Adaptive management of marine mega-fauna in a changing climate

Adaptive management of marine mega-faunain a changing climate

Mariana M. P. B. Fuentes & Lynda Chambers &Andrew Chin & Peter Dann & Kirstin Dobbs &Helene Marsh & Elvira S. Poloczanska & Kim Maison &

Malcolm Turner & Robert L. Pressey

Received: 7 January 2014 /Accepted: 5 June 2014# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Abstract Management of marine mega-fauna in a changing climate is constrained by aseries of uncertainties, often related to climate change projections, ecological responses,and the effectiveness of strategies in alleviating climate change impacts. Uncertaintiescan be reduced over time through adaptive management. Adaptive management is aframework for resource conservation that promotes iterative learning-based decisionmaking. To successfully implement the adaptive management cycle, different steps

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob ChangeDOI 10.1007/s11027-014-9590-3

M. M. P. B. Fuentes (*) : R. L. PresseyARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, 4811, Townsville Queensland,Australiae-mail: [email protected]

L. ChambersCentre for Australian Weather and Climate Research, MelbourneVictoria 3001, Australia

A. ChinCentre for Sustainable Tropical Fisheries and Aquaculture, James Cook University, Townsville,Queensland 4811, Australia

P. DannResearch Department, Phillip Island Nature Parks, Cowes, Phillip Island, Victoria 3991, Australia

K. Dobbs :M. TurnerGreat Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville, Queensland 4810, Australia

H. MarshSchool of Earth and Environmental Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland 4811,Australia

E. S. PoloczanskaClimate Adaptation Flagship, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Brisbane, Queensland 4001,Australia

K. MaisonJoint Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, HonoluluHawaii, USA

(planning, designing, learning and adjusting) need to be systematically implemented toinform earlier steps in an iterative way. Despite the critical role that adaptive manage-ment is likely to play in addressing the impacts of climate change on marine mega-fauna few managers have successfully implemented an adaptive management approach.We discuss the approaches necessary to implement each step of an adaptive manage-ment cycle to manage marine mega-fauna in a changing climate, highlighting the stepsthat require further attention to fully implement the process. Examples of sharks andrays (Selachimorpha and Batoidea) on the Great Barrier Reef and little penguins,Eudyptula minor, in south-eastern Australia are used as case studies. We found thatsuccessful implementation of the full adaptive management cycle to marine mega-faunaneeds managers and researchers to: (1) obtain a better understanding of the capacity ofspecies to adapt to climate change to inform the planning step; (2) identify strategies todirectly address impacts in the marine environment to inform the designing step; and(3) develop systematic evaluation and monitoring programs to inform the learning step.Further, legislation needs to flexible to allow for management to respond.

Keywords Adaptivemanagement . Climate change .Marinemega-fauna .Marine turtles .

Opportunities . Resilience . Seabirds . Sharks

1 Introduction

Marine mega-fauna, which include seabirds (Sphenisciformes, Procellariiformes,Pelecaniformes, Charadriiformes), marine turtles (Testudines), marine mammals(Otarioidea, Phocoidea, Cetacea, and Sirenia), sharks (Selachimorpha) and rays(Batoidea), are key components of marine ecosystems and are socially and economicallyvalued around the world (Wilson and Tisdell 2001). Many populations of marine mega-fauna have declined in recent decades, largely due to human activities, and are nowhighly threatened (Žydelis et al. 2009). Further impacts to marine mega-fauna popula-tions are expected from climate change (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change2014) (Table 1). Indeed, impacts of climate change on marine mega-fauna groups arealready being noted in oceans around the world (Table 1). Most extant species ofmarine mega-fauna have survived past climatic changes (Bowen and Karl 2007; Haileret al. 2012). Yet the ability of marine mega-fauna to adapt to the impacts of futurechanges in climate is questionable because they are now faced with a variety of newconstraints, including accelerated rates of climate change (Sun et al. 2012;Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2013; Angélil et al. 2014), declining anddepleted populations (Žydelis et al. 2009), cumulative impacts of human activities, andrestricted availability of alternative habitats caused by coastal development (Fuenteset al. 2010).

In this context, management will need to continue to focus on reducing currentshort-term, non-climate related stressors to ensure that marine mega-fauna groups areresilient and have the best chance of adapting to future conditions. Building biodiversityresilience focuses on reducing non-climatic threats and protecting key habitats with therationale that large, healthy and stable populations will help maintain: (1) geneticdiversity, which will allow autonomous adaptation to uncertain conditions, (2) a widedistribution, which will minimize the overall impacts of area-specific threats, and (3) alarge breeding population, which will help buffer disturbance by recovering from

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change

Table 1 Observed and projected impacts of climate change on groups of marine mega-fauna. Threats andimpacts are species-specific and vary geographically, even within the ranges of single species

Marine mega-fauna group

Potential threats fromclimate change

Observed and projected impacts

Elasmobranchs a-d • Altered rainfall regimes

• Sea level rise• Extreme weather events(cyclones)

• Incrases in sea surfacetemperature

• Ocean acidification• Changes in ocean currents,upwelling andstratification

Observed

• Shifts in species distributions,depth ranges, and abundances

Projected• Loss and degradation of habitats and associatedecological functions (availability of prey, suitablenursery and foraging grounds, phenology)

• Potential changes in movement, behavior andbiology (e.g. metabolic demand, growth rates)

• Changes in the composition andstructure of shark and ray populations

• Range expansions and contractions

Seabirdse-m

• Sea level rise

• Increases in air and seasurface temperatures

• Altered rainfall intensityand frequency

• Altered extreme weatherevents (cyclones, floodsand fire)

• Declining sea ice

Observed

• Shifts in abundance and distribution• Changes in phenology• Changes in survival ratesand breeding success

Projected• Changes in phenology• Range expansion and contraction• Changes in community compositionand genetic stocks

• Changes in abundance or locationof food, changes in primary andsecondary productivities

• Loss and degradation of key breedingand roosting habitats

• Increased mortality due to extremeevents (heat, storms, fire)

Sea turtlesn-u

• Altered rainfall andhumidity regimes

• Sea level rise

• Extreme weather events(cyclones and floods)


• Changes in ocean currentsand stratification

• Ocean acidification

Observed• Changes in nesting phenologyand success

• Distributional shifts• Change in breeding capacity• Increase in thermal profilesof nesting grounds

Projected• Continued changes innesting phenology

• Changes in hatchling attributes(e.g. sex ratio and size)

• Embryonic mortality• Range expansion and contraction• Changes in abundance orlocation of food

