Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Anticyclonic eddies aggregate pelagic predators in a subtropical gyre

Nature volume 609, pages 535–540 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

This article has been updated

Abstract

Ocean eddies are coherent, rotating features that can modulate pelagic ecosystems across many trophic levels. These mesoscale features, which are ubiquitous at mid-latitudes1, may increase productivity of nutrient-poor regions2,3, accumulate prey4 and modulate habitat conditions in the water column5. However, in nutrient-poor subtropical gyres—the largest marine biome—the role of eddies in modulating behaviour throughout the pelagic predator community remains unknown despite predictions for these gyres to expand6 and pelagic predators to become increasingly important for food security7. Using a large-scale fishery dataset in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre, we show a pervasive pattern of increased pelagic predator catch inside anticyclonic eddies relative to cyclones and non-eddy areas. Our results indicate that increased mesopelagic prey abundance in anticyclone cores4,8 may be attracting diverse predators, forming ecological hotspots where these predators aggregate and exhibit increased abundance. In this energetically quiescent gyre, we expect that isolated mesoscale features (and the habitat conditions in them) exhibit primacy over peripheral submesoscale dynamics in structuring the foraging opportunities of pelagic predators. Our finding that eddies influence coupling of epi- to mesopelagic communities corroborates the growing evidence that deep scattering layer organisms are vital prey for a suite of commercially important predator species9 and, thus, provide valuable ecosystem services.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Nominal eddy-centric albacore catch.
Fig. 2: Eddy-centric catch metrics (high EKE).
Fig. 3: Potential mechanisms driving catch.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Fisheries data used in this paper are subject to confidentiality of information requirements under the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and are not available to the public except in summary aggregate form. Information on requesting access to these data can be found at https://inport.nmfs.noaa.gov/inport/item/2721 (logbook data) and https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/inport/item/9027 (observer data). The oceanographic data used in this study are publicly available from AVISO’s Mesoscale Eddy Trajectory Atlas (https://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/en/data/products/value-added-products/global-mesoscale-eddy-trajectory-product.html), the EU Copernicus Marine Environment Monitoring Service (CMEMS, https://marine.copernicus.eu/) and NOAA National Centre for Environmental Information’s Argo Data Repository (https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/argo/floats_data.htm). All information graphed or tabulated in this paper is nonconfidential. Source data are provided with this paper.

Code availability

Eddy colocation code and catch-effort standardization code are provided with this paper.

Change history

  • 21 September 2022

    In the version of this article initially published, the eddy colocation code and catch-effort standardization code files were missing and are now included in the online version of the article.

