Key Uncertainties and Modeling Needs for Managing Living Marine Resources in the Future Arctic Ocean

Abstract Emerging fishing activity due to melting ice and poleward species distribution shifts in the rapidly‐warming Arctic Ocean challenges transboundary management and requires proactive governance. A 2021 moratorium on commercial fishing in the Arctic high seas provides a 16‐year runway for improved scientific understanding. Given substantial knowledge gaps, characterizing areas of highest uncertainty is a key first step. Marine ecosystem model ensembles that project future fish distributions could inform management of future Arctic fisheries, but Arctic‐specific variation has not yet been examined for global ensembles. We use the Fisheries and Marine Ecosystem Intercomparison Project ensemble driven by two Earth System Models (ESMs) under two Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP1‐2.6 and SSP5‐8.5) to illustrate the current state of and uncertainty among biomass projections for the Arctic Ocean over the duration of the moratorium. The models generally project biomass increases in more northern Arctic ecosystems and decreases in southern ecosystems, but wide intra‐model variation exceeds projection means in most cases. The two ESMs show opposite trends for the main environmental drivers. Therefore, these projections are currently insufficient to inform policy actions. Investment in sustained monitoring and improving modeling capacity, especially for sea ice dynamics, is urgently needed. Concurrently, it will be necessary to develop frameworks for making precautionary decisions under continued uncertainty. We conclude that researchers should be transparent about uncertainty, presenting these model projections not as a source of scientific “answers,” but as bounding for plausible, policy‐relevant questions to assess trade‐offs and mitigate risks.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Earth s Future
Published
2024-08-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1029/2023ef004393
Citations
7
Primary Topic
Arctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.63

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Key Uncertainties and Modeling Needs for Managing Living Marine Resources in the Future Arctic Ocean

Daniele Bianchi, Jason D. Everett, Julia G. Mason, Colleen M. Petrik et al.
7 citations
Earth s Future
Arctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
2.63
article

Key Uncertainties and Modeling Needs for Managing Living Marine Resources in the Future Arctic Ocean

Daniele Bianchi, Jason D. Everett, Julia G. Mason, Colleen M. Petrik, Camilla Novaglio, Juliano Palacios‐Abrantes, Ryan Heneghan, Renuka Badhe, Julia L. Blanchard, Andrea Bryndum‐Buchholz, Cheryl S. Harrison, Isabella Morgante
article en
7 citations

Abstract

Abstract Emerging fishing activity due to melting ice and poleward species distribution shifts in the rapidly‐warming Arctic Ocean challenges transboundary management and requires proactive governance. A 2021 moratorium on commercial fishing in the Arctic high seas provides a 16‐year runway for improved scientific understanding. Given substantial knowledge gaps, characterizing areas of highest uncertainty is a key first step. Marine ecosystem model ensembles that project future fish distributions could inform management of future Arctic fisheries, but Arctic‐specific variation has not yet been examined for global ensembles. We use the Fisheries and Marine Ecosystem Intercomparison Project ensemble driven by two Earth System Models (ESMs) under two Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP1‐2.6 and SSP5‐8.5) to illustrate the current state of and uncertainty among biomass projections for the Arctic Ocean over the duration of the moratorium. The models generally project biomass increases in more northern Arctic ecosystems and decreases in southern ecosystems, but wide intra‐model variation exceeds projection means in most cases. The two ESMs show opposite trends for the main environmental drivers. Therefore, these projections are currently insufficient to inform policy actions. Investment in sustained monitoring and improving modeling capacity, especially for sea ice dynamics, is urgently needed. Concurrently, it will be necessary to develop frameworks for making precautionary decisions under continued uncertainty. We conclude that researchers should be transparent about uncertainty, presenting these model projections not as a source of scientific “answers,” but as bounding for plausible, policy‐relevant questions to assess trade‐offs and mitigate risks.

Earth s FutureVol. 12(8)
Griffith University (AU), Louisiana State University (US), CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere (AU), University of Tasmania (AU), Environmental Defense Fund (US), Memorial University of Newfoundland (CA), Fisheries and Oceans Canada (CA), University of British Columbia (CA), Scripps Institution of Oceanography (US), University of California, Los Angeles (US), The University of Queensland (AU), UNSW Sydney (AU), University of California San Diego (US), Centre for Marine Socioecology (AU)
Ocean Frontier Institute, Canada First Research Excellence Fund, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
Life below water
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Arctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
2.63
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.