Phoebe A. Woodworth-Jefcoats

Climate change is affecting ocean temperature, acidity, currents, and primary production, causing shifts in species distributions, marine ecosystems, and ultimately fisheries. Earth system models simulate climate change impacts on physical and biogeochemical properties of future oceans under varying emissions scenarios. Coupling these simulations with an ensemble of global marine ecosystem models has indicated broad decreases of fish biomass with warming. However, regional details of these impacts remain much more uncertain. Here, we employ CMIP5 and CMIP6 climate change impact projections using two Earth system models coupled with four regional and nine global marine ecosystem models in 10 ocean regions to evaluate model agreement at regional scales. We find that models developed at different scales can lead to stark differences in biomass projections. On average, global models projected greater biomass declines by the end of the 21st century than regional models. For both global and regional models, greater biomass declines were projected using CMIP6 than CMIP5 simulations. Global models projected biomass declines in 86% of CMIP5 simulations for ocean regions compared to 50% for regional models in the same ocean regions. In CMIP6 simulations, all global model simulations projected biomass declines in ocean regions by 2100, while regional models projected biomass declines in 67% of the ocean region simulations. Our analysis suggests that improved understanding of the causes of differences between global and regional marine ecosystem model climate change projections is needed, alongside observational evaluation of modeled responses.

As the urgency to evaluate the impacts of climate change on marine ecosystems increases, there is a need to develop robust projections and improve the uptake of ecosystem model outputs in policy and planning. Standardizing input and output data is a crucial step in evaluating and communicating results, but can be challenging when using models with diverse structures, assumptions, and outputs that address region‐specific issues. We developed an implementation framework and workflow to standardize the climate and fishing forcings used by regional models contributing to the Fisheries and Marine Ecosystem Model Intercomparison Project (FishMIP) and to facilitate comparative analyses across models and a wide range of regions, in line with the FishMIP 3a protocol. We applied our workflow to three case study areas‐models: the Baltic Sea Mizer, Hawai'i‐based Longline fisheries therMizer, and the southern Benguela ecosystem Atlantis marine ecosystem models. We then selected the most challenging steps of the workflow and illustrated their implementation in different model types and regions. Our workflow is adaptable across a wide range of regional models, from non‐spatially explicit to spatially explicit and fully‐depth resolved models and models that include one or several fishing fleets. This workflow will facilitate the development of regional marine ecosystem model ensembles and enhance future research on marine ecosystem model development and applications, model evaluation and benchmarking, and global‐to‐regional model comparisons.

There is an urgent need for models that can robustly detect past and project future ecosystem changes and risks to the services that they provide to people. The Fisheries and Marine Ecosystem Model Intercomparison Project (FishMIP) was established to develop model ensembles for projecting long‐term impacts of climate change on fisheries and marine ecosystems while informing policy at spatio‐temporal scales relevant to the Inter‐Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP) framework. While contributing FishMIP models have improved over time, large uncertainties in projections remain, particularly in coastal and shelf seas where most of the world's fisheries occur. Furthermore, previous FishMIP climate impact projections have been limited by a lack of global standardized historical fishing data, low resolution of coastal processes, and uneven capabilities across the FishMIP community to dynamically model fisheries. These features are needed to evaluate how reliably the FishMIP ensemble captures past ecosystem states ‐ a crucial step for building confidence in future projections. To address these issues, we have developed FishMIP 2.0 comprising a two‐track framework for: (a) Model evaluation and attribution of past changes and (b) future climate and socioeconomic scenario projections. Key advances include improved historical climate forcing, which captures oceanographic features not previously resolved, and standardized global fishing forcing to test fishing effects systematically across models. FishMIP 2.0 is a crucial step toward a detection and attribution framework for changing marine ecosystems and toward enhanced policy relevance through increased confidence in future ensemble projections. Our results will help elucidate pathways toward achieving sustainable development goals.

As the urgency to evaluate the impacts of climate change on marine ecosystems increases, there is a need to develop robust projections and improve the uptake of ecosystem model outputs in policy and planning. Standardising input and output data is a crucial step in evaluating and communicating results, but can be challenging when using models with diverse structures, assumptions, and outputs that address region-specific issues. We developed an implementation framework and workflow to standardise the climate and fishing forcings used by regional models contributing to the Fisheries and Marine Ecosystem Model Intercomparison Project (FishMIP) and to facilitate comparative analyses across models and a wide range of regions, in line with the FishMIP 3a protocol. We applied our workflow to three case study areas-models: the Baltic Sea Mizer, Hawai’i-based Longline fisheries therMizer, and the southern Benguela ecosystem Atlantis marine ecosystem models. We then selected the most challenging steps of the workflow and illustrated their implementation in different model types and regions. Our workflow is adaptable across a wide range of regional models, from non-spatially explicit to spatially explicit and fully-depth resolved models and models that include one or several fishing fleets. This workflow will facilitate the development of regional marine ecosystem model ensembles and enhance future research on marine ecosystem model development and applications, model evaluation and benchmarking, and global-to-regional model comparisons.

