General effects of climate change on Arctic fishes and fish populations.

Full text

BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions,
research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research.
General Effects of Climate Change on Arctic Fishes and Fish Populations
Author(s): James D. Reist, Frederick J. Wrona, Terry D. Prowse, Michael Power, J. Brian Dempson,
Richard J. Beamish, Jacquelynne R. King, Theresa J. Carmichael, and Chantelle D. Sawatzky
Source: AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 35(7):370-380.
Published By: Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447(2006)35[370:GEOCCO]2.0.CO;2
URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1579/0044-7447%282006%2935%5B370%3AGEOCCO
%5D2.0.CO%3B2
BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological,
and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books
published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses.
Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of
BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use.
Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial
inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder.

James D. Reist, Frederick J. Wrona, Terry D. Prowse, Michael Power, J. Brian Dempson, Richard J. Beamish,
Jacquelynne R. King, Theresa J. Carmichael and Chantelle D. Sawatzky
General Effects of Climate Change on Arctic
Fishes and Fish Populations
Projected shifts in climate forcing variables such as
temperature and precipitation are of great relevance to
arctic freshwater ecosystems and biota. These will result
in many direct and indirect effects upon the ecosystems
and fish present therein. Shifts projected for fish popu-
lations will range from positive to negative in overall
effect, differ among species and also among populations
within species depending upon their biology and toler-
ances, and will be integrated by the fish within their local
aquascapes. This results in a wide range of future
possibilities for arctic freshwater and diadromous fishes.
Owing to a dearth of basic knowledge regarding fish
biology and habitat interactions in the north, complicated
by scaling issues and uncertainty in future climate
projections, only qualitative scenarios can be developed
in most cases. This limits preparedness to meet chal-
lenges of climate change in the Arctic with respect to fish
and fisheries.
INTRODUCTION
Fishes and wildlife intimately associated with arctic freshwater
and estuarine systems are of great significance to local human
populations (1) as well as significant keystone components of
the ecosystems (2). Accordingly, interest in understanding the
impacts of climate change on these components is very high.
However, in addition to the problems outlined elsewhere in this
issue (2), detailed understanding of climate change impacts on
higher-order biota is complicated by a number of factors.
Firstly, fishes and wildlife will experience first-order effects of
climate change (e.g., increased growth in arctic taxa due to
warmer conditions and higher productivity). Large numbers of
second-order effects will also occur (e.g., increased competition
with species extending their distribution northward). The
responses of fishes will integrate these effects in complex and
not readily discernible ways; further, responses to climate
change will be embedded within effects resulting from other
impacts such as exploitation and habitat alteration, and it may
be impossible to differentiate these. These multiple impacts are
likely to act cumulatively or synergistically to affect arctic taxa.
Secondly, higher-level ecosystem components affect lower levels
in the ecosystem (i.e., top-down control) and in turn are affected
by changes in those levels (i.e., bottom-up control) (2). The
balance between such controlling influences may shift in
indiscernible ways in response to climate change, and this, in
turn, will affect fish populations. Thirdly, higher-level ecosys-
tem components typically migrate seasonally and/or annually
between habitats or areas key to their life histories—arctic
freshwater and diadromous (i.e., sea-run) fishes and aquatic
mammals may do so locally, and aquatic birds tend to do so
globally between arctic and non-arctic areas. Thus, the effects of
climate change on such organisms will represent the integrated
impacts across numerous habitats that indirectly affect the
species of interest. These biotic circumstances increase the
uncertainty associated with developing understanding of
species-specific responses to climate change, particularly for
key fish (Table 1-Box 1) and other aquatic species that are of
economic and ecological importance to arctic freshwater
ecosystems and the communities of northern residents that
depend on them.
This contribution provides an overview summary of fresh-
water and diadromous (primarily anadromous) fishes of the
Arctic, develops information needs required to project respons-
es of arctic fishes to climate change, and examines some general
effects of climate change on physical habitat in the context of
their relevance to fishes. Finally, to promote future research a
short review is given of various approaches relevant for
projecting climate change effects on arctic fish populations.
This treatment is not exhaustive but rather is developed for
particular important arctic freshwater and diadromous fishes as
examples of the types of changes to be expected.
FRESHWATER AND DIADROMOUS FISHES OF THE
ARCTIC
There are approximately 99 species in 48 genera of freshwater
and diadromous (i.e., anadromous or catadromous forms
moving between fresh and marine waters) fishes present in the
Arctic as used here (2). These represent 17 families (Table 1).
Ninety-nine species is a conservative estimate because some
groups (e.g., chars and whitefishes) in fact contain complexes of
incompletely resolved species. Many species are also represented
by local polymorphic forms that biologically act as species (e.g.,
four morphs of Arctic char, Salvelinus alpinus, in Thingvalla-
vatn, Iceland) (6). The most species-rich family is the
Salmonidae with more than 33 species present, most of which
are important in various fisheries. The next most species-rich
family is the Cyprinidae with 23 species, few of which are fished
generally, although some may be fished locally. All remaining
families have six or fewer species, and five families are
represented in the Arctic by a single species. These generalities
hold true for the individual ACIA regions as well (Table 1). All
of the families represented in the Arctic are also present in
lower-latitude temperate and subtemperate regions. Most have
370 Ambio Vol. 35, No. 7, November 2006ÓRoyal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2006
http://www.ambio.kva.se

Box 1.
Freshwater and diadromous fishes of the Arctic.
There are approximately 99 species in 48 genera of freshwater and diadromous (i.e., anadromous or catadromous forms moving between fresh
and marine waters) fish present in the Arctic as defined by ACIA (2).These represent 17 families (see table). Ninety-nine species is a
conservative estimate because some groups (e.g., chars and whitefishes) in fact contain complexes of incompletely resolved species. Many
species are also represented by local polymorphic forms that biologically act as species (e.g., four morphs of Arctic char in Thingvallavatn,
Iceland).The most species-rich family is the Salmonidae with more than 33 species present, most of which are important in fisheries.The next
most species-rich family is the Cyprinidae with 23 species, few of which are fished generally, although some may be fished locally. All remaining
families have six or fewer species, and five families are represented in the Arctic by a single species.These generalities hold true for the individual
ACIA regions as well. All of the families represented in the Arctic are also present in lower-latitude temperate and subtemperate regions. Most
have a southern center of distribution, as do many of their associated species (3). Individual species may be confined to the Arctic, or may
penetrate northward from subarctic areas to varying degrees.
Substantive differences in the number of species present are apparent between the ACIA regions. Region 3 (unglaciated Beringia and the
western Canadian Arctic) contains 58 named taxa, followed by Region 1 (Arctic Europe and Russia) with 38, while Regions 2 (Siberia) and 4
(eastern North America) are about equal at 29 and 32, respectively. This probably represents a combination of historical effects (e.g., glacial
events, postglacial recolonization routes and access) as well as present-day influences such as local climate, habitat diversity, and ecological
processes (e.g., competition and predation). Arctic char is the only species that is truly holarctic, being present on all landmasses in all ACIA
regions, occurring the farthest north to the extremes of land distribution (;848N), and also exhibiting the widest latitudinal range (about 40
degrees) of all true arctic species (i.e., south in suitable lakes to ;458N). A few additional species are distributed almost completely across the
Holarctic but are absent from one or more areas within an ACIA region (e.g., burbot with ;75%of a complete circumpolar distribution; northern
pike with ;85%; lake whitefish, European whitefish, and Siberian whitefish (Coregonus pidschian) with ;85%; and ninespine stickleback with
;90%). With the exception of the stickleback, all are fished extensively where they occur, representing the mainstays of food fisheries for
northern peoples and supporting significant commercial fisheries in most areas.These species are often the only ones present in extremely
remote areas, inland areas, and higher-latitude areas, and thus are vital for local fisheries. Where they are regionally present, many other species
are exploited to a greater or lesser degree.
Table 1. Freshwater and diadromous fish present in the Arctic.