• Loss of nesting beaches


reductions in number (Purvis et al. 2000; Isaac et al. 2009; Sgrò et al. 2011). Buildingresilience in the marine environment is often based on static spatial planning throughmarine protected areas and other management tools such as bycatch reduction. Thesetools are designed using existing environmental conditions, current specie’s ranges, andpresent threatening processes (Hansen et al. 2009; Povilitis and Suckling 2010; Hobday2011). However, as climate change impacts increase and the capacity of species torecover is lessened, more active intervention strategies might become necessary to tacklethe direct impacts of climate change (West et al. 2009). This situation will likely requirethe use of both conventional and novel strategies that are flexible and dynamic and thatintegrate the impacts of a changing climate, specie’s responses to those changes, alteredecological relationships, and temporal and spatial shifts in ecosystems (Heller andZavaleta 2009; Mawdsley et al. 2009; Hobday 2011; Groves et al. 2012; Holbrookand Johnson 2014). Implementing such strategies has been constrained by a series of

Table 1 (continued)

Marine mega-fauna group

Potential threats fromclimate change

Observed and projected impacts

• Changes in post-hatchlingmigrations and distribution

• Changes in foraging strategies,which will influencefitness and thereforereproductive capacity

Marinemammals v-cc

• Extreme weather events(cyclones and floods)


• Changes in thermoclinedepth, water currentsand upwelling

• Alteration of seasonalflooding regimes andriver flows

• Loss of sea ice forice-dependent species

• Droughts, with consequentincreases in red tideblooms

• Increases in run-off andeutrophication

• Changes in ocean currentsand stratification

Observed• Distributional shifts

• Reduced reproductive success• Delayed migration• Loss of habitat

Projected• Declines in food sourcesand changes in predator–prey relationships

• Impacts on health, bodycondition and breeding success

• Impacts on migratory andbreeding cycles

• Declines in recruitment• Distributional shifts• Lower survival• Loss of habitat• Increases in anthropogenicactivity in previouslyice-covered waters

a Nye et al. 2009; b Chin et al. 2010; c Sequeira et al. 2014; d Robinson et al. 2014; e Johnson and Mar• shall 2007;fWynn et al. 2007; g Cullen et al. 2009; h Peron et al. 2010; i Chambers et al. 2011; j Ganendran et al. 2011;k Sidhu et al. 2012; l Charmantier and Gienapp 2014; m Lescroël et al. 2014; nWeishampel et al. 2004; o Hawkeset al. 2009 p Poloczanska et al. 2009; q Van Houtan and Halley 2011; r Saba et al. 2012; s Hamann et al. 2013;t Pike 2014; uWillis-Norton et al. 2014; vWürsig et al. 2002; w Simmonds and Isaac 2007; x Burek et al. 2008;yMoore and Huntington 2008; zMarsh et al. 2011; aa Edwards 2013 bb Schumann et al. 2013; cc Constable et al.2014


uncertainties, often related to climate-change projections, ecological responses, and theeffectiveness of strategies in reducing the impacts from climate change (Lawler et al.2010; Fuentes et al. 2012).

2 Adaptive management of marine mega-fauna in the face of uncertainty

These uncertainties can be reduced over time through adaptive management (McDonald-Madden et al. 2010; Allen et al. 2011). Adaptive management is a structured, iterativeprocess of robust decision making in the face of uncertainty (Holling 1978; Walters andHilborn 1978), and has been widely suggested as a means to respond to climate changeand improve management outcomes in the future (Pahl-Wostl 2007; Conroy et al. 2011).Although there are various definitions of adaptive management (see reviews bySchreiber et al. 2004; Allen et al. 2011; McFadden et al. 2011; Westgate et al.2013), several key principles and steps are universal (Fig. 1): (1) Planning - assessingand defining the problem and management objectives; (2) Designing - identifying andimplementing actions to achieve objectives; (3) Evaluating, learning and adjusting -monitoring management effectiveness and reviewing the management program to im-prove outcomes (Westgate et al. 2013). Each step informs and guides others iteratively.Importantly, adaptive management places an explicit value on learning and reducinguncertainty to improve future management, and balances short-term management objec-tives with ongoing evaluation and learning to achieve long-term management goals(Williams 2011a). Despite a growing number of theoretical frameworks for adaptivemanagement and increasing recognition that adaptive management can deal with

Fig. 1 Conceptual adaptive management cycle for a climate change context, based on Jones (2009)


uncertainties in a changing climate (e.g. Peterson et al. 1997; McFadden et al. 2011),few practitioners have successfully developed and/or implemented an adaptive manage-ment approach (McDonald-Madden et al. 2010; Keith et al. 2011). Several reasons havebeen identified (for discussions see Walters and Hilborn 1978; Allen and Gunderson2011; Williams 2011b), including ambiguity about the approach and lack of informationnecessary to successfully implement the adaptive cycle (Fontaine 2011). Given thecritical role that adaptive management is likely to play in addressing the impacts ofclimate change on marine mega-fauna, we discuss the approaches necessary to applyeach step of an adaptive management cycle and highlight the steps that require furtherattention for the cycle to be effectively used for management of marine mega-fauna. Wedraw on examples of sharks and rays (Selachimorpha and Batoidea) in the Great BarrierReef and little penguins, Eudyptula minor, in south-eastern Australia.

2.1 Planning: assessing and defining the management context and objectives

The first step of the adaptive management cycle is to understand the management context,including management objectives and the threats to and status of the system being studied(Holling 1978). Identifying and setting management objectives is a complex undertaking thatcan involve identifying management boundaries, collating existing management obligations,and consulting with experts, stakeholders and the community to derive a shared vision (Fig. 1).Once objectives are identified, the status of and threats to the species and/or habitats beingmanaged need to be assessed. Several different tools and data sets will be particularlyimportant to assess the risks and threats from climate change, including: (1) scenarios forclimate change; (2) a good mechanistic understanding of responses to climate change, fromtheoretical and experimental research, to an understanding of the synergies between climate-related and other threats; and (3) models exploring adaptive responses, both autonomous (e.g.changes in distributions and phenology) and planned (e.g. adjusting management) (Fulton2011). Fortunately, concern over the potential impacts of climate change has led to increasedattention to the potential effects of various climatic processes on marine mega-fauna groups(see Tables 1 to 3). Indeed, novel integrated science is emerging where evidence frompaleoecological observations, recent phenological and microevolutionary responses, experi-ments, and computational models are used to anticipate and manage the consequences ofclimate change (for review see Dawson et al. 2011). However, an understanding of howmarine mega-fauna groups are likely to adapt to climate change is still very incomplete(Dawson et al. 2011; Fuentes et al. 2011).

One prediction is that marine mega-fauna might adapt to climate change by altering theirdistributions (Gremillet and Boulinier 2009). Climate-induced distribution changes couldresult in marine mega-fauna occupying areas where conservation measures are not in placeor logistically difficult to implement (Madin et al. 2012) or, more optimistically, moving toareas where fewer threats exist. Changes in behaviour could alter vulnerability to climatechange. Insights into potential responses of marine mega-fauna to future climate change can beobtained by exploring how different groups have responded to past climatic changes and basedon species current distribution and their thermal tolerance and limitations from environmentalfactors (Dawson et al. 2011; Hazen et al. 2013). Indeed, correlative ecological niche modelshave been used by several studies to project potential climate-induced shifts in marine mega-fauna (for an example see McMahon and Hays 2006). It is suggested; however, that suchapproach can be improved by coupling demographic processes (dispersal and populationdynamics), ecophysiology, and organism’s physiological tolerance (Kearney et al. 2010;Cheung et al. 2013; Fordham et al. 2013). Knowledge of how humans might respond or adapt


to climate change will also be necessary to fully understand future impacts on marine mega-fauna (Madin et al. 2012) and to develop adequate management objectives. For example, theNorth Atlantic warming in the early 20th century led to development of new fisheries, with anew cod (Gadidae) fishery replacing sealing as the main industry in West Greenland(Drinkwater 2006). In the future, as temperature rises and sea ice retreats northward in theArctic, fishing fleets and offshore development will become economically feasible and couldlead to negative interactions between humans and marine mammals (Huntington 2009).

