Protected areas act as a buffer against detrimental effects of climate change—Evidence from large‐scale, long‐term abundance data

Abstract

Climate change is driving species to shift their distributions toward high altitudes and latitudes, while habitat loss and fragmentation may hamper species ability to follow their climatic envelope. These two drivers of change may act in synergy, with particularly disastrous impacts on biodiversity. Protected areas, PAs, may thus represent crucial buffers against the compounded effects of climate change and habitat loss. However, large‐scale studies assessing the performance of PAs as such buffers remain scarce and are largely based on species occurrence data. Conversely, abundance data have proven to be more reliable for addressing changes in wildlife populations under climate change. We evaluated changes in bird abundance from the 1970s–80s to the 2000s inside and outside PAs at the trailing range edge of 30 northern bird species and at the leading range edge of 70 southern species. Abundances of retracting northern species were higher and declined less inside PAs at their trailing range edge. The positive effect of PAs on bird abundances was particularly marked in northern species that rely strongly on PAs, that is, their density distribution is largely confined within PAs. These species were nearly absent outside PAs in the 2000s. The abundances of southern species were in general lower inside PAs and increased less from the 70s–80s to 2000s. Nonetheless, species with high reliance on PAs had much higher abundances inside than outside PAs in the 2000s. These results show that PAs are essential in mitigating the retraction of northern species, but also facilitate northward expansions of southern species highly reliant on PAs. Our study provides empirical evidence documenting the role of PAs in facilitating species to adjust to rapidly changing climatic conditions, thereby contributing to the mitigation of impending biodiversity loss. PAs may thus allow time for initiating wider conservation programs on currently unprotected land.

Landbird trends in protected areas using time‐to‐event occupancy models

“…Research in Europe suggests that mountain landbird populations have been in decline (Lehikoinen et al 2019a) and are shifting their ranges in elevation (Maggini et al 2011) or latitude (Brommer et al 2012) in concert with temperature changes. Unlike the European studies, our study occurred entirely within protected areas, which can reduce extinction rates and enhance the resilience of landbird populations (Virkkala et al 2014, Lehikoinen et al 2019b, Peach et al 2019). Thus, a pooled analysis of landbird data from both inside and outside national parks would help differentiate the importance of protected areas, climate change, and human activity on songbird populations in mountainous areas of North America.…”

“…Populations of many mountain bird species have declined in Europe (Lehikoinen et al 2019a), yet some in North America have remained stable (Ray et al 2017). Bird species in protected areas have had lower extinction rates and higher colonization rates compared to unprotected areas (Ray et al 2017, Lehikoinen et al 2019b, Peach et al 2019. Birds in protected areas, where some of the research in North America occurred, may be more resilient to climate change.…”

“…Birds in protected areas, where some of the research in North America occurred, may be more resilient to climate change. Bird species in protected areas have had lower extinction rates and higher colonization rates compared to unprotected areas (Ray et al 2017, Lehikoinen et al 2019b, Peach et al 2019. Overall, many questions remain about how changing climatic conditions will affect the status and trends of bird populations in many regions of the world.…”

Interface processes between protected and unprotected areas: A global review and ways forward

“…The first type (red plain lines) refers to local social-ecological interactions between human and nonhuman components (either inside PAs or in their surroundings). The second type (blue dotted lines) refers to cross-boundary interactions between biophysical, social, and social-ecological components [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com] biodiversity-friendly actions in unprotected areas (Lehikoinen, Santangeli, Jaatinen, Rajasärkkä, & Lehikoinen, 2019). Yet if these actions deprive local communities of the natural resources important to their livelihoods, they may jeopardize community well-being and undermine social support for conservation (McElwee, 2010).…”

“…A clear understanding of interface processes and their effects on biodiversity inside and outside of PAs as well as on social systems is crucial in order to improve PA management and biodiversity conservation. In the context of shifting climatic conditions, biodiversity conservation in the near future will rely on the ability of species to move outside current PA networks, which will be facilitated by effective biodiversity‐friendly actions in unprotected areas (Lehikoinen, Santangeli, Jaatinen, Rajasärkkä, & Lehikoinen, ). Yet if these actions deprive local communities of the natural resources important to their livelihoods, they may jeopardize community well‐being and undermine social support for conservation (McElwee, ).…”