Family Name
Number of
arctic forms
in ACIA area
Number of
species in
ACIA regions
Thermal
Guild
a
Exploitation in
ACIA regions CommentsGenera Species 1 2 3 4
Petromyzontidae
(lampreys)
2 5 4 2 2 1 Cool Some in Region 1
Acipenseridae
(sturgeons)
1 5 2 2 1 1 Warm/Cool Region 1, some in
Region 4
Hiodontidae
(goldeyes)
1 1 0 0 1 0 Warm Region 3 where they
occur and are abundant
Goldeye (Hiodon alosoides), in North
America only
Anguillidae
(freshwater eels)
1 2 1 0 0 1 Warm Region 1, eastern Region
4
Mostly in southern areas only
Clupeidae
(shads
b
)
1 3 2 0 1 0 Warm/Cool Region 1, limited in
Region 3
Southern areas in interior; also in
northern coastal areas influenced by
warm currents
Cyprinidae
(minnows)
14 23 11 4 13 1 Warm Some species in Regions
1 and 2; not exploited or
limited elsewhere
Most species only occur in southern
ACIA area
Catostomidae
(suckers)
2 3 0 1 2 3 Warm/Cool/
Cold
Limited in Region 2 and
western Region 4
Cobitidae
(loaches)
1 1 1 0 0 0 Warm Not fished Stone loach (Noemacheilus barbatulus)
only. Subarctic only; very southern
edge of Region 1
Esocidae
(pikes)
1 1 1 1 1 1 Cool/Cold Extensively fished in all
four Regions
Northern pike (Esox lucius) only, and
widely distributed
Umbridae
(blackfish
c
)
1 2 0 0 2 0 Cold/Arctic Limited at most, where
they occur
Blackfishes (Dallia spp.) only
Osmeridae
(smelts)
2 3 0 0 2 0 Cool/Cold Limited at most, where
they occur
Salmonidae
(salmon, char,
whitefishes,
ciscoes)
10 33þ9 14 22 14 Cool/Cold/
Arctic
Most species extensively
fished in all four Regions
Salmonids are the most widely
distributed and abundant arctic group
and fisheries mainstay
Percopsidae
(trout-perches)
1 1 0 0 1 1 Cool/Cold Not fished Trout perch (Percopsis omiscomaycus)
only
Gadidae (cods) 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cool/Cold Extensively fished in all
four Regions
Burbot (Lota lota) only, and widely
distributed
Gasterosteidae
(sticklebacks)
3 3 2 1 3 2 Warm/Cool/
Cold
Not fished
Cottidae (sculpins) 2 6 2 2 4 3 Cool/Cold Not fished
Percidae (perches) 4 6 2 1 3 3 Warm/Cool Fished where they occur,
especially Region 1
Mostly temperate species, but enter the
Arctic via warmer northward-flowing rivers
Totals 48 99 38 29 58 32
Total families 17 - 12 10 14 12
Notes: a) see references 4 and 5 for guild definition; b) only Alosinae (shads) are arctic representatives; c) only Dallia (blackfish) are arctic representatives.
Ambio Vol. 35, No. 7, November 2006 371ÓRoyal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2006
http://www.ambio.kva.se

a southern center of distribution, as do many of their associated
species (3). Individual species may be confined to the Arctic, or
may penetrate northwards from subarctic areas to varying
degrees.
Substantive differences in the number of species present are
apparent between the ACIA regions (Table 1). Region 3
(unglaciated Beringia and the western Canadian Arctic)
contains 58 named taxa, followed by Region 1 (Arctic Europe
and Russia) with 38, while Regions 2 (Siberia) and 4 (eastern
North America) are about equal at 29 and 32, respectively. This
probably represents a combination of historical effects (e.g.,
glacial events, postglacial recolonization routes and access) as
well as present-day influences such as local climate, habitat
diversity, and ecological processes (e.g., competition and
predation). These regional fauna differences of course will
result in variation in the local significance of climate change on
arctic fishes and on fisheries based upon them. Arctic char is the
only species that is truly Holarctic, being present on all
landmasses in all ACIA regions, occurring the farthest north
to the extremes of land distribution (;848N), and also
exhibiting the widest latitudinal range (about 40 degrees) of
all true arctic species (i.e., south in suitable lakes to ;458N
latitude). A few additional species are distributed almost
completely across the Holarctic but are absent from one or
more areas within an ACIA region (e.g., burbot Lota lota with
;75%of a complete circumpolar distribution; northern pike
Esox lucius with ;85%; lake whitefish, European whitefish, and
Siberian whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis/lavaretus/pidschian)
with ;85%; and, ninespine stickleback Pungitius pungitius with
;90%). With the exception of the stickleback, all are fished
extensively where they occur (Table 1), representing the
mainstays of food fisheries for northern peoples and supporting
significant commercial fisheries in most areas. These species are
often the only ones present in extremely remote areas, inland
areas, and higher latitude areas, and thus are vital for local
fisheries. Where they are regionally present (e.g., lake trout,
Salvelinus namaycush, in North America), many other species
are also exploited to a greater or lesser degree.
PROJECTING RESPONSES OF ARCTIC FISHES
Implicit in this and other papers in this issue is the linkage
between atmospheric climate parameters and habitat parame-
ters present in aquatic ecosystems, and the linkage of these to
effects manifested in organisms and populations. It follows
from this logic that changes in climate regimes, however they
may be manifested, will only indirectly affect aquatic organisms
of interest. That is, the aquatic environment itself will be
directly affected by changes in climate, but will modify and then
transmit the influences in some fashion. For example, substan-
tive shifts in atmospheric temperature regimes will affect water
temperatures but given the density differences between water
and air and the influence of hydrodynamic factors, the effects
on aquatic systems will be modified to some degree. In turn,
changes in atmospheric parameters will have indirect effects on
biota present in aquatic systems and thus may be ameliorated or
partially buffered (e.g., thermal extremes or seasonal timing
shifted). In some instances, however, climate change effects may
be magnified or exacerbated, increasing the multiplicity of
possible outcomes resulting from these changes. For example,
stream networks amplify many environmental signals that occur
at the watershed level, and that are concentrated in the stream
channel
(7). This added level of complexity and uncertainty in the
magnitude and direction of climate change manifestations in
arctic freshwater ecosystems is not as acute for terrestrial
environments. It does however result in greater uncertainty in
projecting potential impacts on aquatic organisms. This is
especially relevant for arctic anadromous fishes such as
whitefishes, ciscoes and chars which occupy many habitats
during life history. Figure 1 provides an example of the logical
associations and both direct and indirect effects of climate
parameters on anadromous fish and the various aquatic
environments used. In addition to effects on freshwater habitats
used, climate change will affect estuarine, nearshore and marine
habitats and their contained biota. Both habitat effects and
effects on biota will in turn influence how sea-run fish species
conduct their life histories. For example, effects on nearshore
marine ecosystems will likely alter local trophic structure and
transfer rates. This, in turn, will alter feeding opportunities for
sea-run fish and ultimately affect fisheries based upon these
populations. Compounded effects are almost certain, for
example, in addition to marine shifts, habitat impacts in
freshwater (e.g., altered timing, nature and amounts of
precipitation) may combine to affect routes, timing and success
of key life functions such as survival and migrations. In most
cases our understanding of the dynamics of arctic aquatic
ecosystems and of the ways in which climate change may
possibly be manifested is so rudimentary that even the potential
direction of effect (i.e., positive or negative relative to a process
or organism) can not be projected. In other cases, the same
proximate climate change effect on the local habitat may differ
in its ultimate effect upon particular fish species because of, for
example, differences in life history, feeding modes and
sensitivities to environmental parameters.
Fish and Climate Parameters
The Arctic includes high-, low-, and sub-arctic areas defined by
climate, geography, and physical characteristics (2). In addition,
many areas included in this assessment (e.g., southern Alaska,
the southern Northwest Territories, northern Scandinavia, and
Russia) are significantly influenced by nearby southern mari-
time environments and/or large northward-flowing rivers. This
proximity ameliorates local climatic regimes, resulting in more
northerly distributions of aquatic taxa than would otherwise
occur based strictly on latitudinal position. In some areas (e.g.,
Labrador, Canada) the opposite is true due to southern
transport of colder waters by coastal marine currents. More-
over, the Arctic includes many different climatological zones.
Given that the distribution of many freshwater and anadro-
mous fish species is controlled or significantly influenced either
directly or indirectly by climate variables (particularly temper-
ature), it follows that primary associations of fish distribution
with climate variables will be important.