Understanding the relative impacts of current and future threats to overall populationdynamics of species and the spatial variation of those impacts is necessary to prioritisemanagement objectives and actions within and between species (Marsh et al. 2007; Žydeliset al. 2009). Risk and vulnerability assessments are increasingly being used to help prioritizethe management of species in the face of climate change and also to investigate the risk of notaddressing evident threats (e.g. Fuentes et al. 2011; Welch and Johnson 2013). For example, anintegrated climate change risk assessment was applied to sharks and rays in Australia's GreatBarrier Reef (see Table 2). This assessment identified thirty species of sharks and rays as beingvulnerable, with coastal and reef dwelling, and rare and/or specialised species being at highestrisk (Chin et al. 2010). A regular and reliable means of publicly reporting on the outcomes ofsuch assessments is critical for ensuring transparency of decision making. Within the GreatBarrier Reef, an Outlook Report is produced every five years on the state and prospects of theregion’s environmental, social and economic values, including sharks. The Report examinesthe pressures on ecosystems and the effectiveness of current management responses, andconsiders likely future states (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 2009). Such assess-ments can help identify locations, populations, species and life stages at highest risk fromclimate change and assess threats that will have the most serious impacts on marine mega-fauna, allowing management objectives to be determined appropriately (Hansen et al. 2009).

2.2 Designing: identifying and implementing actions to achieve objectives

Clear management objectives will help select the most appropriate management strategies(Fig. 1). A set of strategies will be necessary to reduce the direct impacts from climate change(Table 4). Conventional strategies, which are previously established strategies that weredesigned for other management needs but have strong potential for application to climatechange impacts (e.g. hatcheries for management of marine turtles). These strategies will needto be explored in the context of climate change (Hamann et al. 2013). Novel strategies arethose not yet in place but apparently feasible within current management structures. To datemost suggested strategies have been for species that have a terrestrial phase (marine turtles andseabirds) (see Table 3). Terrestrial phases of life histories have better baseline knowledge onexposure rates and thresholds and present fewer logistical constraints on implementation andmonitoring (Hamann et al. 2013). At sea, management of climate change impacts is hinderedby a limited understanding of physical changes and ecological responses, and the often poorprospects for local interventions. Because many species of marine mega-fauna have widedistributions the challenge will be to identify strategies that address their cross-jurisdictionalboundaries. Selected strategies constrain the adaptive management approach, so strategiesneed to be diverse and to produce recognizable and distinct responses in species of interest ifthey are to inform the adaptive management cycle (Williams 2011b).

Most strategies, especially those related to the protection of key habitats, will requirecommunity and, government support and voluntary behavioural changes, so community andstakeholder consultation and consideration of the socio-economic impacts of different strate-gies is crucial (Fuentes et al. 2013). Similarly, the implementation of some strategies,


Tab

le2

Descriptionof

existin

ginform

ationto

guidetheadaptiv

emanagem

ento

felasmobranchs

intheGreatBarrier

Reef(G

BR)in

achanging

clim

ate.Boldtype

indicatesstepsof

theadaptiv

emanagem

entcyclethatrequirefurtherattentionforthecycleto

befully

implem

ented.Around133elasmobranchspeciesoccurin

Australia’sGBRacrossawiderangeof

habitats,andhave

agreatdiversity

ofmorphological,biological,andecological

traits.Manyelasmobranchs

areiconic

speciesfortheGBR

tourism

industry

andareim

portant

componentsof

alargeanddiversecommercial

fishery.Little

isknow

naboutthebiology,ecologyandstatus

ofmostGBRelasmobranchs,although

risk

assessmentsandtargeted

studiessuggesthighrisk

toanddeclines

ofsomespecies.Fishingandlossanddegradationof

habitatsarekeythreatsfacing

manyof

thesespeciesintheGBR.C

limatechange

posesa

rangeof

potentialthreatsto

elasmobranchs

(Table1),w

ithvulnerability

varyinggreatly

amongspecies

Pla

nP

redi

cted

impa

cts

Ris

k as

sess

men

tT

hrea

t pr

iori

tiza

tion

Reg

iona

lized

pro

ject

ions

for

clim

ate

chan

ge a

nd e

ffec

ts o

n G

BR

eco

syst

ems

exis

ta

Con

cept

ual m

odel

sof

inte

ract

ions

bet

wee

n sh

arks

and

GB

R e

cosy

stem

sex

ista

Som

e kn

owle

dge

of a

dapt

ive

capa

city

infe

rred

fro

m p

aleo

biol

ogy

of

Cho

ndri

chth

yans

, and

dat

a on

mov

emen

t and

beh

avio

ur p

atte

rns

d

Res

earc

h ha

s be

gun

to u

nder

stan

d th

e ph

ysio

logi

cal e

ffec

ts o

f cl

imat

e ch

ange

on

shar

ks

Vul

nera

bilit

y as

sess

men

t for

133

GB

R s

hark

and

ray

spe

cies

to

clim

ate

chan

ge im

pact

s ha

s be

en c

ondu

cted

a,b

Eco

logi

cal r

isk

asse

ssm

ent o

f sh

arks

and

ray

s ta

ken

in n

et

fish

erie

sc

Fish

erie

s as

sess

men

ts u

nder

EP

BC

Act

wit

h in

depe

nden

t rev

iew

d

GB

R v

ulne

rabi

lity

asse

ssm

ent o

f a

rang

e of

thre

ats

and

pres

sure

s in

clud

ing

clim

ate

chan

ged

Des

ign

Incr

ease

res

ilien

ceR

educ

e cl

imat

e ch

ange

impa

cts

Leg

isla

tion

Zon

ing

of th

e G

reat

Bar

rier

Ree

f M

arin

e Pa

rk A

utho

rity

e

Prog

ram

s la

unch

ed to

red

uce

hum

an im

pact

s on

GB

R c

oast

al h

abita

tsN

ew f

ishe

ries

legi

slat

ion

(200

9) p

rohi

bite

dta

ke o

f so

me

spec

ies

and

intr

oduc

ed n

ew

man

agem

ent i

nstr

umen

ts to

reg

ulat

e ta

keof

sha

rks

and

rays

e

Publ

ic a

war

enes

s an

d ed

ucat

ion

cam

paig

ns to

cha

nge

attit

udes

abo

ut s

hark

co

nser

vati

onb

*No

stra

tegy

has

bee

n su

gges

ted

or im

plem

ente

d to

ad

dres

s di

rect

impa

cts

of c

limat

e ch

ange

on

Ela

smob

ranc

hsa,.

