Climate, environment and AIS fishing effort

Species distributions, marine heatwaves and a climate-fisheries vulnerability index in northern Spain (GSA 6) and the Adriatic (GSAs 17-18)

climate-env-ais working group

21 October 2026

How we worked

1 · Working group
Scientists around a table
The whole group or subgroups design and run the analyses together
➜
2 · Google Drive
Shared analyses
Scripts, data and figures are shared as they are produced
➜
3 · Curation
Read, clean, organise
Théophile and Claude review the Drive, fix paths and code, reproduce results
➜
4 · GitHub
Commit and push
Every change is versioned in one repository
➜
5 · Quarto report
Reproducible report
Methods, results and discussion points; archives all the analyses
➜
6 · Quarto slides
This presentation
Reads the report's figures and numbers, so it updates with it
➜
7 · Online
Published
Report, slides and code on GitHub Pages
Discussion points go back to the group for the next round of analyses
All analyses are saved, archived, organised, committed, pushed and published online.

The study in one picture

Climate & environment Bottom temperature, depth Marine heatwaves (sea surface) Copernicus Marine Red mullet Biomass in bottom-trawl surveys Species distribution models MEDITS survey Trawling Fishing hours of trawlers, where and how much Global Fishing Watch (AIS) Q1 · What drives where red mullet lives? Q2 · Do heatwaves change its biomass? Q3 · Do trawlers respond to heatwaves? Where do trawling and red mullet overlap?

Northern Spain (GSA 6) and the Adriatic (GSAs 17-18), 2012-2021. Red mullet (Mullus barbatus) is a key target of Mediterranean bottom trawlers.

Data

  • MEDITS bottom-trawl survey, 2012-2021: abundance per species and haul
  • Copernicus Marine reanalyses at each haul: bottom temperature, salinity, chlorophyll
  • GFW AIS apparent fishing hours, trawlers, yearly 0.1° cells, pulled with gfwr
  • Focus on GSA 6 (Spanish Mediterranean) and the Adriatic (GSAs 17-18)

12,368 hauls in 18 GSAs; 959 in GSA 6 (gold). Hover over a haul for its details; scroll to zoom.

Q1 · What drives where red mullet lives?

Question
How do depth and bottom temperature shape red mullet biomass in the two areas?

Approach
Spatio-temporal species distribution model (sdmTMB) of survey biomass, 2014-2021, in each area

Result
Biomass falls steeply with depth and rises with bottom temperature: +17% per °C in the Adriatic. In GSA 6 the temperature effect is uncertain, as surveys there cover a narrow range of temperatures.

Predicted biomass relative to each area’s mean bottom temperature, at constant depth, with 95% confidence bands.

Q2 · Do heatwaves change red mullet biomass?

Question
Is red mullet biomass lower in summers with strong marine heatwaves?

Approach
Annual biomass index from the model, compared with summer heatwave intensity, 2014-2021

Result
In the Adriatic, biomass drops in the two strongest heatwave summers (2015, 2018) and recovers the next year; in GSA 6 it does not (ρ = 0.53). A hypothesis to test, not yet a result.

Standardised annual series. Shaded: the three strongest heatwave summers of each area.

Q3 · Do trawlers respond to heatwaves?

Question
Do trawlers fish more, less or elsewhere in strong heatwave summers?

Approach
Daily trawler effort (GFW) in 3 strong vs 3 weak heatwave summers since 2015, in each area

Result
No change: same total effort (+1.9% in GSA 6, -1.3% in the Adriatic) and same grounds. An earlier apparent increase came from AIS coverage growing in 2012-2014.

Core fishing grounds (80% of hours): blue-grey in both types of summer; red strong only; dark blue weak only.

