Chapter ?. Biodiversity and Global Climate Change ......

Amanda Isbell

Introduction

Biodiversity is defined as the genes, species, habitats, and ecosystems of a planet (Sell, 1996; Feehan, 2009). These collective ecosystems are important to mankind, because they provide necessary products and services that have become integral to human society. Such benefits include, but are not limited to: pest control, climate regulation, food supply, and recreational aesthetics. Species and their ecosystems have exhibited a variety of responses to rising global temperatures, including migration patterns, decreasing range sizes, and a change in host organisms (Feehan, 2009). This leads many scientists to believe that the changing climate could play a direct role in biodiversity changes (Pimm, 2009). This chapter focuses on the impact of climate change on biodiversity, and specific species that are sensitive to the environmental changes.

Biodiversity

According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment report (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, MEA, 2006), biodiversity is the variability among living organisms from all sources, including terrestrial, marine, and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part. This includes diversity within species, between species, and of ecosystems.This is an important definition to understand, because it demonstrates how many factors must be considered when accounting for the biodiversity of a certain space. Each of these aspects is inherently significant to the success of the species and habitats contained within a system, and thus, the biodiversity of the system. Biodiversity influences many natural resources and processes, including timber products, the preservation of exotic species, food supply, the protection of water sources, and the variety of genetic material in an ecosystem. These are resources that have become vital to mankind. And yet, as essential as they are to a functioning society, recent studies suggest that extinction rates are high and increasing,

and populations and habitats are declining in number (MEA, 2006). Figure 1. shows the decline in the populations of vertebrate species since 1970 (MEA, 2006). Although this data is not an accurate representation for non-vertebrates, it demonstrates the trend of decreasing species numbers in recent decades. This presents a problem for society. Biodiversity is usually associated with animal and plant species, which has caused its role in everyday human life to become overlooked. But this trend of decline could affect the quality of human life as well.
Figure 1 The Living Planet Index (Source: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2006)

For example, in a 2000 report, 25% of medicines acquired their active ingredients from plant systems (Waldman and Shevah, 2000). Should the projected decreases of species occur, we could potentially lose some of these natural sources of medicines.

Causes of Biodiversity Change

Among the numerous causes of biodiversity change are anthropogenic factors such as increased urbanization, the modification of river systems, habitat fragmentation due to infrastructure expansion, and the destruction of ecosystems for economic and resource usage (Feehan, 2009). The most common theme among the causes listed above is that they all fallunder the category of land-use change. Land-use change has been accepted as the most important factor of biodiversity change in the current century (Sala and Jackson, 2006). A quantitative analysis by Wilcove et al. (1997) showed that 85% of listed species they examined were threatened by habitat change (Beatley, 2000). This is a cause for concern, because the regions most affected by land-use change also tend to be

the most biologically diverse. For example, tropical forests along the equator contain approximately 50-90% of the species of the world (Sell, 1996). The number of plant species per ecoregion is displayed graphically in Figure 2. Projections of vascular plant species show that these same regions will lose the most biodiversity, with Tropical-Africa sustaining the most losses and Indo-Malayan the second-most (MEA, 2006).

Latin America will also experience major losses. Figure 4. (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007) depicts the percent of habitat deforestation in Latin America per year, between 1990 and 2000. Brazil is shown to have experienced the most deforestation at approximately 25 million hectares per year. When in comparison to Figure 3., we can see that Brazil also has the largest number of plant species. This demonstrates the

imminent threat to the biodiversity of the region. Another significant cause of biodiversity change is nutrient loading. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment defines nutrient loading as anthropogenic increases in nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfur, and other nutrient-associated pollutants. In recent decades, nitrogen loading has become increasingly popular due to its agricultural production benefits (MEA, 2006). Figure 4. shows nitrogen released into the atmosphere per year and the rising usage. This graph demonstrates that cu rrent trends carry projected nitrogen emissions past the range that ecosystems can convert into beneficial products. Once this level has been reached, harmful effects
Figure 4. Data shows increase in nitrogen output from 1900 to projected data in 2050.

can occur that negate any beneficial crop yield. Such effects include:

eutrophication of freshwater ecosystems, hypoxia in coastal marine ecosystems, as well as nitrous oxide emissions that pollute the atmosphere and contribute to global climate change (MEA, 2006). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment considers land-use change and nutrient loading to be two of the three most significant drivers of biodiversity change. The third is climate change, which will be discussed in detail in the next section.

