Conservation management and sustainable harvest quotas are sensitive to choice of climate modelling approach for two marine gastropods

Abstract

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Aim</jats:title><jats:p>To establish the robustness of two alternative methods for predicting the future ranges and abundances for two wild‐harvested abalone species (<jats:italic>Haliotis rubra</jats:italic> Donovan 1808 and <jats:italic>H. laevigata</jats:italic> Leach 1814): single atmosphere–ocean general circulation model (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">GCM</jats:styled-content>) or ensemble‐averaged <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">GCM</jats:styled-content> forecasts.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Location</jats:title><jats:p>South Australia.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>We assessed the ability of 20 <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">GCM</jats:styled-content>s to simulate observed seasonal sea surface temperature (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">SST</jats:styled-content>) between 1980–1999, globally, and regionally for the Indian and Pacific Oceans south of the Equator. We used model rankings to characterize a set of representative climate futures, using three different‐sized <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">GCM</jats:styled-content> ensembles and two individual <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">GCM</jats:styled-content>s (the Parallel Climate Model and the Community Climate System Model, version 3.0). Ecological niche models were then coupled to physiological information to compare forecast changes in area of occupancy, population size and harvest area based on forecasts using the various <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">GCM</jats:styled-content> selection methods, as well as different greenhouse gas emission scenarios and climate sensitivities.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>We show that: (1) the skill with which climate models reproduce recent <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">SST</jats:styled-content> records varies considerably amongst <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">GCM</jats:styled-content>s, with multimodel ensemble averages showing closer agreement to observations than single models; (2) choice of <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">GCM</jats:styled-content>, and the decision on whether or not to use ensemble‐averaged climate forecasts, can strongly influence spatiotemporal predictions of range, abundance and fishing potential; and (3) comparable hindcasting skill does not necessarily guarantee that <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">GCM</jats:styled-content> forecasts and ecological and evolutionary responses to these forecast changes, will be similar amongst closely ranked models.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title><jats:p>By averaging across an ensemble of seven highly ranked skilful <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">GCM</jats:styled-content>s, inherent uncertainties stemming from <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">GCM</jats:styled-content> differences are incorporated into forecasts of change in species range, abundance and sustainable fishing area. Our results highlight the need to make informed and explicit decisions on <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">GCM</jats:styled-content> choice, model sensitivity and emission scenarios when exploring conservation options for marine species and the sustainability of future harvests using ecological niche models.</jats:p></jats:sec>