Hudson Bay
Click here to choose an LME

×
← go back to the LME Portal

LME 63: Hudson Bay

Bordering country:

Canada

LME total area:

1,247,246 km²

LME overall risk:

This LME falls in the cluster of LMEs that exhibit high percentages of rural coastal population, high numbers of collapsed and overexploited fish stocks, as well as high proportions of catch from bottom impacting gear.
Based on a combined measure of the Human Development Index and the averaged indicators for fish & fisheries and pollution & ecosystem health modules, the overall risk factor is low.

Productivity

Chlorophyll-A:

The annual Chlorophyll a concentration (CHL) cycle has a maximum peak (1.89 mg.m^-3) in November and a minimum (0.331 mg.m^-3) during March. The average CHL is 0.701 mg.m^-3. Maximum primary productivity (256 g.C.m^-2.y^-1) occurred during 1998 and minimum primary productivity (209 g.C.m^-2.y^-1) during 2004. There is a statistically insignificant increasing trend in Chlorophyll of 14.1 % from 2003 through 2013. The average primary productivity is 233 g.C.m^-2.y^-1, which places this LME in Group 3 of 5 categories (with 1 = lowest and 5= highest).

Primary productivity:

Sea Surface Temperature:

From 1957 to 2012, the Hudson Bay Complex LME #63 has warmed by 0.60°C, thus belonging to Category 3 (moderate warming LME). The Hudson Bay warming was steady. The all-time minimum of -0.3°C was attained in 1972, in the end of a long-term cooling epoch. The post-1972 long-term warming resulted in SST increase of >1°C over the next 20 years. The long-term 1957-2012 warming was 0.60°C. The all-time maximum of nearly 1.2°C in 1999 was an isolated event. The recent long-term decrease of river freshwater discharge into Hudson Bay caused salinization of the upper ocean (Déry et al., 2005), so that there are two modern trends – warming and salinization – that have opposite effects on water density, which decreases with rising temperature and increases with rising salinity. Circulation in Hudson Bay flushes melt water out of the Bay into Hudson Strait and eventually onto the Newfoundland Shelf (LME #9). Therefore, the continuing warming of the Hudson Bay is bound to affect the Newfoundland Shelf.

Fish and Fisheries

The Hudson Bay Complex LME supports around 60 species of fish, consisting of a mix of Arctic marine, estuarine and freshwater species. This shallow LME lacks the deep water species that inhabit the Hudson Strait. Cree and Inuit fishers catch most fish from estuarine or coastal waters during the open water season. Fishing is mainly for food, and as a traditional social and cultural activity. Exploited species include anadromous cisco, whitefish, longnose sucker, brook trout, capelin, cod, sculpin and blue mussels (Mytilus edulis). Of importance in this LME are largely unreported subsistence fisheries of the local Inuit and Indian populations. Twenty-one communities situated in Hudson Bay make use of its resources, and the human population of these communities has grown from approximately 4,000 in 1950 to over 19,000 in 2001. Catches mainly consist of Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus) and cod (Gadidae), although some other species are also taken, notably Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and fourhorn sculpin (Triglopsis quadricornis).

Annual catch:

Estimated subsistence catches in 1950 were approximately 2,920 t, and peaked in 1962 at 4,922 t before declining to approximately 1,000 t by the early 2000s. A large part of the decline over the last few decades is attributed to the fact that the snowmobile has replaced the dog sled as the major form of transportation, thus reducing the need for marine fish as dog food.

Catch value:

Marine Trophic Index and Fishing-in-Balance index:

The catch data from this LME are too crude for ecosystem indicators such as PPR, MTI or FiB index to be computed.

Stock status:

Catch from bottom impacting gear:

The percentage of catch from the bottom gear type to the total catch reached its first peak at 19% in 1999. This percentage ranged between 2 and 17% in the recent decade.

Fishing effort:

The whole time series of effort data in the LME region is incomplete.

