Knowledge gaps for the implementation of adaptation options for biodiversity conservation in a changing climate

Summary: Information on the location of most sensitive areas and networks is key to identifying where to focus adaptation management but it is also important to ensure that the value of biodiversity to other sectors is recognised in order to ensure that its adaptation to climate change is encouraged within all aspects of the landscape.

Integrated solutions require knowledge not just of biodiversity responses but how other sectors of society may respond to climate change, and how such responses will interact. Project such at regional (Holman and Loveland, 2002) UK level, county level (Harrison et al., 2001; Berry et al., 2003), and EU level (ACCELERATES) have attempted to address interactions between biodiversity and other land use sectors but links between the biodiversity models and the other sectors has been limited (moreover freshwater and marine environments have not been well studied). The consideration of the value of ecosystem services may facilitate the inclusion of biodiversity into a more integrated modelling system, both providing better indications of how biodiversity relates to other sectors and by providing a common currency by which to relate them.

Although work has been undertaken to model species level (Parmesan, 1999; Thomas et al. 2004), and to a lesser extent habitat level (Emanuel et al., 1985), responses, and monitoring of trends is revealing current response trends (Rotzer and Chmielewski, 2000; Sparks et al. 1999), the net effect of such impacts is still uncertain, as there is a lack of analysis of the interactions between such altered species distributions. Moreover, most studies have generally not looked beyond changes in average climate; the impacts of extreme events are not well studied nor how these interact with changes in average conditions to affect the balance and health of species and habitats.

Much of the work on climate change impacts on biodiversity has focussed on individual species, and since the structure of conservation policy and action is largely site based there is a need to identify key areas of both climate and species sensitivity. The case study area approach (Holman and Loveland, 2002; Berry et al. 2003) has partly addressed this issue but there is still a need at the country and EU level to examine how shifts in individual species’ ranges may combine to produce regions of greatest change, where sympathetic management may be most valuable in assisting biodiversity adaptation. Such climatically sensitive areas could be the focus of practical management experimentation to encourage change. Case study information and best practice from such areas would also be useful to facilitate local adaptations elsewhere.

Modelling of future species distribution provide only a snapshot in time show nothing about how that change may be achieved. So there is also a need to explore the routes that such shifts take. Monte Carlo type analysis of species dispersal in response to climate change can provide an estimate of the probability of species’ distributions reaching a suitable future climate space (e.g. in MONARCH 2 (Berry et al. 2003)). It should also be possible to examine the most likely routes for such movements. This should allow bottlenecks for species movements to be identified, which may then permit conservation management to be focussed in these areas.

Combined with climatically sensitive areas, such key distribution routes should guide the task of landscape planning for conservation under climate change. BRANCH is attempting to develop some conservation tools in NW Europe but it may also be illuminating to apply some of the tools for landscape level biodiversity conservation planning that have been used elsewhere (eg TAMARIN in South America) to the UK and European landscapes. Such models combine conservation principles with economic theory to explore options for environmental and social goals. This work may also be facilitated by a concerted action type workshops to determine how countries may work together to encourage adaptation and protect biodiversity across different land use sectors and how conservation targets should be revised to take account of climate change.

References

Assessing Climate Change Effects on Land use and Ecosystems; from Regional Analysis to The European Scale (ACCELERATES) European Commission Framework V Programme; contract no.EVK2-CT99-20001
Berry, P. M., Harrison P.A., and T.P. Dawson (eds.) (2003) Modelling natural resource responses to climate change (MONARCH). A Local Approach. Report to English Nature.
BRANCH - Biodiversity Requires Adaptations in Northwest Europe under a CHanging climate. EU Interreg IIIb part funded project led by English Nature
Da Fonseca, G.A.B, Sechrest, W. and Oglethorpe, J. (2005) Managing the matrix, Chapter 21 In: Lovejoy, TE & Hannah, L, Climate change and biodiversity, Yale University Press p 346-358.
Emanuel, W. R., H. H. Shugart, and M. P. Stevenson. 1985. Climatic change and the broad-scale distribution of terrestrial ecosystem complexes. Climate Change 7:29–43.
Harrison, P. A., P. M. Berry, et al. (2001). Climate Change and Nature Conservation in Britain and Ireland: Modelling natural resource responses to climate change (the MONARCH project). Oxford, UKCIP.
Holman, I. and P. Loveland (2002). Regional climate change impact and response studies in East Anglia and North West England (RegIS). Cranfield, Soil survey and Land Research Centre.
Parmesan, C. (1999). “Poleward shifts in geographical ranges of butterfly species associated with regional warming.” Nature 399: 579-583.
Rotzer, T. and F.-M. Chmielewski (2000). “Trends in growing season in Europe.” Arboreta Phaenologica 45: 3-13.
Sparks, T., H. Heyen, et al. (1999). “Are European birds migrating earlier?” BTO News 223(July-August): 8-9.
Thomas, C., A. Cameron, et al. (2004). “Extinction risk from climate change.” Nature 427: 145 - 148.