Climate change will bring greater biodiversity to world seas

Climate change will bring greater biodiversity to world seas
Dolphins off the Isle of Barra.

Tropical marine animals that currently thrive in warm habitats around the equator will have to spread north and south to avoid extinction as global sea temperatures rise, a study has found.

Scientists at the Scottish Association for Marine Science (SAMS), alongside international partners, modelled data for nearly 13,000 and found that by the end of this century, countries either side of the Tropics would have a greater variety of marine species, while the Tropics would suffer a nett loss.

The study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, is based on and is the most comprehensive to date on expected shifts in marine animal populations. It shows that such shifts are likely, even if carbon emissions were reduced over the forthcoming decades.

SAMS marine ecologist Professor Michael Burrows, who devised the study, said the prediction of increased biodiversity away from the Tropics contrasted the general message of climate change causing widespread extinctions.

He said: "While some species may evolve and adapt to cope with increasing temperature, the predictions are that many will find cooler climates away from the equator.

"For example, the fish we currently catch in UK waters could potentially be replaced by a new species from the Mediterranean as our own fish, such as cod, move further north.

"The result of that will be an increase in biodiversity across many oceanic regions as the global marine communities reorganise themselves."

The group of international scientists is now calling for greater cross-country co-operation to accommodate these regional shifts in species distribution.

As species move into new areas, they could potentially thrive in the absence of traditional competitors and predators, crowding out native species. This will, in turn make distinct ecological communities much more similar across the world.

Lead author of the study, Dr Jorge García Molinos, who conducted his research while at SAMS, said: "The projected losses and gains of marine biodiversity represents unprecedented challenges to conservation in terms of interactions between climate-migrants and local biota on one hand, and the anticipated development of novel communities and ecological surprises on the other."

Climate change will bring greater biodiversity to world seas

The study used a measurement called future climate velocity, which combines the rate and direction of movement of ocean temperature bands. Barriers to the movement of , such as land mass boundaries, depth limits and temperature tolerances were also accounted for.

The study, which was funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), used two models, one based on the status quo and another based on a more controlled level of .


Explore further

Climate impacts on marine biodiversity

More information: Climate velocity and the future global redistribution of marine biodiversity, Nature Climate Change (2015) doi:10.1038/nclimate2769 , www.nature.com/nclimate/journa … ll/nclimate2769.html
Journal information: Nature Climate Change

Provided by Scottish Association for Marine Science
Citation: Climate change will bring greater biodiversity to world seas (2015, August 31) retrieved 18 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-08-climate-greater-biodiversity-world-seas.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
182 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Aug 31, 2015
This garbage copy and paste journalism is a sickening level of criminal exaggeration and pure fear mongering.
So it was called climate blame"BELIEF" because science wasn't ALLOWED to say; "PROVEN", even for a CO2 ARMAGEDDON?
Exaggeration of vague science makes 34 MORE years of climate action failure and global disbelief certain and unstoppable.
Be happy it was all a sick and tragic exaggeration because continued "belief" is doing to the left what Bush and his false wars did for the neocons.

Aug 31, 2015
Oh noes! Biodiversity!

Aug 31, 2015
I disagree with the title, it will not bring greater biodiversity to world seas, lots of unique arctic creatures will go extinct, and the higher ph will push plenty of species to extinction.
This will bring greater biodiversity to certain areas of the world, but there will still be a net diversity loss globally.
And there is also going to be a ton of trash and chemicals dumped into the ocean by then as well.

Aug 31, 2015
Using liberal-progressive logic, ....increased biodiversity will result in a decrease of racist marine animals.

it will not bring greater biodiversity to world seas, lots of unique arctic creatures will go extinct

Technically, this makes you a denier.

Aug 31, 2015
I disagree with the title, it will not bring greater biodiversity to world seas, lots of unique arctic creatures will go extinct, and the higher ph will push plenty of species to extinction.
This will bring greater biodiversity to certain areas of the world, but there will still be a net diversity loss globally.
And there is also going to be a ton of trash and chemicals dumped into the ocean by then as well.


