Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

You are viewing this page in draft mode.

Interacting effects of climate change and habitat fragmentation on drought-sensitive butterflies

Abstract

Climate change is expected to increase the frequency of some climatic extremes1,2. These may have drastic impacts on biodiversity3,4, particularly if meteorological thresholds are crossed, leading to population collapses. Should this occur repeatedly, populations may be unable to recover, resulting in local extinctions. Comprehensive time series data on butterflies in Great Britain provide a rare opportunity to quantify population responses to both past severe drought and the interaction with habitat area and fragmentation. Here, we combine this knowledge with future projections from multiple climate models, for different Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), and for simultaneous modelled responses to different landscape characteristics. Under RCP8.5, which is associated with ‘business as usual’ emissions, widespread drought-sensitive butterfly population extinctions could occur as early as 2050. However, by managing landscapes and particularly reducing habitat fragmentation, the probability of persistence until mid-century improves from around zero to between 6 and 42% (95% confidence interval). Achieving persistence with a greater than 50% chance and right through to 2100 is possible only under both low climate change (RCP2.6) and semi-natural habitat restoration. Our data show that, for these drought-sensitive butterflies, persistence is achieved more effectively by restoring semi-natural landscapes to reduce fragmentation, rather than simply focusing on increasing habitat area, but this will only be successful in combination with substantial emission reductions.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: The impacts of historical drought on sensitive butterfly species.
Figure 2: Scenarios of land-use change and aridity in a future climate.
Figure 3: Combined effects of climate change and habitat.

References

  1. 1

    Seneviratne, S. I., Donat, M. G., Mueller, B. & Alexander, L. V. No pause in the increase of hot temperature extremes. Nature Clim. Change 4, 161–163 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Cai, W. et al. Increasing frequency of extreme El Nino events due to greenhouse warming. Nature Clim. Change 4, 111–116 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Settele, J. et al. in Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. (eds Field, C. B. et al.) 271–359 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Jentsch, A., Kreyling, J. & Beierkuhnlein, C. A new generation of climate-change experiments: Events, not trends. Front. Ecol. Environ. 5, 365–374 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Bellard, C. et al. Impacts of climate change on future biodiversity. Ecol. Lett. 15, 365–377 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Thuiller, W. et al. Consequences of climate change on the tree of life in Europe. Nature 470, 531–534 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Jiguet, F., Brotons, L. & Devictor, V. Community responses to extreme climatic conditions. Curr. Zool. 57, 406–413 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Jiguet, F. et al. Thermal range predicts bird population resilience to extreme high temperatures. Ecol. Lett. 9, 1321–1330 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Easterling, D. R. et al. Climate extremes: Observations, modeling, and impacts. Science 289, 2068–2074 (2000).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Oliver, T. H. & Morecroft, M. D. Interactions between climate change and land use change on biodiversity: Attribution problems, risks, and opportunities. WIREs-Clim. Change 5, 317–335 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Hof, C., Levinsky, I., Araújo, M. B. & Rahbek, C. Rethinking species’ ability to cope with rapid climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 2987–2990 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Morecroft, M. D. et al. Effects of drought on contrasting insect and plant species in the UK in the mid-1990s. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 11, 7–22 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Marsh, T., Cole, G. & Wilby, R. Major droughts in England and Wales, 1800–2006. Weather 62, 87–93 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Talloen, W., Dyck, H. V. & Lens, L. The cost of melanisation: Butterfly wing colouration under environmental stress. Evolution 58, 360–366 (2004).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    WallisDeVries, M. F., Baxter, W. & Van Vliet, A. J. H. Beyond climate envelopes: Effects of weather on regional population trends in butterflies. Oecologia 167, 559–571 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Gutbrodt, B., Mody, K. & Dorn, S. Drought changes plant chemistry and causes contrasting responses in lepidopteran herbivores. Oikos 120, 1732–1740 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Settele, J. et al. Climatic Risk Atlas of European Butterflies (Pensoft, 2008).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Fuller, R. M., Smith, G. M., Hill, R. A. & Thomson, A. G. The UK Land Cover Map 2000: Construction of a parcel-based vector map from satellite images. Cartogr. J. 39, 15–25 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Bolker, B. M. et al. Generalized linear mixed models: A practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24, 127–135 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Oliver, T. et al. Heterogeneous landscapes promote population stability. Ecol. Lett. 13, 473–484 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Herbst, M. et al. Edge effects and forest water use: A field study in a mixed deciduous woodland. Forest Ecol. Manag. 250, 176–186 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Morecroft, M. D., Taylor, M. E. & Oliver, H. R. Air and soil microclimates of deciduous woodland compared to an open site. Agric. Forest Meteorol. 90, 141–156 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Hanski, I. Metapopulation Ecology (Oxford Univ. Press, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J. & Meehl, G. A. An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 93, 485–498 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    van Vuuren, D. et al. The representative concentration pathways: An overview. Climatic Change 109, 5–31 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Sanford, T., Frumhoff, P. C., Luers, A. & Gulledge, J. The climate policy narrative for a dangerously warming world. Nature Clim. Change 4, 164–166 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    Hodgson, J. A., Moilanen, A., Wintle, B. A. & Thomas, C. D. Habitat area, quality and connectivity: Striking the balance for efficient conservation. J. Appl. Ecol. 48, 148–152 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28