References

  1. Chaigneau, A., Gizolme, A. & Grados, C. Mesoscale eddies off Peru in altimeter records: identification algorithms and eddy spatio-temporal patterns. Prog. Oceanogr. 79, 106–119 (2008).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  2. McGillicuddy, D. J. Jr et al. Influence of mesoscale eddies on new production in the Sargasso Sea. Nature 394, 263–266 (1998).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Dufois, F. et al. Anticyclonic eddies are more productive than cyclonic eddies in subtropical gyres because of winter mixing. Sci. Adv. 2, 1–7 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Godø, O. R. et al. Mesoscale eddies are oases for higher trophic marine life. PLoS ONE 7, e30161 (2012).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Chelton, D. B., Gaube, P., Schlax, M. G., Early, J. J. & Samelson, R. M. The influence of nonlinear mesoscale eddies on near-surface oceanic chlorophyll. Science 334, 328–333 (2011).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sarmiento, J. L. et al. Response of ocean ecosystems to climate warming. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 18, GB3003 (2004).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Bell, J. D. et al. Diversifying the use of tuna to improve food security and public health in Pacific Island countries and territories. Mar. Policy 51, 584–591 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Della Penna, A. & Gaube, P. Mesoscale eddies structure mesopelagic communities. Front. Mar. Sci. 7, 454 (2020).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  9. Braun, C. D. et al. The functional and ecological significance of deep diving by large marine predators. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 14, 129–159 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. McGillicuddy, D. J. Jr Mechanisms of physical-biological-biogeochemical interaction at the oceanic mesoscale. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 8, 125–159 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fennell, S. & Rose, G. Oceanographic influences on deep scattering layers across the North Atlantic. Deep-Sea Res. Part I Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 105, 132–141 (2015).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  12. Duffy, L. M. et al. Global trophic ecology of yellowfin, bigeye, and albacore tunas: understanding predation on micronekton communities at ocean-basin scales. Deep-Sea Res. Part II Topical Stud. Oceanogr. 140, 55–73 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  13. Gaube, P. et al. Mesoscale eddies influence the movements of mature female white sharks in the Gulf Stream and Sargasso Sea. Sci. Rep. 8, 7363 (2018).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Braun, C. D., Gaube, P., Sinclair-Taylor, T. H., Skomal, G. B. & Thorrold, S. R. Mesoscale eddies release pelagic sharks from thermal constraints to foraging in the ocean twilight zone. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 17187–17192 (2019).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Doyle, T. K. et al. Leatherback turtles satellite-tagged in European waters. Endanger. Species Res. 4, 23–31 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Pauly, D. & Christensen, V. Primary production required to sustain global fisheries. Nature 374, 255–257 (1995).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Lynham, J., Nikolaev, A., Raynor, J., Vilela, T. & Villaseñor-Derbez, J. C. Impact of two of the world’s largest protected areas on longline fishery catch rates. Nat. Commun. 11, 979 (2020).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Polovina, J. J., Abecassis, M., Howell, E. A. & Woodworth, P. Increases in the relative abundance of mid-trophic level fishes concurrent with declines in apex predators in the subtropical North Pacific, 1996-2006. Fish. Bull. 107, 523–531 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Royer, T. C. Ocean eddies generated by seamounts in the North Pacific. Science 199, 1063–1064 (1978).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Liu, Y. et al. Eddy analysis in the subtropical zonal band of the North Pacific Ocean. Deep-Sea Res. Part I Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 68, 54–67 (2012).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  21. Bernstein, R. L. & White, W. B. Time and length scales of baroclinic eddies in the central North Pacific Ocean. J. Phys. Oceanogr. 4, 613–624 (1974).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  22. Maunder, M. N. & Punt, A. E. Standardizing catch and effort data: a review of recent approaches. Fish. Res. 70, 141–159 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Woodworth, P. A. et al. Eddies as offshore foraging grounds for melon-headed whales (Peponocephala electra). Mar. Mammal Sci. 28, 638–647 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Gaube, P. et al. The use of mesoscale eddies by juvenile loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) in the southwestern Atlantic. PLoS ONE 12, e0172839 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Chambault, P. et al. Swirling in the ocean: immature loggerhead turtles seasonally target old anticyclonic eddies at the fringe of the North Atlantic Gyre. Prog. Oceanogr. 175, 345–358 (2019).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  26. Gaube, P., McGillicuddy Jr, D., Chelton, D., Behrenfeld, M. & Strutton, P. Regional variations in the influence of mesoscale eddies on near-surface chlorophyll. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 119, 8195–8220 (2014).