I thought it was an odd headline as well. Animals that don't migrate will die out and those that do will be invasive species in cooler waters, crowding out species that are currently there. I didn't see anything that would "increase diversity". Rather, this would *decrease* diversity as we'd be more likely to get dead hotspots and monocultures further south (and north). Not the first time I wish we had specialist science subeditors that were better at crafting accurate headlines

Aug 31, 2015
Hi Noum. :)

You/others know I'm objective/indpendent observer who always came to defense of your right to make comments without being 'personally' attacked for comments made in good faith, right? Now I must say your (and certain other's) comments are obviously NOT 'in good faith' in this instance. Read again....
Tropical marine animals that currently thrive in warm habitats around the equator will have to spread north and south to avoid extinction as global sea temperatures rise,......and....countries either side of the Tropics would have a greater variety of marine species, while the Tropics would suffer a NETT LOSS.
See the last 'qualifier/balancing' statement?

Moreover, like I always pointed out: biota/diseases/pests etc move north/south due to climate-change variations in temps/conditions...and LOSS of biodiversity in increasingly warmer seas may, OR MAY NOT, benefit other regions' diversity, but may ruin it. It depends on interactions/competition dynamics. Bye.

Aug 31, 2015
I disagree with the title, it will not bring greater biodiversity to world seas, lots of unique arctic creatures will go extinct, and the higher ph will push plenty of species to extinction.
This will bring greater biodiversity to certain areas of the world, but there will still be a net diversity loss globally.
And there is also going to be a ton of trash and chemicals dumped into the ocean by then as well.

Yeah, I don't think that the title fit the article. The article even says:
This will, in turn make distinct ecological communities much more similar across the world.

This seems to directly contradict the title.

Aug 31, 2015
Now I must say your (and certain other's) comments are obviously NOT 'in good faith'


It was a joke in good faith.

This attention-grabbing headline reports on a NERC-funded study which concludes "the prediction of increased biodiversity away from the Tropics contrasted the general message of climate change causing widespread extinctions." Oh, so we should be happy? For one thing, "increased biodiversity away from the Tropics" translates to lowered biodiversity among existing biota away from the equator. For another thing, the authors accounted for "land mass boundaries, depth limits and temperature tolerances," but there is no mention of the effect of acidification. So this headline is frankly misleading and quite foolish. Shame on Phys.org for publishing such a muddle-headed article.

Sep 01, 2015
Hmm... I wonder where all the current tropical marine life came from as the oceans warmed at the end of the last ice-age?

Sep 01, 2015
Same study, different headline

"Warming tropical oceans could see 'widespread and intense' species loss, study warns"

http://www.carbon...03439921

Sep 01, 2015

Moreover, like I always pointed out: biota/diseases/pests etc move north/south due to climate-change variations in temps/conditions...and LOSS of biodiversity in increasingly warmer seas may, OR MAY NOT, benefit other regions' diversity, but may ruin it. It depends on interactions/competition dynamics. Bye.


'ruin it' is in the eyes of the beholder. Nature does not have such a classification. To nature, all life is wonderful and all life is welcome anywhere, everywhere and/or nowhere...

Sep 01, 2015
Hi Noumenon. :)
Now I must say your (and certain other's) comments are obviously NOT 'in good faith'


It was a joke in good faith.
Ok, then no harm done if clarified as such. But just so you know, it didn't 'read' like any joke, but a combination of racist and denier based sarcasm against those against racism and for climate science. Perhaps next time you should do what many others do when making a joke during a discussion of a serious nature/problem, and put some 'label/indicator' at the end to indicate no malice or other inappropriate meaning/intent. Maybe use [joke/humor] to indicate it should not to be taken seriously/literally by the interlocutor/reader. Especially in such serious topics as climate change. Thanks for your clarification, anyway, Noum. :)

