| Literature DB >> 35279693 |
Leonardo Durante1, Stephen Wing2, Travis Ingram3, Amandine Sabadel2,3, Jeffrey Shima4.
Abstract
Understanding how marine food webs are affected by anthropogenic stressors is an important steppingstone toward the improved management of natural resources. Stable isotope analysis of historical and modern samples spanning a century indicated that the niche width of an exploited fish community increased after the expansion of New Zealand fisheries. Since the 2000s most species increased their reliance on food webs supported by pelagic production, compared to coastal production supported by macroalgae, and shifted to a higher trophic level. Overall changes were coincident with ocean warming, climate oscillations, prey abundance and fishing intensity, but their effects were specific to each fish assemblage analyzed. Data derived from historical samples revealed how anthropogenic stressors can drive long-term shifts in the trophic structure of an exploited fish community.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35279693 PMCID: PMC8918348 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-08391-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Temporal trends of environmental data and fisheries activities. Temporal trend of the Marine Trophic Index for commercial fisheries in New Zealand waters[22], Southern Oscillation Index (SOI), monthly temperature anomaly and its temporal trend (5 year average low pass filter)[23]. SOI represents the fluctuation of atmospheric pressure in the edges of the tropical Pacific Ocean, where large negative and positive values indicate El Niño and La Niña events, respectively. Dashed line represents the linear regression of monthly temperature anomaly over the years. Straight black lines represent historical (prior to 1996), and modern (after 2000) time periods analyzed in the present study. Fish samples were not available between the years 1996 and 2000.
Sample sizes.
| Species | Region | Historical | Modern | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blue cod | All | 12 | 58 | 70 |
| Canterbury Bight | 6 | 30 | 36 | |
| North of Banks Peninsula-Shallow | 9 | 9 | ||
| Marlborough Sounds | 6 | 19 | 25 | |
| Elephant fish | All | 15 | 5 | 20 |
| Canterbury Bight | 13 | 5 | 18 | |
| North of Banks Peninsula-Shallow | 1 | 1 | ||
| Marlborough Sounds | 1 | 1 | ||
| Gurnard | All | 20 | 25 | 45 |
| Canterbury Bight | 17 | 24 | 41 | |
| North of Banks Peninsula-Shallow | 2 | 2 | ||
| Marlborough Sounds | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| Leatherjacket | All | 23 | 26 | 49 |
| Canterbury Bight | 20 | 20 | 40 | |
| North of Banks Peninsula-Shallow | 3 | 3 | ||
| Marlborough Sounds | 6 | 6 | ||
| Barracouta | All | 8 | 15 | 23 |
| Canterbury Bight | 5 | 11 | 16 | |
| North of Banks Peninsula-Shallow | 1 | 1 | ||
| Marlborough Sounds | 2 | 4 | 6 | |
| Common warehou | All | 8 | 11 | 19 |
| Canterbury Bight | 6 | 11 | 17 | |
| Marlborough Sounds | 2 | 2 | ||
| Giant stargazer | All | 16 | 17 | 33 |
| Canterbury Bight | 7 | 17 | 24 | |
| North of Banks Peninsula-Deep | 2 | 2 | ||
| North of Banks Peninsula-Shallow | 2 | 2 | ||
| Marlborough Sounds | 5 | 5 | ||
| Red cod | All | 24 | 42 | 66 |
| Canterbury Bight | 7 | 19 | 26 | |
| North of Banks Peninsula-Deep | 14 | 8 | 22 | |
| North of Banks Peninsula-Shallow | 2 | 14 | 16 | |
| Marlborough Sounds | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| Spiny dogfish | All | 15 | 17 | 32 |
| Canterbury Bight | 12 | 17 | 29 | |
| Marlborough Sounds | 3 | 3 | ||
| Tarakihi | All | 21 | 62 | 83 |
