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:

Light and energetics at seasonal extremes limit poleward range shifts

Nature Climate Change volume 11, pages 530–536 (2021)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Seasonality in light becomes increasingly extreme at high latitudes, both in terms of the diel light–dark cycle and the duration of light summers and dark winters. In contrast to temperature, this latitudinal gradient in light seasonality is not affected by climate change. A key question is therefore whether light may act as a fixed constraint on warming-driven redistributions of organisms at high latitudes. One answer is provided by studying mechanistic models of visual foraging and temperature-driven physiology along latitudinal gradients to project where populations survive and acquire resources to reproduce, and where they demise. Here we contrast such models for two widespread planktivorous fish types. We identify two processes through which seasonality in light can act as a barrier to poleward range expansions at high latitudes: (1) longer dark winters lead to greater depletion of overwinter energy stores and (2) a longer duration of midnight sun entails higher foraging-related predation mortality.

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

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

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

Fig. 1: The seasonal light regime becomes increasingly extreme towards the poles.
Fig. 2: Feeding behaviour of a diel-vertically migrating mesopelagic planktivore.
Fig. 3: Warmer temperatures lead to reduced starvation resistance in winter.
Fig. 4: Sensitivity of model projections to parameter variation.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The GIN Seas Regional Climatology with temperature and salinity is freely available online53. The zooplankton prey field was based on published literature values (see Supplementary Section M4 Zooplankton for references), generated in the mesopelagic fish model (code is available, see below), and used as input in the epipelagic fish model. The data used as input in the mesopelagic fish model are available in Supplementary Table 4 and the input data for the epipelagic fish model are available in Supplementary Tables 2 and 3.

Code availability

The source code for the epipelagic fish model is provided in Supplementary Code 1, and Supplementary Code 2 contains the source code for the mesopelagic fish model.

References

  1. Parmesan, C. & Yohe, G. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421, 37–42 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Poloczanska, E. S. et al. Global imprint of climate change on marine life. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 919–925 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Chen, I. C., Hill, J. K., Ohlemüller, R., Roy, D. B. & Thomas, C. D. Rapid range shifts of species associated with high levels of climate warming. Science 333, 1024–1026 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Lenoir, J. & Svenning, J.-C. Climate-related range shifts—a global multidimensional synthesis and new research directions. Ecography 38, 15–28 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Robinson, L. M. et al. Pushing the limits in marine species distribution modelling: lessons from the land present challenges and opportunities. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 20, 789–802 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Guisan, A. et al. Making better biogeographical predictions of species’ distributions. J. Appl. Ecol. 43, 386–392 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Wilson, R. P., Culik, B., Coria, N. R., Adelung, D. & Spairani, H. J. Foraging rhythms in Adélie penguins (Pygoscelis adeliae) at Hope Bay, Antarctica; determination and control. Polar Biol. 10, 161–165 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Aksnes, D. & Utne, A. C. W. A revised model of visual range in fish. Sarsia 4827, 37–41 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Johansen, R., Barrett, R. T. & Pedersen, T. Foraging strategies of great cormorants Phalacrocorax carbo carbo wintering north of the Arctic Circle. Bird Study 48, 59–67 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Varpe, Ø. Life history adaptations to seasonality. Integr. Comp. Biol. 57, 943–960 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Poloczanska, E. S. et al. Responses of marine organisms to climate change across oceans. Front. Mar. Sci. 3, 62 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Saikkonen, K. et al. Climate change-driven species’ range shifts filtered by photoperiodism. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 239–242 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bradshaw, W. E. & Holzapfel, C. M. Light, time, and the physiology of biotic response to rapid climate change in animals. Annu. Rev. Physiol. 72, 147–166 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Huffeldt, N. P. Photic barriers to poleward range-shifts. Trends Ecol. Evol. 35, 652–655 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sunday, J. M., Bates, A. E. & Dulvy, N. K. Thermal tolerance and the global redistribution of animals. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 686–690 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lenoir, J. et al. Species better track climate warming in the oceans than on land. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1044–1059 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kaartvedt, S. Photoperiod may constrain the effect of global warming in arctic marine systems. J. Plankton Res. 30, 1203–1206 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Sundby, S., Drinkwater, K. F. & Kjesbu, O. S. The North Atlantic spring-bloom system—where the changing climate meets the winter dark. Front. Mar. Sci. 3, 28 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Langbehn, T. J. & Varpe, Ø. Sea-ice loss boosts visual search: fish foraging and changing pelagic interactions in polar oceans. Glob. Chang. Biol. 23, 5318–5330 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Irigoien, X., Klevjer, T. A. & Røstad, A. Large mesopelagic fishes biomass and trophic efficiency in the open ocean. Nat. Commun. 5, 3271 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Geoffroy, M. et al. Mesopelagic sound scattering layers of the high Arctic: seasonal variations in biomass, species assemblage, and trophic relationships. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 364 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Jobling, M. Fish Bioenergetics (Chapman & Hall, 1994).