Fish are ectotherms, thus, for the most part, their body
temperature is governed by that of the surrounding waters. In
addition, fish species and individuals can behaviorally choose
specific thermal preferenda (preferred optimal temperatures) (8)
at which physiological processes are optimal (i.e., greatest net
benefit is achieved for the individual). This is typically a thermal
range that may be fairly narrow; temperatures outside this are
suboptimal (i.e., net benefit is still attained but it is not the
greatest possible), grading to detrimental (i.e., non-lethal but
net energy is expended while in such conditions) and ultimately
to lethal conditions (i.e., death ensues after some level of
exposure). Furthermore, within a species, local northern
populations often have such preferenda set lower than do
southern representatives, which presumably represents differ-
ential adaptation to local conditions. In addition, individual life
stages (e.g., egg, alevin, juvenile, adult) differ in their thermal
preferenda linked to optimizing criteria specific to their
developmental stage. For most species, only limited under-
standing of such thermal optima is available, and typically only
372 Ambio Vol. 35, No. 7, November 2006ÓRoyal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2006
http://www.ambio.kva.se

for some life stages of southern species. Fish control body
temperatures behaviorally, sensing and moving into appropri-
ate, or from inappropriate, zones (9). Aquatic thermal regimes
are spatially and temporally heterogeneous and availability of
water at the preferred temperature may be limited, making it an
important resource for which competition may ensue. This may
be particularly important in species found in Alaskan and
Yukon north slope rivers (e.g., Dolly Varden Salvelinus malma
and Arctic grayling Thymallus arcticus) during winter, when
physical habitat is limited due to rivers freezing to the bottom
over long reaches (10). Thus, the thermal niche of individual
fish species can be defined.
Temperate species have been grouped into three thermal
guilds defined by thermal niches (4): Warmwater (preferred
summer temperatures centered upon 27 to 31 8C), Coolwater
(21 to 25 8C), and Coldwater (11 to 15 8C). Following this
approach, an Arctic Guild was defined (11) as fish distributed
wholly or primarily in northern areas and adapted to relatively
colder waters (,10 8C) and related aspects of the habitat such as
short growing seasons, extensive ice presence, and long periods
of darkness. Freshwater and most diadromous fishes occurring
within the geographic definition of the Arctic as used here
represent all of these guilds (Table 1), however, those of the
Warmwater Guild tend to be present only along the southern
margins of arctic waters, often associated with local climatic
amelioration resulting from inputs from nearby maritime areas
or northward-flowing rivers. Some of these guilds can be further
subdivided based upon the nature of the fish distribution.
Within the generalities discussed below, the impacts of climate
change will be species- and ecosystem-specific, thus the
following should be viewed as a range of possibilities only. In
addition, although thermal regimes are emphasized in this
discussion, the influence of other climate parameters may be
equally or more important to specific species in particular areas
or at particular times during life.
Species of the Arctic Guild have their center of distribution
in the Arctic with the southern limits defined by, for example,
high temperatures and associated ecological factors including
competition from southern fish species. Fish such as broad
whitefish (Coregonus nasus) or Arctic cisco (Coregonus autum-
nalis), and many char taxa are examples of Arctic Guild species.
The pervasive and ultimate impacts of climate change upon
such species are likely to be negative. These impacts generally
will appear as range contractions northwards driven by thermal
warming that exceeds preferences or tolerances; related habitat
changes; and/or increased competition, predation, or disease
resulting from southern taxa extending their range northwards,
possibly preceded by local reductions in growth, productivity,
and perhaps abundance. Many of these effects will possibly be
driven or exacerbated by shifts in the life history of some species
(e.g., from anadromy to freshwater only). Other than concep-
tual summaries, no detailed research has been conducted to
outline such impacts for most fish species of this guild.
Fish that have distributions in the southern Arctic are
northern members of the Coldwater Guild. This group includes
species such as the lake/European/Siberian whitefish complex
and lake trout, which have narrow thermal tolerances but
usually are widely distributed due to the availability of colder
habitats in water bodies (e.g., deeper layers in lakes; higher-
elevation reaches in streams) (12). Two distributional subtypes
can be differentiated: those exhibiting a wide thermal tolerance
(eurythermal) as implied, for example, by a wide latitudinal
distribution often extending well outside the Arctic (e.g., lake
whitefish Coregonus clupeaformis); and those exhibiting a
narrow thermal tolerance (stenothermal) implied by occupation
of very narrow microhabitats (e.g., lake trout occupy deep lakes
Figure 1. A stylized portrayal of some potential direct effects of climate parameters on arctic aquatic environments and some potential
indirect effects on aquatic organisms such as anadromous fish. The complexity of interactive effects raises great difficulties in projecting
climate change effects on these fishes. For wholly freshwater fishes, similar complex patterns are likely especially if these involve use of
many habitats during life (e.g., both lacustrine and riverine habitats).
Ambio Vol. 35, No. 7, November 2006 373ÓRoyal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2006
http://www.ambio.kva.se

below thermoclines in the south but a much wider variety of
coldwater habitats in the north) and/or narrow latitudinal
distribution centered in northern areas (e.g., pond smelt
Hypomesus olidus). The overall impacts of arctic climate change
on these two distributional subtypes are likely to be quite
different. Thus, eurythermal species are likely to have the
capacity for reasonably quick adaptation to changing climate
and, all other things being equal, are likely to exhibit increases
in growth, reproduction, and overall productivity. Such species
are also likely to extend the northern edge of their distribution
further northwards where this is at present thermally limited,
but this is likely to be a secondary, relatively small response.
Conversely, stenothermal coldwater species are likely to
experience generally negative impacts. Lake trout in northern
lakes, for example, will possibly be forced into smaller volumes
of suitable summer habitat below deeper lake thermoclines and
will possibly have to enter such areas earlier in the season than
at present. Subsequent impacts on such species are very likely to
be negative as well. To some degree, northern members of the
Coldwater Guild are likely to experience the same general
impacts as described for arctic-guild species in the previous
paragraph (i.e., reductions in productivity characteristics,
increased stress, local extirpation, and/or range contractions).
Similar to the arctic-guild species, little or no detailed research
assessing impacts on northern coldwater-guild fishes has been
conducted to date.
Coolwater-guild species (such as perches Perca spp.) have
southern, temperate centers of distribution but range northward
to the southern areas of the Arctic as used here (2); these include
northern pike, walleye (Sander vitreus), and yellow perch (Perca
flavescens) (12). Like those of the Coldwater Guild, these species
can also be differentiated into eurythermal and stenothermal
species. For example, the perches have a wide latitudinal range
and occupy a number of ecological situations extending outside
temperate regions, and hence can be described as eurythermal.
Assuming waters are accessible, northward range extensions of
approximately 2 to 8 degrees of latitude are projected for yellow
perch in North America under a climate-change scenario where
annual mean temperatures increase by 4 8C (Figure 2) (13). The
linkage between perch distribution and climate was indirect;
that is, the first-order linkage was the direct dependency of
overwinter survival (and related size at the end of the first
summer of life) on food supply, which limited growth (13). The
food supply, in turn, was dependent upon climate parameters.
Alternatively, many northern minnows (e.g., northern red-
belly dace Chrosomus eos in North America) and some
coregonines (e.g., vendace Coregonus albula in Europe) are
probably stenothermal, as implied by their limited latitudinal
range and habitat associations. Range contraction along
southern boundaries is likely for these species, initially
manifested as contraction of distribution within the local
landscapes, followed by northward retraction of the southern
range limit. Because of their stenothermal tolerances, however,
their northward extension is not likely to be as dramatic as that
described for perch. To some degree, the presence of many of
these species in the large northward-flowing arctic rivers such as
the Lena, Mackenzie, Ob, and Yenisey is very likely to promote
their northward penetration. The associated effects of heat
transfer by such river systems will facilitate northward
colonization by these species as well as eurythermal species
also present in the systems. Knowledge of the association of
ecological processes with climate parameters and research
quantifying the potential impacts of climate change on cool-
water-guild species, although inadequate overall, generally
tends to be more comprehensive than for the previous two
guilds, but, it is often focused upon southern populations.
Hence, its applicability to arctic populations of the species may
be limited.
Warmwater-guild species have their center of distribution
well south of the Arctic. Those present in the Arctic are few in
number (Table 1) and with few exceptions (some cyprinid
species) are generally distributed only in the extreme southern
portions of the ACIA region. In many areas of the Arctic, a
number of species of this guild are present in southerly areas
immediately outside the Arctic boundary used here (2).
Presumably, their northward limit is in most cases deter-
mined by present thermal and ecological regimes, especially in
the large northward-flowing rivers of Siberia and the western
Figure 2. Present and projected future distributional limits of yellow
perch in North America. Northward displacements are based on
overwinter survival assuming a 48C increase in mean annual
temperature (adapted from reference 13). Similar shifts in distribu-
tions of other freshwater species are likely throughout the Arctic
especially where present limits are determined thermally (or by
some similar climatic parameter likely to change in the future) and
where suitable colonization pathways (e.g., large northward flowing
rivers) exist.