| Canterbury Bight | 15 | 28 | 43 | |
| North of Banks Peninsula-Shallow | 6 | 31 | 37 | |
| Marlborough Sounds | 3 | 3 | ||
| Hapuka | All | 8 | 12 | 20 |
| Canterbury Bight | 4 | 7 | 11 | |
| North of Banks Peninsula-Deep | 1 | 1 | ||
| North of Banks Peninsula-Shallow | 1 | 1 | ||
| Marlborough Sounds | 2 | 5 | 7 | |
| Ling | All | 20 | 27 | 47 |
| Canterbury Bight | 17 | 8 | 25 | |
| North of Banks Peninsula-Deep | 1 | 11 | 12 | |
| Marlborough Sounds | 2 | 8 | 10 | |
| Sea perch | All | 32 | 39 | 71 |
| Canterbury Bight | 24 | 24 | 48 | |
| North of Banks Peninsula-Deep | 1 | 1 | ||
| North of Banks Peninsula-Shallow | 1 | 11 | 12 | |
| Marlborough Sounds | 6 | 4 | 10 | |
| Hoki | All | 11 | 7 | 18 |
| Canterbury Bight | 4 | 4 | ||
| North of Banks Peninsula-Deep | 7 | 7 | 14 | |
| Lookdown dory | All | 18 | 12 | 30 |
| Canterbury Bight | 6 | 6 | ||
| North of Banks Peninsula-Deep | 12 | 12 | 24 | |
| Orange roughy | All | 18 | 14 | 32 |
| Canterbury Bight | 6 | 6 | ||
| North of Banks Peninsula-Deep | 12 | 14 | 26 | |
| Total | 269 | 389 | 658 |
Sample sizes for all species collected in different regions during historical and modern time periods.
Figure 2Isotopic niche spaces. Average ± standard error of the δ13C and δ15N of fish species comprising different assemblages and sampled during historical (A, before 1996) and modern (B, after 2000) periods. Dashed ellipse represents the Standard Ellipse Area of all data points calculated through Bayesian inference, representing the total niche space of the community[84]. Species are color coded by assemblages.
Figure 3Trophic structure anomaly through time. Average ± standard error of the value-predicted percentage phytoplankton supporting the food webs and the trophic level of fishes during the historical period (before 1996) in New Zealand. Predicted values were calculated from the species-specific relationship between each trophic parameter, latitude of sampling and specimens’ total length for specimens collected after the year 2000 (modern specimens, Table S5). Panels separate species with higher and lower trophic level, as well as relying on food webs supported by more pelagic or coastal producers compared to modern predictions (i.e., historical value minus modern predicted value). Symbols represent significant differences in value-predicted percentage phytoplankton (*) and trophic level (^) between each period and modern time period (Table S3).
Temperature and environmental effects.
| Percentage phytoplankton | p value | Trophic level | p value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Value—predicted (± SE) | Value—predicted (± SE) | |||
| n = 606 | n = 609 | |||
| Intercept | − 0.006 ± 0.009 | 0.562 | − 0.138 ± 0.035 | |
| MUN | 0.0002 ± 0.0003 | 0.517 | − 0.003 ± 0.0008 | |
| SST | − 0.004 ± 0.012 | 0.721 | 0.184 ± 0.033 | |
| SOI | 0.073 ± 0.012 | − 0.164 ± 0.032 | ||
| MTI | 0.057 ± 0.044 | 0.196 | − 0.711 ± 0.116 | |
| Random effect (species) | 0.089 | |||
| Adjusted R2 | 0.12 | 0.24 | ||
Results of generalized linear models (estimates ± SE) describing the effects of abundance of pelagic prey (MUN), temperature (SST), Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) and fisheries (MTI) on value—predicted percentage phytoplankton supporting food webs and trophic level for the whole fish community. Significance of species random effects are also presented in the form of p values. Value—predicted represents the differences of historical trophic parameters to expected values considering fish species, latitude, and total length (Fig. 3).
Significance values are given in bold.