Julian R - Evaluating the impact of climate change on global plant biodiversity
Post on 20-Jun-2015
765 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Transcript
Towards the Wallace Initiative:
Evaluating the impact of climate change on global plant
biodiversityJulián Ramírez and Andy Jarvis
International Centre for Tropical Agriculture, CIAT
Bioversity International
The Wallace Initiative framework:
1. Assessment of impacts of climate change on species distributions to:
– Determine refugia– Improve knowledge of risks of exceeding certain
levels of change by means of determining extinction rates
2. Map potential corridors for species3. Potential refugia, carbon dist., and design of
REDD mechanisms4. Driving of protected area design in the 21st
century5. Provide critical conclusions to aid the
development of adaptation plans
1. Impact of climate change on species distributions
Data: GBIF inputs• Very preliminary approach using 33,004 taxa
– Using the entire GBIF database– Selecting species with at least 10 unique data points– 67,039 species (15,215,524 occurrences)– Correcting georreferences
• Is the record in land or sea?• Is in the country/department/locality it says it is?• Is within the environmental niche of the species?
– 65,991 selected species (14,157,497 occurrences)– Run for 33,004 (time matters)– Further taxonomical/geographic corrections to be
implemnetdSource: Conservation International
The data: current and future climates
• Current climates from WorldClim– 19 bioclimatic indices at 10 arc-minutes
• Future climates from downscaled GCM outputs– 18 models at 10 arc-minutes spatial resolution– For 2050s– Under the A2a emission scenario– 19 bioclimatic variables as for WorldClim– Control run with the average climate of all
GCMs
The approach• Maximum entropy as a very accurate algorithm for
niche modeling• 10 or more points for each of the 33,004 taxa• Only one future projection (control future scenario)• Current: two extreme migration scenarios
– Unlimited migration– Null migration
• Measures of diversity and area loss– Per AVOID region and globally
• Within Protected Areas• Overall
• Current extent of conserved biodiversity within protected areas (in situ gap analysis)
Results: distribution of protected areas
• Covering 13.8% of the total global surface (3.8% international, 10% national)
• Holding a great amount of biodiversity
Results: protected areas per AVOID region
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
International protected area (%)
Nat
ion
al p
rote
cted
are
a (%
)
Europe
Central America
Germany
Saudi Arabia
Brazil
Caribbean
South Korea
Mexico
Proportion of nationally and internationally protected area
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Maximum hotspot overall
Ma
xim
um
ho
tsp
ot
wit
hin
PA
s Complete representativeness
Average representativeness
UK
World
Mexico
US
South AfricaNorth Africa
Middle eastSaudi Arabia
West Africa
BrazilCurrent extent of in situ conservation
Some issues in highly diverse areas… Global biodiversity currently well conserved
Modeling approach
• Aplying the maximum entropy algorithm– Macoubea guianensis Aubl.: food for rural indigenous
communities in the Amazon
Data harvesting from GBIF Building the presence model Projecting on future climates
NULL MIGRATION
UNLIMITEDMIGRATION
Potential habitatexpansion
NULL MIGRATION UNLIMITED MIGRATION
CURRENT
Results: Current and future predicted species richness
• Important hotspots in Latin America, Europe, Australasia and Central Africa
• Displacement and loss of niches
NULL MIGRATIONUNLIMITED MIGRATION
Results: changes in species richness
• Null migration: losses everywhere
• Unlimited migration: mostly displacement
Results: changes within AVOID regions
• Changes in species richness under both migration scenarios
-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
Ru
ssia
Sa
ud
i Ara
bia
Re
st o
f Ce
ntr
al A
sia
Ind
on
esi
a
Ch
ina
Ca
na
da
Mid
dle
Ea
st
No
rth
Afr
ica
Jap
an
Ind
ia
Re
st o
f So
uth
Asi
a
So
uth
Afr
ica
Re
st o
f Ea
st A
sia
Po
lan
d
Wo
rld
We
st A
fric
a
So
uth
ern
an
d E
ast
Afr
ica
US
Au
stra
lia
Eu
rop
e
So
uth
Ko
rea
Re
st o
f Au
stra
lasi
a
So
uth
Am
eri
ca
Me
xico
Italy
Bra
zil
Ca
rib
be
an
Ge
rma
ny
UK
Ce
ntr
al A
me
rica
Fra
nce
Null migration
