Elsevier

Biological Conservation

Volume 202, October 2016, Pages 30-38
Biological Conservation

Combining landscape variables and species traits can improve the utility of climate change vulnerability assessments

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.07.030Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Species traits help identify which species will be most vulnerable to climate change.

  • Traits related to dispersal ability are important traits to include in assessments.

  • Herpetofauna are often considered vulnerable due to dispersal related traits.

  • Landscape variables help identify where species will be most vulnerable.

  • Landscape variables and species traits interact to affect management effectiveness.

Abstract

Conservation organizations worldwide are investing in climate change vulnerability assessments. Most vulnerability assessment methods focus on either landscape features or species traits that can affect a species vulnerability to climate change. However, landscape features and species traits likely interact to affect vulnerability. We compare a landscape-based assessment, a trait-based assessment, and an assessment that combines landscape variables and species traits for 113 species of birds, herpetofauna, and mammals in the northeastern United States. Our aim is to better understand which species traits and landscape variables have the largest influence on assessment results and which types of vulnerability assessments are most useful for different objectives. Species traits were most important for determining which species will be most vulnerable to climate change. The sensitivity of species to dispersal barriers and the species average natal dispersal distance were the most important traits. Landscape features were most important for determining where species will be most vulnerable because species were most vulnerable in areas where multiple landscape features combined to increase vulnerability, regardless of species traits. The interaction between landscape variables and species traits was important when determining how to reduce climate change vulnerability. For example, an assessment that combines information on landscape connectivity, climate change velocity, and natal dispersal distance suggests that increasing landscape connectivity may not reduce the vulnerability of many species. Assessments that include landscape features and species traits will likely be most useful in guiding conservation under climate change.

Introduction

Conservation organizations worldwide are investing in climate change vulnerability assessments to help incorporate climate change into natural resource management plans. Vulnerability assessments have three primary objectives, to determine (1) which species will be most and least vulnerable, (2) where species will be most and least vulnerable, and (3) how to reduce climate change vulnerability (Williams et al., 2008, Watson et al., 2013). These objectives help ensure that conservation resources are devoted to the most vulnerable species and locations (Pacifici et al., 2015) and help identify areas where groups of species might be resilient to climate change (Klausmeyer et al., 2011, Nadeau et al., 2015). They also increase the likelihood that management actions designed to reduce climate change vulnerability will be effective (Mawdsley et al., 2009, Nadeau et al., 2015).

Most vulnerability assessments completed to date have estimated vulnerability by predicting the change in climatically suitable habitat for a suite of species (Urban, 2015). This approach has been heavily criticized for focusing too much on climate change exposure while ignoring important species traits and landscape features that can affect species sensitivity and adaptive capacity (Dormann, 2007, Beale et al., 2008, Randin et al., 2009, Sinclair et al., 2010, Willis et al., 2015). Many alternative vulnerability-assessment methods have been developed recently (Rowland et al., 2011); however, a large portion of these assessments focus on either species traits (e.g., dispersal ability; Galbraith and Price, 2009, Young et al., 2011, Moyle et al., 2013) or landscape features (e.g., landscape connectivity; Klausmeyer et al., 2011, Watson et al., 2013, Nadeau et al., 2015). Few assessments include both species traits and landscape features. This is surprising considering the likely influence of species traits, landscape features, and their interaction on all three primary objectives of vulnerability assessments.

Species traits strongly influence which species will be most vulnerable to climate change (Jiguet et al., 2007, Diamond et al., 2011). For example, fish species with broader diet breadths were less vulnerable to droughts similar to those predicted under future climate change (Chessman, 2013). Landscape features can also affect which species are most vulnerable if landscape features differ within and surrounding the distribution of different species. The amount of topographic diversity within and around a species distribution is a good example. Topographic diversity can decrease the distance between current and future suitable climates (Guralnick, 2007) and provide climate holdouts where species may persist for many years (Patsiou et al., 2014, Scheffers et al., 2014). Hence, species that have a large portion of their distribution in areas with high topographic diversity may be less vulnerable to climate change (Luoto and Heikkinen, 2008, Randin et al., 2009).