Dir

ect i

mpa

cts

from

clim

ate

chan

gear

e ye

t to

be o

bser

ved,

so

sugg

este

d st

rate

gies

are

to in

crea

se r

esili

ence

of

spec

ies

to

clim

ate

chan

geby

miti

gatin

g ot

her

adve

rse

impa

cts

a

*No

legi

slat

ion

dire

ctly

add

ress

es im

pact

s of

clim

ate

chan

ge

on s

hark

s an

d ra

ys. L

egis

lati

on t

hat i

ndir

ectl

y ad

dres

ses

thes

e im

pact

sin

clud

esa :

Que

ensl

and

Fish

erie

s re

gula

tion

s 20

09 (

man

age

catc

h)C

oast

al la

nd u

se a

nd p

lann

ing

legi

slat

ion

(pro

tect

hab

itats

)Z

onin

g of

the

Mar

ine

Park

M

anag

emen

t arr

ange

men

ts f

or c

oast

al h

abit

ats

are

bein

g w

eake

ned

thro

ugh

chan

ges

in Q

ueen

slan

dle

gisl

atio

n w

hich

cou

ldaf

fect

som

e sh

arks

and

thei

r ha

bita

tsf

Lea

rnM

onit

orin

g an

d E

valu

atio

nN

o sy

stem

atic

eva

luat

ion

prog

ram

is c

urre

ntly

ava

ilabl

eT

he r

espo

nse

of G

BR

sha

rks

and

rays

to m

anag

emen

t int

erve

ntio

ns a

re c

urre

ntly

unk

now

n

aChinetal.2

010;

bCarrier

etal.2

004;

cTo

binetal.2

010;

dJohnsonandMarshall2007;eGunnetal.2

008;

fChinetal.2

012


Tab

le3

Descriptionof

existin

ginform

ationto

guidetheadaptivemanagem

ento

fpenguins

insouth-easternAustraliain

achanging

clim

ate.Boldtype

indicatesstepsof

theadaptiv

emanagem

entcyclethatrequirefurtherattentionforthecycletobe

fully

implem

ented.Littlepenguins,E

udyptulaminor,occur

acrosssouthern

Australiaandthroughout

New

Zealand.

Morethan

halfof

theworld’spopulationbreeds

insouth-easternAustraliaon

offshore

islandsor

alongpartsof

mainlandcoast.Non-clim

aticthreatsto

little

penguins

vary

between

colonies,andincludepredationby

introduced

mam

malianpredators,mortalityon

coastalroads,andoilspills.Indirect

threats,such

asloss

ofbreeding

habitatthroughfire,weed

invasion,erosion,

grazing,

andhousingdevelopm

entsremainaconcern.

Severalaspectsof

thebiologyof

little

penguins

arelik

elyto

beaffected

byprojectedchangesin

clim

ate

(Table1)

Pla

nP

redi

cted

impa

cts

Ris

k as

sess

men

tT

hrea

t P

rior

itiz

atio

nR

evie

w o

f lik

ely

resp

onse

s to

clim

ate

chan

ge p

roje

ctio

ns e

xist

a

Mod

els

of e

ffec

ts o

f cl

imat

e ch

ange

on

phen

olog

y, b

reed

ing

succ

ess

and

fir

st-y

ear

surv

ival

exi

stb

Thr

eats

to a

dult

sur

viva

l fro

m c

limat

e ch

ange

are

poo

rly

unde

rsto

odc

Som

e kn

owle

dge

of a

dapt

ive

capa

city

to te

rres

tria

l eff

ects

of

clim

ate

chan

geC

urre

nt r

esea

rch

is e

xplo

ring

the

effe

cts

of c

limat

e ch

ange

on

food

ava

ilabi

lity

at s

ea

Ris

k as

sess

men

t of

impa

cts

of c

limat

e ch

ange

exi

sta

Eco

path

mod

els

bein

g bu

ilt to

det

erm

ine

rela

tive

thre

ats

in B

ass

Stra

itd

Des

ign

Incr

ease

res

ilien

ceR

educ

e cl

imat

e ch

ange

impa

cts

Leg

isla

tion

Stra

tegi

es a

re in

pla

ce to

rem

ove

all a

nthr

opog

enic

mor

talit

y on

land

unr

elat

ed to

cl

imat

e ch

ange

, inc

ludi

ng r

emov

al f

rom

bre

edin

g ar

eas

of: a

tow

n, v

ehic

ular

traf

fic

at

nigh

t, in

trod

uced

fox

es,a

nd r

oam

ing

dom

esti

c do

gse

All

bree

ding

sit

es a

re r

eser

ved.

Cur

rent

wor

k on

red

ucin

g th

e im

pact

of

oil s

pills

thro

ugh

advo

cacy

, pro

vidi

ngtr

aini

ng p

rogr

ams

and

deve

lopi

ng m

ore

effe

ctiv

e cl

eani

ng te

chno

logi

esf

Cur

rent

cam

paig

n fo

r M

PAs

to p

rote

ct p

engu

ins

and

thei

r pr

eysp

ecie

s

To

redu

ce th

e ri

sk o

f fi

re in

bre

edin

g co

loni

es a

s cl

imat

e w

arm

s, a

ll po

wer

lines

in b

reed

ing

area

s ar

e no

w u

nder

grou

nd,

fire

-res

ista

nt lo

cal v

eget

atio

n ha

s be

en e

ncou

rage

d, a

nd f

ire

resp

onse

cap

acit

y an

d pl

anni

ngha

ve im

prov

edg

To

redu

ce h

eat s

tres

s in

bre

edin

g co

loni

es, v

eget

atio

n st

ruct

ure

has

been

incr

ease

d fo

r sh

ade

and

artif

icia

l nes

t-si

tes

wit

h en

hanc

ed in

sula

tion

have

bee

n de

velo

ped

No

stra

tegy

has

bee

n id

enti

fied

to

addr

ess

impa

cts

of

clim

ate

chan

ge o

n th

e m

arin

e ha

bita

t

No

legi

slat

ion

dire

ctly

add

ress

es im

pact

s of

clim

ate

chan

ge

on li

ttle

pen

guin

s

Lea

rnM

onit

orin

g an

d E

valu

atio

nR

egul

ar m

onit

orin

g of

the

popu

lati

on e

xist

s, b

utth

ere

is a

nee

d to

iden

tify

whi

ch s

trat

egie

s w

ork

A s

yste

mat

ic m

onito

ring

and

eva

luat

ion

proc

ess

is b

eing

dev

elop

ed to

ass

ess

the

effe

ctiv

enes

sof

str

ateg

ies

inre

duci

ng r

isk

from

fir

eB

reed

ing

succ

ess

is b

eing

mea

sure

d an

nual

ly a

nd in

a v

arie

ty o

f ph

ysic

al c

onte

xts

and

wea

ther

con

diti

ons

to a

sses

s ef

fect

iven

ess

of m

anag

emen

tSu

rviv

al is

bei

ng e

stim

ated

ann

ually

(si

nce

1968

)