  23. Ljungström, G., Claireaux, M., Fiksen, Ø. & Jørgensen, C. Body size adaptions under climate change: zooplankton community more important than temperature or food abundance in model of a zooplanktivorous fish. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 636, 1–18 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Enberg, K. et al. Fishing-induced evolution of growth: concepts, mechanisms and the empirical evidence. Mar. Ecol. 33, 1–25 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Langbehn, T., Aksnes, D., Kaartvedt, S., Fiksen, Ø. & Jørgensen, C. Light comfort zone in a mesopelagic fish emerges from adaptive behaviour along a latitudinal gradient. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 623, 161–174 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Røstad, A., Kaartvedt, S. & Aksnes, D. L. Erratum to ‘Light comfort zones of mesopelagic acoustic scattering layers in two contrasting optical environments’ [Deep Sea Res. I 113 (2016) 1–6]. Deep Sea Res. I Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 114, 162–164 (2016).

  27. Røstad, A., Kaartvedt, S. & Aksnes, D. L. Light comfort zones of mesopelagic acoustic scattering layers in two contrasting optical environments. Deep Sea Res. I Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 113, 1–6 (2016).

  28. Clark, C. W. & Levy, D. A. Diel vertical migrations by juvenile sockeye salmon and the antipredation window. Am. Nat. 131, 271–290 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Scheuerell, M. D. & Schindler, D. E. Diel vertical migration by juvenile sockeye salmon: empirical evidence for the antipredation window. Ecology 84, 1713–1720 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Boyce, M. S. Seasonality and patterns of natural selection for life histories. Am. Nat. 114, 569–583 (1979).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Roff, D. A. The Evolution of Life Histories: Theory and Analysis (Chapman & Hall, 1992).

  32. Stearns, S. C. The Evolution of Life Histories (Oxford University Press, 1992).

  33. Varpe, Ø., Jørgensen, C., Tarling, G. A. & Fiksen, Ø. The adaptive value of energy storage and capital breeding in seasonal environments. Oikos 118, 363–370 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hagen, W. & Auel, H. Seasonal adaptations and the role of lipids in oceanic zooplankton. Zoology 104, 313–326 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Robinson, N. M., Nelson, W. A., Costello, M. J., Sutherland, J. E. & Lundquist, C. J. A systematic review of marine-based species distribution models (SDMs) with recommendations for best practice. Front. Mar. Sci. 4, 421 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Jones, M. C. & Cheung, W. W. L. Multi-model ensemble projections of climate change effects on global marine biodiversity. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 72, 741–752 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. García Molinos, J. et al. Climate velocity and the future global redistribution of marine biodiversity. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 83–88 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Cheung, W. W. L. et al. Projecting global marine biodiversity impacts under climate change scenarios. Fish. Fish. 10, 235–251 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Sinclair, S. J., White, M. D. & Newell, G. R. How useful are species distribution models for managing biodiversity under future climates? Ecol. Soc. 15, 8 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Twiname, S. et al. A cross-scale framework to support a mechanistic understanding and modelling of marine climate-driven species redistribution, from individuals to communities. Ecography 43, 1764–1778 (2020).