Climate change is affecting ocean temperature, acidity, currents, and primary production, causing shifts in species distributions, marine ecosystems, and ultimately fisheries. Earth system models simulate climate change impacts on physical and biogeochemical properties of future oceans under varying emissions scenarios. Coupling these simulations with an ensemble of global marine ecosystem models indicates decreasing global fish biomass with warming. However, regional projections of these impacts remain much more uncertain. Here, we employ CMIP5 and CMIP6 climate change impact projections using two Earth system models coupled with four regional and nine global marine ecosystem models in ten ocean regions to evaluate model agreement at regional scales. We find that models developed at different scales can lead to stark differences in biomass projections. On average, global models projected greater biomass declines by the end of the 21st century than regional models. For both global and regional models, greater biomass declines were projected using CMIP6 than CMIP5 simulations. Global models projected biomass declines in 86% of CMIP5 simulations for ocean regions compared to 50% for regional models in the same ocean regions. In CMIP6 simulations, all global model simulations projected biomass declines in ocean regions by 2100, while regional models projected biomass declines in 67% of the ocean region simulations. Our analysis suggests that improved understanding of the causes of differences between global and regional marine ecosystem model climate change projections is needed, alongside observational evaluation of modelled responses.

Food web projections are critical for evaluating potential risks to ecosystems and fisheries under global warming. The temperature dependence of biological processes and regional differences in food web structure are two important sources of uncertainty and variation in climate forced projections of fish communities, but we do not know their magnitude or relative contribution. Here we systematically evaluated a range of different assumptions about temperature‐dependence on rates, including size‐dependent effects, controlling food intake, metabolism, and non‐predation mortality in fishes using species‐resolved size spectrum food web models that link individual‐level physiological processes to population and community dynamics. We simulated the physiological effect of warming in a range of size‐structured food web models calibrated to different marine ecosystems and in simplified trait‐based models. Higher food intake in warmed conditions increased total fish biomass, catches, and mean body weight, but these effects were offset by the negative effects of warming on metabolism and mortality, which combined resulted in lower total biomasses and catches for most food webs. These effects were enhanced when warming increased metabolic rates more than food intake, and the outcomes were also sensitive to size dependency of temperature responses. Importantly, these general patterns were not uniform across all food webs—individual functional groups and fish species within food webs responded to warming in different ways depending on their position in the food web and its structure. Hence, caution is warranted when generalizing food web or species outcomes to warming because they are mediated by community interactions. Uncertainty related to temperature dependence and ecological interactions will impact food web projections and should be represented in climate change projections.

There is an urgent need for models that can robustly detect past and project future ecosystem changes and risks to the services that they provide to people. The Fisheries and Marine Ecosystem Model Intercomparison Project (FishMIP) was established to develop model ensembles for projecting long-term impacts of climate change on fisheries and marine ecosystems while informing policy at spatio-temporal scales relevant to the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP) framework. While contributing FishMIP models have improved over time, large uncertainties in projections remain, particularly in coastal and shelf seas where most of the world’s fisheries occur. Furthermore, previous FishMIP climate impact projections have mostly ignored fishing activity due to a lack of standardized historical and scenario-based human activity forcing and uneven capabilities to dynamically model fisheries across the FishMIP community. This, in addition to underrepresentation of coastal processes, has limited the ability to evaluate the FishMIP ensemble’s ability to adequately capture past states - a crucial step for building confidence in future projections. To address these issues, we have developed two parallel simulation experiments (FishMIP 2.0) on: 1) model evaluation and detection of past changes and 2) future scenarios and projections. Key advances include historical climate forcing, that captures oceanographic features not previously resolved, and standardized fishing forcing to systematically test fishing effects across models. FishMIP 2.0 is a key step towards a detection and attribution framework for marine ecosystem change at regional and global scales, and towards enhanced policy relevance through increased confidence in future ensemble projections.

As past and present nontraditional students, our group of authors experienced firsthand a range of hurdles in our pursuit of ocean science graduate studies. Some of us attended graduate school while working full time in our fields as a means to advance our careers. Others returned to graduate school to pursue a second career in a new field. Combining our experiences with broader demographic information (Wendler et al., 2010) led us to define nontraditional ocean science graduate students as any of the following: mid-career professionals pursuing graduate degrees for career advancement and those who are embarking on a second career, hold an undergraduate degree outside of STEM, are in their thirties or older, or are balancing school with work and/or family responsibilities. While we highlight these characteristics, we recognize that there are others who self-identify as nontraditional, such as those facing a serious medical condition or disability. We hope that by sharing ways to remove barriers to entry, retention, and advancement for nontraditional students, our field will become more inclusive, equitable, and diverse.

Ocean eddies are coherent, rotating features that can modulate pelagic ecosystems across many trophic levels. These mesoscale features, which are ubiquitous at mid-latitudes¹, may increase productivity of nutrient-poor regions^2,3, accumulate prey⁴ and modulate habitat conditions in the water column⁵. However, in nutrient-poor subtropical gyres—the largest marine biome—the role of eddies in modulating behaviour throughout the pelagic predator community remains unknown despite predictions for these gyres to expand⁶ and pelagic predators to become increasingly important for food security⁷. Using a large-scale fishery dataset in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre, we show a pervasive pattern of increased pelagic predator catch inside anticyclonic eddies relative to cyclones and non-eddy areas. Our results indicate that increased mesopelagic prey abundance in anticyclone cores^4,8 may be attracting diverse predators, forming ecological hotspots where these predators aggregate and exhibit increased abundance. In this energetically quiescent gyre, we expect that isolated mesoscale features (and the habitat conditions in them) exhibit primacy over peripheral submesoscale dynamics in structuring the foraging opportunities of pelagic predators. Our finding that eddies influence coupling of epi- to mesopelagic communities corroborates the growing evidence that deep scattering layer organisms are vital prey for a suite of commercially important predator species⁹ and, thus, provide valuable ecosystem services.