  27. Waga, H., Kirawake, T. & Ueno, H. Impacts of mesoscale eddies on phytoplankton size structure. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 13191–13198 (2019).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  28. Irigoien, X. et al. Large mesopelagic fishes biomass and trophic efficiency in the open ocean. Nat. Commun. 5, 3271 (2014).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Chen, Y.-lL. et al. Biologically active warm-core anticyclonic eddies in the marginal seas of the western Pacific Ocean. Deep Sea Res. Part I 106, 68–84 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Harke, M. J. et al. Microbial community transcriptional patterns vary in response to mesoscale forcing in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre. Environ. Microbiol. 23, 4807–4822 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hawco, N. J. et al. Iron depletion in the deep chlorophyll maximum: mesoscale eddies as natural iron fertilization experiments. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 35, e2021GB007112 (2021).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Klevjer, T. A. et al. Large scale patterns in vertical distribution and behaviour of mesopelagic scattering layers. Sci. Rep. 6, 19873 (2016).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Behrenfeld, M. J. et al. Global satellite-observed daily vertical migrations of ocean animals. Nature 576, 257–261 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Madigan, D. J. et al. Water column structure defines vertical habitat of twelve pelagic predators in the South Atlantic. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 78, 867–883 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Arostegui, M., Gaube, P. & Braun, C. Movement ecology and stenothermy of satellite-tagged shortbill spearfish (Tetrapturus angustirostris). Fish. Res. 215, 21–26 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Lehodey, P., Senina, I. & Murtugudde, R. A spatial ecosystem and populations dynamics model (SEAPODYM)—modeling of tuna and tuna-like populations. Prog. Oceanogr. 78, 304–318 (2008).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  37. Varghese, S. P., Somvanshi, V. S. & Dalvi, R. S. Diet composition, feeding niche partitioning and trophic organisation of large pelagic predatory fishes in the eastern Arabian Sea. Hydrobiologia 736, 99–114 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Ward, P. & Myers, R. A. Inferring the depth distribution of catchability for pelagic fishes and correcting for variations in the depth of longline fishing gear. Can. J. Fish. Aquat.Sci. 62, 1130–1142 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kai, E. T. et al. Top marine predators track Lagrangian coherent structures. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 8245–8250 (2009).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Lima, I. D., Olson, D. B. & Doney, S. C. Biological response to frontal dynamics and mesoscale variability in oligotrophic environments: biological production and community structure. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 107, 25-1–25-21 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Spall, S. A. & Richards, K. J. A numerical model of mesoscale frontal instabilities and plankton dynamics—I. model formulation and initial experiments. Deep-Sea Res. Part I Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 47, 1261–1301 (2000).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  42. Siegelman, L., O’Toole, M., Flexas, M., Rivière, P. & Klein, P. Submesoscale ocean fronts act as biological hotspot for southern elephant seal. Sci. Rep. 9, 5588 (2019).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Lévy, M., Ferrari, R., Franks, P. J., Martin, A. P. & Rivière, P. Bringing physics to life at the submesoscale. Geophys. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL052756 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Guidi, L. et al. Does eddy-eddy interaction control surface phytoplankton distribution and carbon export in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre? J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosciences https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JG001984 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Chow, C. H., Cheah, W., Tai, J. H. & Liu, S. F. Anomalous wind triggered the largest phytoplankton bloom in the oligotrophic North Pacific Subtropical Gyre. Sci. Rep. 9, 15550 (2019).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Guo, M., Xiu, P., Chai, F. & Xue, H. Mesoscale and submesoscale contributions to high sea surface chlorophyll in subtropical gyres. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 13217–13226 (2019).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  47. Klein, P. et al. Ocean-scale interactions from space. Earth Space Sci. 6, 795–817 (2019).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  48. Martin, A. et al. The oceans’ twilight zone must be studied now, before it is too late. Nature 580, 26–28 (2020).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. St. John, M. A. et al. A dark hole in our understanding of marine ecosystems and their services: perspectives from the mesopelagic community. Front. Marine Sci. 3, 31 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Bigelow, K., Musyl, M. K., Poisson, F. & Kleiber, P. Pelagic longline gear depth and shoaling. Fish. Res. 77, 173–183 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Brodziak, J. & Walsh, W. A. Model selection and multimodel inference for standardizing catch rates of bycatch species: a case study of oceanic whitetip shark in the Hawaii-based longline fishery. Can. J. Fish. Aquat.Sci. 70, 1723–1740 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Woodworth-Jefcoats, P. A., Polovina, J. & Drazen, J. Synergy among oceanographic variability, fishery expansion, and longline catch composition in the central North Pacific Ocean. Fish. Bull. 116, 228–239 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Boggs, C. H. Depth, capture time, and hooked longevity of longline-caught pelagic fish: timing bites of fish with chips. Fish. Bull. 90, 642–658 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Walsh, W. A. & Brodziak, J. Applications of Hawaii longline fishery observer and logbook data for stock assessment and fishery research. NOAA Tech. Memo. 57, 62 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Walsh, W. A. & Brodziak, J. Billfish CPUE standardization in the Hawaii longline fishery: model selection and multimodel inference. Fish. Res. 166, 151–162 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Gilman, E., Chaloupka, M., Fitchett, M., Cantrell, D. L. & Merrifield, M. Ecological responses to blue water MPAs. PLoS ONE 15, e0235129 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Portner, E. J., Polovina, J. J. & Choy, C. A. Patterns in micronekton diversity across the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre observed from the diet of longnose lancetfish (Alepisaurus ferox). Deep-Sea Research Part I 125, 40–51 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  58. Brooks, M. E. et al. glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling. R J. 9, 378–400 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Hartig, F. DHARMa: Residual diagnostics for hierarchical (multi-level/mixed) regression models. R package version 0.3.3.0 http://florianhartig.github.io/DHARMa/ (2020).

  60. Jackson, C. H. Multi-state models for panel data: the msm package for R. J. Stat. Softw. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v038.i08 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Bates, D. et al. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using ’Eigen’ and S4. R package version 1.1-25 https://github.com/lme4/lme4/ (2020).

  62. Lenth, R. et al. emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares mean. R package version 1.7.2 https://github.com/rvlenth/emmeans (2022).

  63. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020); http://www.r-project.org/

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank L. Gallagher (Fishpics® and IMAR-DOP, University of the Azores) for producing fish artwork used in main text Figs. 1–3 and Extended Data Figs. 1–13 and 15, and K. Reading and M. LeDoux (UW APL) for producing main text Fig. 3. J. Brodziak (NOAA PIFSC) and R. Rykaczewski (NOAA PIFSC) reviewed a version of this manuscript before submission. M.C.A., C.D.B. and P.G. were supported by the NASA New Investigator Program grant no. 80NSSSC20K1132. M.C.A. and P.G. were also supported by NOAA project no. NA15OAR4320063. M.C.A. was also supported by the Postdoctoral Scholar Program at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution with funding provided by the Dr. George D. Grice Postdoctoral Scholarship Fund, and C.D.B. was also supported by the NASA Earth Science Research Program no. 80NSSC19K0187 and The Investment in Science Program with funds from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Air-Sea Interaction and Remote Sensing Department, Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Martin C. Arostegui & Peter Gaube

  2. Biology Department, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA, USA

    Martin C. Arostegui & Camrin D. Braun

  3. Ecosystem Sciences Division, Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Honolulu, HI, USA

    Phoebe A. Woodworth-Jefcoats & Donald R. Kobayashi

  4. School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Camrin D. Braun

Authors
  1. Martin C. Arostegui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter Gaube
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Phoebe A. Woodworth-Jefcoats
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Donald R. Kobayashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Camrin D. Braun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

M.C.A. contributed to study design, conducted analyses, wrote the manuscript and helped acquire funding. P.G. contributed to study design, analyses, interpretation, revision and funding acquisition. P.A.W.-J. contributed to study design and revision. D.R.K. contributed to study design, revision and funding acquisition. C.D.B. contributed to study design, analyses, interpretation, revision and funding acquisition.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin C. Arostegui.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature thanks David Kroodsma and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Fig. 1 Nominal eddy-centric bigeye tuna catch.

