Claim: Marine life is fleeing the equator to cooler waters. History tells us this could trigger a mass extinction event

Anthony Richardson, The University of Queensland; Chhaya Chaudhary, University of Auckland; David Schoeman, University of the Sunshine Coast, and Mark John Costello, University of Auckland

The tropical water at the equator is renowned for having the richest diversity of marine life on Earth, with vibrant coral reefs and large aggregations of tunas, sea turtles, manta rays and whale sharks. The number of marine species naturally tapers off as you head towards the poles.

Ecologists have assumed this global pattern has remained stable over recent centuries — until now. Our recent study found the ocean around the equator has already become too hot for many species to survive, and that global warming is responsible.

In other words, the global pattern is rapidly changing. And as species flee to cooler water towards the poles, it’s likely to have profound implications for marine ecosystems and human livelihoods. When the same thing happened 252 million years ago, 90% of all marine species died.

The bell curve is warping dangerously

This global pattern — where the number of species starts lower at the poles and peaks at the equator — results in a bell-shaped gradient of species richness. We looked at distribution records for nearly 50,000 marine species collected since 1955 and found a growing dip over time in this bell shape.

A chart with three overlapping lines, each representing different decades. It shows that between 1955 and 1974, the bell curve is almost flat at the top. For the lines 1975-1994 and 1995-2015, the dip gets progressively deeper, with peaks either side of the centre.
If you look at each line in this chart, you can see a slight dip in total species richness between 1955 and 1974. This deepens substantially in the following decades. Anthony Richardson, Author provided

So, as our oceans warm, species have tracked their preferred temperatures by moving towards the poles. Although the warming at the equator of 0.6℃ over the past 50 years is relatively modest compared with warming at higher latitudes, tropical species have to move further to remain in their thermal niche compared with species elsewhere.

As ocean warming has accelerated over recent decades due to climate change, the dip around at the equator has deepened.

We predicted such a change five years ago using a modelling approach, and now we have observational evidence.


Read more: The ocean is becoming more stable – here’s why that might not be a good thing


For each of the 10 major groups of species we studied (including pelagic fish, reef fish and molluscs) that live in the water or on the seafloor, their richness either plateaued or declined slightly at latitudes with mean annual sea-surface temperatures above 20℃.

Today, species richness is greatest in the northern hemisphere in latitudes around 30°N (off southern China and Mexico) and in the south around 20°S (off northern Australia and southern Brazil).

The tropical water at the equator is renowned for having the richest diversity of marine life, including large aggregations of tuna fish. Shutterstock

This has happened before

We shouldn’t be surprised global biodiversity has responded so rapidly to global warming. This has happened before, and with dramatic consequences.

252 million years ago…

At the end of the Permian geological period about 252 million years ago, global temperatures warmed by 10℃ over 30,000-60,000 years as a result of greenhouse gas emissions from volcano eruptions in Siberia.

A 2020 study of the fossils from that time shows the pronounced peak in biodiversity at the equator flattened and spread. During this mammoth rearranging of global biodiversity, 90% of all marine species were killed.

125,000 years ago…

A 2012 study showed that more recently, during the rapid warming around 125,000 years ago, there was a similar swift movement of reef corals away from the tropics, as documented in the fossil record. The result was a pattern similar to the one we describe, although there was no associated mass extinction.

Authors of the study suggested their results might foreshadow the effects of our current global warming, ominously warning there could be mass extinctions in the near future as species move into the subtropics, where they might struggle to compete and adapt.

Today…

During the last ice age, which ended around 15,000 years ago, the richness of forams (a type of hard-shelled, single-celled plankton) peaked at the equator and has been dropping there ever since. This is significant as plankton is a keystone species in the foodweb.

Our study shows that decline has accelerated in recent decades due to human-driven climate change.

The profound implications

Losing species in tropical ecosystems means ecological resilience to environmental changes is reduced, potentially compromising ecosystem persistence.

In subtropical ecosystems, species richness is increasing. This means there’ll be species invaders, novel predator-prey interactions, and new competitive relationships. For example, tropical fish moving into Sydney Harbour compete with temperate species for food and habitat.

This could result in ecosystem collapse — as was seen at the boundary between the Permian and Triassic periods — in which species go extinct and ecosystem services (such as food supplies) are permanently altered.

The changes we describe will also have profound implications for human livelihoods. For example, many tropical island nations depend on the revenue from tuna fishing fleets through the selling of licenses in their territorial waters. Highly mobile tuna species are likely to move rapidly toward the subtropics, potentially beyond sovereign waters of island nations.