Take-home

Main results

  • Depth and bottom temperature structure red mullet biomass; warmer bottoms hold more fish within the sampled range
  • Adriatic biomass dips in strong heatwave summers; GSA 6 does not
  • Trawlers do not change effort or grounds in heatwave summers

Limits

  • Eight years per area; heatwaves defined from sea surface temperature
  • AIS coverage grew until 2015: trends before then are partly artefacts
  • Model predictions, not observations, underlie the trends

Discussion points

  • Heatwaves may change red mullet availability to the survey rather than its abundance
  • Are bottom temperature anomalies a better heat signal than surface heatwaves?

Ways forward

  • Heatwave intensity as a covariate of the model, fitted to the hauls
  • Effort on heatwave days vs other days, from daily AIS data
  • Uncertainty of the biomass index; extend to more areas

Slides, report and code

All GFW data via gfwr; MEDITS from JRC; environment from Copernicus Marine. Figures and numbers from the report rendered 22 Oct 2026, 11:34.

Supplementary

Detailed results by section of the report, then model diagnostics

Total fish abundance: species distribution model

  • Gaussian GAM on log total fish abundance, GSA 6, n = 916 hauls
  • Bottom temperature carries most of the signal; fishing hours only marginal (p = 0.06)
  • About 21% of deviance explained
  • SST smooth already shrunk to zero by select = TRUE

Predicted abundance 2012-2021: median +45% per cell (23% of cells decline), partly reflecting near-zero AIS effort in 2012.

Red mullet: species distribution model

Mullus barbatus (MULLBAR), the group’s focal species

  • Zeros kept: caught in 634 of 959 GSA 6 hauls (66%)
  • Tweedie GAM (log link): handles zeros and skewed catches, predicts N/km² directly
  • Depth added: deviance explained 20% → 51%, AIC −511
  • Density high to ~200 m, then falls steeply; ↑ with bottom temperature, ↓ with chlorophyll

The fishing-hours smooth peaks at zero effort: likely confounding (trawlers target mullet grounds), so treated as a nuisance covariate.

Red mullet: habitat change 2015-2021

June predictions on the Copernicus hindcast grid, within the sampled depth range; change computed after the AIS ramp-up

−12% median change per cell with effort held constant (−12% with the full model)

92% of 416 cells decline with effort held constant (range −77% to +16%)

Mean bottom temperature is similar in 2015 and 2021, so the decline is not simply warming. Driver not yet identified.

Red mullet in two areas: spatio-temporal model

GSA 6 and the Adriatic (GSAs 17-18), 2014-2021 · report Section 2c

Spatio-temporal model: data and structure

  • Biomass (kg/km²), MEDITS 2014-2021: 617 hauls in GSA 6, 1,631 in the Adriatic
  • sdmTMB, Tweedie, fitted separately in each area:

log(biomass) = bottom temp. + depth + ω (spatial) + ε (AR(1) by year)

  • Both models converge; observed vs fitted r = 0.90 (GSA 6) and 0.88 (Adriatic)
GSA 6 GSAs 17-18
Per +100 m depth −94% −68%
Per +1 °C bottom temp. +18% +17%
Largest |ε| 0.7 2.9

Bottom temperature: two areas compared

+17% biomass per +1 °C in the Adriatic (95% CI +14% to +21%)

+18% per +1 °C in GSA 6 (95% CI −4% to +45%): not significant

Discussion point: GSA 6 hauls span a narrow range of bottom temperatures, so the effect is poorly constrained there and depth dominates.

Biomass index

−3% GSA 6, 2015 → 2021 (Tweedie GAM: −12% in density)

77% to 146% The Adriatic index fluctuates more, between 77% and 146% of its 2014-2021 mean

Discussion point: each area peaks in its least-sampled year (GSA 6 2020: 39 hauls; Adriatic 2017: 61). Needs index standard errors.

Habitat suitability index (HSI)

Fixed effects (depth + bottom temperature) rescaled to 0-1 within each area. Highest on the shallow inner shelf; in the Adriatic, the northern basin scores high almost everywhere.

Change in habitat suitability, 2014 to 2021

  • GSA 6: median +0.1%, almost no change
  • Adriatic: median −1.8%; 63% of cells lose suitability, mainly the northern basin

Discussion point: the % change explodes where HSI ≈ 0 (up to +217% in one GSA 6 cell): prefer the HSI difference or a 2014-2021 trend.

