CH14: Adaptation of Conservation Strategies

FIGURE 14.1 Species’ range shift and protected area. This figure from Peters’ seminal early work on climate change and biological diversity shows the changing relationship between a species’ range and a protected area. The species’ range is indicated by hatching (a). In the schematic, habitat is eroded by conversion to use over time (b) and then the species range limit shifts due to climate change (c). As climate shifts, the proportion of range within the protected area changes (RL = range limit). The figure shows the reserve being lost as the species’ range ceases to intersect with it, but it is unlikely that a reserve would be declassified based on the loss of only one species. The reserve would remain important for many other species, so the greater question is how to maintain protection of the species that has moved beyond the reserve. Adding a protected area within the new range of the species is one important option. Source: Peters and Darling (1985). Reproduced with permission from Yale University Press.

FIGURE 14.2 Metapopulation range shift with respect to a protected area. A more sophisticated view of a species’ range shift considers the area of occupancy within the species’ range or the individual populations that make up the overall metapopulation of the species. Range shifts in this view involve loss or change in size of individual populations, which in turn changes the representation of the species in a protected area.

FIGURE 14.3 Range shifts relative to multiple protected areas. Range shifts in three different species ((a), (b), (c)) are illustrated, each relative to two protected areas. This example illustrates the complexity of conserving multiple species as ranges shift. Source: Figure courtesy of Conservation International.

FIGURE 14.4 Diversity of movement within a range shift. Assumptions that species will always shift poleward with warming are belied by modeling results. Here, the simulated range of a protea species in the Cape Floristic Region shifts away from the pole (blue pixels). There is no poleward landmass in this region, so this species is tracking climate upslope, moving into hills above the Cape lowlands. Blue represents newly suitable future range, red represents current climatically suitable range lost, and green represents current climatically suitable range retained. Source: Hannah et al. (2005).

FIGURE 14.5 The king protea (Protea cynaroides). The king protea is one of hundreds of protea species whose future ranges have been projected in species distribution modeling for the Cape Floristic Region. It is the national flower of South Africa. Source: From Wikimedia Commons.

FIGURE 14.6 High-irreplaceability areas—alliance for zero extinction sites. Alliance for zero extinction sites contain one or more species that occur only in those locations. These sites are irreplaceable: they must be conserved if species losses are to be avoided. Source: Copyright National Academy of Sciences, USA.

FIGURE 14. 7 Healthy (top) and bleached (bottom) coral reefs FIGURE 14.7 Healthy (top) and bleached (bottom) coral reefs. Corals that escape bleaching are resistant, those that rebound quickly are resilient. Source: Courtesy U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

FIGURE 14.8 Zoning map for the great barrier reef marine park. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is a marine protected area that has experienced extensive coral bleaching. In response to bleaching events and other management issues, a zoning plan for the park reflects permitted uses that best integrate climate change with other park management objectives. Tourism is excluded in some areas to facilitate postbleaching recovery. Source: Map courtesy of the Spatial Data Centre, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (2010).

FIGURE 14.9 Sedimentation and shading effects on coral bleaching. Shading (a) and sedimentation (b) are two factors that can influence the severity of coral bleaching. Sedimentation stresses corals and may exacerbate bleaching effects, whereas shading protects corals from synergies of high temperatures and photic effects, thereby reducing the probability of bleaching. Source: Grimsditch and Salm (2006). Reproduced with permission from IUCN.

FIGURE 14.10 Marine protected areas. Healthy marine systems such as these can be one of the major benefits of marine protected areas (MPAs). MPAs can improve food web health and reduce chances of coral bleaching by decreasing synergistic pressures such as fishing and tourism overuse. Source: Courtesy U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).