Read more: Tropical fisheries: does limiting international trade protect local people and marine life?


Similarly, many reef species important for artisanal fishers — and highly mobile megafauna such as whale sharks, manta rays and sea turtles that support tourism — are also likely to move toward the subtropics.

The movement of commercial and artisanal fish and marine megafauna could compromise the ability of tropical nations to meet the Sustainable Development Goals concerning zero hunger and marine life.

Is there anything we can do?

One pathway is laid out in the Paris Climate Accords and involves aggressively reducing our emissions. Other opportunities are also emerging that could help safeguard biodiversity and hopefully minimise the worst impacts of it shifting away from the equator.

Currently 2.7% of the ocean is conserved in fully or highly protected reserves. This is well short of the 10% target by 2020 under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity.

Manta rays and other marine megafauna leaving the equator will have a huge impact on tourism.

But a group of 41 nations is pushing to set a new target of protecting 30% of the ocean by 2030.

This “30 by 30” target could ban seafloor mining and remove fishing in reserves that can destroy habitats and release as much carbon dioxide as global aviation. These measures would remove pressures on biodiversity and promote ecological resilience.

Designing climate-smart reserves could further protect biodiversity from future changes. For example, reserves for marine life could be placed in refugia where the climate will be stable over the foreseeable future.

We now have evidence that climate change is impacting the best-known and strongest global pattern in ecology. We should not delay actions to try to mitigate this.

This story is part of Oceans 21
Our series on the global ocean opened with five in-depth profiles. Look out for new articles on the state of our oceans in the lead-up to the UN’s next climate conference, COP26. The series is brought to you by The Conversation’s international network.


Read more: Australia’s marine (un)protected areas: government zoning bias has left marine life in peril since 2012


Anthony Richardson, Professor, The University of Queensland; Chhaya Chaudhary, , University of Auckland; David Schoeman, Professor of Global-Change Ecology, University of the Sunshine Coast, and Mark John Costello, Professor, University of Auckland

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
1.3 17 votes
Article Rating
107 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 20, 2021 12:19 pm

“Is there anything we can do?”, They ask…
Yes, there is: Stop publishing BS!

Vuk
April 20, 2021 12:25 pm

Today at the EGU – European Geosciences Union General Assembly
https://www.egu.eu/egutoday/2021/1/tuesday/

Scissor
Reply to  Vuk
April 20, 2021 1:15 pm

Meanwhile at Footlocker, they’re swapping out their inventory with work boots. (Minneapolis joke)

bluecat57
April 20, 2021 12:34 pm

FICTIONAL history you mean.

April 20, 2021 12:47 pm

The tropical water at the equator is renowned for having the richest diversity of marine life on Earth, with vibrant coral reefs and large aggregations of tunas, sea turtles, manta rays and whale sharks. The number of marine species naturally tapers off as you head towards the poles.

So you’re saying warmer is preferred by marine life.

Same as tropical rain forests, I suppose.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Redge
April 20, 2021 9:49 pm

The highest biodiversity in the world is in the Coral Triangle off Southeast Asia!
How can this be? Those silly fish and corals just don’t really know what’s good for them! They apparently didn’t get the memo about deadly global weirding!

PaulH
April 20, 2021 12:59 pm

I love all the scare-phrases in this article. “Dangerously warping”, “ocean warming has accelerated”, “ecosystem collapse!” There must be a guidebook somewhere about how to sprinkle these punchy phrases throughout your press releases. Oh, and wrapping things up with a way out of these terrors, ie. we must do what they tell us (and send more money). 🙂

Steve Z
April 20, 2021 1:05 pm

It’s hard to believe that water temperature increasing by 0.6 C (about 1.1 F) would induce fish into swimming 30 degrees of latitude (about 3,300 km) north or south just to find slightly cooler water. Is it possible that fish populations are declining because of over-fishing near the equator?

Also, during an El Nino, warm water accumulates in the eastern Pacific along the equator, and during a La Nina, warm water accumulates in the western Pacific, and the water is colder in the east. If the temperature fluctuation is more than 0.6 C between them, do the fish have to swim clear across the Pacific every time an El Nino flips to La Nina or vice versa?

Reply to  Steve Z
April 20, 2021 4:14 pm

They do it under cover of darkness so nobody knows!

Stevek
April 20, 2021 1:07 pm

Perfect. I’m hoping this means for some better fishing closer to my home.

dodgy geezer
April 20, 2021 1:10 pm

This would be due to the whole water column boiling, I presume?

