Search

Nature Communications published a correction notice for an article titled "Hidden impacts of ocean warming and acidification on biological responses of marine animals revealed through meta-analysis." The correction addressed an error in Figure 5a, where the tiles for the fish were incorrectly ordered. The corrected version of Figure 5 has been updated in both the PDF and HTML versions of the article. The authors Katharina Alter and Juliette Jacquemont contributed equally to the research, along with several other researchers listed in the correction notice. [Extracted from the article]

In the context of global change, reviewing the relationships between marine fish traits and their range shifts is required to (1) identify ecological generalizations regarding the influence of traits on range shifts at a global scale and (2) investigate the rationale behind trait inclusion in models describing those relationships. We systematically searched for studies on marine fish assemblages that identified distributional shifts and analyzed the relationship between fish traits and these shifts. We reviewed 29 papers and identified 11 shift type characterizations and 41 traits, noting significant variation in measurement methods and model types used to describe their relationships. We identified global trait redundancies in the relationship between fish traits and latitudinal range shifts. These trends are related to the fishes' latitudinal range, trophic level, water column habitat, body size, size‐at‐settlement, growth rate, and larval swimming ability. The first four traits, along with fish bottom habitat, biogeographic affinity, diet, and thermal affinity, also showed significant relationships across four ways to characterize horizontal range shifts of fish species. The significance of these traits suggests their relevance in range shifting, regardless of the analyses conducted, biogeographic realm, and range shift type. However, trait redundancies require further consideration, mainly because some traits show opposing relationships in different studies, and important biogeographic research gaps limit global generalizations about the trait–range shift relationship. Half of the studies analyzed provided a rationale for 23 out of 41 traits. We also provide guidelines for future work to better understand the influence of traits on fish range shifts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]