Synthesis of ecosystem vulnerability to climate change in the Netherlands shows the need to consider environmental fluctuations in adaptation measures
- 488 Downloads
Climate change impacts on individual species are various and range from shifts in phenology and functional properties to changes in productivity and dispersal. The combination of impacts determines future biodiversity and species composition, but is difficult to evaluate with a single method. Instead, a comparison of mutually independent approaches provides information and confidence in patterns observed beyond what may be achieved in individual approaches. Here, we carried out such comparison to assess which ecosystem types in the Netherlands appear most vulnerable to climate change impacts, as arising from changes in hydrology, nutrient conditions and dispersal limitations. We thus combined meta-analyses of species range shifts with species distribution modelling and ecohydrological modelling with expert knowledge in two respective impact studies. Both impact studies showed that nutrient-poor ecosystems and ecosystem types with fluctuating water tables—like hay meadows, moist heathlands and moorlands—seem to be most at risk upon climate change. A subsequent meta-analysis of species–environmental stress relations indicated that particularly endangered species are adversely affected by the combination of drought and oxygen stress, caused by fluctuating moisture conditions. This implies that adaptation measures should not only aim to optimise mean environmental conditions but should also buffer environmental extremes. Major uncertainties in the assessment included the quantitative impacts of vegetation-hydrology feedbacks, vegetation adaptation and interactions between dispersal capacity and traits linked to environmental selection. Once such quantifications become feasible, adaptation measures may be tailor-made and optimised to conserve vulnerable ecosystem types.
KeywordsClimate adaptation measures Environmental stress Hydrology impacts Species distribution models Species range shifts
This study was carried out in the framework of Project A1 ‘Biodiversity in a changing environment: predicting spatio-temporal dynamics of vegetation’, Project A2 ‘Climate change and habitat fragmentation; impacts and adaptation strategies’ of the Dutch national research programme Climate Change and Spatial planning (www.klimaatvoorruimte.nl) and the joint research programme of the Dutch Water Utility sector.
- Bal D et al (2001) Handboek Natuurdoeltypen (handbook nature target types) EC-LNV, WageningenGoogle Scholar
- Bakker A, Bessembinder J (2007) Neerslagreeksen voor de KNMI’06 scenario’s (precipitation series for the KNMI’06 scenarios). H2O 22:45–47Google Scholar
- Bartholomeus RP, Witte JPM, van Bodegom PM, van Dam JC, Aerts R (2011) Climate change threatens endangered plant species by stronger and interacting water-related stresses. J Geophys Res 116:G04023Google Scholar
- Berry PM, Jones AP, Nicholls RJ, Vos CC (eds) (2007) Assessment of the vulnerability of terrestrial and coastal habitats and species in Europe to climate change, Annex 2 of Planning for biodiversity in a changing climate—BRANCH project final report. Natural England, UKGoogle Scholar
- Buizer B et al (2012) Range shifts and global warming: ecological responses of Empetrum nigrum L. to experimental warming at its northern (high Arctic) and southern (Atlantic) geographical range margin. Environ Res Lett 7:025501Google Scholar
- Lowry CS, Anderson MP (2006) Assessment of aquifer storage recovery using ground water flow models. Ground Water 44:661–667Google Scholar
- Solomon S et al (2007) Technical summary. Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Van der Meijden R, Odé B, Groen CLG, Witte JPM (2000) Bedreigde en kwetsbare vaatplanten in Nederland (Threatened and vulnerable vascular plants in the Netherlands). Gorteria 26:85–208Google Scholar
- van der Veen M, Wiesenekker E, Nijhof BSJ, Vos CC (2010) Klimaat respons database (Climate response database), versie 2.0. Alterra WUR, WageningenGoogle Scholar
- Van Oene H, Berendse F, de Kovel CGF (1999) Model analysis of the effects of historic CO2 levels and nitrogen inputs on vegetation succession. Ecol Appl 9:920–935Google Scholar
- Witte JPM, Runhaar J, van Ek R (2008) Ecohydrological modelling for managing scarce water resources in a groundwater-dominated temperate system. In: Harper D, Zalewski M, Pacini N (eds) Ecohydrology: processes, models and case studies. CABI Publishing, Oxfordshire, pp 88–111Google Scholar