Figure 3. Growth rates of fish species at varying temperatures
determined from laboratory studies. Stenothermic northern species
(e.g., A, B, C and F) are grouped towards the lower temperatures on
the left, whereas mesothermic southern species (e.g., G, I, and J) are
grouped towards the right. Stenothermic species tend to have a
more peaked curve indicating only narrow and typically lower
temperature ranges over which optimal growth is achieved. Wide-
ranging eurythermic species (e.g., D, E, and H) probably exhibit the
greatest possibilities for adapting rapidly to shifting thermal regimes
driven by climate change. Scientific names of most species are
given in the text; Bluegill ¼Lepomis macrochirus, Brook Trout ¼
Salvelinus fontinalis.
374 Ambio Vol. 35, No. 7, November 2006ÓRoyal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2006
http://www.ambio.kva.se

Northwest Territories. As the effects of climate change
increasingly ameliorate local limiting factors, species of this
guild are very likely to extend their geographic ranges into the
Arctic or, if already there, to more northerly locales.
Thermal preferenda presumably optimize all internal phys-
iological processes (i.e., benefits outweighs costs) in individual
fish associated with digestion, growth, muscle (hence swim-
ming) efficiency, gas exchange across gills, cellular respiration,
reproduction, and so on. The relationship of temperature to
such processes is perhaps most easily seen with respect to
growth (e.g., increase in size or weight over time) (Figure 3). In
addition to exhibiting higher growth rates at lower tempera-
tures, arctic fish species also exhibit narrower ranges of
temperature preference and tolerance (i.e., they are stenother-
mic; Figure 3), which has profound effects on productivity.
Stenothermic tolerances also imply that the species may have
little capacity to accommodate thermal impacts of climate
change. Conversely, species exhibiting eurythermic or wide
thermal tolerances or responses are likely to have a much wider
capacity to accommodate climate changes (see above and Table
1).
Population-level influences of thermal regimes are also
apparent. Effects on individuals, such as temperature effects
on mortality, feeding, parasitism, and predation, are integrated
into consequences for fish populations through the various
processes that connect fish populations to their ecosystems
(Figure 4). As noted previously, environmental parameters such
as temperature may affect various life stages differently and
thus can be modeled separately, but it is important to remember
that the ultimate effects of all these influences are integrated
throughout the fish population of interest.
Similarly, environmental changes also have specific effects on
other organisms relevant to fish, such as predators, parasites,
and food organisms. Therefore, a single environmental param-
eter may exert both indirect and direct effects at many levels
that influence the fish population, but the actual effect of this
may be indiscernible from the effects of other natural and
anthropogenic influences. Figure 4 provides examples of
linkages between environmental parameters that affect key
processes at the fish population level. Migratory aspects of life
history are not shown in the figure, but will also (especially in
anadromous fish) be significantly affected by abiotic processes.
Salinity will also be a factor for sea-run phases of adult life
history. Climate change and increased variability in climate
parameters will drive changes in aquatic abiotic parameters.
Such changes will affect the fish directly as well as indirectly via
impacts on their prey, predators, and parasites. This cascade of
effects, and synergies and antagonisms among effects, greatly
complicates the projection of climate change impacts on valued
northern fish populations. In addition, other parameters not
shown in Figure 4, such as groundwater inflows to spawning
beds, will affect the survival of various life-history stages. The
ultimate effects of all these interacting factors will in turn affect
sustainability of the populations and human uses in a fishery
context.
Temperature effects on individual fish and fish populations
are perhaps the most easily understood ones, however, other
climate parameters such as precipitation (amount and type) will
directly affect particular aquatic environmental parameters such
as productivity (e.g., see elsewhere in this issue (16)), and flow
regimes (amounts and timing). For example, flattening hydro-
graphs and shifts in water sources (17) are very likely to alter the
availability of arctic rivers as migratory routes for anadromous
fish and shift timing of migratory runs. Increased and earlier
vernal flows are very likely to enhance fish survival during out-
migration and lengthen the potential summer feeding period at
sea (both positive effects at the levels of the individual fish and
the population).
Figure 4. The major biotic process-
es affecting the dynamics of a
freshwater or anadromous arctic
fish population and some of the
aquatic abiotic environmental pa-
rameters that affect these process-
es. The tan ovals refer to the four
major processes controlling fish
production (predation, transport/
migration, starvation, spawning/re-
cruitment); these will shift as a
result of climate change effects on
the various components of the
ecosystem (15).
Ambio Vol. 35, No. 7, November 2006 375ÓRoyal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2006
http://www.ambio.kva.se

However, autumnal flows are required in many smaller rivers
to provide access to returning fish (18); reduction in amounts
and shifts in timing of these flows are very likely to have
negative effects. Environmental factors, particularly local
temperature effects on flow regimes, influence migrations of
Arctic char with consequences for fish population abundance
and structure (19).
Additional secondary environmental factors that may
change in response to direct changes in basic climate parameters
will also have important effects on aquatic biota. These include
the nature and duration of freeze-up, ice types, ice-cover
periods, and breakup, and the nature and penetration of
incident radiation into aquatic systems. Similarly, terrestrial
impacts of climate change may influence aquatic habitat and
indirectly affect its biota (e.g., permafrost alteration and runoff
influences on sediment loads, pH and related water chemistry,
etc.). Another potential class of indirect effects of climate
change includes those affecting the behavior of aquatic biota.
For example, fish use thermal regimes and spatiotemporal shifts
in these regimes, at least in part, as behavioral cues or
thresholds to trigger critical life history functions. Water mass
boundaries defined by temperature act as barriers to movement
and may define feeding areas (9). Final gametic maturation in
autumn-spawning species is probably triggered by decreasing
water temperatures and perhaps also photoperiod in arctic
whitefishes (Coregonus spp.). There is anecdotal evidence that
decreased sediment loads resulting from freezing of riverbanks
trigger final upstream movements by broad whitefish from
holding areas to spawning sites (20), an adaptation to ensure
eggs are not smothered. Water temperature integrated over time
(e.g., as degree-days) affects the rate of egg development. Thus,
aquatic thermal regimes affect ectotherms such as fish in two
basic ways: by influencing physiology and as cues for behavioral
changes. Although typically less understood, similar effects
probably result from other physical (e.g., currents, flows,
turbidity, ice dynamics) and chemical (e.g., pH, oxygen)
parameters in the aquatic habitat (e.g., see 15). Climate-induced
alteration of these habitat characteristics is very likely to
significantly affect arctic fish populations, although substantive
research is required to quantify such effects.
Freshwater and diadromous fishes of the Arctic exhibit high
diversity in the way that climate parameters affect their
distributions, physiology, and ecology. These factors, together
with the more complex indirect effects that climate may have
upon their habitats, implies a wide range of possible responses
to climate change. Other than logical extrapolations, most
responses to climate change are impossible to quantify due to
the absence of basic physiological information for most arctic
fish species and the incomplete understanding of the overall
associations of ecological processes with present-day climate
parameters.
Effects of Climate-induced Changes on Physical Habitat
Physical changes in aquatic habitats will very probably affect
arctic fishes as climate changes in the north. This section provides
some examples to illustrate the linkages and various potential
effects on biota, but the underlying absence of data precludes
quantification of causal linkages in most cases. Rectifying these
and similar knowledge gaps is a major future challenge.
Groundwater and fish. Groundwater flows sustain fish
habitat and are extremely important during periods of low
flow in many arctic rivers (19) and perhaps some lakes (17). For
stream-dwelling salmonids, inflows along stream bottoms clear
fine-grained sediments from spawning areas, supply thermally
regulated and oxygenated water to developing eggs and larval
fish, and in many cases provide physical living space for juvenile
and adult fish. In highly channeled shallow arctic rivers that
characterize many areas of the North American Arctic and
Chukotka, groundwater inputs are critical to fish migrations
and stranding prevention (21). In winter, many Alaskan and
western Canadian north slope rivers cease flowing and freeze to
the bottom over large stretches, and groundwater provides
refugia that support entire populations of Arctic grayling and
Dolly Varden as well as any co-occurring species (10).
