The Effect of Applying Alternate IPCC Climate Scenarios to Marine Reserve Design for Range Changing Species

Abstract

Effectively protecting of biodiversity in the future relies on reserves that accommodate potential climate change impacts. Climate predictions are based on plausible ranges of greenhouse gas concentration scenarios from the IPCC, called Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs). It is unknown how different scenarios influence spatial prioritization, particularly for species that change their range due to climate change. Using corals in Japan, we explore differences in priorities under three RCPs (RCP8.5, 4.5, and 2.6), comparing three time frames (current conditions, near future, and distant future). We targeted three temperature zones representing different coral community types, determined from predictions of sea-surface temperature for three RCPs. Results showed that using one RCP prediction to design a reserve system does a poor job at meeting conservation targets for other RCPs, missing up to 100% of the targets. We emphasize the importance of focusing conservation investment in "no regrets" areas that are important under every RCP.

Expanding marine protected areas to include degraded coral reefs

“…]) and unpredictable climate‐change effects (e.g., Makino et al. ) create new situations that require integration of traditional MPAs with new management tools (e.g., Graham et al. ; Rogers et al.…”

“…Relevant questions therefore when selecting DRs for protection include: (1) Does the site an assemblage of resistant species and (2) have local stressors-induced local selection of genotypes resistant to high levels of disturbance or to fluctuations of environmental conditions (e.g., turbidity, sedimentation, temperature, salinity, pH, and pollutants)? For example, sites with genotypes of high resistance should be given high priority as potential future refuges (e.g., Palumbi et al 2014) under different scenarios of climate change (e.g., Makino et al 2015).…”

Ecosystem‐based management of coral reefs under climate change

“…Although research has highlighted general characteristics of effective MPAs today (no‐take, enforced, old, large and isolated) (Edgar et al., ), other factors need to be considered in a high‐CO 2 world. MPA design needs to address future scenarios in addition to present issues (Makino et al., , ).…”

“…Furthermore, MPAs are unlikely to be a cure‐all for coral reef conservation because they do not provide direct protection from external impacts such as sedimentation from land run‐off (Fabricius et al., ; Gilby, Maxwell, Tibbetts, & Stevens, ), and may only be effective at maintaining ecosystem services in reefs of high structural complexity (Rogers et al., ). Where structural complexity is lost, reefs are heavily degraded, climate change impacts are unpredictable and there is high reliance on reefs, MPAs will need to be combined with other management approaches (Abelson et al., ; Graham et al., ; Makino et al., ; Rogers et al., ).…”

Biogeographic constraints to marine conservation in a changing climate

“…Other active areas of research in marine biogeography, such as within‐range distributions of individuals within species, are rarely acknowledged in MPA‐design research despite having the possibility to profoundly influence optimization models of MPAs and MPA networks, including the differential benefits of protecting different places within a species’ range . In general, research on MPA design tends to incorporate more sophisticated models of physical dynamics (e.g., advection‐diffusion of currents, temperature, and pH) than of ecological dynamics (e.g., within‐range species distributions, habitat associations, migrations and range shifts, species interactions, and adult movement) . However, ecological dynamics clearly affect the abundance and distribution of species over space and time, and thus possibly the success of MPAs in achieving diverse conservation goals.…”