You are here
Ecology and Vulnerability Forage Fish
Map displays the estimated presence and absence of Scup, Sandlance, Butterfish, Menhaden, American Shad, and Rainbow Smelt during the 1978-2016 Spring (green) and Fall (blue) Resource Trawling Surveys. Categories are based on the aggregation behavior of the species. Data provide by Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries.
Butterfish, Sandlance, and Rainbow Smelt: Absent=0; Low=1-25; Medium=26-100; High=101-500; and Very High=501-18626 (maximum for Butterfish and Rainbow Smelt) or 501-107083 (maximum for Sandlance).
Scup and Menhaden: Absent=0; Low=1-25; Medium=26-100; High=101-1000; and Very High=1001-1121 (maximum for Menhaden) or 1001-61925 (maximum for Scup).
American Shad: Absent=0; Low=1-25; Medium=25-100; and High=101-318 (maximum).
HideMap displays the estimated presence and absence of...
Read More
Ecology and Vulnerability
Forage Fish
Background
Forage fish are small fish that occupy low and middle levels of marine and aquatic food chains. Species found in Massachusetts include:
- River... Read More
Background
Forage fish are small fish that occupy low and middle levels of marine and aquatic food chains. Species found in Massachusetts include:
- River herring (alewife and blueback herring)
- American shad
- Atlantic menhaden
- Scup
- Sand lances
- Butterfish
- Atlantic silversides
- Rainbow smelt
- Killifish and mummichogs
- Sticklebacks
- Sheepshead minnow
Forage fish provide direct economic benefits through commercial harvest; the annual global commercial catch value of forage fish in 2014 was estimated to be 5.6 billion dollars 20. Forage fish also provide indirect economic benefits through important supportive ecosystem services by transferring energy to higher levels of food webs. This occurs as forage fish typically consume lower trophic level species such as invertebrates and plankton, and are then consumed by a number of commercially and recreationally important higher level marine predators such as sportfishes, seabirds, marine mammals, and squid. In an attempt to highlight the intrinsic value of forage fish, a recent study estimated the yearly value of global fisheries supported by forage fish at around 11.3 billion dollars 19.
Many forage fish populations have declined in recent decades due to commercial harvest and incidental catches in other fisheries, habitat obstructions, and pollution. These threats impede the recovery of forage fish which reduces the overall availability of food resources for predators 15. Many forage fish have been targeted by fisheries due to the loss of other overfished species, and as a result, there have been declines of larger more valued fishes such as cod and tuna 18,29.
Environmental changes in marine ecosystems from climate change and increased fishing pressure have reduced the body size and age at reproduction of some species 8. This, along with other biological adaptations, may impact the ability of forage fish to adapt to and withstand future stressors brought about by climate change.
Climate Impacts
Climate change impacts are broad, and events in one location can cascade and impact ecosystems far away. Climate-induced shifts in the Arctic Ocean have triggered ecological changes in North Atlantic ecosystems that impact forage fish in New England in various ways. For example, since the 1990s, continental shelf waters have become fresher (lower salinity levels) and more stratified (divided into distinct layers). This has altered the availability and distribution of types and sizes of primary (phytoplankton) and secondary (zooplankton) producers, which juvenile and other small fish depend on for food 1,3,10,19. We are just beginning to understand how changes in ocean temperature affect the flow and stability of energy in marine systems.
Increased temperatures, changes in hydrology, increased periods of drought, and sea level rise puts stress on our local forage fish communities. Vulnerability of forage fish to climate change will vary widely depending on the complexity of their life cycles, habitat and food preferences, movement patterns, and individual species’ biology.
Climate change vulnerability and exposure of forage fish is dependent on whether they are year-round “residents” within certain coastal habitats, or “transient” species that display seasonal habitat use and movement behaviors. Increasing temperatures can alter the proportion of migrant and resident fish within populations, thus contributing to their relative exposure to different stressors 16.
Resident Forage Fish
Resident forage fish exhibit relatively localized movements that are typically limited to estuaries, embayments and coastal rivers 27. In Massachusetts, resident forage fish include:
- Killifish
- Mummichogs
- Sheepshead minnows
- Sand lances
- Sticklebacks
Killifish, mummichogs, and sheepshead minnows are typically restricted to brackish-freshwater estuarine habitats, while sand lances and sticklebacks can tolerate a wide range of salinities 4,9,23.
Because resident forage fish primarily occur in nearshore environments, they are vulnerable to stressors that impact both terrestrial and aquatic systems. Intensification of precipitation and storm surge events associated with climate change are likely to increase terrestrial runoff, and affect delivery and distribution patterns of sediment and pollutants. Projected increases in sea level and storm surge will also alter coastal sediments, which many forage fish rely on for incubating eggs, foraging, and predator avoidance 23.
In response to warming temperatures, many predatory fish species are shifting their distribution and the amount of time they spend seasonally in northern habitats 2,17,22. In some cases, this is leading to a novel suite of predators and changes in the composition and structure of existing food webs 21,28. Therefore, the vulnerability of resident forage fish to future climate change will depend on their ability to disperse, adapt to new environmental conditions, and withstand ecosystem-wide changes in predators and competitors 11,13.
Transient Forage Fish
Transient forage fish are species that undergo large movements throughout their life cycle that can span tidally-driven streams and rivers, estuarine, and open ocean habitats. In Massachusetts, transient forage fish include:
- Silversides
- White perch
- Scup
- Butterfish
- Rainbow smelt
- Atlantic menhaden
- River herring (alewives and blueback herring)
- American shad
Many transient species inhabit near-shore waters during the summer and then migrate to deeper offshore waters during winter. Some species, such as the scup and butterfish, make movements between offshore and estuarine waters many times throughout their lives 7,25. Scup and butterfish appear to be benefiting from increased water temperature, as seen by their increasing populations in New England 5.
