| Literature DB >> 25628878 |
Shintaro Takao1, Naoki H Kumagai2, Hiroya Yamano2, Masahiko Fujii1, Yasuhiro Yamanaka1.
Abstract
Seaweed beds play a key role in providing essential habitats and energy to coastal areas, with enhancements in productivity and biodiversity and benefits to human societies. However, the spatial extent of seaweed beds around Japan has decreased due to coastal reclamation, water quality changes, rising water temperatures, and heavy grazing by herbivores. Using monthly mean sea surface temperature (SST) data from 1960 to 2099 and SST-based indices, we quantitatively evaluated the effects of warming seawater on the spatial extent of suitable versus unsuitable habitats for temperate seaweed Ecklonia cava, which is predominantly found in southern Japanese waters. SST data were generated using the most recent multiple climate projection models and emission scenarios (the Representative Concentration Pathways or RCPs) used in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5). In addition, grazing by Siganus fuscescens, an herbivorous fish, was evaluated under the four RCP simulations. Our results suggest that continued warming may drive a poleward shift in the distribution of E. cava, with large differences depending on the climate scenario. For the lowest emission scenario (RCP2.6), most existing E. cava populations would not be impacted by seawater warming directly but would be adversely affected by intensified year-round grazing. For the highest emission scenario (RCP8.5), previously suitable habitats throughout coastal Japan would become untenable for E. cava by the 2090s, due to both high-temperature stress and intensified grazing. Our projections highlight the importance of not only mitigating regional warming due to climate change, but also protecting E. cava from herbivores to conserve suitable habitats on the Japanese coast.Entities:
Keywords: Barren ground; climate change; future projection; global warming; herbivores; seaweed
Year: 2014 PMID: 25628878 PMCID: PMC4298448 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.1358
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
List of climate models used in this study, horizontal resolution, and ocean model
| Model (Country) | Horizontal resolution (Longitude × Latitude) | Ocean model |
|---|---|---|
| 1. BCC-CSM1-1 (China) | 1° ×0.33-1° | MOM4_L40 |
| 2. BCC-CSM1-1m (China) | 1° × 0.33–1° | MOM4_L40 |
| 3. CCSM4 (USA) | 1.125° × 0.27–0.54° | POP2.0 |
| 4. CESM1-CAM5 (USA) | 1.125° × 0.27–0.53° | POP2.0 |
| 5. CSIRO-Mk3.6.0 (Australia) | 1.875° × 0.9375° | MOM2.2 |
| 6. FIO-ESM (China) | 1.125° × 0.27–0.53° | POP2.0 |
| 7. GFDL-CM3 (USA) | 1° × 0.33–1° | MOM4p1 |
| 8. GFDL-ESM2G (USA) | 1° × 0.375–1° | GOLD |
| 9. GFDL-ESM2M (USA) | 1° × 0.33–1° | MOM4p1 |
| 10. GISS-E2-H (USA) | 2.5° × 2° | Hycom |
| 11. GISS-E2-R (USA) | 2.5° × 2° | Russell |
| 12. HadGEM2-ES (UK) | 1° × 0.34–1° | HadGOM2.0 |
| 13. IPSL-CM5A-LR (France) | 2° × 0.5–2° | NEMO v2.3 |
| 14. MIROC5 (Japan) | 1.406° × 0.5–1.378° | COCO v4.5 |
| 15. MRI-CGCM3 (Japan) | 1° × 0.5° | MRI.COM3 |
| 16. NorESM1-M (Norway) | 1.125° × 0.27–0.54° | MICOM |
| 17. NorESM1-ME (Norway) | 1.125° × 0.27–0.54° | MICOM |
Figure 1Potential habitats for Ecklonia cava projected using the CMIP5 multimodel mean monthly SSTs in (A) the 2000s and (B–E) the 2090s for RCPs 2.6, 4.5, 6.0, and 8.5, respectively. The results in the 2000s were projected based on a historical simulation for 2000–2005 and the mean of the four RCP simulations for 2006–2009. Blue squares, suitable habitats without high-temperature stress or year-round grazing by S. fuscescens; light blue squares, suitable habitats without high-temperature stress but with year-round grazing; yellow squares, unsuitable habitats due to high-temperature stress; red squares, unsuitable habitats due to a combination of high-temperature stress and year-round grazing.
Assessment of the threshold maximized the projected probability of Ecklonia cava habitats. AUC, area under a receiver operating characteristic curve; correct, agreement rate between the observation and the projection; sensitivity, rate of true positive projection; specificity, rate of true negative projection
| Threshold | AUC | Correct | Sensitivity | Specificity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.1 | 0.802 | 0.823 | 0.855 | 0.750 |
| 0.2 | 0.779 | 0.823 | 0.891 | 0.667 |
| 0.3 | 0.776 | 0.835 | 0.927 | 0.625 |
| 0.4 | 0.785 | 0.848 | 0.945 | 0.625 |
| 0.5 | 0.773 | 0.848 | 0.964 | 0.583 |
| 0.6 | 0.783 | 0.861 | 0.982 | 0.583 |
| 0.7 | 0.762 | 0.848 | 0.982 | 0.542 |
Projected speeds of the poleward expansion of the suitable habitat for Ecklonia cava under the four RCP scenarios. The speeds were calculated from differences in the northern position of the habitats between 2000s and 2090s
| Projected speeds of the poleward expansion of the suitable habitat for | Northern position of the suitable habitat for | Northern position of the suitable habitat for | |
|---|---|---|---|
| RCP2.6 | 0 | 37.5 | 37.5 |
| RCP4.0 | 2.2 | 37.5 | 39.5 |
| RCP6.0 | 3.3 | 37.5 | 40.5 |
| RCP8.5 | 4.5 | 37.5 | 41.5 |
Figure 2Shifts in the spatial extent of potentially (A) suitable and (B) unsuitable habitats for Ecklonia cava from 2000s to 2090s.
Figure 3Shifts in the spatial extent of (A) suitable habitat and (B) year-round grazing by S. fuscescens within the suitable habitat between the 2000s and 2090s.