Future habitat loss and extinctions driven by land‐use change in biodiversity hotspots under four scenarios of climate‐change mitigation

Jantz, Samuel M.; Barker, B.; Brooks, Thomas M.; Chini, L. P.; Huang, Qiongyu; Moore, Rachel M.; Noel, Jacob; Hurtt, George C.

doi:10.1111/cobi.12549

Cited by 174 publications

(147 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

131

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…All future scenarios show an increase in secondary vegetation area at the cost of the natural habitat primarily to meet the increasing wood demand [9]. We found that this leads to substantial biodiversity loss in all six scenarios ( Table 2), indicating that, regardless of climate mitigation, sustainable forest management will be critical for future biodiversity conservation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…The scope of our study mirrors that of Jantz et al [9], who also quantified the potential extinctions in biodiversity hotspots under future land use change scenarios, but did not model the climate change effects. However, climate change can degrade currently suitable habitats, can shift suitable habitats to areas that cannot be reached, and can produce unsuitable or unavailable climate envelopes, all which can threaten species directly, driving them towards extinction [47,48], and several studies have demonstrated that climate-change will exacerbate the impact of habitat loss on species [49][50][51][52].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Jetz et al [58] found that at least 900 bird species are projected to suffer >50% range reductions by the year 2100 due to climate and land cover change under four millennium ecosystem assessment scenarios. Jantz et al [9] applied the classic (i.e., not correcting for habitat use) species-area relationship model [57] to gridded land use change data associated with four RCP scenarios (without the SSPs, [10]) and found that by 2100, an additional 26-58% of natural habitat will be converted to human land uses across 34 biodiversity hotspots and as a consequence, about 220 to 21,000 additional species (plants, mammals, birds, amphibians, and reptiles) will be committed to extinction relative to 2005 levels. More recently, Newbold et al [59] used four RCP scenarios (again without the SSPs) and generalized linear mixed effects modeling to project that local plot-scale species richness will fall by a further 3.4% from current levels globally by 2100, under a business-as-usual land-use scenario; with losses concentrated in low-income, biodiverse countries.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unlike species richness [8,9], no study to date has evaluated the loss of phylogenetic diversity under future global scenarios. This is primarily because the complete dated species-level phylogenies for large taxonomic groups [31,35,36], and straightforward methods that can translate species extinctions in a region into the loss of PD from the evolutionary tree in which these species are found, have only recently become available [37,38].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Terrestrial Vertebrate Biodiversity Loss under Future Global Land Use Change Scenarios

Chaudhary

Mooers

2018

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Efficient forward-looking mitigation measures are needed to halt the global biodiversity decline. These require spatially explicit scenarios of expected changes in multiple indicators of biodiversity under future socio-economic and environmental conditions. Here, we link six future (2050 and 2100) global gridded maps (0.25 • × 0.25 • resolution) available from the land use harmonization (LUH) database, representing alternative concentration pathways (RCP) and shared socio-economic pathways (SSPs), with the countryside species-area relationship model to project the future land use change driven rates of species extinctions and phylogenetic diversity loss (in million years) for mammals, birds, and amphibians in each of the 804 terrestrial ecoregions and 176 countries and compare them with the current and past (850-1900) rates of biodiversity loss. Future land-use changes are projected to commit an additional 209-818 endemic species and 1190-4402 million years of evolutionary history to extinction by 2100 depending upon the scenario. These estimates are driven by land use change only and would likely be higher once the direct effects of climate change on species are included. Among the three taxa, highest diversity loss is projected for amphibians. We found that the most aggressive climate mitigation scenario (RCP2.6 SSP-1), representing a world shifting towards a radically more sustainable path, including increasing crop yields, reduced meat production, and reduced tropical deforestation coupled with high trade, projects the lowest land use change driven global biodiversity loss. The results show that hotspots of future biodiversity loss differ depending upon the scenario, taxon, and metric considered. Future extinctions could potentially be reduced if habitat preservation is incorporated into national development plans, especially for biodiverse, low-income countries such as Indonesia, Madagascar, Tanzania, Philippines, and The Democratic Republic of Congo that are otherwise projected to suffer a high number of land use change driven extinctions under all scenarios.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Terrestrial Vertebrate Biodiversity Loss under Future Global Land Use Change Scenarios

