More biodiversity = climate resilience.Where marine biodiversity thrives, less fish feeds more people 

In regions with a greater array of fish species, not only are fish are more nutritious, they’re also more resilient to climate change.

By Emma Bryce

June 13, 2025

Anthropocene

Protecting fish biodiversity is a win-win solution for human nutrition and sustainable fisheries, finds a new study. The research, published in Nature Sustainability, unearthed some interesting findings including that biodiverse fisheries tend to contain smaller, more nutrient-dense fish that are also more resilient to fishing pressures and climate change. 

“More biodiversity means more opportunities to make better decisions for nutrition and ecosystems,” says the paper’s lead author Sebastian Heilpern, a postdoctoral fellow in the College of Veterinary Medicine at Cornell University, and lead author on the new research.

In their paper, Heilpern and colleagues set out to map the diversity and nutritional makeup of thousands of fish species worldwide. They looked at the fish species in over 290 countries and territories. Their search included sharks and rays and incorporated 30,000 fish species overall. Then they looked at the levels of protein, fatty acids, calcium, iron and zinc provided by each one, and ranked fish accordingly for their nutritional value.

From this data, an interesting picture of fish diversity and its benefits began to emerge. Firstly, it revealed that in regions with a greater array of fish species, it is possible to meet the recommended dietary allowance with less fish. Put another way, “biodiversity reduces the harvest intensity required” to provide essential nutrients, the paper explains. Furthermore, greater biodiversity creates greater ‘nutritional redundancy’ among fish, meaning that there aren’t just one or two but several highly-nutritious species, so these fish could be interchanged with one another to get the same nutritional benefit. 

Recommended Reading:

Do wild fish belong to the public? Or are they there for private profit?

In a striking example, the researchers compare the species-rich waters of the Micronesian island of Kiribati, to the less productive seas around Iceland. In Kiribati, the category of ‘most nutritious fish’ includes 30 species, while in Iceland it includes just 13. Also, in Kiribati fisheries could provide 50% of the total recommended dietary allowance with just 128 grams of fish per day, whereas in Iceland more than triple that amount would be needed to meet the same nutritional target. 

There are also clear sustainability benefits threaded through this nutritional reality. If less fish is needed in terms of biomass to reach nutritional outcomes, that can take pressure off wild stocks. Similarly, being able to draw from a wider pool of high-quality species to meet nutritional demands could ease fishing pressure on one or two species, and reduce the risk of overfishing, the study says. 

Finally, the paper revealed another feature that shows how intertwined nutrition and sustainability are with biodiversity. As the researchers found, in more biodiverse regions, nutritional needs can be met with less fish, in part because these regions contain more individual species of highly-nutritious fish. What they also discovered is that those species tend to be smaller (which explains the lower biomass needed to reach nutritional targets), faster-growing, and better able to survive in a wide range of temperatures. 

In other words, the most nutritionally-beneficial fish are likely to also be more resilient to fishing and climate pressures.

Protecting and restoring biodiversity, therefore, is a linchpin of nutrition and sustainability, the study finds. These results are important especially for highly-biodiverse regions, says Heilpern. “It turns out that people in places that have higher biodiversity are also more reliant on fisheries. So the opportunities afforded by biodiversity are highest where they are most needed.”

Going forward, Heilpern says he hopes that the concept of “many species of small fish” will become a guiding principle in food security and conservation policies, because biodiversity is deeply intertwined with our nutritional future. “Food systems are changing biodiversity, but also…biodiversity is a central ingredient for healthy and sustainable food systems,” he says. 

Heilpern et. al. “Leveraging biodiversity to maximize nutrition and resilience of global fisheries.” Nature Sustainability. 2025.

Abstract

Wild fish harvests from freshwaters and oceans per person on Earth have been stagnating for decades due to increased food demand from a burgeoning global human population, raising the stakes for maximizing the nutritional benefits from limited fish stocks. Here we adopt an allocation optimization approach using biogeographic and nutrient data for the world’s fishes to identify ideal portfolios of species for consumption in every country. We find that, across nations, biodiversity increases opportunities to fulfil multiple nutritional requirements with less fish biomass. This advantage emerges through complementarity among species; portfolios of complementary species provide >60% more nutrients than the same biomass of the most nutrient-rich species. Moreover, biodiverse fisheries enable harvest allocation towards species with traits enhancing fishery resilience (for example, small size, low trophic position) and offer greater redundancy, whereby a wider range of comparably nutritious species is available. Our analysis underscores that conserving fish biodiversity can improve nutrition and fishery resilience while reducing harvest pressure on already-stressed aquatic ecosystems.