Overwintering mortality, especially of adults weakened from
spawning activities, is suspected as a primary regulator of the
populations of Dolly Varden in this area and a major factor in
such mortality is the quality and amount of winter habitat
maintained by groundwater. Possible increases in groundwater
flows resulting from climate change are likely to positively affect
overwinter survival, especially if coupled with shorter duration
and thinner ice cover. However, increased nutrient loadings in
groundwater will possibly have more complex impacts (e.g.,
increases in in-stream primary and secondary productivity are
likely to promote growth and survival of larval fish, but
increases in winter oxygen demand associated with vegetation
decomposition will possibly decrease overwinter survival of
larger fish). How these various effects will balance in specific
situations to result in an overall net effect on particular fish
populations is unknown.
In summer, ground and surface water inflows ameliorate
summer temperatures and provide thermal refugia, especially
along southern distributional margins (21). This is probably
especially relevant for fish belonging to the arctic and coldwater
thermal guilds. However, even the small increases in water
temperatures (2 to 4 8C) that are likely to result from climate
change (e.g., warmer surface flows) will possibly preclude some
species from specific aquatic habitats (e.g., temperature in
higher-elevation cold-water stream reaches determines habitat
occupancy of bull trout Salvelinus confluentus) (22). Increased
ambient conditions above physiological thermal optima are
very likely to further stress populations and combined with
other possible effects such as competition from colonizing
southern taxa, such impacts are likely to exacerbate range
contractions for arctic species.
Ice and fish. The influence of ice on arctic fish and fish
habitat is significant, especially in smaller lotic systems
important to salmonids (10, 21, 23, 24, 25). Effects include
possible physical damage (e.g., from frazil ice), limitation of
access to habitat (e.g., decreasing water volumes in winter due
to ice growth), and annual recharge of habitat structure during
dynamic breakup (e.g., cleansing of interstitial spaces in gravel).
Shifts in the timing and duration of ice-related events are very
likely to affect the survival and success of fish, with some effects
being advantageous and others disadvantageous. In the north,
these effects will be superimposed upon a poorly known but
complex biological and environmental situation. Limited
knowledge precludes accurate forecasting of many of these
potential effects, and novel approaches are required to redress
this (23).
Decoupling of Environmental Cues Due to Differential Effects
Of Climate Change
A speculative issue, which may present surprises and unantic-
ipated effects, is the potential for decoupling of various types of
environmental drivers due to climate change affecting them
differentially. Fish and other organisms use progressive and/or
cusp-like changes in environmental parameters as cues to trigger
key life-history functions such as migration, reproduction, and
development. For example, although quantitative linkages are
lacking, change in photoperiod (e.g., declining light period) is
probably coupled with declining water temperatures in the
376 Ambio Vol. 35, No. 7, November 2006ÓRoyal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2006
http://www.ambio.kva.se

autumn and together these trigger final gonadal maturation and
reproductive activities in many northern fishes (especially
salmonids). Environmental cues that drive major life-history
events are especially critical for migratory species, and in the
Arctic, particularly for anadromous species. This coupling is
probably especially strong in the north where both parameters
change rapidly on a seasonal basis. Although not explored to
date in a climate-change context, as seasonal photoperiod shifts
remain unchanged but coincident cues such as declining
temperatures occur later in the autumn, such decoupling will
possibly have profound impacts on population processes. The
initial impact of such decoupling may be quite subtle (e.g.,
lowered fecundity, fertilization success, and/or egg survival in
the previous example), not readily discernible, and almost
certainly not directly attributable to climate change. However, a
critical threshold is likely to be reached when impacts become
significant (e.g., total reproductive failure in one year resulting
in a failed year class, ultimately leading to population
extirpation if it occurs over successive years approaching the
generation time of the population). Investigation of coupling
between cues, their influence upon population processes in fish
and other aquatic organisms, and their potential for decoupling
due to climate change in the Arctic should be a priority.
These are but a few examples of likely influences of physical
habitat on fish populations and the potential effects of climate-
induced change on them that will have cascading effects on the
integrity, sustainability, and future productivity of northern
fishes. These serve to illustrate the general lack of knowledge
that exists regarding associations between physical habitat and
biology in northern aquatic biota, and thus how the impacts of
climate change will be manifested. Redress of this knowledge
gap is required on a community- and/or species-specific basis to
account for local and historical influences and filters, which
greatly affect the present-day structure and function of these
aquatic ecosystems (26).
Issues at the Level of Fish Populations
As implied previously, projecting climate change impacts at the
population level for most species is complex and fraught with
uncertainty, especially for arctic species for which there is a
dearth of fundamental biological information. A variety of
approaches to address this problem are available (see below)
and most have been applied in one way or another to develop
some understanding of climate change impacts on northern fish
populations.
In North America, much of the research focus on climate
change effects on freshwater fish populations and communities
has been in the south, for example, in the Great Lakes region
and associated fisheries (e.g., 12, 14, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31). In that
region, climate change is projected to result in effects similar to
those projected for the Arctic (e.g., significant reductions in the
duration and extent of ice cover, an earlier seasonal disappear-
ance of the 4 8C depth isotherm, measurable declines in
dissolved oxygen, and slight hypolimnetic anoxia in shallower
basins) (32, 33). Loss of suitable cool-water habitat associated
with lake warming is also projected, which will very probably
differentially affect species within lacustrine fish communities
(e.g., promote growth and survival in lake whitefish but
negatively affect these in lake trout) (29).
Preliminary consideration of northern areas has occurred for
European systems (34). Relatively less attention has been paid
to the possible effects of climate change on resident fish
communities in other ecosystems, particularly those in the
Arctic. With respect to freshwater fish populations, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (35) concluded
that fish populations in streams and rivers on the margins of
their geographic distributions (e.g., arctic and subarctic species)
will be the first to respond to the effects of climate change
because these systems have a high rate of heat transfer from the
air. Some of these effects include the following.
– Nutrient level and mean summer discharge explained 56%of
the variation in adult Arctic grayling growth over a 12-year
period in two Alaskan rivers (36). Summer temperature
added to these variables explained 66%of variation in
young-of-the-year growth. Correlation with discharge was
positive for adults and negative for young, thus grayling life
history appears able to respond to variability in the arctic
environment by balancing adult growth with year-class
strength. How this balance will shift under climate change
is uncertain at present.
– Temperature effects on growth appear to be greatest at the
extremes of the geographic range of the species (37), and
local effects will be species-specific (38). Generally, young-of-
the-year fish appear to grow better in warmer summers and
reach relatively larger sizes, predisposing them to higher
overwinter survival, which determines year-class strength
and population abundance (39); potentially a positive result
of climate change assuming food is not a limiting factor.
– Northern lake cisco (Coregonus artedi) populations along the
coast of Hudson Bay exhibited reduced growth and later
maturity due to lower temperatures and shorter growing
seasons (40). Individual fecundity did not change, but the
most northerly populations skipped reproduction more
frequently (hence overall population productivity was
lower). This latitudinal gradient represents responses to
temperature stresses whereby further trade-offs in energy
allocation between reproduction and growth currently are
not possible (40); a common circumstance for most arctic
fish populations and one that will probably be ameliorated
under scenarios of increased temperature, potentially result-
ing in increased population abundances.
– Counter-gradient variation (41), whereby genetic influences
on growth in species such as brown trout (Salmo trutta) vary
inversely with mean annual water temperatures (42), suggest
that trout in the coldest rivers are specifically adapted to low
temperatures and short growing seasons. Thus, increased
temperatures are likely to negatively affect growth rates, age/
size structure, and abundances of northern populations.
APPROACHES TO PROJECTING CLIMATE CHANGE
EFFECTS ON ARCTIC FISH POPULATIONS
Uncertainty in projections of future temperature, hydrology,
and precipitation, and their associated consequences for
vegetation and nutrient patterns in arctic aquatic ecosystems,
makes projecting the specific effects of climate change on a fish
species difficult. To date, fisheries literature has documented
three approaches to this problem:
i) the use of regionally specific climate projections that can be
coupled directly to knowledge of the physiological limits of
the species;
ii) the use of empirical relationships relating local climate
(weather) to measurements of species or stock dynamics
(e.g., abundance, size, growth rate, fecundity) and compar-
ison of population success temporally (e.g., from a period of
climatically variable years) or spatially (e.g., locales
representing the extremes of variation in weather conditions
such as latitudinal clines); and,
iii) the use of current distributional data and known or inferred
thermal preferences to shift ecological residency zones into
geographic positions that reflect probable future climate
regimes.
Ambio Vol. 35, No. 7, November 2006 377ÓRoyal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2006
http://www.ambio.kva.se

Physiological Approaches
Temperature is typically regarded as a factor affecting
individual physiological and behavioral processes, but it is also
a key characteristic of the habitat of an organism.