The Impact of Global Climate Change

The Environmental Protection Agency defines climate change as any significant change in measures of climate (such as temperature, precipitation, or wind) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer) (EPA, 2011). These changes can occur due to natural factors (ex. intensity of the sun, changes in the orbit of the Earth), natural processes in the system (ex. changes in ocean circulation), or due to human activities such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels (EPA, 2011). Global average surface temperature, global average sea level, and Northern Hemisphere snow cover data is depicted in Figure 5 (IPCC, 2007). This data clearly shows that some degree of global climate change is occurring, as these
Figure 5. This data represents the change in global average surface temperature, global average sea level, and the Northern Hemisphere snow cover from 1961-1990 (IPCC, 2007).

indicators of climate have experienced

change. Figure 6. displays another indicator of climate change, the Arctic region. This data shows that the ice cap and surrounding frozen polar waters will significantly decrease in the future, although it is deficient in supplying a proper time scale.

Climate change may not be the largest cause of biodiversity change on its own, but it has been shown exacerbate the effects of other factors, and vice versa. For example, fragmented populations are more susceptible to the effects of climate change than nonfragmented populations (de Chazal, 2009). Fragmented populations are already vulnerable to ecosystem change due in part to a lack of genetic diversity that limits the ability of these populations to adapt to a new environment (MEA, 2006). When combined, these factors increase the potential of extinction for at-risk species (de Chazal, 2009) and those that have small habitat ranges (Feehan, 2009). Although climate change is not the largest threat to biodiversity compared to other factors, it does present issues of its own. In general, these are range shifts, range losses, and population declines (Thuiller et all, 2005). More specifically, climate change is expected to decrease water availability, increase the risk of floods and wildfires, and increase the transmission of vector-borne diseases
Figure 6. Arctic biomes at the present and the projected future. (IPCC, 2007)

in areas previously unaffected (MEA, 2006).

In the next section, this chapter will delve into more specific details of the impact that climate change has on global biodiversity by examining certain sensitive or indicator species. This is perhaps the most efficient way in demonstrating the wide range of consequences that a changing climate could have. The migrations of zooplankton communities is thought to be the result of changes in ocean temperatures and salinity

levels. The harlequin frog and the golden toad are examples of the effect increased weather extremes and easier spread of disease can have on a species. Finally, the effect of habitat fragmentation and receding permafrost will be explored through Ursus maritimus, more commonly known as the polar bear.

Species Sensitive to Climate Change

Zooplankton: The article In hot water: zooplankton and climate change written by Anthony Richardson (2008) is the basis for this subsection. It first denotes the importance of zooplankton in the global food chain. As one of the most diverse and abundant groups on the planet, these organisms are crucial for the efficient transfer of energy from the lower trophic levels to the higher trophic levels. Marine autotrophs are at such a small scale that larger marine consumers, such as baleen whales, could not survive solely on primary producer consumption. Instead, these consumers rely on different species of zooplankton as intermediates. The surrounding ecosystem benefits from zooplankton functions as well, due to nutrient processing that these organisms facilitate and then supply to the ocean soil after decomposition. These organisms are considered an excellent indicator species because they are highly sensitive to temperature changes, have short lifespans, and are generally not commercially exploited. This allows multiple generations to be studied and the impact of small climate changes to be assessed. The most important factor influencing the success of a marine species or ecosystem is temperature. The production and efficiency of zooplankton and their functions are directly related to the water temperature and conditions of the environment these organisms inhabit. Cold water and well-mixed water conditions create surface waters that are nutrient-rich and allow for the growth of larger species of zooplankton. These larger species result in a shorter, more efficient foodweb that is nutrient-rich and supports the growth of a wider range of marine consumers. In contrast, warm and stratified water conditions support the development of smaller species of zooplankton that depend on recycled nitrogen. Smaller species of zooplankton promote a longer and more inefficient food chain that lacks the nutrient enrichment of cold water conditions.

