4.4 Article

Changing windows of opportunity: past and future climate-driven shifts in temporal persistence of kingfish (Seriola lalandi) oceanographic habitat within south-eastern Australian bioregions

期刊

MARINE AND FRESHWATER RESEARCH
卷 70, 期 1, 页码 33-42

出版社

CSIRO PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1071/MF17387

关键词

climate change; fisheries adaptation; fisheries management; global change; habitat suitability model; Seriola lalandi; species distribution model; species redistribution

资金

  1. Australian Society for Fish Biology's Michael Hall Student Innovation Award
  2. Holsworth Wildlife Research Endowment-Equity Trustees Charitable Foundation
  3. CSIRO-University of Tasmania joint Quantitative Marine Science Program
  4. Australian Research Council Future Fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Climate-driven shifts in species distributions are occurring rapidly within marine systems and are predicted to continue under climate change. To effectively adapt, marine resource users require information relevant to their activities at decision-making timescales. We model oceanographic habitat suitability for kingfish (Seriola lalandi) from southeastern Australia using multiple environmental variables at monthly time steps over the period 1996-2040. Habitat predictions were used to quantify the temporal persistence (months per year) of suitable oceanographic habitat within six coastal bioregions. A decline in temporal habitat persistence is predicted for the northernmost (equatorward) bioregion, whereas increases are predicted for the three southernmost (poleward) bioregions. We suggest that temporal habitat persistence is an important metric for climate change adaptation because it provides fishery-relevant information. Our methods demonstrate how novel metrics relevant to climate adaptation can be derived from predictions of species' environmental habitats, and are appropriate for the management of fisheries resources and protection of high conservation value species under future climate change.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据