Biodiversity Loss in the Ocean: How Bad Is It?

MURAWSKI AND COLLEAGUES STATE THAT OUR assessment of the impacts of global marine biodiversity loss is overly pessimistic. They imply that management interventions are likely to reverse current trends of overfishing, and that the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has already met that goal. They cite Georges Bank haddock as an example and contest that catch metrics (as used in our global analysis) are sufficient to track the status of this particular fish stock and possibly others. We agree that precise biomass data are preferable, but these are rarely available. Here, we illustrate that catches are a good proxy of the status of haddock, although there can be a short delay in detecting recovery under intense management. While NMFS’s own data show that full recovery is still uncommon (<5% of overfished stocks) (1), we strongly agree that destructive trends can be turned around and that rebuilding efforts need to be intensified to meet that goal. But we must not miss the forest for the trees: Continuing focus on single, well-assessed, economically viable species will leave most of the ocean’s declining biodiversity under the radar.

Response to Comments on "Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services"

We show that globally declining fisheries catch trends cannot be explained by random processes and are consistent with declining stock abundance trends. Future projections are inherently uncertain but may provide a benchmark against which to assess the effectiveness of conservation measures. Marine reserves and fisheries closures are among those measures and can be equally effective in tropical and temperate areas—but must be combined with catch-, effort-, and gear restrictions to meet global conservation objectives.

Contrasting futures for ocean and society from different anthropogenic CO2 emissions scenarios

The ocean moderates anthropogenic climate change at the cost of profound alterations of its physics, chemistry, ecology, and services. Here, we evaluate and compare the risks of impacts on marine and coastal ecosystems and the goods and services they provide for growing cumulative carbon emissions under two contrasting emissions scenarios. The current emissions trajectory would rapidly and significantly alter many ecosystems and the associated services on which humans heavily depend. A reduced emissions scenario consistent with the Copenhagen Accord’s goal of a global temperature increase of less than 2°C—is much more favorable to the ocean but still substantially alters important marine ecosystems and associated goods and services. The management options to address ocean impacts narrow as the ocean warms and acidifies. Consequently, any new climate regime that fails to minimize ocean impacts would be incomplete and inadequate.