Overlap between red mullet and trawling

Local correlation between red mullet and GFW trawling effort, by year

  • Red: trawling concentrated where red mullet is abundant
  • GSA 6: mostly negative, positive patches on the outer shelf
  • Adriatic: a positive band through the north-western and central basin every year

Discussion point: correlations near ±1 are common in small windows: add a significance test or a whole-area overlap measure.

Marine heatwaves in the two areas

Summer heatwaves (Hobday et al. 2016) computed on the prediction grid of each area

  • GSA 6 strongest summers: 2017, 2018, 2020
  • Adriatic strongest summers: 2015, 2018, 2019

Discussion point: the two areas do not share their heatwave years (2020: strong in GSA 6, almost none in the Adriatic), so comparisons need area-specific years.

Trawling in strong and weak heatwave summers

  • Daily GFW trawler effort, June-August, 3 strong vs 3 weak summers, from 2015
  • Total hours: +1.9% in GSA 6, -1.3% in the Adriatic, within year-to-year noise

Do the fleets fish the same grounds?

Core grounds (cells with 80% of hours): blue-grey in both types of summer, red strong only, dark blue weak only.

GSA 6 Adriatic
Overlap D, strong vs weak 0.72 0.72
Overlap D, same type 0.71, 0.7 0.71, 0.72
Centre shift 1.4 km 3.9 km
Effort on red mullet hotspots 13% / 14% 23% / 20%

Same grounds in strong and weak heatwave summers: overlap as high as between two summers of the same type (D: 1 = identical effort distribution).

Heatwaves and red mullet biomass across years

Adriatic: biomass drops in the two strongest heatwave summers (2015, 2018), recovers the year after; overall ρ = -0.14

GSA 6: the opposite, its strongest heatwave summers are among its higher-biomass years (ρ = 0.53)

Discussion point: eight years per area, two areas in opposite directions: a hypothesis to test, not a result.

Heatwaves and red mullet biomass within years

Year-specific deviation of predicted biomass (ε) in each cell, against heatwaves and trawling, with depth, latitude and year in the model

  • GSA 6: small effects
  • Adriatic: not monotonic, a dip at moderate heat, higher biomass in the hottest cells
  • No trawling effect in either area
  • Does not reproduce the annual dips

Marine heatwaves and fleet behaviour

  • Hobday et al. (2016) detection with heatwaveR, summer events only
  • Strongest summers: 2017 (46.6 °C·days), 2020, 2018; none in 2014 and 2016

56% of cells show more trawling in heatwave summers, but non-heatwave years include low-AIS 2013-2014. Contrast 2016 vs 2017 instead.

Climate-fisheries vulnerability index

Mean of three 0-1 scores: heatwave exposure + habitat loss + fishing pressure

  • Hotspots off Cap de Creus-Roses and nearshore off the Ebro and Valencia
  • Exposure from 2021 only: 71% of cells score exactly 0
  • Pressure very skewed: median score 0.08

Better: 2015-2021 mean exposure, log effort, test the weights

AIS coverage changes over time

49% → 98% hauls with matched AIS effort, 2012 → 2021

64 → 835 h mean effort at matched hauls, 2012 → 2015

The 2012-2014 rise reflects AIS adoption, not more fishing. Comparisons spanning these years partly measure AIS uptake: start in 2015 or use effort per vessel.

Collinearity among predictors

Total fish model: bottom salinity dropped (VIF 3.1; r = 0.79 with depth)

Red mullet model: all VIF ≤ 1.9

Residual diagnostics

Total fish (Gaussian, standardised residuals)

k-index ≈ 1 for all terms (all p ≥ 0.20)

Red mullet (Tweedie, simulated quantile residuals)

Good overall fit; zero-catch hauls often predicted at several hundred N/km²

Red mullet and depth

Occurrence and mean density by haul depth, GSA 6 MEDITS hauls 2012-2021