    van Asch, M. et al. Evolutionary response of the egg hatching date of a herbivorous insect under climate change. Nature Clim. Change 3, 244–248 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29

    Etterson, J. R. & Shaw, R. G. Constraint to adaptive evolution in response to global warming. Science 294, 151–154 (2001).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30

    Fox, J. A. et al. The State of the UK’s Butterflies 2011 (Butterfly Conservation and the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31

    Manley, G. Central England temperatures: Monthly means 1659 to 1973. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 100, 389 (1974).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32

    Alexander, L. V. & Jones, P. D. Updated precipitation series for the U. K. and discussion of recent extremes. Atmos. Sci. Lett. 1, 142 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33

    Oliver, T. H., Brereton, T. & Roy, D. B. Population resilience to an extreme drought is influenced by habitat area and fragmentation in the local landscape. Ecography 36, 579 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34

    McGarigal, K., Cushman, S. A., Neel, M. C. & Ene, E. FRAGSTATS: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Categorical Maps (Univ. Massachusetts, 2002); http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35

    Rothery, P. & Roy, D. B. Application of generalized additive models to butterfly transect count data. J. Appl. Stat. 28, 897 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36

    Schtickzelle, N. & Baguette, M. Metapopulation viability analysis of the bog fritillary butterfly using RAMAS/GIS. Oikos 104, 277 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37

    Crawley, M. J. The R Book 2nd edn (John Wiley, 2012).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  38. 38

    R Core Team, R: A language and environment for statistical computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2013); http://www.R-project.org

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39

    Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. lme4: Linear Mixed-Effects Models using Eigen and S4 R package version 1.0-4 (2013); http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was partly funded by Natural England Project ref. 24802 and partly by NERC CEH national capability funding. We thank A. Crowe from the UK Food and Environment Research Agency for calculating habitat configuration metrics and S. Duffield for help in establishing the project. The UKBMS is funded by a multi-agency consortium led by Defra, and including CCW, JNCC, FC, NE, NERC, NIEA and SNH.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

T.H.O. conceived the study with input from M.D.M.; C.P. and C.H. analysed climate data; H.H.M. and T.H.O. analysed butterfly responses to habitat and climate; all authors interpreted results and contributed to writing the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tom H. Oliver.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Oliver, T., Marshall, H., Morecroft, M. et al. Interacting effects of climate change and habitat fragmentation on drought-sensitive butterflies. Nature Clim Change 5, 941–945 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2746

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing