoS ONE 11: e0146756. doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0146756
This species was identified as highly vulnerable to climate change because of the following factors:
- Increasing ocean surface temperature
- Ocean acidification ... Read More
This species was identified as highly vulnerable to climate change because of the following factors:
- Increasing ocean surface temperature
- Ocean acidification
- Increasing air temperature
- Early life history requirements
- Currently overfished
Hare J.A., W.E. Morrison, M.W. Nelson, N.M. Stachura, E.J. Teeters, R.B Griffis, et al. 2016. A Vulnerability Assessment of Fish and Invertebrates to Climate Change on the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf. PLoS ONE 11: e0146756. doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0146756
This species was identified as highly vulnerable to climate change because of the following factors:
- Increasing ocean surface temperature
- Ocean acidification ... Read More
This species was identified as highly vulnerable to climate change because of the following factors:
- Increasing ocean surface temperature
- Ocean acidification
- Increased air temperature
- Complex in reproduction
- Early life history requirements
Hare J.A., W.E. Morrison, M.W. Nelson, N.M. Stachura, E.J. Teeters, R.B Griffis, et al. 2016. A Vulnerability Assessment of Fish and Invertebrates to Climate Change on the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf. PLoS ONE 11: e0146756. doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0146756
Related Adaptation Strategies and Actions
Related Habitats (broad)
Related Habitats (detailed)
My Favorites
Show my favoritesHide my favorites
More info
Bookmark your favorite pages here. See the "add this page link" to add a page to your favorites. Click the X to remove a page from the list.