Refine
Language
- English (5)
Has Fulltext
- yes (5)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (5)
Keywords
- biodiversity protection (2)
- conservation funding (2)
- conservation planning (2)
- decision making (2)
- global change (2)
- post-2020 biodiversity targets (2)
- strategic site selection (2)
- biodiversity (1)
- climate change (1)
- cluster analysis (1)
Aim: Predicting future changes in species richness in response to climate change is one of the key challenges in biogeography and conservation ecology. Stacked species distribution models (S‐SDMs) are a commonly used tool to predict current and future species richness. Macroecological models (MEMs), regression models with species richness as response variable, are a less computationally intensive alternative to S‐SDMs. Here, we aim to compare the results of two model types (S‐SDMS and MEMs), for the first time for more than 14,000 species across multiple taxa globally, and to trace the uncertainty in future predictions back to the input data and modelling approach used.
Location: Global land, excluding Antarctica.
Taxon: Amphibians, birds and mammals.
Methods: We fitted S‐SDMs and MEMs using a consistent set of bioclimatic variables and model algorithms and conducted species richness predictions under current and future conditions. For the latter, we used four general circulation models (GCMs) under two representative concentration pathways (RCP2.6 and RCP6.0). Predicted species richness was compared between S‐SDMs and MEMs and for current conditions also to extent‐of‐occurrence (EOO) species richness patterns. For future predictions, we quantified the variance in predicted species richness patterns explained by the choice of model type, model algorithm and GCM using hierarchical cluster analysis and variance partitioning.
Results: Under current conditions, species richness predictions from MEMs and S‐SDMs were strongly correlated with EOO‐based species richness. However, both model types over‐predicted areas with low and under‐predicted areas with high species richness. Outputs from MEMs and S‐SDMs were also highly correlated among each other under current and future conditions. The variance between future predictions was mostly explained by model type.
Main conclusions: Both model types were able to reproduce EOO‐based patterns in global terrestrial vertebrate richness, but produce less collinear predictions of future species richness. Model type by far contributes to most of the variation in the different future species richness predictions, indicating that the two model types should not be used interchangeably. Nevertheless, both model types have their justification, as MEMs can also include species with a restricted range, whereas S‐SDMs are useful for looking at potential species‐specific responses.
The establishment and maintenance of protected areas(PAs) is viewed as a key action in delivering post-2020 biodiversity targets. PAs often need to meet a multitude of objectives, ranging from biodiversity protection to ecosystem service provision and climate change mitigation. As available land and conservation funding are limited, optimizing resources by selecting the most beneficial PAs is vital. Here we present a decision support tool that enables a flexible approach to PA selection on a global scale, allowing different conservation objectives to be weighted and prioritized according to user-specified preferences. We apply the tool across 1347 terrestrial PAs and highlight frequent trade-offs among different objectives, e.g., between biodiversity protection and ecosystem integrity. These results indicate that decision makers must usually decide among conflicting objectives. To assist this our decision support tool provides an explicitly value-based approach that can help resolve such conflicts by considering divergent societal and political demands and values.
The establishment and maintenance of protected areas (PAs) is viewed as a key action in delivering post-2020 biodiversity targets. PAs often need to meet multiple objectives, ranging from biodiversity protection to ecosystem service provision and climate change mitigation, but available land and conservation funding is limited. Therefore, optimizing resources by selecting the most beneficial PAs is vital. Here, we advocate for a flexible and transparent approach to selecting protected areas based on multiple objectives, and illustrate this with a decision support tool on a global scale. The tool allows weighting and prioritization of different conservation objectives according to user-specified preferences, as well as real-time comparison of the selected areas that result from such different priorities. We apply the tool across 1347 terrestrial PAs and highlight frequent trade-offs among different objectives, e.g., between species protection and ecosystem integrity. Outputs indicate that decision makers frequently face trade-offs among conflicting objectives. Nevertheless, we show that transparent decision-support tools can reveal synergies and trade-offs associated with PA selection, thereby helping to illuminate and resolve land-use conflicts embedded in divergent societal and political demands and values.
Ongoing climate change is a major threat to biodiversity and impacts on species distributions and abundances are already evident. Heterogenous responses of species due to varying abiotic tolerances and dispersal abilities have the potential to further amplify or ameliorate these impacts through changes in species assemblages. Here we investigate the impacts of climate change on terrestrial bird distributions and, subsequently, on species richness as well as on different aspects of phylogenetic diversity of species assemblages across the globe. We go beyond previous work by disentangling the potential impacts on assemblage phylogenetic diversity of species gains vs. losses under climate change and compare the projected impacts to randomized assemblage changes.
We show that climate change might not only affect species numbers and composition of global species assemblages but could also have profound impacts on assemblage phylogenetic diversity, which, across extensive areas, differ significantly from random changes. Both the projected impacts on phylogenetic diversity and on phylogenetic structure vary greatly across the globe. Projected increases in the evolutionary history contained within species assemblages, associated with either increasing phylogenetic diversification or clustering, are most frequent at high northern latitudes. By contrast, projected declines in evolutionary history, associated with increasing phylogenetic over-dispersion or homogenisation, are projected across all continents.
The projected widespread changes in the phylogenetic structure of species assemblages show that changes in species richness do not fully reflect the potential threat from climate change to ecosystems. Our results indicate that the most severe changes to the phylogenetic diversity and structure of species assemblages are likely to be caused by species range shifts rather than range reductions and extinctions. Our findings highlight the importance of considering diverse measures in climate impact assessments and the value of integrating species-specific responses into assessments of entire community changes.
Establishing and maintaining protected areas (PAs) is a key action in delivering post-2020 biodiversity targets. PAs often need to meet multiple objectives, ranging from biodiversity protection to ecosystem service provision and climate change mitigation, but available land and conservation funding is limited. Therefore, optimizing resources by selecting the most beneficial PAs is vital. Here, we advocate for a flexible and transparent approach to selecting PAs based on multiple objectives, and illustrate this with a decision support tool on a global scale. The tool allows weighting and prioritization of different conservation objectives according to user-specified preferences as well as real-time comparison of the outcome. Applying the tool across 1,346 terrestrial PAs, we demonstrate that decision makers frequently face trade-offs among conflicting objectives, e.g., between species protection and ecosystem integrity. Nevertheless, we show that transparent decision support tools can reveal synergies and trade-offs associated with PA selection, thereby helping to illuminate and resolve land-use conflicts embedded in divergent societal and political demands and values.