Example eddy-centric 2D (a, b) and 1D (c) composites of bigeye tuna catch probability – the % of longline sets catching at least one bigeye tuna – from the nominal fishery data across the study region. In panels a–c, the eddy core (0 – R) and periphery (R – 2R) are separated by the solid black line, and the inner and outer zones of both the core (0 – 0.5R & 0.5R – R) and periphery (R – 1.5R & 1.5R – 2R) are separated by the dashed black lines. In panels a and b, N represents the total number of individuals captured in eddies of the respective polarities, catch probability is calculated per 0.2R x 0.2R cell, and north is up. In panel c, N per polarity is the same as in panels a and b, anticyclonic values are red and cyclonic values are blue, and polarity-specific mean catch probability (with the 95% confidence interval) is calculated per 0.2R width bin.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Nominal eddy-centric yellowfin tuna catch.

Example eddy-centric 2D (a, b) and 1D (c) composites of yellowfin tuna catch probability – the % of longline sets catching at least one yellowfin tuna – from the nominal fishery data across the study region. In panels a–c, the eddy core (0 – R) and periphery (R – 2R) are separated by the solid black line, and the inner and outer zones of both the core (0 – 0.5R & 0.5R – R) and periphery (R – 1.5R & 1.5R – 2R) are separated by the dashed black lines. In panels a and b, N represents the total number of individuals captured in eddies of the respective polarities, catch probability is calculated per 0.2R x 0.2R cell, and north is up. In panel c, N per polarity is the same as in panels a and b, anticyclonic values are red and cyclonic values are blue, and polarity-specific mean catch probability (with the 95% confidence interval) is calculated per 0.2R width bin.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Nominal eddy-centric skipjack tuna catch.

Example eddy-centric 2D (a, b) and 1D (c) composites of skipjack tuna catch probability – the % of longline sets catching at least one skipjack tuna – from the nominal fishery data across the study region. In panels a–c, the eddy core (0 – R) and periphery (R – 2R) are separated by the solid black line, and the inner and outer zones of both the core (0 – 0.5R & 0.5R – R) and periphery (R – 1.5R & 1.5R – 2R) are separated by the dashed black lines. In panels a and b, N represents the total number of individuals captured in eddies of the respective polarities, catch probability is calculated per 0.2R x 0.2R cell, and north is up. In panel c, N per polarity is the same as in panels a and b, anticyclonic values are red and cyclonic values are blue, and polarity-specific mean catch probability (with the 95% confidence interval) is calculated per 0.2R width bin.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Nominal eddy-centric striped marlin catch.

Example eddy-centric 2D (a, b) and 1D (c) composites of striped marlin catch probability – the % of longline sets catching at least one striped marlin – from the nominal fishery data across the study region. In panels a–c, the eddy core (0 – R) and periphery (R – 2R) are separated by the solid black line, and the inner and outer zones of both the core (0 – 0.5R & 0.5R – R) and periphery (R – 1.5R & 1.5R – 2R) are separated by the dashed black lines. In panels a and b, N represents the total number of individuals captured in eddies of the respective polarities, catch probability is calculated per 0.2R x 0.2R cell, and north is up. In panel c, N per polarity is the same as in panels a and b, anticyclonic values are red and cyclonic values are blue, and polarity-specific mean catch probability (with the 95% confidence interval) is calculated per 0.2R width bin.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Nominal eddy-centric blue marlin catch.

Example eddy-centric 2D (a, b) and 1D (c) composites of blue marlin catch probability – the % of longline sets catching at least one blue marlin – from the nominal fishery data across the study region. In panels a–c, the eddy core (0 – R) and periphery (R – 2R) are separated by the solid black line, and the inner and outer zones of both the core (0 – 0.5R & 0.5R – R) and periphery (R – 1.5R & 1.5R – 2R) are separated by the dashed black lines. In panels a and b, N represents the total number of individuals captured in eddies of the respective polarities, catch probability is calculated per 0.2R x 0.2R cell, and north is up. In panel c, N per polarity is the same as in panels a and b, anticyclonic values are red and cyclonic values are blue, and polarity-specific mean catch probability (with the 95% confidence interval) is calculated per 0.2R width bin.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Nominal eddy-centric shortbill spearfish catch.

