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.

Persecuting, protecting or ignoring biodiversity under climate change

Nature Climate Change volume 9, pages 581–586 (2019)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

A climate-driven global redistribution of species is currently underway. As species alter their geographical distributions under climate change, many will not only cross into new habitats but also new geopolitical areas. In this Perspective, we discuss the historical archetypes of managing species redistribution—persecution, protection or ignorance—which points to diverse decisions and outcomes based on a balance of societal and ecological valuation. We build the case for increasing transboundary monitoring and management of species, and for shared governance agreements that are global in scope, consisting of legally binding and biologically defensible contracts among partner countries, in what would be a critical step for the future conservation of all species.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1

Bas Köhler

Fig. 2: High uncertainty in future management of biodiversity.

moose henderson/iStock/Getty Images Plus/Getty (Mountain lion); FiledIMAGE/iStock/Getty Images Plus/Getty (Dingo); Fyn Kynd (Barred owl); yhelfman/iStock/Getty Images Plus/Getty (Brown cowbird); Becky Matsubara (Ringed-neck pheasant); Javier Cooper (Longspine urchin); Jim Hidgins/USFWS (Kirtlands warbler)

Fig. 3: Species on the move will require pro-establishment monitoring and management practices.
Fig. 4: Number of years to implement transboundary agreements.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Scheffers, B. R. et al. The broad footprint of climate change from genes to biomes to people. Science 354, aaf7671 (2016). A comprehensive review showing that over 80% of ecological processes considered in terrestrial, marine, and freshwater ecosystems as well as human systems have evidence of observed impact from climate change.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Pecl, G. T. et al. Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. Science 355, eaai9214 (2017). A comprehensive review showing that impacts of species redistribution extends from nature to society.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Chen, I. C., Hill, J. K., Ohlemüller, R., Roy, D. B. & Thomas, C. D. Rapid range shifts of species associated with high levels of climate warming. Science 333, 1024–1026 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Parmesan, C. & Yohe, G. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421, 37–42 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Poloczanska, E. S. et al. Responses of marine organisms to climate change across oceans. Front. Marine Sci. 3, 1–61 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Sunday, J. M., Bates, A. E. & Dulvy, N. K. Thermal tolerance and the global redistribution of animals. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 686–690 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Pinsky, M. L. et al. Preparing ocean governance for species on the move. Science 360, 1189–1191 (2018). A paper highlighting the complexity of future governance of marine ecosystems under climate change.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Lenoir, J. & Svenning, J. C. Climate-related range shifts – a global multidimensional synthesis and new research directions. Ecography 38, 15–28 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Both, C., Van Asch, M., Bijlsma, R. G., Van Den Burg, A. B. & Visser, M. E. Climate change and unequal phenological changes across four trophic levels: constraints or adaptations? J. Animal Ecol. 78, 73–83 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Corlett, R. T. & Westcott, D. A. Will plant movements keep up with climate change? Trend. Ecol. Evol. 28, 482–488 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Carey, M. P., Sanderson, B. L., Barnas, K. A. & Olden, J. D. Native invaders – challenges for science, management, policy, and society. Front. Ecol. Environ. 10, 373–381 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ling, S. D. Range expansion of a habitat-modifying species leads to loss of taxonomic diversity: a new and impoverished reef state. Oecologia 156, 883–894 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Wernberg, T. et al. Climate-driven regime shift of a temperate marine ecosystem. Science 353, 169–172 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Webber, B. L. & Scott, J. K. Rapid global change: implications for defining natives and aliens. Glob. Ecol. Biogeo. 21, 305–311 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Schlaepfer, M. A., Sax, D. F. & Olden, J. D. The potential conservation value of non-native species. Conserv. Biol. 25, 428–437 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Shine, R. & Doody, J. S. Invasive species control: understanding conflicts between researchers and the general community. Front. Ecol. Environ. 9, 400–406 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lawler, J. J. Climate change adaptation strategies for resource management and conservation planning. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 1162, 79–98 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kelly, E. G., Forsman, E. D. & Anthony, R. G. Are barred owls displacing Spotted Owls? Condor 105, 45–53 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Wayne, R. K. & Jenks, S. M. Mitochondrial DNA analysis implying extensive hybridization of the endangered red wolf Canis rufus. Nature 351, 565–568 (1991).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Crane, A. L., McGrane, C. E. & Mathis, A. Behavioral and physiological responses of Ozark zigzag salamanders to stimuli from an invasive predator: the armadillo. Int. J. Ecol. 2012, 1–7 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Fitch, H. S., Goodrum, P. & Newman, C. The armadillo in the Southeastern United States. J. Mammal. 33, 21–37 (1952).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gompper, M. E. Top carnivores in the suburbs? Ecological and conservation issues raised by colonization of North-eastern North America by Coyotes. Bioscience 52, 185–190 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Brittingham, M. C. & Temple, S. A. Have cowbirds caused forest songbirds to decline? BioScience 33, 31–35 (1983).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Mayfield, H. The Brown-headed Cowbird, with old and new hosts. Living Bird 4, 13–28 (1965).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Rothstein, S. I. The cowbird’s invasion of the far west: history, causes and consequences experienced by host species. Stud. Avian Biol. 15, 301–315 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Siegle, R. & Ahlers, D. Brown-headed cowbird management techniques manual (US Department of the Interior, 2004).

  27. Head, L. The social dimensions of invasive plants. Nat. Plants 3, 17075 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Peterson, A. T. & Robins, C. R. Using ecological-niche modeling to predict Barred Owl invasions with implications for Spotted Owl Conservation. Conserv. Biol. 17, 1161–1165 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Zhang, D. & Hiziroglu, S. Impact assessment and utilization of eastern red cedar. Am. J. Appl. Sci. 7, 1032–1037 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Guo, D., Arnolds, J. L., Midgley, G. F. & Foden, W. B. Conservation of Quiver trees in Namibia and South Africa under a changing climate. J. Geosci. Environ. Prot. 4, 1–8 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Probst, J. R., Donner, D. M., Bocetti, C. I. & Sjogren, S. Population increase in Kirtland’s warbler and summer range expansion to Wisconsin and Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, USA. Oryx 37, 365–373 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Richard, T. Confirmed occurrence and nesting of the Kirtland’s Warbler at CFB Petawawa, Ontario: a first for Canada. Ont. Birds 26, 2–15 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Harris, J. B. C. et al. Conserving imperiled species: a comparison of the IUCN Red List and U.S. Endangered Species Act. Conserv. Lett. 5, 64–72 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Poloczanska, E. S. et al. Global imprint of climate change on marine life. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 919–925 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Fogarty, H. E., Burrows, M. T., Pecl, G. T., Robinson, L. M. & Poloczanska, E. S. Are fish outside their usual ranges early indicators of climate-driven range shifts? Glob. Change Biol. 23, 2047–2057 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Veit, R. R. Vagrants as the expanding fringe of a growing population. The Auk 117, 242–246 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Robinson, L. M. et al. Rapid assessment of an ocean warming hotspot reveals “high” confidence in potential species’ range extensions. Glob. Environ. Change 31, 28–37 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Hughes, T. P. et al. Global warming and recurrent mass bleaching of corals. Nature 543, 373–377 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Hoegh-Guldberg, O. et al. Assisted colonization and rapidclimate change. Science 321, 345–346 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Lawler, J. J. & Olden, J. D. Reframing the debate over assisted colonization. Front. Ecol. Environ. 9, 569–574 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Bonebrake, T. C. et al. Managing consequences of climate-driven species redistribution requires integration of ecology, conservation and social science. Biol. Rev. 93, 284–305 (2018). A comprehensive review on complex management scenarios when considering species redistribution.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. VanDerWal, J. et al. Focus on poleward shifts in species’ distribution underestimates the fingerprint of climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 239–243 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Heller, N. E. & Zavaleta, E. S. Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: a review of 22 years of recommendations. Biol. Conserv. 142, 14–32 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Scott, J. M. et al. Recovery of imperiled species under the Endangered Species Act: the need for a new approach. Front. Ecol. Environ. 3, 383–389 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Thornton, D. H. et al. Asymmetric cross-border protection of peripheral transboundary species. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12430 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Petursson, J. G., Vedeld, P. & Vatn, A. Going transboundary? An institutional analysis of transboundary protected area management challenges at Mt Elgon, East Africa. Ecol. Soc. 18, 28 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Yong, D. L. et al. Challenges and opportunities for transboundary conservation of migratory birds in the East Asian-Australasian flyway. Conserv. Biol. 32, 740–743 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Kirby, J. S. et al. Key conservation issues for migratory land- and waterbird species on the world’s major flyways. Bird Conserv. Int. 18, 49–73 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Yong, D. L. et al. Migratory songbirds in the East Asian-Australasian Flyway: a review from a conservation perspective. Bird Conserv. Int. 25, 1–37 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to A. Abolhassani and B. Haas for researching information for Fig. 4. T. Bryant was instrumental in creation of the other figures. G.P. was supported by an ARC Future Fellowship; and B.R.S. thanks Oak Ridge Associate Universities for their support via the Ralph E. Powe Junior Faculty Enhancement Award.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

    Brett R. Scheffers

  2. Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

    Gretta Pecl

  3. Centre for Marine Socioecology, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

    Gretta Pecl

Authors
  1. Brett R. Scheffers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gretta Pecl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

B.R.S. conceived the study, G.P. and B.R.S. collected data, B.R.S. analysed data, B.R.S. wrote the manuscript with development and revision from G.P.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brett R. Scheffers.

Additional information

Peer review information: Nature Climate Change thanks Chrystal Mantyka-Pringle, Morgan Tingley and other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Scheffers, B.R., Pecl, G. Persecuting, protecting or ignoring biodiversity under climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 9, 581–586 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0526-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0526-5

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced 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