1. Foley, J. A. et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478, 337–342 (2011).Article CAS Google Scholar 
2. Godfray, H. C. J. et al. Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327, 812–818 (2010).Article CAS Google Scholar 
3. van der Plas, F. et al. Jack-of-all-trades effects drive biodiversity–ecosystem multifunctionality relationships in European forests. Nat. Commun. 7, 11109 (2016).Article Google Scholar 
4. Fanin, N. et al. Consistent effects of biodiversity loss on multifunctionality across contrasting ecosystems. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 269–278 (2018).Article Google Scholar 
5. Hanley-Cook, G. T. et al. Food biodiversity: quantifying the unquantifiable in human diets. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 63, 7837–7851 (2022).Article Google Scholar 
6. Golden, C. D. et al. Aquatic foods to nourish nations. Nature 598, 315–320 (2021).Article CAS Google Scholar 
7. Hicks, C. C. et al. Harnessing global fisheries to tackle micronutrient deficiencies. Nature 574, 95–98 (2019).Article CAS Google Scholar 
8. Hilborn, R. et al. Effective fisheries management instrumental in improving fish stock status. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 2218–2224 (2020).Article CAS Google Scholar 
9. Bernhardt, J. R. & O’Connor, M. I. Aquatic biodiversity enhances multiple nutritional benefits to humans. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e1917487118 (2021).Article CAS Google Scholar 
10. Heilpern, S. A. et al. Species trait diversity sustains multiple dietary nutrients supplied by freshwater fisheries. Ecol. Lett. 26, 1887–1897 (2023).Article Google Scholar 
11. Walker, B. et al. Response diversity as a sustainability strategy. Nat. Sustain.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-01048-7(2023).
12. Heilpern, S. A. et al. Substitution of inland fisheries with aquaculture and chicken undermines human nutrition in the Peruvian Amazon. Nat. Food 2, 192–197 (2021).Article Google Scholar 
13. Belton, B. & Thilsted, S. H. Fisheries in transition: food and nutrition security implications for the global South. Glob. Food Sec. 3, 59–66 (2014).Article Google Scholar 
14. van Dooren, C. A review of the use of linear programming to optimize diets, nutritiously, economically and environmentally. Front. Nutr. 5, 48 (2018).Article Google Scholar 
15. Fats and Fatty Acids in Human Nutrition: Report of an Expert Consultation (FAO, 2010).
16. Vitamin and Mineral Requirements in Human Nutrition (WHO and FAO, 2004).
17. Yachi, S. & Loreau, M. Biodiversity and ecosystem productivity in a fluctuating environment: the insurance hypothesis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 1463–1468 (1999).Article CAS Google Scholar 
18. Heilpern, S. A. et al. Declining diversity of wild-caught species puts dietary nutrient supplies at risk. Sci. Adv. 7, eabf9967 (2021).Article CAS Google Scholar 
19. Mouillot, D., Graham, N. A. J., Villéger, S., Mason, N. W. H. & Bellwood, D. R. A functional approach reveals community responses to disturbances. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 167–177 (2013).Article Google Scholar 
20. Olden, J. D., Hogan, Z. S. & Zanden, M. J. V. Small fish, big fish, red fish, blue fish: size-biased extinction risk of the world’s freshwater and marine fishes. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 16, 694–701 (2007).Article Google Scholar 
21. Comte, L. & Olden, J. D. Climatic vulnerability of the world’s freshwater and marine fishes. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 718–722 (2017).Article Google Scholar 
22. Robinson, J. P. W. et al. Small pelagic fish supply abundant and affordable micronutrients to low- and middle-income countries. Nat. Food 3, 1075–1084 (2022).Article Google Scholar 
23. Hutchings, J. A., Myers, R. A., García, V. B., Lucifora, L. O. & Kuparinen, A. Life-history correlates of extinction risk and recovery potential. Ecol. Appl. 22, 1061–1067 (2012).Article Google Scholar 
24. Garcia, S. M. et al. Reconsidering the consequences of selective fisheries. Science 335, 1045–1047 (2012).Article CAS Google Scholar 