Primary Production Required:

Catch potential projections (under global warming):

Pollution and Ecosystem Health

Pollution

Nutrient ratio, Nitrogen load and Merged Indicator:

Human activities in watersheds are affecting nutrients transported by rivers into LMEs. Large amounts of nutrients (in particular nitrogen load) entering coastal waters of LMEs can result in high biomass algal blooms, leading to hypoxic or anoxic conditions, increased turbidity and changes in community composition, among other effects. In addition, changes in the ratio of nutrients entering LMEs can result in dominance by algal species that have deleterious effects (toxic, clog gills of shellfish, etc.) on ecosystems and humans.
An overall nutrient indicator (Merged Nutrient Indicator) based on 2 sub-indicators: Nitrogen Load and Nutrient Ratio (ratio of dissolved Silica to Nitrogen or Phosphorus - the Index of Coastal Eutrophication Potential or ICEP) was calculated.

Nitrogen load:

The Nitrogen Load risk level for contemporary (2000) conditions was low (level 2 of the five risk categories, where 1 = lowest risk; 5 = highest risk). Based on a “current trends” scenario (Global Orchestration), this remained the same in 2030 and 2050.

Nutrient ratio:

The Nutrient Ratio (ICEP) risk level for contemporary (2000) conditions was moderate (3). According to the Global Orchestration scenario, this remained the same in 2030 and 2050.

Merged nutrient indicator:

The risk level for the Merged Nutrient Indicator for contemporary (2000) conditions was low (2). According to the Global Orchestration scenario, this remained the same in 2030 and 2050.

POPs:

No pellet samples were obtained from this LME.

Plastic debris:

Modelled estimates of floating plastic abundance (items km^-2), for both micro-plastic (<4.75 mm) and macro-plastic (>4.75 mm), indicate that this LME is in the group with the lowest plastic concentration. Estimates are based on three proxy sources of litter: shipping density, coastal population density and the level of urbanisation within major watersheds, with enhanced run-off. The low values are due to the remoteness of this LME from significant sources of plastic. The abundance of floating plastic in this category is estimated to be over 400 times lower than those LMEs with the highest values. There is very limited evidence from sea-based direct observations and towed nets to support this conclusion.

Ecosystem Health

Mangrove and coral cover:

Not applicable

Reefs at risk:

Not applicable

Marine Protected Area change:

The Hudson Bay Complex LME experienced an increase in MPA coverage from 3,802 km² prior to 1983 to 8,499 km² by 2014. This represents an increase of 124%, within the low category of MPA change.

Cumulative Human Impact:

The Hudson Bay Complex LME experiences below average overall cumulative human impact (score 2.32; maximum LME score 5.22), but which is still well above the LME with the least cumulative impact. It falls in risk category 1 of the five risk categories (1 = lowest risk; 5 = highest risk). This LME is most vulnerable to climate change. Of the 19 individual stressors, all four connected to climate change have the highest average impact on the LME: ocean acidification (0.32; maximum in other LMEs was 1.20), UV radiation 0.58; maximum in other LMEs was 0.76), sea level rise (0.27; maximum in other LMEs was 0.71), and sea surface temperature (1.08; maximum in other LMEs was 2.16). No other stressors had high impact on this LME.

Ocean Health Index:

The Hudson Bay Complex LME scores above average on the Ocean Health Index compared to other LMEs (score 71 out of 100; range for other LMEs was 57 to 82), but still relatively low. This score indicates that the LME is well below its optimal level of ocean health, although there are some aspects that are doing well. Its score in 2013 increased 2 points compared to the previous year, due in large part to changes in the score for clean waters. This LME scores lowest on carbon storage, tourism & recreation, and lasting special places goals and highest on mariculture, artisanal fishing opportunities, coastal protection, coastal economies, and biodiversity goals. It falls in risk category 3 of the five risk categories, which is an average level of risk (1 = lowest risk; 5 = highest risk).