Alewife, blueback herring, American shad, and rainbow smelt are all anadromous species, spending most of their lives in salt water but migrating to freshwater to reproduce. This life history exposes anadromous species to stressors associated with both offshore marine and inland waters such as habitat connectivity and obstruction (e.g. dams and culverts), pollution, and fishing pressure 6,12,15. In addition, smaller species such as rainbow smelt are sensitive to changes in salinity and temperature, particularly in spawning streams 13.
1. Beaugrand, G., M. Edwards, and L. Legendre. 2010. Marine Biodiversity, ecosystem functioning, and carbon cycles. PNAS 107:10120-10124.
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. Bigelow HB, Schroeder WC. 1953. Fishes of the Gulf of Maine. Bulletin no. 74, vol. 53. US Government Printing Office.
4. Chitty JD and Able KW. 2004. Habitat Use, Movements, and Growth of the Sheepshead Minnow, Cyprinodon variegatus, in a restored salt marsh in Delaware Bay. Bull. N.J. Acad. Sci. 49:1-8.
5. 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
6. Cournane, J.M., J.P. Kritzer, and S.J. Correia. 2013. Spatial and temporal patterns of anadromous alosine bycatch in the US Atlantic herring fishery. Fisheries Research 141:88-94.
7. Cross, J.N., C.A. Zetlin, P.L. Berrien, D.L. Johnson, and C. McBride. 1999. Butterfish, Peprilus triacanthus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-145.
8. Davis, JP, Schultz, ET. 2009. Temporal Shifts in Demography and Life History of an Anadromous Alewife population in Connecticut. Marine and Coastal Fisheries 1:90-106.
9. Fuller, P., K. Dettloff and R. Sturtevant. 2016. Gasterosteus aculeatus. USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL.
http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=702 Revision Date: 2/6/2015
10. 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.
11. Grimm, N.B., M.D. Staudinger, A. Staudt, S.L. Carter., F. S. Chapin, P. Kareiva, M. Ruckelshaus, and B. A. Stein. 2013. Climate-change impacts on ecological systems: introduction to a US assessment. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11: 456-464
12. Hall CJ, Jordaan A, Frisk MG. 2011. The historic influence of dams on diadromous fish habitat with a focus on river herring and hydrologic longitudinal connectivity. Landscape Ecology 26: 95-107.
13. 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
14. Hartman KJ, and Margraf FJ. 2003. US Atlantic coast striped bass: Issues with a recovered population. Fisheries Management and Ecology 10: 309–312.
15. Limburg K.E., Waldman, J.R. 2009. Dramatic declines in North Atlantic diadromous fishes. BioScience 59: 955–965.
16. Morita, K, Tamate, T, Kuroki, M, Nagasawa, T. 2014. Temperature-dependent variation in alternative migratory tactics and its implications for fitness and population dynamics in a salmonid fish. Journal of Animal Ecology. 83: 1268-1278.
17. 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.
18. Pauly, D., V. Christensen, J. Dalsgaard, R. Froese, and F. Torres, Jr. 1998. Fishing Down Marine Food Webs. Science 279:860-863.
19. 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.
20. Pikitch, E.K., K.J. Rountos, T.E. Essington, C. Santora, D. Pauly, R. Watson, U.R. Sumaila, P.D. Boersma, I.L. Boyd, D.O. Conover, P.Cury, S.S. Heppell, E.D. Houde, M. Mangel, E. Plaganyi, K. Sainsbury, and R.S. Steneck. 2014. The global contribution of forage fish to marine fisheries and ecosystems. Fish and Fisheries 15:43-64.
21. Pinsky, M.L., B. Worm, M.J. Fogarty, J.L. Sarmiento, S.A. Levin. Marine Taxa Track Local Climate Velocities. 2013. Science 341:1239-1242.
22. Poloczanska, E.S., Brown, C.J., Sydeman, W.J., Kiessling, W., Schoeman, D.S., Moore, P.J., Brander, K., Bruno, J.F., Buckley, L.B., Burrows, M.T. and C.M. Duarte. 2013. Global imprint of climate change on marine life. Nature Climate Change 3: 919-925.
23. Robards, M.D., M.F. Willson, R.H. Armstrong, and J.F. Piatt. 1999. Sand Lance: A Review of Biology and Predator Relations and Annotated Bibliography. Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Project 99346 Final Report.
24. Saunders, R., Hachey, M.A., Fay, and C.W. 2006. Maine’s diadromous fish community: past, present, and implications for Atlantic salmon recovery. Fisheries 31:537–547.
25. Steimle, F.W., C.A. Zetlin, P.L. Berrien, D.L. Johnson, and S. Chang. 1999. Scup, Stenotomus chrysops, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-149.
26. 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.
27. Werner, R.G. 2004. A Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes of the Northeastern United States. Syracuse University Press. pp. 335.
28. Wood AJM, Collie JS, and Hare JA. 2009. A comparison between warm-water fish assemblages of Narragansett Bay and those of Long Island Sound waters. Fishery Bulletin 107: 89-100.
29. Staudinger, MD, Juanes, F. 2010. A size-based approach to quantifying predation on longfin inshore squid Loligo pealeii in the northwest Atlantic. Mar. Ecol. 399: 225-241.
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
- Life history requirements during larval and juvenile stages
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
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
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
- Life history requirements
- Spawning cycle
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
- Restricted adult mobility
- Spawning cycle
- Sensitivity to 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 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
- Population growth rates
- Early life history requirements
- Spawning cycle
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.