aDannandChambers2013;bCullenetal.2

009;

cSidhuetal.2

012;

dBulman

etal.2

012;

eDann1992;fVan

Dao

etal.2

006;

gChambersetal.2

009


particularly for emergency responses, will require specific legislative and policy frameworks tobe in place. Arguably, many management arrangements are ill-suited to address climate changebecause of their static nature. Many regulations were established to address specific threats at atime when climate change impacts were poorly understood and are therefore of limited valuein a changing world (Meltz 2008). Legislative flexibility might be crucial and there areprecedents that could be adapted to management for climate change. For example, followingCyclone Yasi in 2011 in Queensland, Australia, arrangements for management of visitors atMichaelmas Cay, Great Barrier Reef, were altered to protect breeding by surviving seabirds.

2.3 Learning: monitoring, evaluating and adjusting strategies to improve outcomes

As strategies are identified and trialled, it will be essential for failures and successes to becommunicated so that the information acquired can refine management strategies (Fuenteset al. 2012). This is particularly important given the limited information on risks associatedwith implementing novel strategies, the effectiveness of such strategies, and the tendency forconservation managers and scientists to report only successes (Redford and Taber 2000;Jourdan and Fuentes 2013). Monitoring programs can provide information on the state ofthe environment or status of species and the performance of management strategies, insightsinto thresholds of responses to climate change and regime shifts, and understanding of thecapacity of ecosystems to sustain ecological services in response to changes. Monitoring canalso provide the necessary information to address critical uncertainties that might be limitingmanagement outcomes (Lyons et al. 2008; Douvere and Ehler 2011). For monitoring to be

Table 4 Suggested strategies to mitigate impacts from climate change. Threats and impacts are species-specificand vary geographically. Thus, recommended strategies also need to be adapted for different geographies,specific threats, and social economic, and policy circumstances

Management strategies

• Reduce current threats to increase species resilience. Incentives and penalties will need to be designed to addressthese actions

• Improve cross-jurisdictional management for highly mobile or migratory species

• Monitor populations and changes in phenology, distribution and reproductive capacity

• Predict tipping points that trigger synergetic interactions

• Preserve key locations and habitats (e.g. nursery grounds, aggregation sites) for species at highest risk to climatechange

• Identify and preserve locations that will become important as climate change progresses (e.g. buffer areas, maleproducing marine turtle nesting grounds).

• Work with communities to set common goals and management objectives for identifying, protecting andrestoring existing and future areas/habitats resilient to climate change. If these sites are in areas where there arehuman activities, there will need to be a process of community consultation

• Monitor and assess the efficacy of existing management strategies

• Determine the effectiveness and risks of novel strategies that require active manipulation of the environment

• Refine tools for risk assessment and prioritization of management actions

• Revisit existing legislation, treaties and policies

• Develop conservation plans for highest risk species from cumulative threats, considering climate change inaddition to non-climatic impacts

• Address secondary climatic effects associated with additional human presence at key habitat (e.g. fisheryregulations, restrictions on hunting, develop and implement measures to regulate shipping), incentives andpenalties will need to be designed to address this


useful for evaluation in adaptive management, monitoring indicators and sampling design (e.g.frequency, extent, intensity) should focus on identifying and monitoring system responses to aspecific strategy, and thus progress towards management objectives (Hockings and Stolton2000). While a number of fundamental principles exist for monitoring, and their importance inthe adaptive management cycle is well understood (Gibbs et al. 1999; Nichols and Williams2006), there are varying levels of understanding about how these principles should beimplemented, resulting in a lack of effective systematic monitoring programs (Day 2008).Indeed, monitoring and evaluating is one of the adaptive management steps that require themost improvement to inform the adaptive management of marine mega-fauna. In Table 2, forexample, there are no systematic monitoring programs for sharks and rays on the Great BarrierReef, so there is limited data to explain the causes of observed declines in some species (GreatBarrier Reef Marine Park Authority 2009). Cause and effect relationships are instead inferredfrom biological or ecological data (e.g. risk assessments), or from comparisons betweenfished and unfished areas (e.g. Heupel et al. 2009). Similarly, although there is regularmonitoring of the little penguin, Eudyptula minor, population in south-eastern Australia,increases in penguin numbers are attributed to a number of strategies (e.g. road closure,buy-back of a housing estate, fox control) (Table 3). Since many strategies are oftentrialled simultaneously, it is challenging to monitor and evaluate strategies separately, andtherefore explore the effectiveness of specific strategies. The risk of misleading results ishigh unless monitoring and evaluation are designed to demonstrate impact relative to thecounterfactual (Ferraro 2009), or the expected outcome in the absence of a specificintervention.

Unfortunately, monitoring programs are rare because they are considered too expensive,resource intensive, and demanding of support over long time periods (Keith et al. 2011).Nonetheless, effective monitoring programs will facilitate the evaluation of strategies, reduceuncertainties about responses to management intervention, and inform future managementdecisions (Douvere and Ehler 2011). Evaluation should assess: (1) how the ecosystem orspecies responds to specific strategies by comparing predicted responses (from modelling)with observations from monitoring, (2) the effectiveness of management strategies andwhether they are producing the anticipated results, (3) the cost-effectiveness of the strategies,and (4) the implications of implementing each strategy for different stakeholders (Douvereand Ehler 2011). Somemonitoring frameworks have been developed to evaluate managementstrategies (e.g. Hockings and Stolton 2000 Dobbs et al. 2011) and to guide and evaluateinvestments in climate adaptation (e.g. Wintle et al. 2011). These frameworks deliverevidence-based feedback about what is working or not to inform decision making andresource prioritization and review management strategies. The success of any evaluationprogram can be measured by the extent to which its findings and recommendations bringchanges and improve management programs. Adjustment of management strategies providesa reference against which future management progress can be compared and will reduceuncertainty over time.

3 Implementing the adaptive management cycle

While science will be crucial to inform the adaptive management cycle, engaging stakeholderseffectively will maximise the likelihood of successfully implementing an adaptive manage-ment approach (Holling 1978; Allen et al. 2011). Encouraging a variety of stakeholders towork together can result in collaborative management and a wider range of perspectives beingconsidered, fostering social learning and building social capital (Weiss et al. 2012). This can


create more robust information for the adaptive management framework and reduce uncer-tainties (Huntington 2000; Stringer et al. 2006). For examples on how Traditional EcologicalKnowledge has benefited and informed the management of marine mammals see Huntington(2000). Engagement with diverse groups will also likely accelerate the uptake of scientificknowledge into management decisions, improve public and political acceptance of manage-ment, and encourage individuals and organisations to comply with regulations and adopt newbehaviours (Tribbia and Moser 2008; Fuentes and Cinner 2010). For example, by engagingwith various community groups in Brazil the Brazilian Sea Turtle Conservation Program(TAMAR) has achieved substantial results in the protection of marine turtles. Communitiesnow support the protection rather than the consumption of species (Marcovaldi et al. 2005).Close collaborations between scientists and managers will also ensure that science is groundedappropriately in the needs of managers and policy makers (McNie 2007). However, the activeinvolvement of stakeholders can itself introduce competing interests and new uncertainties(Stringer et al. 2006). Thus, a clear need exists to explore the most effective participatorymechanisms and identify the groups that should be engaged at each step of the adaptivemanagement cycle; this might vary from case to case and depend on the scale and complexityof the application.