Socio-economics

Indicators of demographic trends, economic dependence on ecosystem services, human wellbeing and vulnerability to present-day extreme climate events and projected sea level rise, are assessed for this LME. To compare and rank LMEs, they were classified into five categories of risk (from 1 to 5, corresponding to lowest, low, medium, high and highest risk, respectively) based on the values of the individual indicators. In the case of economic revenues, the LMEs were grouped to 5 classes of revenues from lowest, low, medium, high and highest, as revenues did not translate to risk.

Population:

The coastal area stretches over 938 411 km². A current population of 44 thousand in 2010 is projected to decrease to 21 thousand in 2100, with a density of 5 persons per 100 km² in 2010 decreasing to 2 per 100 km² by 2100. About 99% of coastal population lives in rural areas, and is projected to be the same in share in 2100.

Coastal poor:

The indigent population makes up 12% of the LME’s coastal dwellers. This LME places in the low-risk category based on percentage and in the very low-risk category using absolute number of coastal poor (present day estimate).

Revenues and Spatial Wealth Distribution:

Fishing and tourism depend on ecosystem services provided by LMEs. This LME ranks in the very low-revenue category in fishing revenues based on yearly average total ex-vessel price of US 2013 $2.20 million for the period 2001-2010. Fish protein accounts for 10% of the total animal protein consumption of the coastal population. Its yearly average tourism revenue for 2004-2013 of US 2013 $19 522 million places it in the medium-revenue category. On average, LME-based tourism income contributes 5% to the national GDPs of the LME coastal states. Spatial distribution of economic activity (e.g. spatial wealth distribution) measured by night-light and population distribution as coarse proxies can range from 0.0000 (totally equal distribution and lowest risk) to 1.0000 (concentrated in 1 place and most inequitable and highest risk). The Night Light Development Index (NLDI) thus indicates the level of spatial economic development, and that for this LME falls in the category with low risk.

Human Development Index:

Using the Human Development Index (HDI) that integrates measures of health, education and income, the present-day LME HDI belongs to the very high HDI and very low-risk category. Based on an HDI of 0.899, this LME has an HDI Gap of 0.101, the difference between present and highest possible HDI (1.000). The HDI Gap measures an overall vulnerability to external events such as disease or extreme climate related events, due to less than perfect health, education, and income levels, and is independent of the harshness of and exposure to specific external shocks.
HDI values are projected to the year 2100 in the contexts of shared socioeconomic development pathways (SSPs). This LME is projected to assume a place in the very low risk category (very high HDI) in 2100 under a sustainable development pathway. Under a fragmented world scenario, the LME is estimated to place in a low-risk category (high HDI) because of reduced income levels and population values from those in a sustainable development pathway.

Climate-Related Threat Indices:

The Climate-Related Threat Indices utilize the HDI Gaps for present-day and projected 2100 scenarios. The contemporary climate index accounts for deaths and property losses due to storms, flooding and extreme temperatures incurred by coastal states during a 20-year period from 1994 to 2013 as hazard measures, the 2010 coastal population as proxy for exposure, and the present day HDI Gap as vulnerability measure.
The Contemporary Threat Index incorporates a Dependence Factor based on the fish protein contribution to dietary animal protein, and on the mean contribution of LME tourism to the national GDPs of LME coastal states. The HDI Gap and the degree of dependence on LME ecosystem services define the vulnerability of a coastal population. It also includes the average of risk related to extreme climate events, and the risk based on the degrading system states of an LME (e.g. overexploited fisheries, pollution levels, decrease in coastal ecosystem areas).
The 2100 sea level rise threat indices, each computed for the sustainable world and fragmented world development pathways, use the maximum projected sea level rise at the highest level of warming of 8.5 W/m² in 2100 as hazard measure, development pathway-specific 2100 populations in the 10 m × 10 km coast as exposure metrics, and development pathway-specific 2100 HDI Gaps as vulnerability estimates.
Present day climate threat index of this LME is within the very low-risk (very low threat) category. The combined contemporaneous risk due to extreme climate events, degrading LME states and the level of vulnerability of the coastal population, is very low. In a sustainable development scenario, the risk index from sea level rise in 2100 is very low, and remains the same even under a fragmented world development pathway.