The niche of an animal is defined as the complete range of
environmental variables to which it must be adapted for
survival (43). At the fringes of the distributional range, abiotic
parameters associated with particular niche axes are likely to
exert a greater influence over the physiological responses (e.g.,
growth) of the species to its environment than elsewhere.
Growth rates and population dynamics of fish living at the
limits of their distribution usually differ from those of the same
species living in the optimum temperature range (44). For
example, studies of northern populations of yellow perch have
shown that although heterogeneous thermal environments
allow fish opportunities to compensate for temperature
fluctuations by selecting for preferred temperatures, such
opportunities are limited in the portion of the geographic range
where temperatures do not typically exceed those that define the
optimum scope for growth (37). Accordingly, unless future
temperatures increase above the point where the maximum
scope for growth is realized, northern fish will be limited in their
abilities to select for optimal growth temperatures and,
consequently, are very likely to more strongly reflect the
influence of temperature on growth than southern populations.
This also suggests that analogues derived from lower-latitude
populations will not be accurate guides to the probable impacts
of temperature increases on subarctic and arctic fishes.
Nevertheless, the effects of climate change in the north are
very likely to include faster, temperature-driven growth and
maturation rates, reductions in winter mortality, and expanded
habitat availability for many species (45). However, somatic
gains will possibly be offset by increased maintenance-ration
demands to support temperature-induced increases in metabo-
lism. Ration demands for lacustrine fish are likely to be met as
temperatures increase, since warm-water lakes are generally
more productive than cold-water lakes (45). Basic knowledge of
temperature-growth relationships and temperature-dependent
energy demands is lacking for many key arctic fish species,
particularly those exhibiting primarily riverine life histories,
thus accurate physiologically based projections of climate
change impacts cannot be generally made.
Empirical Approaches
Empirical approaches to projecting the possible effects of
climate change on fish populations can be subdivided into two
groups. The first group examines the integrated responses of a
population measured by yield or production over time. The
second group examines the population characteristics spatially
and uses inherent latitudinal variability to make inferences
about how they will change under climate change scenarios.
Temporal Yield/Production Projections – There are numer-
ous models for projecting freshwater fish production in lakes
(see 46). However, disagreement exists among researchers as to
which lake characteristics most significantly influence produc-
tivity. Comparative studies based on lakes covering a wide
range of geographic areas and trophic status, however, have
suggested that fish production in oligotrophic to hyper-
eutrophic lakes of moderate depth is better correlated with
primary production than the morphoedaphic index (47).
Limitations surrounding such modeling center on the deficien-
cies in fish distribution data and knowledge of the interactive
effects of climate-induced changes in key environmental
variables (30). Together with limited fishery databases of
sufficient length, these limitations in most cases preclude this
approach for projecting productivity changes in arctic popula-
tions.
Latitudinal Projections - Organism life-history characteris-
tics often vary with latitude because of predictable changes in
important environmental factors (48, 49, 50). Among the most
important environmental factors which may vary with latitude
is temperature, which is known to influence growth rate in fish
populations (44, 51) and thereby indirectly affect life-history
attributes that determine population dynamics (e.g., longevity,
age-at-maturity, and fecundity). In salmonids, temperature has
been shown to influence movement and migration (18), habitat
occupancy (22), migration timing (52), smolting (53, 54), growth
rate (42, 55), age-at-maturity (49, 54, 56), fecundity (48), and the
proportion of repeat spawners (50). Many studies have
demonstrated latitudinally separated disparate populations of
the same species with distinctive metabolic rates, thermal
tolerances, egg development rates, and spawning temperature
requirements consistent with a compensatory adaptation to
maximize growth rates at a given temperature (57). Animals
living in low-temperature, high-latitude locales would therefore
be expected to compensate by increasing metabolic and growth
rates at a given temperature relative to animals in high-
temperature, low-latitude locales. There are two generalizations
which may be made from studies on latitudinal variation in
growth rates: high-latitude fish populations often attain larger
maximum body size than conspecifics at lower latitudes; and,
although lower temperatures often reduce activity and constrain
individuals to grow more slowly, they compensate by acceler-
ating growth rate or larval development time relative to low-
latitude conspecifics when raised at identical temperatures.
Although adaptation to low temperature probably entails a
form of compensation involving relative growth acceleration of
high-latitude forms at low temperature, the shift in metabolism
increases metabolic costs at higher temperatures, leaving cold-
adapted forms with an energetic disadvantage in the higher-
temperature environments (57) that are likely to result from
climate change. Accordingly, fish populations are likely to be
locally adapted for maximum growth rate and sacrifice
metabolic efficiency at rarely experienced temperatures to
maximize growth efficiency at commonly experienced temper-
atures. This suggests that the possible effects of temperature
increases on northern fish will possibly include decreased
growth efficiency and associated declines in size-dependent
reproductive success. Therefore, particular responses to tem-
perature increases are likely to be population-specific rather
than species-specific, which greatly complicates the ability to
project future situations for particular species over large areas
of the Arctic.
Distributional Approaches
Many attempts to project biological responses to climate change
rely on the climate-envelope approach, whereby present-day
species distributions are mapped with respect to key climate
variables (e.g., temperature, precipitation) and the distributions
shifted in accordance with climate change projections (30). For
example, weight-specific basal metabolism is suggested to
increase as size decreases with no associated increase in energy
storage capacity, resulting in smaller fish being less tolerant of
the starvation conditions typically associated with overwinter-
ing (13). Size-dependent starvation endurance requires that
young-of-the-year fish complete a minimum amount of growth
during their first season of life. Growth opportunity, however, is
increasingly restricted on a south-north gradient and the
constraint has been demonstrated to effectively explain the
northern distributional limit of yellow perch in central and
western North America (Figure 2), European perch (Perca
378 Ambio Vol. 35, No. 7, November 2006ÓRoyal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2006
http://www.ambio.kva.se

fluviatilis) in Eurasia, and the smallmouth bass (Micropterus
dolomieui) in central North America. If winter starvation does
form the basis for the geographic distributions of many fishes
(e.g., 11 families and 25 genera of fish within Canadian waters)
(13), climate-induced changes in growing-season length, and
consequent reductions in the period of winter starvation, are
very likely to be associated with significant range extensions of
many species. Species already well established within low-arctic
watersheds are likely to show the greatest potential for range
extensions. Associated changes in species assemblages are likely
to shift patterns of energy flow in many aquatic systems. For
example, increasing the number of cyprinids that consume
plankton (e.g., emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides, lake chub
Couesius plumbeus) in northern waters will possibly divert
energy from existing planktivores (e.g., ciscoes; Coregonus spp.)
and reduce their population abundances. In turn, top predators
(e.g., lake trout) are likely to have altered diets, and changes in
the ratio of pelagic and benthic sources of carbon in piscivore
diets are likely, in turn, to alter tissue mercury concentrations
(58, 59), thus linking general climate change impacts with local
contaminant loadings.
The dominant result of simulations used to project the
impact of climate change on the distribution and thermal
habitat of fish in north temperate lakes is an increase in
available warmer habitat. Temperature influences on thermal
habitat use are strong enough to develop measures of thermal
habitat volume during the summer period by weighting the
amount of lake-bottom area and pelagic volume with water
temperatures within species’ optimal thermal niches (60).
Thermal habitat volume explained variations in total sustained
yield of four commercially important species: lake trout, lake
whitefish, walleye, and northern pike.
Although distributional changes provide a convenient and
easy means of assessing possible range extensions, the flaw in
the approach is that species’ distributions often reflect the
influence of interactions with other species (61) or historical
effects (26). Projections based on changes in single-species
climate envelopes will therefore be misleading if interactions
between species are not considered when projections are made.
Microcosm experiments on simple assemblages showed that
as the spatial distribution of interdependent populations
changed as a result of temperature increases, the pattern and
intensity of dispersal also changed. Thus, climate change will
possibly produce unexpected changes in range and abundance in
situations incorporating dispersal and species interaction (e.g.,
competition and predator-prey dynamics). Feedbacks between
species are likely to be even more complex than simple
experiments allow (61); for example, distributions of stream-
resident salmonids are not simple functions of either temperature
or altitude (62). Accordingly, whenever dispersal and interac-
tions operate in natural populations, climate change is likely to
provoke similar phenomena, and projections based on extrap-
olation of the climate envelope may lead to serious errors (61).