Landscape features within and surrounding a species distribution can also affect where species are likely to be most vulnerable (Klausmeyer et al., 2011, Nadeau et al., 2015). Species traits may interact with landscape features such that species with different traits are vulnerable in different locations. For example, many species with short dispersal distances will be vulnerable to climate change in flat areas because they will be unable to move fast enough to track changing climates (Loarie et al., 2009). However, species with long dispersal distances (e.g., many birds) may be less vulnerable in flat regions because they might be able to track suitable climates in these regions.

Species traits and landscape features can also affect the utility of an assessment for identifying management actions to reduce vulnerability. Many landscape features can be manipulated (e.g., landscape connectivity) or protected (e.g. topographic diversity) to reduce vulnerability. Including landscape variables in a vulnerability assessment can therefore increase the utility of the assessment for identifying potential management actions to reduce vulnerability. Including the interaction between species traits and landscape variables could further improve the utility of vulnerability assessments because species with different traits may require different management actions to reduce vulnerability. For example, many species may not be able to move fast enough to track changing local climates even in perfectly connected landscapes (Loarie et al., 2009, Schloss et al., 2012). Therefore, increasing landscape connectivity in fragmented landscapes may not reduce climate change vulnerability for all species.

Here, we evaluate how landscape features and species traits interact to affect all three primary objectives of climate change vulnerability assessments. We focus on 113 species of birds, herpetofauna, and mammals in the northeastern United States (Supplementary Fig. S1 and Table S1). We compare estimates of which species will be most vulnerable to climate change among a landscape-based vulnerability assessment, a trait-based assessment, and an assessment that combines landscape variables and species traits. We also compare predictions of where species are likely to be most vulnerable and the types of management actions recommended for each species between a landscape-based assessment and an assessment that combines landscape variables and species traits. Our aim is to better understand (1) which species traits and landscape variables have the largest influence on each of the three primary objectives and (2) which types of vulnerability assessments are most useful for each objective.

Section snippets

Focal species

We evaluated the vulnerability of terrestrial and semi-aquatic species on the list of New York State Species of Greatest Conservation Need (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 2005) that do not occur primarily in marine or coastal environments, are aquatic for the minority of their life, and have mapped distributions (Supplementary Table S1). This included 12 mammals, 72 birds, 10 amphibians, and 19 reptiles. Hereafter, reptiles and amphibians are grouped as herpetofauna.

Assessing which species will be most vulnerable to climate change

The landscape-based vulnerability scores were similar for most species (Fig. 1) because many species distributions include both highly vulnerable and less vulnerable areas. Species with exceptionally high landscape-based scores (i.e., upper outliers in Fig. 1) had higher scores for topoclimate homogeneity, landscape resistance, and climate change velocity than less vulnerable species (Fig. 2). Species with exceptionally high landscape-based scores had a large portion of their distribution in

Discussion

The importance of species traits and landscape variables depended on the objective of the vulnerability assessment. Species traits were much more important than landscape variables for determining which species will be most vulnerable to climate change. Landscape variables were less important in determining which species will be vulnerable because most species in our study have distributions that overlap areas with both high and low landscape-based vulnerability scores. This result may differ

Acknowledgements

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation provided funding for this research through New York State Wildlife Grants program grant T-18 awarded to New York by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program. Dan Rosenblatt, Patty Riexinger, and Gordon Batcheller provided useful guidance and feedback. Pat Sullivan at Cornell University also provided useful guidance. Kimberly Corwin provided lists of species experts. We obtained climate data from

References (44)

  • DawsonT.P. et al.

    Beyond predictions: biodiversity conservation in a changing climate

    Science

    (2011)
  • DiamondS.E. et al.

    Species' traits predict phenological responses to climate change in butterflies

    Ecology

    (2011)
  • EstradaA. et al.

    Species' intrinsic traits inform their range limitations and vulnerability under environmental change

    Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr.

    (2015)
  • FodenW.B. et al.

    Identifying the world's most climate change vulnerable species: a systematic trait-based assessment of all birds, amphibians and corals

    PLoS ONE

    (2013)
  • GalbraithH. et al.

    A Framework for Categorizing the Relative Vulnerability of Threatened and Endangered Species to Climate Change

    (2009)
  • GarciaR.A. et al.

    Matching species traits to projected threats and opportunities from climate change

    J. Biogeogr.

    (2014)
  • GuralnickR.

    Differential effects of past climate warming on mountain and flatland species distributions: a multispecies North American mammal assessment

    Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr.