Gary Pearse
April 20, 2021 1:11 pm

“We predicted such a change five years ago using a modelling approach, and now we have observational evidence.”

Of course you do! NASA just published a study on impact on vegetation of human activity and global warming. They threw out 90% of the only palpable evidence of climate change due to CO2 emissions and its fertilization of tropical and temperate zones that has
produced the Great Global Greening. Instead they discuss the piddling plant growth on the tundra so they can falsely attribute the overall greening to warming temperatures – no mention of an 18% expansion of forests, all other plant growth, plankton, etc. along with a doubling of harvests on lesser acreage.

The only way to get Lysenkoists neutralized is with such citizen data collection as the Anthony Watts’s surface stations project that looked at and catalogued the conditions at every weather station used in developing temperatures in the United States. Jennifer Morahasy’s surveys of the GBR in areas pronounced dead or declining was another one that caused Aussie Lysenkoists to publish a broad regional Pacific study of corals that was the first upbeat report on the ‘regional’ state of coral health. Like NASA’s tundra greening focus, they neglected to mention the GBR which they have been autopsying for decades.

Maybe Jim Steele and Susan Crockford would agree to manage teams to replicate this ‘fish story’, count the polar bears, caribou, etc funded by crowd sourcing, the GWPF, …

Bruce Cobb
April 20, 2021 1:13 pm

At the end of the Permian geological period about 252 million years ago, global temperatures warmed by 10℃ over 30,000-60,000 years as a result of greenhouse gas emissions from volcano eruptions in Siberia.

Oh. My. Gawd. The stupid, it burns. Like napalm.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
April 20, 2021 3:55 pm

Bruce,
You have to wonder just WHAT greenhouse gas they were speaking about. Permian CO2 levels were about 300ppm; the lowest level ever until the Pliocene!

2hotel9
April 20, 2021 1:20 pm

And yet more lies from the lying liars.

April 20, 2021 1:21 pm

The bell curve is warping dangerously…. “I’m giving her all she’s got, Captain!”

fred250
April 20, 2021 1:23 pm

ocean warming in perspective

comment image

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  fred250
April 20, 2021 2:59 pm

Fred
How did you make your graph so big? Most of us that aren’t editors have only been able to get postage-stamp sized graphics.

fred250
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 20, 2021 11:25 pm

Dunno.. just happens. ! I use “PostImages” and link to those images.

Val
April 20, 2021 1:51 pm

They can “model” anything they like, but their observations can only produce minimal results without the actual dynamics, causes and projected results, including extinction level events and their specific causes, which all have to do with the latest in astrophysics, astronomy, climate related issues and long-term trends with the planet, which can be found here:

.https://www.youtube.com/user/Suspicious0bservers

dk_
April 20, 2021 2:41 pm

Just put “We predicted such a change five years ago using a modelling approach, and now we have observational evidence” at the lede, and put “Confirmation bias” in the title. They cite data for three types of fish, one of which lives partly near the surface, then claim many decades of evidence, but cite “plateau or decline” as a trend for fish population “richness” living at latitudes with surface temps at 20 degrees C or higher — cherry picking at its finest.

Bruce Cobb
April 20, 2021 2:44 pm

Introducing the oceanic version of ManBearPig: Meet SharkCrabSquid! Enough to make any sea creature, no matter how big or small tremble with fear, and yes, flee for their very lives.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
April 20, 2021 10:00 pm

There you go, getting the free divers that fear no fish all excited! They’re hoping it’s as big as a shark, but tastes like crab legs!
Sounds like the geneticist that tried to cross an abalone with a crocodile. He was hoping for an abadile, but ended up with a crocobalone!

Abolition Man
April 20, 2021 3:44 pm

To the authors,
You make so many assumptions and suppositions in your study that you should hang your heads in mortification!
As the planet goes through a natural warming cycle, the tropics expand and push the temperate regions closer to the poles. The tropical species aren’t fleeing from the minor increase in warmth; they are expanding their territory! For you PC social justice scientists that’s like imperialism, but without the evil, raaaaaacist humans involved!
Then you try to correlate the Permian extinction with the rapid rise of temperatures after the Karoo Ice Age. But Permian CO2 levels were the lowest of ANY geologic period until the Pliocene! The elevated temps continued on well into the Cenozoic except for a dip around the Jurassic- Cretaceous boundary. Why didn’t that affect the abundant and flourishing life of the Mesozoic? The jury is still out on the cause of the Permian extinction, but assuming high temperatures to be the cause brings the usual result of when YOU ASSume!
Please do a complete rewrite and this time try to include more relevant facts and data! You should rejoice in the miracle molecule, CO2, instead of trying to tarnished it with your self-hatred and nihilism!