In theory, the temperature signal should be strong enough to
project long-term changes in the availability of fish thermal
habitat and to use available empirical relationships to project
sustainable yields. However, until the results of such research
are available for arctic fishes, interannual variability and
latitudinal differences in climate will provide the best tests for
hypotheses about the importance and effects of climate change
on arctic fish species (63).
CONCLUSIONS
Although relatively depauperate in comparison to lower
latitudes, the diversity of arctic freshwater and diadromous
fishes is relatively high including about 99 species, a large
number of which are used in commercial, subsistence and
recreational fisheries throughout the area. Many of these are
also found in areas south of the Arctic. The complexity of
pathways by which climate change will directly and indirectly
influence arctic fishes, coupled with widespread variability in
potential response envelopes reduces our predictive ability. To
this is added a very limited understanding of the interactions of
fish and climate, particularly as this applies within species to
northern populations which may differ from southern counter-
parts. In concert these factors in most cases presently preclude
quantitative estimation of climate change effects on most
northern fish populations. Rather, loose qualitative generaliza-
tions are all that are possible at present, a factor that generally
reduces preparedness to meet challenges and opportunities
associated with climate change in the Arctic. A short review of
the approaches available to redress this gap suggests that studies
relating interannual variation in fish population parameters to
putative environmental drivers and/or those examining latitu-
dinal variation as a proxy measure of potential responses to
climate change will provide the best information about future
climate change effects on arctic freshwater and diadromous
fishes.
References and Notes
1. Nuttall, M., Berkes, F., Forbes, B., Kofinas, G., Vlassova, T. and Wenzel, G. 2005.
Hunting, herding, fishing, and gathering: indigenous peoples and renewable resource in
the Arctic. Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK, chap. 12, pp. 649–690.
2. Wrona, F.J., Prowse, T.D., Reist, J.D., Hobbie, J.E., Levesque, L.M.J. and Vincent,
W.F. 2006. Climate impacts on arctic freshwater ecosystems and fisheries: Background,
rationale, and approach of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA). Ambio 35,
326–329.
3. Berra, T.M. 2001. Freshwater Fish Distribution. Academic Press, New York.
4. Magnuson, J.J., Crowder, L.B. and Medvick, P.A. 1979. Temperature as an ecological
resource. Amer. Zool. 19, 331–343.
5. Reist, J.D. and Sawatzky, C.D. 2004. Data for this table were compiled by examining
regional works from throughout the Arctic and summarizing taxa presence and absence
within drainage basins and ACIA regions. Presumptive thermal guilds were added based
upon definitions given in the text and exploitation notes were added based upon regional
taxonomic summaries and/or additional information available for the area.
6. Sandlund, O.T., Gunnarsson, K., Jonasson, P.M., Jonsson, B., Lindem, T., Magnusson,
K.P., Malmquist, H.J., Sigurjonsdottir, H., et al. 1992. The Arctic char Salvelinus alpinus
in Thingvallavatn. Oikos 64, 305–351.
7. Dahm, C.N. and Molles, M.C. Jr. 1992. Streams in semi-arid regions as sensitive
indicators of global climate change. In: Troubled Waters of the Greenhouse Earth. Firth,
P. and Fisher, S.G.(eds.). Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 250–260.
8. Beitinger, T.L. and Fitzpatrick, L.C. 1979. Physiological and ecological correlates of
preferred temperature in fish. Am. Zool. 19, 319–329.
9. Coutant, C.C. 1987. Thermal preference: when does an asset become a liability? Env.
Biol Fishes 18, 161–172.
10. Craig, P.C. 1989. An introduction to anadromous fishes in the Alaskan Arctic. In:
Research Advances on Anadromous Fish in Arctic Alaska and Canada. Norton, D.W.(ed.)
Vol. 24, Biological Papers of the University of Alaska. Institute of Arctic Biology,
Fairbanks, Alaska, pp. 27–54.
11. Reist, J.D. 94. An overview of the possible effects of climate change on northern
freshwater and anadromous fishes. In: Mackenzie Basin Impact Study (MBIS), Interim
Report 2, Environment Canada, Ottawa, pp. 377–385.
12. Schlesinger, D.A. an d Reiger, H.A. 1 983. Relations hip between evn ironmental
temperature and yields of subarctic and tmperate zone fish species. Can. J. Fish. Aquat.
Sci. 40, 1829–1837.
13. Shuter, B.J. and Post, J.R. 1990. Climate, population viability, and the zoogeography of
temperate fishes. Trans Am. Fish. Soc. 119, 314–336.
14. Meisner, J.D., Goodier, J.L., Regier, H.A., Shuter, B.J., Christie, W.J. and , 87. An
assessment of the effects of climate warming on Great Lakes basin fishes. J. Great Lakes
Res. 13, 340–352.
15. Sibley, T.H. and Strickland, R.M. 1985. Fisheries: Some relationships to climate change
and marine environmental factors. In: Characterization of information requirements for
studies of CO2 effects: water, resources, aquaculture, fisheries, forestry and human
health. White, M.R.(ed). United States Department of Energy, Washington, DC, chap.
5, pp. 95–143.
16. Reist, J.D., Wrona, F.J., Prowse, T.D., Power, M., Dempson, J.B., King, J.R. and
Beamish, R.J. 2006. An overview of effects of climate change on selected arctic
freshwater and anadromous fishes. Ambio 35, 381–387.
17. Prowse, T.D., Wrona, F.J., Reist, J.D., Gibson, J.J., Hobbie, J.E., Levesque, L.M.J. and
Vincent, W.F. 2006. Climate change effects on hydroecology of arctic freshwater
ecosystems. Ambio 35, 347–358.
18. Jonsson, N. 1991. Influence of water flow, water temperature and light on fish migration
in rivers. Nordic J. Freshw. Res. 66, 20–35.
19. Svenning, M.-A. and Gullestad, N. 2002. Adaptations to stochastic environmental
variations: the effects of seasonal temperatures on the migratory window of Svalbard
Arctic charr. Environ. Biol. Fishes 64, 165–174.
20. Reist, J.D. and Chang-Kue, K.T.J. 1997. The life history and habitat usage of broad
whitefish in the lower Mackenzie River basin. In: The Proceedings Of The Broad Whitefish
Workshop: The Biology, Traditional Knowledge and Scientific Management of Broad
Whitefish (Coregonus nasus (Pallus)) in the Lower Mackenzie River. Tallman, R.F and
Resist, J.D(eds.) Technical Report of Fisheries of Aquatic Sciences 2193 pp. 63–64.
21. Power, G., Brown, R.S. and Imhof, J.G. 1999. Groundwater and fish—insights from
northern North America. Hydrol. Process. 13, 401–422.
22. Paul, A.J. and Post, J.R. 2001. Spatial distribution of native and nonnative salmonids in
streams of the eastern slopes of the Canadian Rocky Mountains. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.
130, 417–430.
Ambio Vol. 35, No. 7, November 2006 379ÓRoyal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2006
http://www.ambio.kva.se

23. Cunjak, R.A., Prowse, T.D. and Parrish, D.L. 1998. Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)in
winter: the season of parr discontent? J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.55(S1), 161–180.
24. Prowse, T.D. 2001. River-ice ecology. I: hydrology, geomorpic, and water-quality
aspects. J. Cold Regions Engin. 15, 1–16.
25. Prowse, T.D. 2001. River-ice ecology. II: biological aspects. J. Cold Regions Eng. 15, 17–
33.
26. Tonn, W.M. Climate change and fish communities: a conceptual framework. Trans. Am.
Fish. Soc. 119, 337–352.
27. Assel, R.A. 1991. Implications of CO
2
global warming on Great Lakes ice cover. Clim.
Change 18, 377–395.
28. Hill, D.K. and Magnuson, J.J. 1990. Potential effects of global climate warming on the
growth and prey consumption of Great Lakes fish. Trans. Am. Fish. 119, 265–275.
29. Magnuson, J.J., Meisner, J.D. and Hill, D.K. 1990. Potential changes in the thermal
habitat of Great Lakes fish after global climate warming. J. Great Lakes Res. 119, 254–
264.
30. Minns, C.K. and Moore, J.E. 1992. Predicting the impact of climate change on the
spatial pattern of freshwater fish yield capability in eastern Canadian lakes. Clim.
Change 22, 327–346.
31. Smith, J.B. 1991. Potential impacts of climate change on the Great Lakes. Bull. Am.
Meterol. Soc. 72, 21–28.
32. Blumberg, A.F. and Di Toro, D.M. 1990. Effects of climate warming on dissolved
oxygen concentrations in Lake Erie. Trans Am. Fish. Soc. 119, 210–223.