Unlimited migration
Results: in situ conservation under the context of CC
• No matter if the best ‘adaptation’ scenario (unlimited dispersal) is chosen, negatives are expected in most regions
• There are regions with gains in species richness, but fairly due to displacement of niches
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Percent of area with loss within PAs [UM]
Ch
an
ge
in s
pe
cie
s r
ich
ne
ss
wit
hin
P
As
[U
M]
Caribbean
Central America
France
Germany
Australia
ItalyMexico
South AmericaEurope West Africa
South KoreaBrazilMiddle EastUS
Results: in situ conservation under the context of CC
• Expected changes within protected areas (PAs) sometimes occur at a greater extent
• Current gaps in in situ conservation to be larger in changing climates
• Current protected areas to be strengthened, expanded, or re-located if necessary
-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0
Change in species richness [NM]
Ch
ang
e in
sp
ecie
s ri
chn
ess
wit
hin
Pas
[N
M]
South America
Central America
France
Australasia
Germany
CaribbeanBrazil
US
Globe
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
-800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400
Change in species richness [NM]
Ch
ang
e in
sp
ecie
s ri
chn
ess
wit
hin
Pas
[N
M]
France
Central America
Germany Caribbean
South Korea
NULL MIGRATION
UNLIMITED MIGRATION
Results: in situ conservation under the context of CC
• Loss in extent of in situ conservation
• Loss of suitable habitats for several species
• Opposite cases?
• Mixed conditions?
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0
Change in species richness w ithin PAs [NM]
Ch
ang
e in
rep
rese
nta
tivi
ty [
NM
] (%
)
Saudi Arabia
Middle East
Central Asia
North Africa
CentraAmerica France Germany
Caribbean
Mexico
Europe
SouthAmerica
Globe
NULL MIGRATION
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
-800 -600 -400 -200 0 200
Change in species richness within PAs [UM]
Ch
ang
e in
rep
rese
nta
tivi
ty [
UM
] (%
)Saudi Arabia
Middle East
CentralAmerica
France
Italy
MexicoGermany
Caribbean
Central Asia
China
UNLIMITED MIGRATION
(+)RPT(-)DIV
(-)RPT(-)DIV
(+)RPT(-)DIV
(+)RPT(+)DIV
(+)RPT(-)DIV
(-)RPT(+)DIV
Refugia identification
• Migration patterns– Population plasticity– Population migration rate
• Cellular automaton
• Select similar migration patterns
Refugia identification
• Intensification of deforestation processes: where and when to locate a reserve?
Cumulative detections between 2003 and 2009Counted as novelty when probability >= 0.9
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
6/2
6/2
00
3
9/2
6/2
00
3
12
/26
/20
03
3/2
6/2
00
4
6/2
6/2
00
4
9/2
6/2
00
4
12
/26
/20
04
3/2
6/2
00
5
6/2
6/2
00
5
9/2
6/2
00
5
12
/26
/20
05
3/2
6/2
00
6
6/2
6/2
00
6
9/2
6/2
00
6
12
/26
/20
06
3/2
6/2
00
7
6/2
6/2
00
7
9/2
6/2
00
7
12
/26
/20
07
3/2
6/2
00
8
6/2
6/2
00
8
9/2
6/2
00
8
12
/26
/20
08
3/2
6/2
00
9
Intense habitatdegradation period
Detections to 2009… but can be extrapolatedto 2100
Date
Number ofPixels with
LUC
Test area inBolivia
Conclusions
• In situ conservation needs to be oriented under the context of climate change– Areas to be strengthened (more control)– Areas to be expanded– Areas to be re-located (if migration does occur)
• Measuring impacts within each PA is required• Conservation must be focused on priority
protected areas– Amount of diversity– Predicted loss in suitable habitats– Number of species likely to be extinct and… most
important… WHEN?
Next steps… scientific rigor
• A far more detailed approach is required including– Individual GCM results– Other emission and policy scenarios– All GBIF species with more taxonomic and
georreferencing corrections– Other time slices: 2020s, 2030s, 2040s…– Validation metrics of Maxent models– Intermediate migration scenarios– Measure the number of extinct species for each
region
Next steps… analysis of policy implications
• Similarities/dissimilarities between regions– Do current criteria for PA selection stand up to
climate change?– What makes one protected area system more
effective than another in combating climate change? [Australasia vs. South America]
– What needs to change?
• What levels of biodiversity loss should be we preparing for? Which would be ‘acceptable’?
top related