Example eddy-centric 2D (a, b) and 1D (c) composites of shortbill spearfish catch probability – the % of longline sets catching at least one shortbill spearfish – from the nominal fishery data across the study region. In panels a–c, the eddy core (0 – R) and periphery (R – 2R) are separated by the solid black line, and the inner and outer zones of both the core (0 – 0.5R & 0.5R – R) and periphery (R – 1.5R & 1.5R – 2R) are separated by the dashed black lines. In panels a and b, N represents the total number of individuals captured in eddies of the respective polarities, catch probability is calculated per 0.2R x 0.2R cell, and north is up. In panel c, N per polarity is the same as in panels a and b, anticyclonic values are red and cyclonic values are blue, and polarity-specific mean catch probability (with the 95% confidence interval) is calculated per 0.2R width bin.

Extended Data Fig. 7 Nominal eddy-centric swordfish catch.

Example eddy-centric 2D (a, b) and 1D (c) composites of swordfish catch probability – the % of longline sets catching at least one swordfish – from the nominal fishery data across the study region. In panels a–c, the eddy core (0 – R) and periphery (R – 2R) are separated by the solid black line, and the inner and outer zones of both the core (0 – 0.5R & 0.5R – R) and periphery (R – 1.5R & 1.5R – 2R) are separated by the dashed black lines. In panels a and b, N represents the total number of individuals captured in eddies of the respective polarities, catch probability is calculated per 0.2R x 0.2R cell, and north is up. In panel c, N per polarity is the same as in panels a and b, anticyclonic values are red and cyclonic values are blue, and polarity-specific mean catch probability (with the 95% confidence interval) is calculated per 0.2R width bin.

Extended Data Fig. 8 Nominal eddy-centric blue shark catch.

Example eddy-centric 2D (a, b) and 1D (c) composites of blue shark catch probability – the % of longline sets catching at least one blue shark – from the nominal fishery data across the study region. In panels a–c, the eddy core (0 – R) and periphery (R – 2R) are separated by the solid black line, and the inner and outer zones of both the core (0 – 0.5R & 0.5R – R) and periphery (R – 1.5R & 1.5R – 2R) are separated by the dashed black lines. In panels a and b, N represents the total number of individuals captured in eddies of the respective polarities, catch probability is calculated per 0.2R x 0.2R cell, and north is up. In panel c, N per polarity is the same as in panels a and b, anticyclonic values are red and cyclonic values are blue, and polarity-specific mean catch probability (with the 95% confidence interval) is calculated per 0.2R width bin.

Extended Data Fig. 9 Nominal eddy-centric dolphinfish catch.

Example eddy-centric 2D (a, b) and 1D (c) composites of dolphinfish catch probability – the % of longline sets catching at least one dolphinfish – from the nominal fishery data across the study region. In panels a–c, the eddy core (0 – R) and periphery (R – 2R) are separated by the solid black line, and the inner and outer zones of both the core (0 – 0.5R & 0.5R – R) and periphery (R – 1.5R & 1.5R – 2R) are separated by the dashed black lines. In panels a and b, N represents the total number of individuals captured in eddies of the respective polarities, catch probability is calculated per 0.2R x 0.2R cell, and north is up. In panel c, N per polarity is the same as in panels a and b, anticyclonic values are red and cyclonic values are blue, and polarity-specific mean catch probability (with the 95% confidence interval) is calculated per 0.2R width bin.

Extended Data Fig. 10 Nominal eddy-centric escolar catch.