33. Schertzer, W.M. and Sawchuk, A.M. 1990. Thermal structure of the lower Great Lakes
in a warm year: implications for the occurrence of hypolimnion anoxia. Trans. Am. Fish.
Soc. 119, 195–209.
34. Lehtonen, H. 1996. Potential effects of global warming on northern European
freshwater fish and fisheries. Fish. Manage. Ecol. 3, 59–71.
35. Arnell, N., Bates, B., Lang, H., Magnuson, J.J., Mulholland, P., Fisher, S., Liu, C.,
McKnight, D., et al. 1996. Hydrology and freshwater ecology. In: Climate Change 1995:
Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific-Technical Analyses.
Second Assessment Report IPCC. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK, pp.
325–363.
36. Deegan, L.A., Golden, H.E., Harvey, C.J. and Peterson, B.J. 1999. Influence of
environmental variability on the growth of age-0 and adult Arctic grayling. Tran. Am.
Fish. Soc. 128, 1163–1175.
37. Power, M. and van den Heuval, M.R. 1999. Variability in YOY yellow perch growth and
its relationship to temperature. Tran. Am. Fish. Soc. 128, 687–700.
38. King, J.R., Shuter, B.J. and Zimmerman, A.P. 1999. Empirical links between thermal
habitat, fish growth, and climate change. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 128, 656–665.
39. Shuter, B.J., MacLean, J.A., Fry, F.E.J. and Regier, H.A. 1980. Stochastic simulation of
temperature effects on first year survival of smallmouth bass. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 109,
1–34.
40. Morin, R., Dodson, J.J. and Poer, G. 1982. Life history variations of anadromous cisco
(Coregonus artedii), lake whitefish (C. clupeaformis), and round whitefish (Prosopium
cylindraceum) populations of eastern James-Hudson Bay. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 39,
958–967.
41. Levins, R. 1969. Thermal acclimation and heat resistance in Drosophila species. Am.
Nat. 103, 483–499.
42. Jensen, A.J., Forseth, T. and Johnson, B.O. 2000. Latitudinal variation in growth of
young brown trout Salmo trutta.J. Anim. Ecol. 69, 1010–1020.
43. Hutchinson, G.E. 1957. Concluding remarks. Cold Spring Harbor Symposium on
Quantitative Biology. 22, pp. 415–427.
44. Elliott, J.M. 1994. Quantitative Ecology and the Brown Trout. Oxford. University Press,
Oxford, UK.
45. Regier, H.A., Lin, P., Ing, K.K. and Wichert, G.A. 1996. Likely responses to climate
change of fish associations in the Laurentian Great Lakes Basin: concepts, methods and
findings. Boreal Environ. Res. 1, 1–15.
46. Leach, J.H., Dickie, L.M., Shuter, B.J., Borgmann, U., Hyman, J. and Lysack, W. 1987.
A review of methods for prediction of potential fish production with application to the
Great Lakes and Lake Winnipeg. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 44, 471–485.
47. Downing, J.A., Plante, C. and Lalonde, S. 1990. Fish production correlated with
primary productivity, not the morphoedaphic index. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 47, 1929–
1936.
48. Fleming, I.A. and Gross, M.R. 1990. Latitudinal clines—a trade-off between egg
number and size in Pacific salmon. Ecology 71, 1–11.
49. L’Abee-Lund, J.H., Jonsson, B., Jensen, A.J., Saettem, L.M., Heggberget, T.G.,
Johnson, B.O. and Naesje, T.F. 1989. Latitudinal variation in life-history characteristics
of sea-run migrant brown trout Salmo trutta.J. Anim. Ecol. 58, 525–542.
50. Leggett, W.C. and Carscadden, J.E. 1978. Latitudinal variation in reproductive
characteristics of American shad (Alosa sapidissima): evidence for population specific
life history strategies in fish. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 35, 1469–1478.
51. Wootton, R. 1990. Ecology of Teleost Fishes. Chapman and Hall, London, UK.
52. Berg, O.K. and Berg, M. 1989. Sea growth and time of migration of anadromous Arctic
charr (Salvelinus alpinus (L.)) in the Vardnes River, northern Norway. Can. J. Fish.
Aquat. Sci. 46, 955–960.
53. McCormick, S.D., Shrimpton, J.M., Zydlewski, J.D., Wood, C.M. and McDonald,
D.G. 1998. Movement, migration, and smolting of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Can.
J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 55(S1), 77–92.
54. Power, G. 1981. Stock characteristics and catches of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)in
Que
´bec, and Newfoundland and Labrador in relation to environmental variables. 38,
1601–1611. Ref. 54. Please supply journal title
55. Brett, J.R., Shelbourne, J.E. and Shoop, C.R. 1969. Growth rate and body composition
of fingerling sockeye salmon, Oncorhynchus nerka, in relation to temperature and ration
size. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 26, 2363–2394.
56. Scarnecchia, D.L. 1984. Climatic and oceanic variations affecting yield of Icelandic
stocks of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 41, 917–935.
57. Levinton, I.S. 1983. The latitudinal compensation hypothesis: growth data and a model
of latitudinal growth differentiation based upon energy budgets. 1. Interspecific
comparison of Ophryotrocha (Polychaeta: Dorvilleidae). Biol. Bull. 165, 686–698.
58. Power, M., Klein, G.M., Guiguer, K.R.R.A. and Kwan, M.K.H. 2002. Mercury
accumulation in the fish community of a sub-Arctic lake in relation to trophic position
and carbon sources. J. Appl. Ecol. 39, 819–830.
59. Wrona, F.J., Prowse, T.D., Reist, J.D., Hobbie, J., Levesque, L.M.J., MacDonald, R.
W. and Vincent, W.F. 2006. Effects of ultraviolet radiation and contaminant-related
stressors on arctic freshwater ecosystems. Ambio 35, 388–401.
60. Christie, G.C. and Regier, H.A. 1988. Measures of optimal thermal habitat and their
relationships to yields for four commercial fish species. Can J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 45, 301–
314.
61. Davis, A.J., Jenkinson, L.S., Lawton, J.H., Shorrocks, B. and Wood, S. 1998. Making
mistakes when predicting shifts in species range in response to global warming. Nature
391, 783–786.
62. Fausch, K.D. 89. Do gradient and temperature affect distributions of, and interactions
between, brook charr (Salvelinus fontinalis) and other resident salmonids in streams?
Physiol. Ecol. Jpn. Special Volume 1, 303–322.
63. Magnuson, J.J. and DeStasio, B.T. 1997. Thermal niche of fishes and global warming.
In: Global Warming: Implications for Freshwater and Marine Fish. Wood, C.M. and
McDonald, D.G.(eds.). Society for Experimental Biology Seminar Series 61, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 377–408.
James D. Reist, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 501 University
Crescent, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3T 2N6, Canada, Tel.: 204
983 5032, Fax: 204 984 2403.
reistj@dfo-mpo.gc.ca,
Frederick J. Wrona, National Water Research Institute of
Environment Canada, Department of Geography, University of
Victoria, PO Box 1700 STN CSC, Victoria, BC, V8W 2Y2.
Canada.
Fred.Wrona@ec.gc.ca
Terry D. Prowse, Water and Climate Impacts Research
Centre, National Water Research Institute of Environment
Canada, Department of Geography, University of Victoria, PO
Box 1700 STN CSC, Victoria, BC, V8W 2Y2, Canada.
Terry.Prowse@ec.gc.ca
Michael Power, Department of Biology, University of Waterloo,
200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1,
Canada.
m3power@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca
J. Brian Dempson, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 80 East
White Hills Road, PO Box 5667, St. John’s, NL, A1C 5X1,
Canada.
dempsonb@dfo-mpo.gc.ca
Richard J. Beamish, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 3190
Hammond Bay Road, Nanaimo, BC, V9T 6N7, Canada.
beamishr@dfo-mpo.gc.ca
Jacquelynne R. King, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 3190
Hammond Bay Road, Nanaimo, BC, V9T 6N7, Canada.
KingJac@dfo-mpo.gc.ca
Theresa J. Carmichael, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 501
University Crescent, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3T 2N6, Canada.
carmichaelt@dfo-mpo.gc.ca
Chantelle D. Sawatsky, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 501
University Crescent, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3T 2N6, Canada.
sawatzkyc@dfo-mpo.gc.ca
380 Ambio Vol. 35, No. 7, November 2006ÓRoyal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2006
http://www.ambio.kva.se