Red94ViperRT10
April 20, 2021 3:58 pm

“…global temperatures warmed by 10℃ over 30,000-60,000 years as a result of greenhouse gas emissions from volcano eruptions in Siberia…” I knew then that this whole paper was a crock of shit, since climate change in response to changes in greenhouse gas levels has never been demonstrated in the data, as far as I’m aware. Rather, we get a post hoc, ergo procter hoc type of “justification” for continuing the CAGW charade. This nonsense has really messed up science in general, hasn’t it?

“…We predicted such a change five years ago using a modelling approach, and now we have observational evidence….” They even proudly confess their confirmation bias.

“…Our study shows that decline has accelerated in recent decades due to human-driven climate change….” Also never demonstrated in the data.

“Designing climate-smart reserves could further protect biodiversity from future changes. For example, reserves for marine life could be placed in refugia where the climate will be stable over the foreseeable future.” But… but… but…  We were told at the beginning of this dreck that the oceans are warming worldwide, and many species can’t hack the rise in temperatures, thus the migration of species. But aren’t “climate reserves” anchored to geography? So picking a place on the map and designating it as a “reserve” will do no good if the temperature will continue to rise anyway, into ranges some species, we are told, cannot endure. So really, this is just a ploy to lock-away portions of the ocean floor under a global controlling authority, and revoke any authority of local governments to determine the uses for that ocean region.

Furthermore, the whole thing is pointless anyway: “This has happened before…” and yet this old Earth is still spinning away, supporting life and having a good old time doing it. The weather is going to do what the weather is going to do, and as King Canute demonstrated so long ago, there is nothing even the greatest among you can do about it. I label the entire paper nothing but naked propaganda.

April 20, 2021 4:06 pm

One pathway is laid out in the Paris Climate Accords and involves aggressively reducing our emissions. Other opportunities are also emerging that could help safeguard biodiversity and hopefully minimise the worst impacts of it shifting away from the equator.

Currently 2.7% of the ocean is conserved in fully or highly protected reserves. This is well short of the 10% target by 2020 under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity.

If you really want to destroy the oceans, just put the UN in charge of protecting them.

Or, as Milton Friedman observed:

If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there’d be a shortage of sand.

John Bruce
April 20, 2021 5:16 pm

guess what
the fish now have a much larger habitat to swim in
maybe they should think slightly warmer waters away from the equator allow the fish to expand to new territories

H. D. Hoese
April 20, 2021 6:02 pm

https://theconversation.com/marine-life-is-fleeing-the-equator-to-cooler-waters-history-tells-us-this-could-trigger-a-mass-extinction-event-158424
“ Although the warming at the equator of 0.6 over the past 50 years is relatively modest …..This has happened before….” 
https://www.pnas.org/content/118/15/e2015094118
“We analyzed data on 48,661 marine animal species since 1955, accounting for sampling variation, to assess whether the global latitudinal gradient in species richness is being impacted by climate change. We confirm recent studies that show a slight dip in species richness at the equator.” Slight dip, modest, but extinction! Who edits these?

April 20, 2021 7:03 pm

I thought it is cold waters that have the most life, all those nutrients

Whales go to tropics in winter to give birth but in summer they head north to gain weight because that is where the food is?

Or it’s diversity not quantity in tropics?

Abolition Man
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
April 20, 2021 10:05 pm

Upwelling, nutrient rich, cold waters are like a Kansas wheat field compared to a tropical forest!

Vincent Causey
April 20, 2021 11:32 pm

Although the warming at the equator of 0.6℃ over the past 50 years is relatively modest compared with warming at higher latitudes, tropical species have to move further to remain in their thermal niche compared with species elsewhere.”

So their thermal niche is only 0.6C wide?

Stephen Richards
April 21, 2021 12:44 am

How are they measuring that change across the major oceans ? When are they measuring that across the major oceans ? What was the condition of ENSO, amo etc and how did they measure their effect ?

Reply to  Stephen Richards
April 22, 2021 3:25 pm

Look at the first graph – they are whining about a teensy, statistically irrelevant drop at the equator and ignoring the huge increases at the tropics (21° N or S). Any positive news they focus only on the bad – seen similar hatch jobs re: the greening of the world, increased crop yields, the tree line moving north, etc.

Jim Clarke
April 21, 2021 4:52 am

“There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.” – Mark Twain

“They are just making shit up!” – Me