Upper thermal limits on the oceanic distribution of Pacific salmon (OncoWiynchtts spp.) in spring

National Research Institute of Far Seas Fisheries, Sizuoka, Shizuoka, Japan
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences (Impact Factor: 2.29). 04/2011; 52(3):489-503. DOI: 10.1139/f95-050


Pacific salmon are normally thought to be distributed throughout the Subarctic Pacific, an area where they form the dominant fish fauna. We use a series of generalized additive models to show that salmon exhibit a sharp step-function response to temperature in the oceanic eastern north Pacific in spring. The critical temperature defining the southern boundary varied by species: 10.4 °C for pink and chum salmon, 9.4 °C for coho salmon, and 8.9 °C for sockeye salmon. These thermal limits occur well to the north of the southern boundary of the Transition Zone, at widely separated geographic positions within the Subarctic Domain, and at temperatures much lower than the lethal upper limit for each species. The sharp decline in abundance with temperature, and the remarkably low temperatures at which the response occurs, suggests that thermal barriers form an effective limit to the offshore distribution of salmon in spring, and can limit the distribution of Pacific salmon to a relatively small area of the Subarctic Pacific. The strength of this response is presumably the direct result of strong evolutionary selection. Future temperature changes in the North Pacific could therefore have a direct impact on the production dynamics of Pacific salmon.

Full-text preview

Available from:
  • Source
    • "Temperature plays a clear role in both salmon physiology (Beauchamp 2009) and behavior (Hinke et al. 2005). Therefore, temperature almost certainly influences salmon distribution (Welch et al. 1995; Putman et al. 2013). Almost all analyses of salmon spatial distribution or marine growth rates and how they relate to environmental covariates have found significant relationships with temperature (Reddin et al. 2006; Bi et al. 2007; Wells et al. 2008; Friedland et al. 2009; Hogan and Friedland 2010; Burke et al. 2013). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Many species of salmon around the world migrate to open ocean environments for multiple years and then return to their natal rivers to spawn. How exactly salmon are able to execute these long distance migrations, and the impact of environmental conditions on migration behavior, is not well understood. Individual based modeling is one tool that has been used to explore salmon migration in the ocean. Although models are usually not able to confirm whether a particular behavior is used, they can rule out some behaviors as unrealistic. An extensive review of published literature suggests that there is no universal migration behavior. Behaviors that fish use to navigate depend on where they are in the ocean relative to where they are going, as well as the ocean flows and conditions along the way. Future models of salmon migration should be flexible and at an appropriate scale to capture variable oceanographic conditions and fish responses.
    Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 09/2014; 24(3). DOI:10.1007/s11160-014-9343-0 · 2.73 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "In addition, when climatic change drives a marine ecosystem into new conditions not observed in existing SST data sets, the resulting changes in oceanographic currents, timing of spring phytoplankton bloom, and other marine processes could alter the past observed relationships between early-summer SST and salmon productivity. Such a change is quite conceivable because at present, SSTs in marine waters are well below the upper thermal limit for salmon survival and distribution (Welch et al., 1995; Azumaya et al., 2007), so in the relationship between SST and salmon productivity noted above, SST is most likely just an indirect proxy for factors linked to ocean conditions, such as salmon food supply and/or abundance of major predators on salmon (Ware and McFarlane, 1995; Gargett et al., 2001). Thus, the magnitude and direction of effects of changes in SST on sockeye is likely locationdependent and may change in the future. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We used empirically based simulation modelling of 48 sockeye salmon (O. nerka) populations to examine how reliably alternative monitoring designs and fish stock assessment methods can distinguish between changes in density-dependent versus density-independent components of productivity and identify the relative contribution of a climate-driven covariate. We explored a wide range of scenarios for ocean and freshwater conditions and the response of salmon productivity (adult recruits per spawner) to those conditions. Our results show that stock assessments based on historical relationships between salmon productivity and climate-driven oceanographic conditions will likely perform poorly when those relationships change, even when such changes are anticipated and incorporated into stock assessment models in a timely manner. Estimating the relative importance of climate-driven oceanographic influences as a driver of sockeye productivity will be difficult, especially if climatic changes occur rapidly and concurrently with other disturbances. Thus, better understanding of the mechanisms by which climatic changes and other drivers influence salmon productivity may be essential to avoid undesirable management outcomes. As well, an expansion of monitoring of juvenile salmon abundances on more salmon stocks is needed to help distinguish the effects of different drivers.
    Fisheries Research 10/2013; 147:10–23. DOI:10.1016/j.fishres.2013.03.017 · 1.90 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Migratory routes and feeding habitats of many pelagic MMS are associated with large-scale oceanic or bathymetric features; for example, running north south is the California Current Large Marine Ecosystem (CCLME) and running east west at about 40 • N is the North Pacific transition zone (NPTZ) between the low chlorophyll subtropical gyre and the high chlorophyll subarctic gyre. Both bluefin tuna and loggerhead turtles travel along the NPTZ (Polovina et al., 2001), and limited catch and tracking studies indicate salmon move from summer (high latitude) habitats to winter habitats near the NPTZ (Abdul-Aziz et al., 2011; Myers et al., 2007; Welch et al., 1995). Bluefin tuna foraging migrations and vertical distributions are affected by the spatial and seasonal changes in the vertical profile of water temperature (Kitagawa et al., 2000). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We review literature concerning the impacts of climate change on the migration of marine species, with an emphasis on the adaptation of migration phenology through genetic tracking and phenotypic plasticity. We then develop an individual-based modeling framework characterizing the effects of climate change on phenology and population dynamics. In the framework, an animal's ability to match its environmental preferences, its bioclimate envelope, to the environmental conditions by adjusting its migration timing between foraging and breeding habitats determines its condition, survival, and fecundity. Climate-induced changes in the envelope produce timing mismatches that result in a population adapting its phenology through both genetic and plastic processes. Model results suggest: (1) the temporal size of the bioclimate envelope is an important determinant of a population's sensitivity to climate change and susceptibility to extinction, (2) population extinction can occur if the rate of change in the timing of the envelope exceeds the rate its phenology changes or if the variability in the envelope exceeds the population's inherent capacity for variability, (3) a population with migration timing cued by photoperiod is expected to exhibit weaker phenotypic plasticity than one cued by temperature, and (4) population extinction in response to climate change follows a threshold pattern such that population size may not be a reliable indicator of extinction threat, although variability in average individual condition across years may be an extinction threat indicator. Finally, while the model is intentionally simplistic, we discuss how it can be extended to cover more complex interactions.
    Ecological Modelling 08/2013; 264:83-97. DOI:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2013.03.009 · 2.32 Impact Factor
Show more