  41. Dullinger, S. et al. Extinction debt of high-mountain plants under twenty-first-century climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 619–622 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Bush, A. et al. Incorporating evolutionary adaptation in species distribution modelling reduces projected vulnerability to climate change. Ecol. Lett. 19, 1468–1478 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Cheung, W. W. L., Dunne, J., Sarmiento, J. L. & Pauly, D. Integrating ecophysiology and plankton dynamics into projected maximum fisheries catch potential under climate change in the Northeast Atlantic. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 68, 1008–1018 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Saunders, R. A., Collins, M. A., Stowasser, G. & Tarling, G. A. Southern Ocean mesopelagic fish communities in the Scotia Sea are sustained by mass immigration. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 569, 173–185 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Audzijonyte, A. et al. Atlantis: a spatially explicit end-to-end marine ecosystem model with dynamically integrated physics, ecology and socio-economic modules. Methods Ecol. Evol. 10, 1814–1819 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Alerstam, T., Hedenström, A. & Åkesson, S. Long-distance migration: evolution and determinants. Oikos 103, 247–260 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Nøttestad, L., Giske, J., Holst, J. C. & Huse, G. A length-based hypothesis for feeding migrations in pelagic fish. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 56, 26–34 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Roff, D. A. The evolution of migration and some life history parameters in marine fishes. Environ. Biol. Fishes 22, 133–146 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Alder, J., Campbell, B., Karpouzi, V., Kaschner, K. & Pauly, D. Forage fish: from ecosystems to markets. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 33, 153–166 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Houston, A. I. & McNamara, J. M. Models of Adaptive Behaviour: An Approach Based on State (Cambridge University Press, 1999).

  51. Clark, C. W. & Mangel, M. Dynamic State Variable Models in Ecology (Oxford University Press, 2000).

  52. Hoegh-Guldberg, O. et al. in Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (eds Barros, V. R. et al) 1655 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

  53. Seidov, D. Greenland–Iceland–Norwegian Seas Regional Climatology version 2 (Regional 497 Climatology Team, NOAA/NCEI, 2018).

  54. Drange, H. & Simonsen, K. Formulation of Air–Sea Fluxes in the ESOP2 Version of MICOM (1996).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors received funding through the MARmaED project from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement number 675997. The results of this publication reflect only the authors’ view and the Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains. All authors received funding from the Research Council of Norway, project 294819.

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: G. Ljungström, T.J. Langbehn.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

    Gabriella Ljungström, Tom J. Langbehn & Christian Jørgensen

Authors
  1. Gabriella Ljungström
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tom J. Langbehn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christian Jørgensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

G.L., T.J.L. and C.J. conceived and designed the research. G.L. and T.J.L. developed the models with guidance from C.J. All the authors contributed to the interpretation of the results. G.L. wrote the paper with input from T.J.L. and C.J. The figures were created by T.J.L. with input from G.L. and C.J.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gabriella Ljungström.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Climate Change thanks Mark Payne and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

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

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Model flowchart of drivers, mechanisms, and agents.

There are several commonalities between the Epipelagic and Mesopelagic fish model: both models base energy acquisition on visual encounters, which depend on light and prey availability, and physiological processes, including digestion and loss of energy, are temperature-dependent. Predation pressure is only included in the mesopelagic fish model.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Data localities and seasonal latitude distributions of zooplankton and temperature.

All simulations were run with seasonal light, idealised zooplankton prey fields (B), and temperature (C) at 30 m depth derived from data of current observations along a high latitude gradient from 55 to 75°N (A).

Extended Data Fig. 3 Current and future overwintering costs for the epipelagic planktivore.

The left panel shows the overwintering costs (kJ·ind−1·year−1) for current temperatures, the middle panel shows the change associated with a 2 °C warming, and the right panel shows the sum of panel 1 and 2, that is the new situation in an ocean that is 2 °C warmer. Values in left and right panel are normalized to the highest overwintering loss projected in the current scenario and isoclines represent the projected combination of latitude and body size for different percentages of these values. Red lines show the latitude that after 2 °C warming has equal overwintering cost as currently experienced by populations at 60°N and 70°N (blue dashed lines). For the highest latitudes (beyond ca. 74°N), the colder temperatures towards the poles reduce metabolic rates sufficiently to compensate for longer winters, making the total overwintering cost lower even though wintertime lasts longer. At the lowest latitudes (below ca. 58°N), the dark season is relatively short, but the smaller prey in the North Sea constrains energy intake in the largest individuals and makes winters comparatively favourable only for small fish.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Data localities and latitude-depth distributions of zooplankton and temperature.

All simulations were run with seasonal light, idealised zooplankton prey fields (B), and temperature (C) derived from data of current observations along a high latitude gradient from 55 to 75°N (A).

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figs. 1 and 2, and methods M1–M4.

Reporting Summary

Supplementary Data 1

Source code for the epipelagic fish model.

Supplementary Data 2

Source code for the mesopelagic fish model.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ljungström, G., Langbehn, T.J. & Jørgensen, C. Light and energetics at seasonal extremes limit poleward range shifts. Nat. Clim. Chang. 11, 530–536 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01045-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01045-2

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

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