Letter | Published:

Long-term decline in krill stock and increase in salps within the Southern Ocean

Nature volume 432, pages 100103 (04 November 2004) | Download Citation

Subjects

Abstract

Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba) and salps (mainly Salpa thompsoni) are major grazers in the Southern Ocean1,2,3,4, and krill support commercial fisheries5. Their density distributions1,3,4,6 have been described in the period 1926–51, while recent localized studies7,8,9,10 suggest short-term changes. To examine spatial and temporal changes over larger scales, we have combined all available scientific net sampling data from 1926 to 2003. This database shows that the productive southwest Atlantic sector contains >50% of Southern Ocean krill stocks, but here their density has declined since the 1970s. Spatially, within their habitat, summer krill density correlates positively with chlorophyll concentrations. Temporally, within the southwest Atlantic, summer krill densities correlate positively with sea-ice extent the previous winter. Summer food and the extent of winter sea ice are thus key factors in the high krill densities observed in the southwest Atlantic Ocean. Krill need the summer phytoplankton blooms of this sector, where winters of extensive sea ice mean plentiful winter food from ice algae, promoting larval recruitment7,8,9,10,11 and replenishing the stock. Salps, by contrast, occupy the extensive lower-productivity regions of the Southern Ocean and tolerate warmer water than krill2,3,4,12. As krill densities decreased last century, salps appear to have increased in the southern part of their range. These changes have had profound effects within the Southern Ocean food web10,13.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    The natural history and geography of the Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba Dana). Discovery Rep. 32, 33–464 (1962)

  2. 2.

    , & Fluxes of biogenic carbon in the Southern Ocean: roles of large microphagous zooplankton. J. Mar. Syst. 17, 325–345 (1998)

  3. 3.

    , & Salp/krill interactions in the Southern Ocean: spatial segregation and implications for the carbon flux. Deep-Sea Res. II 49, 1881–1907 (2002)

  4. 4.

    The distribution and life history of Salpa thompsoni Foxton with observations on a related species, Salpa gerlachei. Discovery Rep. 34, 1–116 (1966)

  5. 5.

    Krill. Biology, Ecology and Fisheries (Blackwell Science, London, 2000)

  6. 6.

    The circumpolar continuity of Antarctic plankton species. Discovery Rep. 27, 201–218 (1954)

  7. 7.

    Krill (Euphausiacea) demography and variability in abundance and distribution. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 57, 151–167 (2000)

  8. 8.

    et al. Effects of sea-ice extent and krill or salp dominance on the Antarctic food web. Nature 387, 897–900 (1997)

  9. 9.

    & Episodic recruitment in Antarctic krill Euphausia superba in the Palmer LTER study region. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 259, 185–200 (2003)

  10. 10.

    & A predator's perspective on causal links between climate change, physical forcing and ecosystem response. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 265, 1–15 (2003)

  11. 11.

    , , & Factors affecting distribution and abundance of zooplankton, with an emphasis on Antarctic krill, Euphausia superba. Antarct. Res. Ser. 70, 357–371 (1996)

  12. 12.

    et al. Ocean circulation off east Antarctica affects ecosystem structure and sea-ice extent. Nature 406, 504–507 (2000)

  13. 13.

    & Environmental response of upper trophic-level predators reveals a system change in an Antarctic marine ecosystem. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268, 377–384 (2001)

  14. 14.

    , & Estimates of circum-polar Antarctic krill abundance based on recent acoustic density measurements. CCAMLR Sci. 7, 87–99 (2000)

  15. 15.

    et al. Antarctic krill under sea ice: elevated abundance in a narrow band just south of the ice edge. Science 295, 1890–1892 (2002)

  16. 16.

    Ecological importance of the Southern Boundary of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current. Nature 392, 708–710 (1998)

  17. 17.

    , & Southern Ocean productivity in relation to spatial and temporal variation in the physical environment. J. Geophys Res. 108, doi: 101029/2001JC001270 (2003)

  18. 18.

    , , & Primary production in Southern Ocean waters. J. Geophys. Res. 103, 15587–15600 (1998)

  19. 19.

    , , , & Krill transport in the Scotia Sea and environs. Antarct. Sci. 10, 406–415 (1998)

  20. 20.

    Spatial structure of the Southern Ocean ecosystem: predator-prey linkages in Southern Ocean food webs. J. Anim. Ecol. 64, 333–347 (1995)

  21. 21.

    The ecology of the Southern Ocean. Am. Sci. 73, 26–40 (1985)

  22. 22.

    , & in Antarctic Ecosystems. Ecological Change and Conservation (eds Kerry, K. R. & Hempel, G.) 103–114 (Springer, Berlin, 1990)

  23. 23.

    & A circumpolar modelling study of habitat control of Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba) reproductive success. Deep-Sea Res. II 50, 3121–3142 (2003)

  24. 24.

    Trends in the length of the Southern Ocean sea-ice season, 1979–99. Ann. Glaciol. 34, 435–440 (2002)

  25. 25.

    Warming of the Southern Ocean since the 1950s. Science 295, 1275–1277 (2002)

  26. 26.

    Abrupt mid-twentieth-century decline in Antarctic sea ice from whaling records. Nature 389, 57–60 (1997)

  27. 27.

    & Polar marine ecosystems: major threats and future change. Environ. Conserv. 30, 1–25 (2003)

  28. 28.

    , , , & Ice core evidence for Antarctic sea ice decline since the 1950s. Science 302, 1203–1206 (2003)

  29. 29.

    , & Location and dynamics of the Antarctic Polar front from satellite sea surface temperature data. J. Geophys. Res. 104, 3059–3073 (1999)

  30. 30.

    , & On the meridional extent and fronts of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current. Deep-Sea Res. I 42, 641–673 (1995)

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank V. Loeb and R. Hewitt for sharing the extensive data from the AMLR Program; A. Clarke, G. Hosie, S. Chiba, J. Nishikawa, R. Anadón, P. Ward and A. de C. Baker for providing further data and information; P. Fretwell, A. Fleming, S. Grant and S. Thorpe for data handling; and A. Hirst, A. Clarke, P. Ward, K. Schmidt, D. Pond, P. Trathan, G. Tarling and E. Murphy for comments. Satellite data were provided courtesy of NASA GSFC, the SeaWiFS Project and NOAA. The Department of Environmental Affairs & Tourism (Pretoria, South Africa) provided funds and facilities for South African collections, through the South African National Antarctic Program. A.A.'s contribution was funded under the British Antarctic Survey's DYNAMOE Programme.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, High Cross, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 OET, UK

    • Angus Atkinson
  2. Sea Fisheries Institute, Palmaille 9, 22767 Hamburg, Germany

    • Volker Siegel
  3. Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of British Columbia, 6339 Stores Rd, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6T 1Z4, Canada

    • Evgeny Pakhomov
  4. Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science and Technology, University of Fort Hare, Private Bag X1314, Alice 5700, South Africa

    • Evgeny Pakhomov
  5. NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, CEH Monks Wood, Abbots Ripton, Huntingdon PE28 2LS, UK

    • Peter Rothery

Authors

  1. Search for Angus Atkinson in:

  2. Search for Volker Siegel in:

  3. Search for Evgeny Pakhomov in:

  4. Search for Peter Rothery in:

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Angus Atkinson.

Supplementary information

Word documents

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Information Main Text

    Focus on the three key results of the paper, expanding on their robustness to possible artefacts of sampling. Includes Supplementary Information tables 3and 4, and Supplementary Figure captions.

Excel files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Table 2

    Data collection information — metadata for the complete database (follows main text table 1).

Powerpoint files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Figure 4

    Krill distribution (follows main text Figs 1–3).

  2. 2.

    Supplementary Figure 5

    Fine-scale sampling coverage in the South West Atlantic sector.

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02996

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.