Search

Both the ecological and social dimensions of fisheries are being affected by climate change. As a result, policymakers, managers, scientists and fishing communities are seeking guidance on how to holistically build resilience to climate change. Numerous studies have highlighted key attributes of resilience in fisheries, yet concrete examples that explicitly link these attributes to social‐ecological outcomes are lacking. To better understand climate resilience, we assembled 18 case studies spanning ecological, socio‐economic, governance and geographic contexts. Using a novel framework for evaluating 38 resilience attributes, the case studies were systematically assessed to understand how attributes enable or inhibit resilience to a given climate stressor. We found population abundance, learning capacity, and responsive governance were the most important attributes for conferring resilience, with ecosystem connectivity, place attachment, and accountable governance scoring the strongest across the climate‐resilient fisheries. We used these responses to develop an attribute typology that describes robust sources of resilience, actionable priority attributes and attributes that are case specific or require research. We identified five fishery archetypes to guide stakeholders as they set long‐term goals and prioritize actions to improve resilience. Lastly, we found evidence for two pathways to resilience: (1) building ecological assets and strengthening communities, which we observed in rural and small‐scale fisheries, and (2) building economic assets and improving effective governance, which was demonstrated in urban and wealthy fisheries. Our synthesis presents a novel framework that can be directly applied to identify approaches, pathways and actionable levers for improving climate resilience in fishery systems.

Scientists and managers rely on indicator taxa such as coral and macroalgal cover to evaluate the effects of human disturbance on coral reefs, often assuming a universally positive relationship between local human disturbance and macroalgae. Despite evidence that macroalgae respond to local stressors in diverse ways, there have been few efforts to evaluate relationships between specific macroalgae taxa and local human‐driven disturbance. Using genus‐level monitoring data from 1205 sites in the Indian and Pacific Oceans, we assess whether macroalgae percent cover correlates with local human disturbance while accounting for factors that could obscure or confound relationships. Assessing macroalgae at genus level revealed that no genera were positively correlated with all human disturbance metrics. Instead, we found relationships between the division or genera of algae and specific human disturbances that were not detectable when pooling taxa into a single functional category, which is common to many analyses. The convention to use percent cover of macroalgae as an indication of local human disturbance therefore likely obscures signatures of local anthropogenic threats to reefs. Our limited understanding of relationships between human disturbance, macroalgae taxa, and their responses to human disturbances impedes the ability to diagnose and respond appropriately to these threats.

Current best-practice policy recommendations for managing fish stocks are achieved by a mixture of maintaining modest fishing mortality (restricting effort, times and gear), marine reserve networks and not subsidizing unprofitable fisheries. A seldom evaluated question is how effective these proposed approaches are for maintaining all fish stocks and biodiversity elements in marine seascapes? Both recommended and unrecommended fishing practices fragment habitats and reduce metapopulation connectivity with potentially unexpected seascape-level consequences. To better understand these outcomes, we pooled and evaluated fish community data into two seascape groupings for comparisons of biomass and life-history characteristics. These were remote baseline reefs (>9 hr from regional cities and >4 hr from human habitation, n = 584 locations) and those emulating best-practice seascapes (BPS, n = 140). BPS were a mix of high-compliance marine reserves (fishable biomass = 892 ± 696 (±SD) kg/ha, n = 95; >5 km2 and >15 years of closure) and fished seascapes (478 ± 395 kg/ha, n = 45) that had biomass near the maximum sustained yield (MSY) estimates for coral reefs. The fish communities in the BPS locations differed considerably from the remote baseline by having 49% of the median and 32% of the mean biomass, smaller community-weighted body sizes, and faster growth and mortality rates. Most of the declines were associated with high biomass taxa that included carnivorous jacks (Carangidae), snappers (Lutjanidae), groupers (Serranidae) and triggerfish (Balistidae), which were reduced to between 11% and 28% of the mean baseline. Surgeonfish (Acanthuridae) and parrotfish (Scarinae) were an exception in being reduced to only 48 and 53% of the baseline's mean biomass, respectively. As expected, community-level body sizes and age values were larger and trophic level higher, while growth and mortality were lower in baselines than BPS seascapes. After evaluating the different environmental

Reef fish biomass is increasingly recognized as a key indicator of fishery and biodiversity status linked to ecosystem integrity on coral reefs, and yet the evaluation of appropriate baselines for biomass, and what drives variation in potential baselines, is sparse. Variability in reef fishable biomass was assessed to test for the existence of baselines or benchmarks (B&Bs), based on field studies of 223 reef sites in remote uninhabited reefs, in high‐compliance closures of >5 km2, and among the increasing number of small and recent closures. The purpose of the study was to examine the effects of human habitation, travel time and distance to cities, habitat, depth, benthic cover, and environmental variables on fish B&Bs. There were large differences in the three categories of ‘no fishing’, with human habitation being the single best predictor of biomass. In remote areas without people (>9 hours of travel time), fish biomass had a mean of 2,450 kg ha–1 (95% confidence interval, 95% CI, 2,130–2,770 kg ha–1; median = 1,885 kg ha–1). In these remote areas, biomass was weakly associated with human travel time to the site and, to a lesser extent, wave energy. In high‐compliance closures, fish biomass peaked at 20 years and 5–10 km2, and levelled at 910 kg ha–1 (95% CI 823–989 kg ha–1) for both closure age and size. There was little evidence that human travel time and environmental factors influenced biomass greatly in these established closures. In small and recent closures (<15 years), habitat, depth and closure age were the best predictors of fish biomass. Based on the weakness of environmental factors, country or site‐specific B&Bs are not required in these two provinces. However, human habitation in the seascape as well as the size and age of closures set limits to the maximum achievable biomass. The importance of environmental factors increases as the no‐fishing areas and closure times decline. Reef wilderness is not widespread in these provinces, but provides key se