Search

Oceanic islands host a high proportion of the world's endemic species. Many such species are at risk of extinction owing to habitat degradation and loss, biological invasions and other threats, but little is known about the effects of climate change on island native biodiversity. The Azorean archipelago provides a unique opportunity to study species-climate-change relationships. We used ensemble forecasting to evaluate the current and future distribution of well-studied endemic and native bryophytes (19 species), endemic vascular plants (59 species) and endemic arthropods (128 species), for two of the largest Azorean Islands, Terceira and São Miguel. Using a Regional Climate Model (CIELO), and assuming the extreme scenario RCP8.5, we examined changes in the potential distributions of the species and possible loss of climate space for them. Models projected that 23 species (11 %) could lose all adequate climate on either one or both islands. Five additional species were projected to lose ≥90 % of climate space. In total, 90 % of the species were projected to lose climate space: 79 % of bryophytes, 93 % of vascular plants and 91 % of arthropods. We also found for vascular plants and arthropods a tendency for upward shift in altitude in their suitable climate space, while for bryophytes the shift was towards the coastal areas. Our results have profound implications for future conservation priorities on islands, such as for the redrawing of conservation borders of current protected areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We identify four issues in the decision framework for species conservation management under climate change proposed by Shoo et al. () Clim Chan 119:239-246 and suggest ways to address them. First, binary-decision flow charts require Yes/No answers, which are not appropriate in most conservation decisions. A quantitative framework is preferable and action-guidance should be obtained even when the realistic answer to some questions remains 'we simply do not know'. Second, the proposed flow chart imposes an a priori order of precedence and does not explicitly allow simultaneous actions. A workable framework should enable optimal allocation between multiple kinds of conservation efforts and permit complementary actions. Third, the probability of success, co-benefit to non-target species, and cost are unlikely to have a simple, consistent relationship across taxa. These variables need to be assessed case-by-case for each conservation measure and species. Finally, the decision framework disregards the legal, social, and ethical aspects pertaining to decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]