4 Conclusions

Managers attempting to address the impacts of climate change on marine mega-fauna facenumerous uncertainties (Lawler et al. 2010). These uncertainties will need to be addressed tosuccessfully manage marine mega-fauna in changing climate. Adaptive management can be animportant tool to assist this. To successfully implement the adaptive management cycle, arepeated sequence of steps is needed. However, as demonstrated by our case studies anddiscussed, to successfully apply the full adaptive management cycle to marine mega-fauna inthe future, managers and researchers need to address several key knowledge gaps. Particularattention is needed to: (1) improve the understanding of the capacity of species to adapt toclimate change to inform the planning step; (2) identify strategies to directly address impacts atsea to inform the designing step; and (3) develop systematic evaluation and monitoringprograms to inform the learning step. It will be crucial, however, for each case to be assessedindividually to identify which knowledge gaps need to be addressed prior to developing andimplementing adaptive management. Similarly, in a case to case basis, it will be necessary toinitially consider whether barriers (e.g. resource constraints, competing priorities, politicalpressures and reluctance to support adaptive management) exist to implementing the adaptivemanagement cycle and to identify ways that these barriers can be overcome. Marine mega-fauna being iconic species may help overcome some of the initial barriers to implement anadaptive management and could be used as flagship species to promote an understanding ofthe impacts of climate change on biodiversity, to build community support for conservationaction, and to provide incentives to support research, conservation, and changes in policy toinform an adaptive management cycle.

Acknowledgments The initial ideas for this paper were discussed during the Systematic management of marinemega-fauna in a changing climate symposium at the 25th International Congress for Conservation Biology inAuckland, New Zealand in 2011. The authors are grateful for comments on a draft manuscript by Sue Moore,Mark Read, and Phil Koloi and for later revisions by Nadine Marshall, Natalie Ban, Marianne Fish and AlistairHobday, all of which improved the manuscript greatly. RLP acknowledge the support of the Australian Research


Council (ARC). MMPBF is grateful for the support from the ARC, Save Our Seas Foundation, and the Ian PotterFoundation.

References

Allen CR, Gunderson LH (2011) Pathology and failure in the design and implementation of adaptive manage-ment. J Environ Manage 92:1379–1384

Allen CR, Fontaine JJ, Pope KL, Garmestani AS (2011) Adaptive management for a turbulent future. J EnvironManage 92:1339–1345

Angélil O, Stone DA, Tadross M et al (2014) Attribution of extreme weather to anthropogenic greenhouse gasemissions: Sensitivity to spatial and temporal scales. Geophys Res Lett 41:2150–2155

Bowen BW, Karl SA (2007) Population genetics and phylogeography of sea turtles. Mol Ecol 16:4886–4907Bulman C, Chiaradia A, Kirkwood R et al (2012) Modelling the marine ecosystem within the foraging zone of

Phillip Island Little Penguins. Report, Phillip Island Nature Parks FellowshipBurek KA, Gulland FMD, O’Hara T (2008) Effects of climate change on artic marine mammal health. Ecol Appl

18:126–134Charmantier A, Gienapp P (2014) Climate change and timing of avian breeding and migration: evolutionary

versus plastic changes. Evol Appl 7:15–28Carrier JC, Musick JA, Heithaus MR (eds) (2004) Biology of sharks and their relatives. CRC Press, Boca RatonChambers LE, Renwick L, Dann P (2009) Climate, fire and Little Penguins. In: Steffen W (ed) Australia’s

Biodiversity and Climate Change. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, AustraliaChambers LE, Devney C, Congdon B et al (2011) Observed and predicted effects of climate on Australian

seabirds. Emu 111:235–251Cheung WWL, Sarmiento JL, Dunne J et al (2013) Shrinking of fishes exacerbates impacts of global ocean

changes on marine ecosystems. Nat Clim Chang 3:254–258Chin A, Kyne PM, Walker TI et al (2010) An integrated risk assessment for climate change: analysing the

vulnerability of sharks and rays on Australia's Great Barrier Reef. Glob Change Biol 16:1936–1953Chin A, White J, Dulvy NK (2012) Aquatic conservation: Environment in Queensland at risk. Nature 90:176Conroy MJ, Runge MC, Nichols JD et al (2011) Conservation in the face of climate change: The roles of

alternative models, monitoring, and adaptation in confronting and reducing uncertainty. Biol Conserv 144:1204–1213

Constable AJ, Melbourne-Thomas J, Corney SP et al (2014) Climate change and Southern Ocean ecosystems I:How changes in physical habitats directly affect marine biota. Glob Change Biol. doi:10.1111/gcb.12623

Cullen JM, Chambers LE, Coutin P et al (2009) Predicting onset and success of breeding in little penguinsEudyptula minor from ocean temperatures. Mar Ecol-Prog Ser 378:269–278

Dann P (1992) Distribution, population trends and factors influencing the population size of little penguinsEudyptula minor on Phillip Island. Victoria Emu 91(5):263–272

Dann P, Chambers LE (2013) Ecological affects of climate change on little penguins Eudyptula minor and thepotential economic impact on tourism. Climate Res 58:67–79

Dawson TP, Jackson ST, House JI et al (2011) Beyond Predictions: Biodiversity Conservation in a ChangingClimate. Science 332:53–58

Day J (2008) The need and practice of monitoring, evaluating and adapting marine planning and management-lessons from the Great Barrier Reef. Mar Policy 32:823–831

Dobbs K, Day J, Skeat H et al (2011) Developing a long-term outlook for the Great Barrier Reef, Australia: Aframework for adaptive management reporting underpinning an ecosystem-based management approach.Mar Policy 35:233–240

Douvere F, Ehler CN (2011) The importance of monitoring and evaluation in adaptive maritime spatial planning.J of Coast Conservat 15:305–311

Drinkwater KF (2006) The regime shift of the 1920s and 1930s in the North Atlantic. Prog Oceanogr 68:134–151Edwards H (2013) Potential impacts of climate change on warmwater megafauna: the Florida manatee example

(Trichechus manatus latirostris). Climatic Change 121:727–738Ferraro PJ (2009) Counterfactual thinking and impact evaluation in environmental policy. NewDir Eval 122:75–84Fordham DA, Akçakaya HR, Araújo MB et al (2013) Tools for integrating range change, extinction risk and

climate change information into conservation management. Ecography 36:956–964Fontaine JJ (2011) Improving our legacy: Incorporation of adaptive management into state wildlife action plans. J

