Transcript Adaptation of Biodiversity to Climate Change

Adaptation of Biodiversity
to Climate Change
(AF04)
Report the the AIACC regional meeting
Pretoria, March 2003
Bob Scholes, Albert van Jaarsveld, Graham von
Maltitz, Stephanie Freitag, Mike Rutherford,
Guy Midgley, Barend Erasmus, Jean Nel,
Jenny Cooper
CSIR, SA National Parks, National Botanical Institute, Univ Stellenbosh
What is the problem?
Country studies, regional studies and IPCC
have confirmed that biodiversity is at risk
from climate change in southern Africa
Biodiversity is important for the economy,
for human welfare and in its own right
We have no guidance regarding the best
way to minimise the impact
Key species analysis
Aloe marlothii
Source: Rutherford et al, National Botanical Institute
Biome analysis
Source: Rutherford et al 2000, SA Country Study, NBI
Species richness analysis
Current
a.)
ID
1 - 17
18 - 35
36 - 52
53 - 70
71 - 88
50% transformed/degraded
Climate affected distribution
1 - 13
14 - 27
28 - 41
42 - 55
56 - 69
With climate change
b.)
CAD
1 - 13
14 - 27
28 - 41
42 - 55
56 - 69
N
300
0
300
600 Kilometers
Land transformation overlaid
N
0
400
800 Kilometers
Source: van Jaarsveld et al Univ Pretoria
Objectives of AF04
AIACC study: Adaptation of biodiversity
to climatechange in Southern Africa
 Advance the state of the science
 Quantify adaptation options wrt
– Cost effectiveness
– Robustness
– Human welfare and social acceptability
 Develop tools for wider use
 Develop regional capacity and awareness
Evolution of approaches
Climate impact studies
Conservation biology
Biome
statistical
Equilibrium
Biome model
Equilibrium
Species model
Equilibrium
Func type model
Island
biogeography
Dynamic
Species model
Dynamic
Func type model
Optimisation
AF04
Dynamic, multispecies
Fragmented landscape
Adaptation options
not mutually exclusive
Do
Nothing
Size and
Shape of
parks
‘Matrix
Facilitated
Manage- dispersal
ment’
Ex situ
Conservation
How many species does each option protect?
At what cost? How robust are the options to
different climates ?
Approach
3
Three deliberately
different case studies
1.Cape floral kingdom:
• data rich, megadiverse,
mountainous,fragmented
1
2.Succulent Karoo:
• Diverse, geological specificity, large distances
3.NE Lowveld
• Ecosystem response, habitat, productivity
Cape Floral Kingdom
• very detailed and accurate distribution
records for some taxa (Proteaceae)
•Sophisticated conservation planning based on
stationary climate
Potential future
distribution
Possible future
Protected area
Current
distribution
Farmland
Protected
area
Succulent karoo
Dispersal distance
Propagule number
Pop 1
Pop 2
Time to maturity
Barriers of unsuitable
habitat
Migration of climate envelope
Pop 3
NE Lowveld
Model path
Model constraints
Carnivores
(Climate), prey, habitat Birds: Large and small
Herbivores
Plants
Model entities
raptors, scavengers
Mammals: Individual
species
Birds: functional groups
(Climate), food, habitat Mammals: species,
functional groups for
small mammals
Climate, soil
Habitat structure
(woody plants, trees,
shrubs and grass)
Timeline
Start
Jan 2002
Literature review and planning
Nov 02 Methods workshop
Bioclimatic envelope modelling
Optimisation studies
Jul 03 Completion of Cape Study
Dispersal modelling
Jan 04Completion of succulent karoo study
Ecosystem modelling
Jul 2004 Completion of NE Lowveld study
Oct 04 Workshop for conservation planners
End
Dec 2004 Final reporting