Sep 01, 2015
HI SamB. :)
.like I always pointed out: biota/diseases/pests etc move north/south due to climate-change variations in temps/conditions...and LOSS of biodiversity in increasingly warmer seas may, OR MAY NOT, benefit other regions' diversity, but may ruin it. It depends on interactions/competition dynamics. Bye.
'ruin it' is in the eyes of the beholder. Nature does not have such a classification. To nature, all life is wonderful and all life is welcome anywhere, everywhere and/or nowhere...
Yes, I know what you mean; that would be attributing 'personal preference/perspective to Nature. But I used "ruin it" to imply the potential 'loss of biodiversity' in objective not subjective terms; ie, measure/effects of shifts in ecosystem conditions/biota/consequences either way on biodiversity is not 'in the eye of the beholder', but in objective observation via scientific method/analysis, irrespective of personal preferences/perspectives. Thanks for your timely reminder! :)

Sep 01, 2015
Yes, I know what you mean; that would be attributing 'personal preference/perspective to Nature. But I used "ruin it" to imply the potential 'loss of biodiversity' in objective not subjective terms; ie, measure/effects of shifts in ecosystem conditions/biota/consequences either way on biodiversity is not 'in the eye of the beholder', but in objective observation via scientific method/analysis, irrespective of personal preferences/perspectives. Thanks for your timely reminder! :)

My comment stands as it is. Again, nature does not recognize the human difference between 'subjective' and 'objective'. It is what it is and the fact that you do not like the loss or the gain of biodiversity does not change the reality of nature in action. So, in other words, you can not 'ruin' nature, objectively or subjectively, except within our limited human understanding of this universe.

Sep 01, 2015
@SamB

The 'nature in action" in this case is caused the actions of humans acting in a destructive way.

Sep 01, 2015
Hi SamB. :)
My comment stands as it is. Again, nature does not recognize the human difference between 'subjective' and 'objective'. It is what it is and the fact that you do not like the loss or the gain of biodiversity does not change the reality of nature in action. So, in other words, you can not 'ruin' nature, objectively or subjectively, except within our limited human understanding of this universe.
Again, I get your point. But you seem to be missing mine. The ecosystem is important for human survival/health; and healthy biodiversity in an ecosystem is a more beneficial/sustainable ecosystem for human survival/health. Nature is 'disinterested' either way, yes, certainly, I concur! However it is humanity/science making objective observations on the dynamics/consequences involved, not Nature. If you want to ignore that aspect it's your call; but ultimately reasonable folk assess what outcomes may be, not only for health of biodiversity but also humanity. Cheers. :)

Sep 02, 2015
Anthropomorphising nature, it's true it "doesn't care" what kind of plants and animals are on the planet. And it's true we're speaking subjectively. So what?

That's about as relevant as looking at climate in terms of geological time. Philosophically acknowleging the irrelevance of humanity overall is fine - but we're still talking about people's lives here. And yes, having the e.g. Great Barrier Reef become nothing but sand and Crown of Thorns Starfish may not be seen as "ruining it" when looked at in time periods of billions of years. But it sure as hell is when you see a thriving ecosystem turned into a monocultural bilge pot *when it didn't have to*.

These are not natural developments - this is us *choosing* to decimate a natural wonder. And you can't get much more subjective than that.

Sep 06, 2015
I disagree with the title, it will not bring greater biodiversity to world seas, lots of unique arctic creatures will go extinct, and the higher ph will push plenty of species to extinction.
This will bring greater biodiversity to certain areas of the world, but there will still be a net diversity loss globally.
And there is also going to be a ton of trash and chemicals dumped into the ocean by then as well.


Please qualify your answer with studies or data, or correctly word your comment to contain: "in my opinion...". As it stands your comment sounds like nothing more than objective based propaganda to push your personal opinions and to stifle the work of the researchers presenting their finding.

Sep 06, 2015
I disagree with the title, it will not bring greater biodiversity to world seas, lots of unique arctic creatures will go extinct, and the higher ph will push plenty of species to extinction.
This will bring greater biodiversity to certain areas of the world, but there will still be a net diversity loss globally.
And there is also going to be a ton of trash and chemicals dumped into the ocean by then as well.


Please qualify your answer with studies or data, or correctly word your comment to contain: "in my opinion...". As it stands your comment sounds like nothing more than objective based propaganda to push your personal opinions and to stifle the work of the researchers presenting their finding.


Maybe @kron he actually READ the article. The headline contradicts it. Which was our point.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more