Environ Manage 92:1403–1408


http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12623

Fuentes MMPB, Cinner JE (2010) Using expert opinion to prioritize impacts of climate change on sea turtles’nesting grounds. J Environ Manage 91:2511–2518

Fuentes MMPB, Limpus CJ, Hamann M et al (2010) Potential impacts of projected sea-level rise on sea turtlerookeries. Aquat Conserv 20:132–139

Fuentes MMPB, Limpus CJ, Hamann M (2011) Vulnerability of sea turtle nesting grounds to climate change.Glob Change Biol 17:140–153

Fuentes MMPB, Fish MR, Maynard JA (2012) Management strategies to mitigate the impacts of climate change

on sea turtle’s terrestrial reproductive phase. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 17:51–63Fuentes MMPB, Cleguer C, Liebsch N et al (2013) Adapting dugong catching techniques to different cultural

and environmental settings. Mar Mammal Sci 29:159–166Fulton EA (2011) Interesting times: winners, losers, and system shifts under climate change around Australia.

ICES Mar Sci 68:1329–1342Ganendran L, Sidhu L, Catchpole EA et al (2011) The effect of directional wind components on survival of Little

Penguins Eudyptula minor. ANZIAM 52:1012–1030Gibbs JP, Snell HL, Causton CE (1999) Effective Monitoring for Adaptive Wildlife Management: Lessons from

the Galápagos Islands. J Wildl Manage 63:1055–1065Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (2009) Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2009. Great Barrier Reef

Marine Park Authority. Townsville, AustraliaGremillet D, Boulinier T (2009) Spatial ecology and conservation of seabirds facing global climate change: a

review. Mar Ecol-Prog Ser 391:121–137Groves C, Game E, Anderson M et al (2012) Incorporating climate change into systematic conservation

planning. Biodivers Conserv 21:1651–1671Gunn J,Meere F, Stevens J (eds) (2008) Independent Review proposedManagement Arrangements for Queensland's

East Coast Inshore Fin Fish Fishery. Department of the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, CanberraHailer F, Kutschera VE, Hallström BM et al (2012) Nuclear genomic sequences reveal that polar bears are an old

and distinct bear lineage. Science 336:344–347Hamann M, Fuentes MMPB, Ban N et al (2013) Climate change and marine turtles. In: Wyneken J, Lohmann

KL, Musick JA (eds) The biology of sea turtles. Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Ranton, pp 353–378Hansen L, Hoffman J, Drews C et al (2009) Designing climate-smart conservation: guidance and case studies.

Conserv Biol 24:63–69Hawkes LA, Broderick AC, Godfrey MH et al (2009) Climate change and marine turtles. Endang Species Res J

7:137–154Hazen EL, Jorgensen S, Rykaczewski RR et al (2013) Predicted habitat shifts of Pacific top predators in a

changing climate. Nature Clim Change 3:234–238Heller NE, Zavaleta ES (2009) Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: A review of 22 years of

recommendations. Biol Conserv 142:14–32Heupel MR, Williams AJ, Welch DJ et al (2009) Effects of fishing on tropical reef associated shark populations

on the Great Barrier Reef. Fish Res 95:350–361Hobday AJ (2011) Sliding baselines and shuffling species: implications of climate change for marine conserva-

tion. Mar Ecol 32:392–403Hockings M, Stolton SND (eds) (2000) Evaluation effectiveness: a framework for assessing the management of

protected areas. IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines,Gland, Switzerland/Cambridge

Holbrook N, Johnson J (2014) Climate change impacts and adaptation of commercial marine fisheries inAustralia: a review of the science. Climatic Change 1–13

Holling CS (1978) Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. Wiley, London, UKHuntington HP (2000) Using traditional ecological knowledge in science: methods and applications. Ecol Appl

10:1270–1274Huntington HP (2009) A preliminary assessment of threats to arctic marine mammals and their conservation in

the coming decades. Mar Policy 33:77–82Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2013) The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group

I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UnitedKingdom and New York, USA, p 1535

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014) Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, andVulnerability: Working Group II Contribution to the IPCC 5th Assessment Report. United Kingdom andNew York, USA, Cambridge, p 1535

Isaac JL, Vanderwal J, Johnson CN et al (2009) Resistance and resilience: quantifying relative extinction risk in adiverse assemblage of Australian tropical rainforest vertebrates. Divers Distrib 15:280–288

Jones G (2009) the adaptive management system for the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area – linkingmanagement planning with effectiveness evaluation. In: Allan C, Stankey G (eds) Adaptive environmental


management a practitioner’s guide. Jointly published by Springer with CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood,Australia, p 360

Johnson JE, Marshall PA (eds) (2007) Climate change and the Great Barrier Reef. Great Barrier Reef MarinePark Authority and Australian Greenhouse Office, Townsville, Australia, p817

Jourdan J, Fuentes MMPB (2013) Effectiveness of strategies at reducing sand temperature to mitigate potentialimpacts from changes in environmental temperature on sea turtle reproductive output. Mitig Adapt StrategGlob Change. DOI 10 1007/s11027-013-9482-y

Kearney MR, Wintle BA, Porter WP (2010) Correlative and mechanistic models of species distribution provide

congruent forecasts under climate change. Conserv Lett 3:203–213Keith DA, Martin TG, McDonald-Madden E et al (2011) Uncertainty and adaptive management for biodiversity

conservation. Biol Conserv 144:1175–1178Lawler JJ, Tear TH, Pyke C et al (2010) Resource management in a changing and uncertain climate. Front Ecol

Environ 8:35–43Lescroël A, Ballard G, Grémillet D et al (2014) Antarctic Climate Change: Extreme Events Disrupt Plastic

Phenotypic Response in Adélie Penguins. PLoS ONE 9:e85291Lyons JE, Runge MC, Laskowski HP et al (2008) Monitoring in the context of structured decision-making and

adaptive management. J Wildl Manage 72:1683–1692Madin EMP, Ban NC, Doubleday ZA et al (2012) Socio-economic and management implications of range-

shifting species in marine systems. Global Environ Change 22:137–146Marcovaldi M, Patiri V, Thome J (2005) Projeto tamar-ibama: Twenty-five years protecting Brazilian sea turtles

through a community-based conservation programme. Mast 3:39–62Marsh H, Dennis A, Hines H et al (2007) Optimizing allocation of management resources for wildlife. Conserv

Biol 21:387–399Marsh H, O'Shea TJ, Reynolds JE (2011) Ecology and conservation of the sirena: dugongs and manatees

Cambridge University Press. Cambridge University Press, New YorkMawdsley JR, O’Malley R, Ojima DS (2009) A Review of climate-change adaptation strategies for wildlife

management and biodiversity conservation. Conserv Biol 23:1080–1089McDonald-Madden E, Probert WJM, Hauser CE et al (2010) Active adaptive conservation of threatened species

in the face of uncertainty. Ecol Appl 20:1476–1489McFadden JE, Hiller TL, Tyre AJ (2011) Evaluating the efficacy of adaptive management approaches: Is there a

formula for success? J Environ Manage 92:1354–1359McMahon CR, Hays GC (2006) Thermal niche, large-scale movements and implications of climate change for a

critically endangered marine vertebrate. Glob Change Biol 12:1330–1338McNie EC (2007) Reconciling the supply of and demand for science, with a focus on carbon cycle research.