25. Duffy, J. E., Lefcheck, J. S., Stuart-Smith, R. D., Navarrete, S. A. & Edgar, G. J. Biodiversity enhances reef fish biomass and resistance to climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 6230–6235 (2016).Article CAS Google Scholar 
26. Ross, S. R. P.-J., Petchey, O. L., Sasaki, T. & Armitage, D. W. How to measure response diversity. Methods Ecol. Evol. 14, 1150–1167 (2023).Article Google Scholar 
27. Gephart, J. A. et al. Globalization of wild capture and farmed aquatic foods. Nat. Commun.15, 8026 (2024).Article CAS Google Scholar 
28. Fiorella, K. J., Bageant, E. R., Thilsted, S. H. & Heilpern, S. A. Commercially traded fish portfolios mask household utilization of biodiversity in wild food systems. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 121, e2403691121 (2024).Article CAS Google Scholar 
29. Cisneros-Montemayor, A. M., Pauly, D., Weatherdon, L. V. & Ota, Y. A global estimate of seafood consumption by coastal indigenous peoples. PLoS ONE 11, e0166681 (2016).Article Google Scholar 
30. Heilpern, S. A. et al. Nutritional challenges of substituting farmed animals for wild fish in human diets. Environ. Res. Lett. 18, 114030 (2023).Article Google Scholar 
31. Ambikapathi, R. et al. Global food systems transitions have enabled affordable diets but had less favourable outcomes for nutrition, environmental health, inclusion and equity. Nat. Food 3, 764–779 (2022).Article Google Scholar 
32. Loken, B., Dhar, M. & Rapando, N. P. Healthy and sustainable diets must be culturally acceptable too. Nat. Food 5, 723–724 (2024).Article Google Scholar 
33. Robinson, J. P. W. et al. Managing fisheries for maximum nutrient yield. Fish Fish. 23, 800–811 (2022).Article Google Scholar 
34. Lynch, A. J. et al. Inland fish and fisheries integral to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Sustain.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0517-6(2020).
35. Halpern, B. S. et al. Opinion: putting all foods on the same table: achieving sustainable food systems requires full accounting. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 18152–18156 (2019).Article CAS Google Scholar 
36. Carmona, C. P. et al. Erosion of global functional diversity across the tree of life. Sci. Adv.7, eabf2675 (2021).Article Google Scholar 
37. Díaz, S. et al. The global spectrum of plant form and function. Nature 529, 167–171 (2016).Article Google Scholar 
38. Vaitla, B. et al. Predicting nutrient content of ray-finned fishes using phylogenetic information. Nat. Commun. 9, 3742 (2018).Article Google Scholar 
39. Schiettekatte, N. M. D. et al. Biological trade-offs underpin coral reef ecosystem functioning. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 6, 701–708 (2022).Article Google Scholar 
40. Vanni, M. J. & McIntyre, P. B. Predicting nutrient excretion of aquatic animals with metabolic ecology and ecological stoichiometry: a global synthesis. Ecology 97, 3460–3471 (2016).Article Google Scholar 
41. McIntyre, P. B., Liermann, C. A. R. & Revenga, C. Linking freshwater fishery management to global food security and biodiversity conservation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 12880–12885 (2016).Article CAS Google Scholar 
42. Miranda, R. et al. Monitoring extinction risk and threats of the world’s fishes based on the Sampled Red List Index. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 32, 975–991 (2022).Article Google Scholar 
43. Froese, R. & Pauly, D. FishBase version 02/2019 (2019); www.fishbase.org
44. Csárdi, G. & Berkelaar, M. lpSolve: Interface to ‘Lp_solve’ v. 5.5 to Solve Linear/Integer Programs (2024).
45. Laliberté, E. & Legendre, P. A distance-based framework for measuring functional diversity from multiple traits. Ecology 91, 299–305 (2010).Article Google Scholar 
46. Dinno, A. paran: Horn’s Test of Principal Components/Factors (2018).
47. Baselga, A. & Orme, C. D. L. betapart: an R package for the study of beta diversity. Methods Ecol. Evol. 3, 808–812 (2012).Article Google Scholar 
48. R Core Team R: A language and environment for statistical computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020).
49. Heilpern, S. et al. Data and code for ‘Leveraging biodiversity to maximize nutrition and resilience of global fisheries’. Figsharehttps://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24615465(2025).