Evidence suggests that the top 300 m of ocean waters have experienced an increase of 0.31 C since the 1950s. As will be discussed in the subsection on polar bears, Arctic sea-ice is estimated to have shrunk by 7.4% per decade. The melting of these polar sea-ices and rising temperatures are just a few of the factors that are influencing changing water properties that have a direct effect on the range of zooplankton communities. Figure 7 shows the observed migrations of both warm-water and cold-water assemblages of zooplankton species in the Northern Europe area. The data on the left of the image shows that the warmer-water species of the area have shifted 1100 km polewards over the past 50 years. During the same time span, the cold-water species of the area have seen habitat retractions to higher latitudes. This phenomena is attributed to warming global ocean temperatures that have expanded the potential habitats for warm-water zooplankton, while at the same time shrinking the potential habitats for cold-water assemblages.

The same study that produced these data estimates that these zooplankton assemblages are migrating at an average rate of ~200 km per decade, whereas terrestrial organisms such as birds, butterflies, and herbs are moving at an average rate of 6.1 km per decade. These range shifts are detrimental to the commercial fishing industry where certain species of fish are dependent on specific types of zooplankton and must follow the

migration patterns of these organisms. This migration can leave population levels depleted and may result in high mortality rates for the endemic species that cant secure enough nutrients. Amphibians: Studies have shown that amphibians are one of the species most sensitive to a changing environment (Pounds, 1994). Amphibians are ectotherms, which means that they depend on external heat sources to maintain their physiological processes.These animals also have a very thin, permeable skin that struggles to retain water, limiting them to moist environments with a readily available source of water. 80% of all amphibians in the world live in tropical environments where these conditions are met (Halliday, 2008). These requirements make amphibians especially vulnerable to changes in climate, such as rising temperatures and
Figure 8. 1 Projected impacts of global warming on amphibian species in Southeast Asia (Bickford et all, 2010)

decreasing moisture levels (Halliday, 2008). As shown in Figure 8, the highest projected impact on amphibian species in Southeast Asia will occur in higher elevations where the temperature and precipitation changes are projected to be the greatest (Bickford et all, 2010). The impact of climate change on mountain biodiversity has been discussed earlier in the chapter. Two specific examples will be discussed further in this section, using a study by Pounds and Crump (2004). The first species is Bufo periglenes, also known as the golden toad. This species of toad was endemic to a small cloud forest in Costa Rica, but went extinct over the span of approximately four years. Over the same period of time, the

harlequin frog (Atelopus varius) also became scarce. The authors suggest that the cause of this population decline was unusual weather patterns, possibly resulting from the 1986-1987 El Nio-Southern Oscillation. El Nio dry seasons, as will be discussed in Nina Westers chapter, are accompanied by high temperatures that can reduce condensation and precipitation rates. The locations that were inhabited by the golden toad and harlequin frog were especially vulnerable to this type of weather pattern. These species had become accustomed to a cool, wet environment that provided enough sunlight to maintain vital body functions and was moist enough to account for the lack of water retention in their skin. An El Nio event increased temperatures and reduced rainfall in the area, which was detrimental to the survival of those native amphibian species. The authors also propose that changes in temperature and precipitation in the area of study could have lead to faster transmission of diseases affecting these amphibian populations. The harlequin frog in particular is affected by the fungal disease Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, which is better suited to a warmer climate. Recent studies in the area suggest that the temperature and precipitation ranges are ideal for the incubation and spread of this disease. If weather patterns were to remain relatively stable, these amphibian populations would likely not be in danger.

Polar Bears: Polar bears are perhaps the most recognizable species affected by climate change. This species occupies sea ice habitats in the Arctic region, so any change in sea ice distribution, characteristics, and timing to that sea ice could have profound effects on polar bear populations. We will use the study by Derocher et all (2004) as the basis of our discussion on these effects. The largest threat to polar bears is the overall decrease in Arctic sea ice extent. Studies estimate that ice cover in the Arctic has decreased by about 14%. These same studies predict that by 2050, the average minimum extent of sea ice will be several hundred km north of the current locations. Other models suggest that the sea ice could have completely disappeared by the same time. As this ice cover continues to decrease, ice bridges that cross water channels could deteriorate to the point of complete destruction. Polar bears depend on these bridges for migration, hunting, and reproduction purposes, and the destruction that is predicted to occur would severely restrict the habitat ranges that they require. Polar bears also rely on the timing of sea ice

formation and break-up when they are hibernating. In the Hudson Bay, break-up of sea ice is occuring approximately 2.5 weeks sooner than 30 years prior. Polar bears are then unable to use those extra weeks of high food availability to store the fat that will sustain the required body functions during periods of low activity. This has severe impacts on pregnant females that must depend on adipose tissue that has been stored during peak hunting. Figure 9 shows the decrease in average estimated masses of lone females in the Hudson Bary area. The weight of these females has been directly correlated to the survival of the cubs she produces with fatter females producing larger cubs. Stirling et al (2006) observed that the average weight of lone females decreased by approximately 65 kg from 1980 to 2004. It was also observed that no females under approximately 190 kg were recorded with cubs, suggesting an approximate minimum for successful reproduction. If similar decline rates continue, females are predicted to fall below the minimum weight to produce viable offspring in 20 to 30 years.

