Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Apr 22;16(4):e0236218.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236218. eCollection 2021.

Forecasting ocean acidification impacts on kelp forest ecosystems

Affiliations

Forecasting ocean acidification impacts on kelp forest ecosystems

Adam J Schlenger et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Ocean acidification is one the biggest threats to marine ecosystems worldwide, but its ecosystem wide responses are still poorly understood. This study integrates field and experimental data into a mass balance food web model of a temperate coastal ecosystem to determine the impacts of specific OA forcing mechanisms as well as how they interact with one another. Specifically, we forced a food web model of a kelp forest ecosystem near its southern distribution limit in the California large marine ecosystem to a 0.5 pH drop over the course of 50 years. This study utilizes a modeling approach to determine the impacts of specific OA forcing mechanisms as well as how they interact. Isolating OA impacts on growth (Production), mortality (Other Mortality), and predation interactions (Vulnerability) or combining all three mechanisms together leads to a variety of ecosystem responses, with some taxa increasing in abundance and other decreasing. Results suggest that carbonate mineralizing groups such as coralline algae, abalone, snails, and lobsters display the largest decreases in biomass while macroalgae, urchins, and some larger fish species display the largest increases. Low trophic level groups such as giant kelp and brown algae increase in biomass by 16% and 71%, respectively. Due to the diverse way in which OA stress manifests at both individual and population levels, ecosystem-level effects can vary and display nonlinear patterns. Combined OA forcing leads to initial increases in ecosystem and commercial biomasses followed by a decrease in commercial biomass below initial values over time, while ecosystem biomass remains high. Both biodiversity and average trophic level decrease over time. These projections indicate that the kelp forest community would maintain high productivity with a 0.5 drop in pH, but with a substantially different community structure characterized by lower biodiversity and relatively greater dominance by lower trophic level organisms.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Map of Isla Natividad off the coast of North America.
The map was generated with r package "raster" License: CC BY-SA 4.0 https://github.com/rspatial/rspatial-raster-web.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Food web network diagram of the Isla Natividad model.
Lines represent diet interactions and the strength of each interaction is represented by the line color and thickness (dark > light, thick > thin). Major ecosystem groups are represented by different colors.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Plot of percent biomass change across giant kelp, brown algae, coralline algae, pink abalone, snails, lobster, cabezon, and bass species and functional groups under production, other mortality, vulnerability and combined forcing.
Error bars represent percent biomass change under upper and lower boundary survival scalars. Upper boundary scalar simulations are associated with error bars of the same directional change of the normal survival scalar while lower boundary simulations are associated with error bars of the opposite direction change (ex. Macrocystis and brown algae upper boundary simulations are represented by the right error bars, while snails and lobster upper boundary simulations are represented by the left error bars).
Fig 4
Fig 4. Plot of changes in total biomass, commercial biomass, biodiversity, and average trophic level of the community ecological indicators across production, other mortality, vulnerability, and combined forcing simulations over 50 years, with pH dropping from 8.0 to 7.5.

References

    1. Harley CD, Randall Hughes A, Hultgren KM, Miner BG, Sorte CJ, Thornber CS, et al.. The impacts of climate change in coastal marine systems. Ecology Letters. 2006;9(2):228–41. 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00871.x - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hoegh-Guldberg O, Bruno JF. The impact of climate change on the world’s marine ecosystems. Science. 2010;328(5985):1523–8. 10.1126/science.1189930 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Howard-Williams C, Peterson D, Lyons W, Cattaneo-Vietti R, Gordon S. Measuring ecosystem response in a rapidly changing environment: the Latitudinal Gradient Project. Antarctic Science. 2006;18(4):465–71.
    1. McDonald KS, Hobday AJ, Fulton EA, Thompson PA. Interdisciplinary knowledge exchange across scales in a globally changing marine environment. Global Change Biology. 2018;24(7):3039–54. 10.1111/gcb.14168 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Barker S, Elderfield H. Foraminiferal calcification response to glacial-interglacial changes in atmospheric CO2. Science. 2002;297(5582):833–6. 10.1126/science.1072815 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types