Environ Sci Policy 10:17–38Meltz R (ed) (2008) Use of the polar bear listing to force reduction of greenhouse gas emissions: The legal

arguments. Congressional Research Service, p 6Moore SE, Huntington HP (2008) Artic marine mammals and climate change: impacts and resilience. Ecol Appl

18:S157–S165Nichols JD, Williams BK (2006) Monitoring for conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 21:668–673Nye JA, Link JS, Hare JA et al (2009) Changing spatial distribution of fish stocks in relation to climate and

population size on the Northeast United States continental shelf. Mar Ecol-Prog Ser 393:111–129Pahl-Wostl C (2007) Transitions towards adaptive management of water facing climate and global change. Water

Resour Manag 21:49–62Peron C, Authier M, Barbraud C et al (2010) Interdecadal changes in at-sea distribution and abundance of

subantarctic seabirds along a latitudinal gradient in the Southern Indian Ocean. Glob Change Biol 16:1895–1909

Peterson G, De Leo GA, Hellmann JJ et al (1997) Uncertainty, Climate Change, and Adaptive Management. EcolSoc 1:4

Pike DA (2014) Forecasting the viability of sea turtle eggs in a warming world. Glob Change Biol 20:7–15Poloczanska ES, Limpus CJ, Hays GC (2009) Vulnerability of marine turtles to climate change. Adv Mar Biol

151–211Povilitis A, Suckling K (2010) Addressing climate change threats to endangered species in US Recovery Plans.

Conserv Biol 24:372–376Purvis A, Gittleman JL, Cowlishaw G et al (2000) Predicting extinction risk in declining species. P Roy Soc

Lond B Bio B 24:1947–1952Redford KH, Taber A (2000) Writing the wrongs: developing a safe-fail culture in conservation. Conserv Biol

14:1567–1568


Robinson LM, Hobday AJ, Possingham HP et al (2014) Trailing edges projected to move faster than leadingedges for large pelagic fish habitats under climate change. Topical Studies in Oceanography, Deep Sea ResPart II. doi:10.1016/j.dsr2.2014.04.007

Saba VS, Stock CA, Spotila JR et al (2012) Projected response of an endangered marine turtle population toclimate change. Nature Clim Change 2:814–820

Schreiber ESG, Bearlin AR, Nicol SJ et al (2004) Adaptive management: a synthesis of current understandingand effective application. Ecol Manag Restoration 5:177–182

Schumann N, Gales NJ, Harcourt RG et al (2013) Impacts of climate change on Australian marine mammals.Aust J Zool 61:146–159

Sequeira AMM, Mellin C, Fordham DA et al (2014) Predicting current and future global distributions of whalesharks. Glob Change Biol 20:778–789

Sgrò CM, Lowe AJ, Hoffmann AA (2011) Building evolutionary resilience for conserving biodiversity underclimate change. Evol Applications 4:326–337

Sidhu LA, Dann P, Chambers LE et al (2012) The effects of seasonal ocean temperatures in south-easternAustralia on the survival of first-year little penguins Eudyptula minor. Mar Ecol-Prog Ser 454:263–272

Simmonds MP, Isaac SJ (2007) The impacts of climate change on marine mammals: early signs of significantproblems. Oryx 41:19–26

Stringer LC, Dougill AJ, Fraser E et al (2006) Unpacking Participation in the Adaptive Management of Social–ecological Systems: a Critical Review. Ecol and Soc 11:39

Sun C, Feng M, Matear RJ et al (2012) Marine downscaling of a future climate scenario for Australian boundarycurrents. J Climate 25:2947–2962

Tobin AJ, Simpendorfer CA, Mapleston A et al (2010) A quantitative ecological risk assessment of sharks andfinfish of Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area inshore waters: A tool for fisheries and marine parkmanagers: Identifying species at risk and potential mitigation strategies. Marine and Tropical SciencesResearch. Facility, Cairns

Tribbia J, Moser SC (2008) More than information: what coastal managers need to plan for climate change.Environ Sci Policy 11:315–328

Van Dao H, Maher L, Bigger SW et al (2006) Removal of petroleum tar from bird feathers utilizing magneticparticles. Environ Chem Lett 4:111–113

Van Houtan KS, Halley JM (2011) Long-term climate forcing in loggerhead sea turtle nesting. Plos One 6:e19043

Walters CJ, Hilborn R (1978) Ecological optimization and adaptive management. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 9:157–188

Weishampel JF, Bagley DA, Ehrhart LM (2004) Earlier nesting by loggerhead sea turtles following sea surfacewarming. Glob Change Biol 10:1425–1428

Weiss K, Hamann M, Kinney M et al (2012) Knowledge exchange and policy influence in a marine resourcegovernance network. Global Environ Chang 22:178–188

Welch DJ, Johnson JE (2013) Assessing the vulnerability of Torres Strait fisheries and supporting habitats toclimate change. Report to the Australian Fisheries Management Authority. C2O Fisheries, Australia, p 114

West J, Julius S, Kareiva P (2009) U S natural resources and climate change: concepts and approaches formanagement adaptation. Environ Manage 44:1001–1021

Westgate MJ, Likens GE, Lindenmayer DB (2013) Adaptive management of biological systems: A review. BiolConserv 158:128–139

Williams BK (2011a) Passive and active adaptive management: Approaches and an example. J Environ Manage92:1371–1378

Williams BK (2011b) Adaptive management of natural resources—framework and issues. J Environ Manage 92:1346–1353

Willis-Norton E, Hazen EL, Fossette S et al. (2014) Climate change impacts on leatherback turtle pelagic habitatin the Southeast Pacific. Deep Sea Res Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography. DOI:org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2013.12.019i

Wilson C, Tisdell C (2001) Sea turtles as a non-consumptive tourism resource especially in Australia. TourManag 22:279–288

Wintle BA, Bekessy SA, Keith DA et al (2011) Ecological-economic optimization of biodiversity conservationunder climate change. Nature Clim Change 1:355–359

Würsig B, Reeves RR, Ortega-Ortiz JG (2002) Global climate change and marine mammals. In: Evans PGH,Raga JA (eds) Biology and Conservation. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York USA

Wynn R, Josey S, Martin A et al (2007) Climate-driven range expansion of a critically endangered top predator innortheast Atlantic waters. Biol Lett 3:529–532

Žydelis R, Wallace BP, Gilman EL et al (2009) Conservation of marine megafauna through minimization offisheries bycatch. Conserv Biol 23:608–616


http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2014.04.007

Adaptive management of marine mega-fauna in a changing climate

Documents