Figure 9. 1 Average weight of lone female polar bears in Hudson Bay (Stirling, 2006)

Unfortunately, these are just a few of the issues that polar bears face due to a changing climate. They are also threatened by diminishing prey populations, hunting, pollution and disease, as well as the loss of dens. More long term study is needed to accurately predict if polar bears can adapt to the changing climate before they become extinct.

References: Beatley, T. Preserving Biodiversity. Journal of the American Planning Association; Winter 2000; 66, 1. Bickford, D. et all, Impacts of climate change on the amphibians and reptiles of Southeast Asia. Biodiversity and Conservation, Vol. 19, No. 4 (April 2010), pp. 1043-1062. de Chazal, Jacqueline, and Mark D.A. Rounsevell, Land-use and climate change within assessments of biodiversity change: A review, Global Environmental Change, Volume 19, Issue 2, May 2009, Pages 306-315, ISSN 0959-3780, 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.09.007. Derocher, Andrew, Nicholas Lunn, and Ian Stirling, Polar Bears in a Warming Climate. Integrative and Comparative Biology, Vol. 44, No. 2 (April 2004), pp. 163-176 Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. "Basic Information." 14 Nov. 2011. Web. 02 Mar. 2012. <http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html>. Feehan, Jane, Mike Harley, and Jell van Minnen. "Climate Change In Europe. 1. Impact On Terrestrial Ecosystems And Biodiversity. A Review." Agronomy For Sustainable Development (EDP Sciences)29.3 (2009): 409-421. Academic Search Complete. Web. 3 Feb. 2012 Halliday, T. R. (2008), Why amphibians are important. International Zoo Yearbook, 42: 714. Kier, G., Mutke, J., Dinerstein, E., Ricketts, T. H., Kper, W., Kreft, H. and Barthlott, W. (2005), Global patterns of plant diversity and floristic knowledge. Journal of Biogeography, 32: 11071116. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2699.2005.01272.x IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, MEA, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Synthesis Reports. 2006

Pimm, S. L., Climate Disruption and Biodiversity, Current Biology, Volume 19, Issue 14, 28 July 2009, Pages R595-R601, ISSN 0960-9822, 10.1016/j.cub.2009.05.055. Pounds, J. Allen and Martha Crump, Amphibian Declines and Climate Disturbance: The Case of the Golden Toad and the Harlequin Frog, Convservation Biology, Vol. 8 No. 1, (March 1994) pp 72-85. Richardson, A. J. In hot water: zooplankton and climate change. ICES Journal of Marine Science (2008) 65: 279295. Sala, E. and Robert B. Jackson. Determinants of Biodiversity Change: Ecological Tools for Building Scenarios, Ecology , Vol. 87, No. 8 (Aug., 2006), pp. 1875-1876 Sell, S. North-South environmental bargaining: Ozone, climate change, and biodiversity. Global governance 2.1 01 Jan 1996: 97-118. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. 31 Jan 2012 Stirling, Ian, and Claire L. Parkinson. Possible Effects Of Climate Warming On Selected Populations Of Polar Bears (Ursus Maritimus) In The Canadian Arctic. Arctic 59.3 (2006): 261-275. Environment Complete. Web. 21 Mar. 2012. Thuiller, et al. Potential Impacts Of Future Land Use And Climate Change On The Red List Status Of The Proteaceae In The Cape Floristic Region, South Africa. Global Change Biology 11.9 (2005): 1452-1468. Environment Complete. Web. 17 Feb. 2012. Waldman, M., and Y. Shevah. "Biological Diversity - an Overview. " Water, Air and Soil Pollution 123.1-4 (2000): 299. ABI/INFORM Global, ProQuest. Web. 3 Feb. 2012