Chaudhary

Mooers

2018

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, it is evident that biodiversity can be in critical conflict with demands for land resources such as food or timber (Behrman et al, 2015;Murphy and Romanuk, 2014). LUC has been the most critical driver of recent species loss (Jantz et al, 2015;Newbold et al, 2014). This has led to substantial concerns that land requirements for bioenergy crops would be competing with conservation areas directly or by leakage.…”

Section: Potential Impacts On Biodiversitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Global consequences of afforestation and bioenergy cultivation on ecosystem service indicators

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Land management for carbon storage is discussed as being indispensable for climate change mitigation because of its large potential to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and to avoid further emissions from deforestation. However, the acceptance and feasibility of land-based mitigation projects depends on potential side effects on other important ecosystem functions and their services. Here, we use projections of future land use and land cover for different land-based mitigation options from two land-use models (IMAGE and MAgPIE) and evaluate their effects with a global dynamic vegetation model (LPJ-GUESS). In the landuse models, carbon removal was achieved either via growth of bioenergy crops combined with carbon capture and storage, via avoided deforestation and afforestation, or via a combination of both. We compare these scenarios to a reference scenario without land-based mitigation and analyse the LPJ-GUESS simulations with the aim of assessing synergies and trade-offs across a range of ecosystem service indicators: carbon storage, surface albedo, evapotranspiration, water runoff, crop production, nitrogen loss, and emissions of biogenic volatile organic compounds.In our mitigation simulations cumulative carbon storage by year 2099 ranged between 55 and 89 GtC. Other ecosystem service indicators were influenced heterogeneously both positively and negatively, with large variability across regions and land-use scenarios. Avoided deforestation and afforestation led to an increase in evapotranspiration and enhanced emissions of biogenic volatile organic compounds, and to a decrease in albedo, runoff, and nitrogen loss. Crop production could also decrease in the afforestation scenarios as a result of reduced crop area, especially for MAgPIE land-use patterns, if assumed increases in crop yields cannot be realized. Bioenergy-based climate change mitigation was projected to affect less area globally than in the forest expansion scenarios, and resulted in less pronounced changes in most ecosystem service indicators than forest-based mitigation, but included a possible decrease in nitrogen loss, crop production, and biogenic volatile organic compounds emissions.

show abstract

A quantitative analysis on the effects of critical factors limiting the effectiveness of species conservation in future time

Alagador

Cerdeira

2018

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effectiveness of conservation plans depends on environmental, ecological, and socioeconomic factors. Global change makes conservation decisions even more challenging. Among others, the components of most concern in modern‐day conservation assessments are as follows: the magnitude of climate and land‐use changes; species dispersal abilities; competition with harmful socioeconomic activities for land use; the number of threatened species to consider; and, relatedly, the available budget to act. Here, we provide a unified framework that quantifies the relative effects of those factors on conservation. We conducted an area‐scheduling work plan in order to identify sets of areas along time in which the persistence expectancies of species are optimized. The approach was illustrated using data of potential distribution of ten nonvolant mammal species in Iberia Peninsula from current time up to 2080. Analyses were conducted considering possible setups among the factors that are likely to critically impact conservation success: three climate/land‐use scenarios; four species’ dispersal kernel curves; six land‐use layer types; and two planning designs, in which assessments were made independently for each species, or joining all species in a single plan. We identified areas for an array of investments levels capable to circumvent the spatial conflicts with socioeconomic activities. The effect of each factor on the estimated species persistence scores was assessed using linear mixed models. Our results evidence that conservation success is highly reliant on the resources available to abate land‐use conflicts. Nonetheless, under the same investment levels, planning design and climate change were the factors that most shaped species persistence scores. The persistence of five species was especially affected by the sole effect of planning design and consequently, larger conservation investments may retard climatic debts. For three species, the negative effects of a changing climate and of multiple‐species planning designs added up, making these species especially at risk. Integrated assessments of the factors most likely to limit species persistence are pivotal to achieve effectiveness.

show abstract

Future habitat loss and extinctions driven by land‐use change in biodiversity hotspots under four scenarios of climate‐change mitigation

Cited by 174 publications

References 45 publications

Terrestrial Vertebrate Biodiversity Loss under Future Global Land Use Change Scenarios

Terrestrial Vertebrate Biodiversity Loss under Future Global Land Use Change Scenarios

Global consequences of afforestation and bioenergy cultivation on ecosystem service indicators

A quantitative analysis on the effects of critical factors limiting the effectiveness of species conservation in future time

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About