Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41635812›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2026

Causal modelling of climate-fish-fisheries: confronting models with data.

Benjamin Planque, Etienne Hamard, Lucie Buttay

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Benjamin PlanqueEcosystem Processes, Institute of Marine Research, Tromsø, Norway.
Etienne HamardEcosystem Processes, Institute of Marine Research, Tromsø, Norway.
Lucie ButtayFaculty of Biosciences, Fisheries and Economics, UiT the Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-9360-7626

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Understanding the interplay of environmental and anthropogenic drivers is essential to interpret past changes and anticipate future dynamics of marine fish stocks. Using Norwegian spring-spawning herring (NSSH) as a case study, we applied an iterative structured causal modelling framework combining causal knowledge analysis and inference-using structural equation models-to quantify the respective effects of climate and fisheries on stock biomass and catches. Initial simple models, grounded in prior ecological understanding, yielded implausible estimates when confronted with observational data, underscoring the necessity to treat data structure and content as integral to model design. We gradually incorporated multiple causal pathways, feedback loops, and confounders. Final models explained over 90% of observed variation in both biomass and catch and showed strong support for the roles of recruitment, prior biomass, and total allowable catch (TAC) advice. We found no causal effect of ocean climate variables (Relative Heat Content and Arctic Water Content) on year-to-year changes in NSSH biomass, nor of Spawning Stock Biomass on catches. Instead, catch levels were primarily governed by TAC advice and the degree of agreement between fishing nations. We conclude that reliable causal inference in ecological systems requires iterative model refinement, causal knowledge analysis, and explicit accounting for data structure. Adopting and transparently reporting this approach would benefit ecological studies used to support fisheries management.

Indexed as

ClimateFisheriesFishesModels, TheoreticalAnimalsBiomassNorwayFisheries managementIterative model buildingNorwegian SeaNorwegian spring spawning herringOcean climateStructural causal models

Identifiers

PMID41635812
PMCPMC12863149

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.