Although measures restoring commercial fish biomass could yield carbon benefits comparable to mangrove restoration 🌳, significant knowledge gaps and uncertainties remain and prevent their inclusion in the nature-based climate solution portfolio! ❌⛔
8/9

🎣 Fishing has already reduced commercial fish carbon export by 47% compared to the 1950s. Every 1% decline in biomass due to fishing will decrease fish carbon export by 0.8%! Again, size matters as size-related (📏) mechanisms linked to fish metabolism are at work!
5/9

With every degree of warming, commercial fish biomass and carbon export will decrease by 4.2% and 2.5%, respectively. This shows that mechanisms related to fish size (📏) and temperature (🌡️) are at work, partly offsetting the direct impact of a decrease in biomass ⚖️!
4/9

🌡️🌍 Climate change is projected to decrease fish carbon export by 4% under SSP 1–2.6, and 13.5% under SSP 5-8.5 by 2100, relative to the 1990s 📉.
3/9

🚨🎉 Check out our new paper assessing the impacts of fishing (🎣) and climate change (🌡️) on carbon export and sequestration by commercial fish! 🐟
🔗 rdcu.be/eMTU6
🔽 Here are some key results! 🔽

@oceanicu.bsky.social
@natcomms.nature.com
🌐🦑🦈🌊

1/9

📚 New paper alert! 📚 We know the ocean is a powerhouse for carbon sequestration, absorbing over 30% of the carbon emitted into the atmosphere! But what exactly do we know about the role fish🐟 and marine mammals 🐳 play in carbon sequestration? Find out more: doi.org/10.1029/2024...
1/3

Only 1% of COCA overlap both fishery types, suggesting that targeted adjustments in fishing practices could mitigate conflicts 👍.
7/8

COCA-BT cover 3.7% of the ocean but are located where 56.4% of trawling catches occur.
This highlights the need to better understand the impact of BT fisheries on seabed carbon stocks to reduce conflict between existing fisheries and future measures aiming to protect carbon in the seabed.
6/8

COCA-P cover 11.2% of the ocean, of which 60% are located in the high seas 🌊.
This suggests that fishes in the high seas highly contribute to carbon sequestration, highlighting the urgent need to assess the impact of high seas fisheries on carbon sequestration!
4/8

These potentially Conflicting Oceanic Carbon Areas (COCA) were identified with pelagic and bottom trawling fisheries separately.
2/8

However, #NCS may conflict with certain #SDG targets (e.g., economic growth, poverty reduction, and food security). Our findings suggest the need for careful planning and balancing of #NCS implementation across ecosystems to optimize benefits and minimize negative impacts.
3/4

We found that #NCS implementation can promote the achievement of #SDG targets. We also found complementarity among terrestrial, coastal, and potential marine #NCS to achieve multiple #SDG targets.
2/4