Appendix A. Figures showing changes in mean mass, maximum mass, and density of rockfish by region.

Figures showing changes in mean mass, maximum mass, and density of rockfish by region

Using Conceptual Models and Qualitative Network Models to Advance Integrative Assessments of Marine Ecosystems

<p>The complexity of ecosystem-based management (EBM) of natural resources has given rise to research frameworks such as integrated ecosystem assessments (IEA) that pull together large amounts of diverse information from physical, ecological, and social domains. Conceptual models are valuable tools for assimilating and simplifying this information to convey our understanding of ecosystem structure and functioning. Qualitative network models (QNMs) may allow us to conduct dynamic simulations of conceptual models to explore natural–social relationships, compare management strategies, and identify tradeoffs. We used previously developed QNM methods to perform simulations based on conceptual models of the California Current ecosystem's pelagic communities and related human activities and values. Assumptions about community structure and trophic interactions influenced the outcomes of the QNMs. In simulations where we applied unfavorable environmental conditions for production of salmon (<i>Oncorhynchus</i> spp.), intensive management actions only modestly mitigated declines experienced by salmon, but strongly constrained human activities. Moreover, the management actions had little effect on a human wellbeing attribute, sense of place. Sense of place was most strongly affected by a relatively small subset of all possible pair-wise interactions, although the relative influence of individual pair-wise interactions on sense of place grew more uniform as management actions were added, making it more difficult to trace effective management actions via specific mechanistic pathways. Future work will explore the importance of changing conceptual models and QNMs to represent management questions at finer spatial and temporal scales, and also examine finer representation of key ecological and social components.</p

Leave one out cross validation for regression of diversification against latitude.

Points and error bars represent estimates of the coefficient of this regression (±2 SE) with the corresponding fleet removed from the data, red line indicates the mean estimate of the coefficient with all fleets included in the analysis. Changes in sign of the coefficient indicate a difference in the qualitative directional relationship between diversification and latitude. (TIFF)</p

Bottom temperature change, horizontal displacement of bottom temperature, and vertical displacement of bottom temperature projected by three dynamically downscaled Earth System Models (GFDL, HAD, IPSL) for the period 2025–2055 and 2065–2095.

Bottom temperature change, horizontal displacement of bottom temperature, and vertical displacement of bottom temperature projected by three dynamically downscaled Earth System Models (GFDL, HAD, IPSL) for the period 2025–2055 and 2065–2095.</p

Statistical results.

Summary of statistical results of regressions of (a-c) exposure, (d) sensitivity, (e-f) adaptive capacity, and (g-h) risk indices relative to latitude of each fleet. (DOCX)</p

Linkage between individual ports and IO-PAC port groups.

The port groupings were developed by the PFMC for biennial groundfish harvest specifications. Aggregating individual ports into port groups is necessary to provide a feasible set of geographic areas for a coastwide climate risk analysis. Analysis at the individual port-level would violate confidentiality requirements, because there are often fewer than three buyers in any one port. (DOCX)</p

Leave one out cross validation for regression of exposure based on vertical displacement of bottom temperature using the GFDL Earth System Model against latitude.

Points and error bars represent estimates of the coefficient of this regression (±2 SE) with the corresponding fleet removed from the data, red line indicates the mean estimate of the coefficient with all fleets included in the analysis. Changes in sign of the coefficient indicate a difference in the qualitative directional relationship between exposure based on vertical displacement of bottom temperature and latitude. (TIFF)</p

Contextual map, indicating the landing ports and port groups for groundfish fleets on the U.S. West Coast, as well as fishery closure areas and untrawlable habitat.

Landing ports are represented by white squares, while hatched regions show areas closed to bottom trawl fishing and red regions show untrawlable habitat. Green shading reflects 20km inland buffer for each of the 14 IO-PAC port groups. Left map shows fishery closures under Amendment 19, from ~2003–2019, and right map shows fishery closures from 2020 to present under Amendment 28 which were used for thermal displacement calculations. GEBCO 2023 (NOAA NCEI Visualization) base map (https://noaa.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=8050bfc4eb4444758f194db95f817184). Credit: General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans (GEBCO); NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI). (TIFF)</p

Leave one out cross validation for regression of exposure based on vertical displacement of bottom temperature using the IPSL Earth System Model against latitude.

Points and error bars represent estimates of the coefficient of this regression (±2 SE) with the corresponding fleet removed from the data, red line indicates the mean estimate of the coefficient with all fleets included in the analysis. Changes in sign of the coefficient indicate a difference in the qualitative directional relationship between exposure based on vertical displacement of bottom temperature and latitude. (TIFF)</p

Groundfish fleet vessel lengths.

Vessel lengths for U.S. West Coast groundfish fleets from 2011–2019 (median with 95% confidence interval). (TIFF)</p