    (2007)
  • IUCN et al.

    Global Amphibian Assessment

    (2004)
  • JiguetF. et al.

    Climate envelope, life history traits and the resilience of birds facing global change

    Glob. Chang. Biol.

    (2007)
  • KlausmeyerK.R. et al.

    Landscape-scale indicators of biodiversity's vulnerability to climate change

    Ecosphere

    (2011)
  • LoarieS.R. et al.

    The velocity of climate change

    Nature

    (2009)
  • LuotoM. et al.

    Disregarding topographical heterogeneity biases species turnover assessments based on bioclimatic models

    Glob. Chang. Biol.

    (2008)
  • Cited by (15)

    • Macroscale climate change predictions have little influence on landscape-scale habitat suitability

      2022, Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation
      Citation Excerpt :

      Therefore, combining climate change predictions, habitat cover and landscape structure change into the prioritization of areas for conservation is crucial (e.g. Dilts et al., 2016; Gouveia et al., 2016; Keppel et al., 2015; but see Scriven et al., 2015). After all, areas with suitable habitats may become unsuitable under climate change (Jetz et al., 2007; Nadeau and Fuller, 2016). Some studies have incorporated the effect of land cover on species distributions under climate change (e.g. Alagador and Cerdeira, 2018; Dilts et al., 2016; Gouveia et al., 2016; Scriven et al., 2015), and assessed continuous climatic suitability at fine scales (e.g. using regular grid over the studied area, Alagador et al., 2016, 2014).

    • Orthoptera community shifts in response to land-use and climate change – Lessons from a long-term study across different grassland habitats

      2019, Biological Conservation
      Citation Excerpt :

      Both species are characterised by low habitat specificity, high dispersal capability, and require a warm macroclimate (Ingrisch and Köhler, 1998; Poniatowski et al., 2018b). Prior studies revealed that the interaction of such traits determines whether species are able to persist or even thrive under recent environmental change (Beckmann et al., 2015; Nadeau and Fuller, 2016; Reinhardt et al., 2005). Until the 1980s, the distribution of C. dispar and R. roeselii in the Eifel was restricted to the most climatically favourable valleys, even though structurally suitable habitats were largely available in the landscape (Ingrisch, 1984; Weber and Weidner, 1995).

    • Comparison of climate vulnerability among desert herpetofauna

      2018, Biological Conservation
      Citation Excerpt :

      However, due to the limited number and scope of sensitivity factors, only herpetofauna species directly associated with hydric habitats rank as highly or extremely vulnerable when using NatureServe's CCVI. This contrasts with results from other modeling techniques and validated field observations (Sinervo et al., 2010; Nadeau and Fuller, 2016; Flesch et al., 2017). Tradeoffs associated with thermoregulation in ectothermic species, especially those in extremely hot and dry environments like deserts, are not adequately included in most qualitative vulnerability assessments.

    • Persistence of methodological, taxonomical, and geographical bias in assessments of species’ vulnerability to climate change: A review

      2018, Global Ecology and Conservation
      Citation Excerpt :

      This can reduce uncertainty and model error. Although some methods may often overlook important species attributes and key life-history traits (Small-Lorenz et al., 2013), the accuracy of their predictions can be improved by the incorporation of species-specific factors (when available), such as those related to physiology, competition and community dynamics (Small-Lorenz et al., 2013; Dawson et al., 2011; McMahon et al., 2011; Nadeau and Fuller, 2016). These intrinsic traits determine a species' sensitivity and adaptive capacity, and when such components are not included, underestimations or overestimations of vulnerability can result (Butt et al., 2016; Ofori et al., 2017).

    • Climates Past, Present, and Yet-to-Come Shape Climate Change Vulnerabilities

      2017, Trends in Ecology and Evolution
      Citation Excerpt :

      Populations with broader thermal tolerances are less likely to experience heat stress under climate change [44,48,50]. Moreover, species with broader thermal tolerances often have larger geographical ranges [47,51], and this can reduce their vulnerability to climate change because their range is more likely to incorporate low vulnerability regions (e.g., low exposure, fewer dispersal barriers) [52,53]. Therefore, temperate organisms are often predicted to be less vulnerable to climate change than tropical organisms, despite higher predicted increases in temperature in temperate versus tropical regions [44,48,54].

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text