Example eddy-centric 2D (a, b) and 1D (c) composites of escolar catch probability – the % of longline sets catching at least one escolar – from the nominal fishery data across the study region. In panels a–c, the eddy core (0 – R) and periphery (R – 2R) are separated by the solid black line, and the inner and outer zones of both the core (0 – 0.5R & 0.5R – R) and periphery (R – 1.5R & 1.5R – 2R) are separated by the dashed black lines. In panels a and b, N represents the total number of individuals captured in eddies of the respective polarities, catch probability is calculated per 0.2R x 0.2R cell, and north is up. In panel c, N per polarity is the same as in panels a and b, anticyclonic values are red and cyclonic values are blue, and polarity-specific mean catch probability (with the 95% confidence interval) is calculated per 0.2R width bin.

Extended Data Fig. 11 Nominal eddy-centric opah catch.

Example eddy-centric 2D (a, b) and 1D (c) composites of opah catch probability – the % of longline sets catching at least one opah – from the nominal fishery data across the study region. In panels a–c, the eddy core (0 – R) and periphery (R – 2R) are separated by the solid black line, and the inner and outer zones of both the core (0 – 0.5R & 0.5R – R) and periphery (R – 1.5R & 1.5R – 2R) are separated by the dashed black lines. In panels a and b, N represents the total number of individuals captured in eddies of the respective polarities, catch probability is calculated per 0.2R x 0.2R cell, and north is up. In panel c, N per polarity is the same as in panels a and b, anticyclonic values are red and cyclonic values are blue, and polarity-specific mean catch probability (with the 95% confidence interval) is calculated per 0.2R width bin.

Extended Data Fig. 12 Nominal eddy-centric pomfret catch.

Example eddy-centric 2D (a, b) and 1D (c) composites of pomfret catch probability – the % of longline sets catching at least one pomfret – from the nominal fishery data across the study region. In panels a–c, the eddy core (0 – R) and periphery (R – 2R) are separated by the solid black line, and the inner and outer zones of both the core (0 – 0.5R & 0.5R – R) and periphery (R – 1.5R & 1.5R – 2R) are separated by the dashed black lines. In panels a and b, N represents the total number of individuals captured in eddies of the respective polarities, catch probability is calculated per 0.2R x 0.2R cell, and north is up. In panel c, N per polarity is the same as in panels a and b, anticyclonic values are red and cyclonic values are blue, and polarity-specific mean catch probability (with the 95% confidence interval) is calculated per 0.2R width bin.

Extended Data Fig. 13 Nominal eddy-centric wahoo catch.

Example eddy-centric 2D (a, b) and 1D (c) composites of wahoo catch probability – the % of longline sets catching at least one wahoo – from the nominal fishery data across the study region. In panels a–c, the eddy core (0 – R) and periphery (R – 2R) are separated by the solid black line, and the inner and outer zones of both the core (0 – 0.5R & 0.5R – R) and periphery (R – 1.5R & 1.5R – 2R) are separated by the dashed black lines. In panels a and b, N represents the total number of individuals captured in eddies of the respective polarities, catch probability is calculated per 0.2R x 0.2R cell, and north is up. In panel c, N per polarity is the same as in panels a and b, anticyclonic values are red and cyclonic values are blue, and polarity-specific mean catch probability (with the 95% confidence interval) is calculated per 0.2R width bin.

Extended Data Fig. 14 Eddy kinetic energy field. Mean eddy kinetic energy (EKE) derived from sea surface height.

The eddy dynamics subregions are demarcated by the 150 cm2s−2 contour (white) from a smoothed version of the data shown in the pseudocolor image. Fishing effort co-located to eddies is contoured (black) by the smoothed number of longline sets per degree2; the division of effort among eddy dynamics subregions is nearly equal – low EKE, n = 112,105; high EKE, n = 107,929.

Extended Data Fig. 15 Eddy-centric catch metrics (low EKE).

Catch odds ratios and catch rate ratios comparing a given zone of anticyclones against the corresponding zone of cyclones. Ratios of catch metrics are colour coded; > 1 - significantly higher in anticyclones (red), < 1 - significantly higher in cyclones (blue), = 1 - not significantly different among polarities (white), N/A - best-fit model did not include eddy-related effects for that metric (grey). Ratio values > 1.4 were truncated to aid in color discernment. Ratios not significantly different among polarities were set to equal 1. Eddy cores are separated from peripheries by the solid black line, and both are further differentiated into inner and outer zones by the dashed black lines. These model-estimated ratios come from the low EKE subregion, but see Fig. 2 for the ratios from the high EKE subregion and Extended Data Fig. 16 for the full results (ratios in both the high and low EKE subregions, including 95% confidence intervals determined with the delta method)

Source Data

Extended Data Fig. 16 Eddy-Centric Analysis – Species-specific odds and rate ratios, separated by eddy dynamics subregion, comparing catch metrics in a given zone of an anticyclone against the corresponding zone of a cyclone.

The mean effect estimate (circle) is filled when significant and open when not significant. The vertical black line indicates a ratio of 1 (equal odds or rates); if a 95% confidence interval (determined with the delta method) passes through this line the corresponding estimate is not significant. Missing estimates indicate that the best-fit model for that species did not include eddy-related effects in that component of the hurdle model. Identical estimates among the eddy dynamics subregions indicate that the best-fit model for that species included gyre-wide estimates in that component of the hurdle model. Each species-specific model used N = 220,034 longline sets (except that for blue shark, which used 219,837)

Source Data

Extended Data Fig. 17 Complementary Analysis with Non-Eddy Baseline – Species-specific odds and rate ratios, separated by eddy dynamics subregion, comparing catch metrics among the cores of eddies of both polarities and non-eddy areas.

The mean effect estimate (circle) is filled when significant and open when not significant. The vertical black line indicates a ratio of 1 (equal odds or rates); if a 95% confidence interval (determined with the delta method) passes through this line the corresponding estimate is not significant. Missing estimates indicate that the best-fit model for that species did not include eddy-related effects in that component of the hurdle model. Identical estimates among the eddy dynamics subregions indicate that the best-fit model for that species included gyre-wide estimates in that component of the hurdle model. Each species-specific model used N = 182,775 longline sets (except for blue shark, which used 182,629), and effect estimate significance was determined with the delta method

Source Data

Extended Data Fig. 18 Eddy vertical thermal structure.

Vertical temperature composites of anticyclones and cyclones within the high and low EKE subregions, as well as across the full study region. The vertical solid black lines at |R| = 1 designate the transition from the core (i.e., interior) to periphery (i.e., exterior) of an eddy. Sample size (number of Argo profiles) per panel – a) n = 6,808; b) n = 6,752; c) n = 19,362; d) n = 20,145, e) n = 26,170; f) n = 26,897.

Extended Data Table 1 Pelagic predators
Full size table
Extended Data Table 2 Eddy-Centric Analysis – Summary of model-estimated catch odds and rate ratios (anticyclone/cyclone) across species
Full size table
Extended Data Table 3 Eddy-Centric Analysis – Ratios (anticyclone/cyclone) of catch summed across the 14 pelagic predator species for the average longline set
Full size table
Extended Data Table 4 Eddy-Centric Analysis – Summary of species-specific proportional contributions (%) to the overall catch response predicted for the average longline set in the 16 unique combinations of eddy polarity, eddy zone, and eddy dynamics subregion
Full size table

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Results, Tables 1–4 and Figs. 1–11.

Reporting Summary.

Peer Review File.

Supplementary Code

R code for eddy co-location.

Supplementary Code

R code for catch-effort standardization.

Source data

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Arostegui, M.C., Gaube, P., Woodworth-Jefcoats, P.A. et al. Anticyclonic eddies aggregate pelagic predators in a subtropical gyre. Nature 609, 535–540 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05162-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05162-6

This article is cited by

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.

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing