Jump to content

Refugium (population biology): Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Jwfelder (talk | contribs)
46 edits
corrected a sentence, added more about climate change refugia
Jwfelder (talk | contribs)
46 edits
expanded climate change refugia section
Line 24: Line 24:


== Climate change refugia ==
== Climate change refugia ==
In [[Conservation biology#Systematic conservation planning|systematic conservation planning]], the term ''refugium'' has been used to define areas that could be used in [[Protected area|protected area]] development to protect species from [[Climate change|climate change]].<ref name=":0" /> The term has been used alternatively to refer to areas with stable habitats or stable climates.<ref name=":0" /> More specifically, the term ''in situ'' refugium is used to refer to areas that will allow species that exist in an area to remain there even as conditions change, whereas ''ex situ'' refugium refers to an area into which species distributions can move to in response to climate change.<ref name=":0" /> Sites that offer ''in situ'' refugia are also called ''[[Climate resilience|resilient sites]]'' in which species will continue to have what they need to survive even as climate changes.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://conservationgateway.org//ConservationByGeography/NorthAmerica/UnitedStates/oregon/science/Pages/Resilient-Landscapes.aspx|title=Climate Change Resilience in the Pacific Northwest|website=conservationgateway.org|access-date=2019-03-19}}</ref>
In [[Conservation biology#Systematic conservation planning|systematic conservation planning]], the term ''refugium'' has been used to define areas that could be used in [[Protected area|protected area]] development to protect species from [[Climate change|climate change]].<ref name=":0" /> The term has been used alternatively to refer to areas with stable habitats or stable climates.<ref name=":0" /> More specifically, the term ''in situ'' refugium is used to refer to areas that will allow species that exist in an area to remain there even as conditions change, whereas ''ex situ'' refugium refers to an area into which [[Species distribution|species distributions]] can move to in response to climate change.<ref name=":0" /> Sites that offer ''in situ'' refugia are also called ''[[Climate resilience|resilient sites]]'' in which species will continue to have what they need to survive even as climate changes.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|url=https://conservationgateway.org//ConservationByGeography/NorthAmerica/UnitedStates/oregon/science/Pages/Resilient-Landscapes.aspx|title=Climate Change Resilience in the Pacific Northwest|website=conservationgateway.org|access-date=2019-03-19}}</ref>

One study found with downscaled [[Climate model|climate models]] that areas near the coast are predicted to experience overall less warming than areas toward the interior of the US [[Washington (state)|State of Washington]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://waconnected.org/|title=Washington Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Working Group|access-date=2019-03-19}}</ref> Other research has found that [[Old-growth forest|old-growth forests]] are particularly insulated from climatic changes due to evaporative cooling effects from [[evapotranspiration]] and their ability to retain moisture.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Betts|first=Matthew G.|last2=Phalan|first2=Ben|last3=Frey|first3=Sarah J. K.|last4=Rousseau|first4=Josée S.|last5=Yang|first5=Zhiqiang|date=2018-4|editor-last=Albright|editor-first=Thomas|title=Old-growth forests buffer climate-sensitive bird populations from warming|url=http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/ddi.12688|journal=Diversity and Distributions|language=en|volume=24|issue=4|pages=439–447|doi=10.1111/ddi.12688}}</ref> The same study found that such effects in the [[Pacific Northwest]] would create important refugia for bird species. A review of refugia-focused conservation strategy in the [[Klamath Mountains (ecoregion)|Klamath-Siskiyou Ecoregion]] found that, in addition to old-growth forest, the northern aspects of hillslopes and deep gorges would provide relatively cool areas for wildlife and [[Seep (hydrology)|seeps]] or [[Bog|bogs]] surrounded by mature and old-growth forests would continue to supply moisture even as water availability decreases.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Olson|first=David|last2=DellaSala|first2=Dominick A.|last3=Noss|first3=Reed F.|last4=Strittholt|first4=James R.|last5=Kass|first5=Jamie|last6=Koopman|first6=Marni E.|last7=Allnutt|first7=Thomas F.|date=2012-1|title=Climate Change Refugia for Biodiversity in the Klamath-Siskiyou Ecoregion|url=http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.3375/043.032.0108|journal=Natural Areas Journal|language=en|volume=32|issue=1|pages=65–74|doi=10.3375/043.032.0108|issn=0885-8608}}</ref>

Beginning in 2010 concept of [[geodiversity]] (a term used previously in efforts to preserve scientifically important geological features) entered into the literature of [[Conservation biology|conservation biologists]] as a potential way to identify climate change refugia and as a surrogate (in other words, a proxy used when planning for protected areas) for biodiversity.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|last=Anderson|first=Mark G.|last2=Ferree|first2=Charles E.|date=2010-07-14|editor-last=Wright|editor-first=Justin|title=Conserving the Stage: Climate Change and the Geophysical Underpinnings of Species Diversity|url=https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0011554|journal=PLoS ONE|language=en|volume=5|issue=7|pages=e11554|doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0011554|issn=1932-6203|pmc=PMC2904386|pmid=20644646}}</ref><ref name=":3">{{Cite journal|last=Beier|first=Paul|last2=Brost|first2=Brian|date=2010-01-11|title=Use of Land Facets to Plan for Climate Change: Conserving the Arenas, Not the Actors: Land Facets for Climate-Change Planning|url=http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01422.x|journal=Conservation Biology|language=en|volume=24|issue=3|pages=701–710|doi=10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01422.x}}</ref><ref name=":4">{{Cite journal|last=Anderson|first=M. G.|last2=Comer|first2=P. J.|last3=Beier|first3=P.|last4=Lawler|first4=J. J.|last5=Schloss|first5=C. A.|last6=Buttrick|first6=S.|last7=Albano|first7=C. M.|last8=Faith|first8=D. P.|date=2015-6|title=Case studies of conservation plans that incorporate geodiversity: Geodiversity in Conservation Planning|url=http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/cobi.12503|journal=Conservation Biology|language=en|volume=29|issue=3|pages=680–691|doi=10.1111/cobi.12503}}</ref> While the language to describe this mode of conservation planning hadn't fully developed until recently, the use of geophysical diversity in conservation planning goes back at least as far as the work by Hunter and others in 1988,<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hunter|first=Malcolm L.|last2=Jacobson|first2=George L.|last3=Webb|first3=Thompson|date=1988-12|title=Paleoecology and the Coarse-Filter Approach to Maintaining Biological Diversity|url=http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1523-1739.1988.tb00202.x|journal=Conservation Biology|language=en|volume=2|issue=4|pages=375–385|doi=10.1111/j.1523-1739.1988.tb00202.x|issn=0888-8892}}</ref> and Richard Cowling and his colleagues in [[South Africa]] also used "spatial features" as surrogates for [[Ecology|ecological]] processes in establishing conservation areas in the late 1990s and early 2000s.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Cowling|first=R. M.|last2=Pressey|first2=R. L.|last3=Lombard|first3=A. T.|last4=Desmet|first4=P. G.|last5=Ellis|first5=A. G.|date=1999-1|title=From representation to persistence: requirements for a sustainable system of conservation areas in the species-rich mediterranean-climate desert of southern Africa|url=http://doi.wiley.com/10.1046/j.1472-4642.1999.00038.x|journal=Diversity Distributions|language=en|volume=5|issue=1-2|pages=51–71|doi=10.1046/j.1472-4642.1999.00038.x|issn=1366-9516}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Cowling|first=R.M|last2=Pressey|first2=R.L|last3=Rouget|first3=M|last4=Lombard|first4=A.T|date=2003-7|title=A conservation plan for a global biodiversity hotspot—the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa|url=http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0006320702004251|journal=Biological Conservation|language=en|volume=112|issue=1-2|pages=191–216|doi=10.1016/S0006-3207(02)00425-1}}</ref> The most recent efforts have used the idea of ''land facets'' (also referred to as ''geophysical settings'', ''enduring features'', or ''geophysical stages''<ref name=":1" />), which are unique combinations of [[Topography|topographical features]] (such as slope steepness, slope direction, and [[elevation]]) and [[soil]] composition, to quantify physical features.<ref name=":3" /> The density of these facets, in turn, is used as a measure of geodiversity.<ref name=":4" /><ref name=":1" /> Because geodiversity has been shown to be correlated with biodiversity,<ref name=":2" /> even as species move in response to climate change, protected areas with high geodiversity may continue to protect biodiversity as niches get filled by the influx of species from neighboring areas.<ref name=":1" /> Highly geodiverse protected areas may also allow for the movement of species within the area from one land facet or elevation to another.<ref name=":1" />

Conservation scientists, however, emphasize that the use of refugia to plan for climate change is not a substitute for fine-scale (more localized) and traditional approaches to conservation, as individual species and [[Ecosystem|ecosystems]] will need to be protected where they exist in the present.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Heller|first=Nicole E.|last2=Zavaleta|first2=Erika S.|date=2009-1|title=Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: A review of 22 years of recommendations|url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S000632070800387X|journal=Biological Conservation|language=en|volume=142|issue=1|pages=14–32|doi=10.1016/j.biocon.2008.10.006}}</ref> They also emphasize that responding to climate change in conservation is not a substitute for actually limiting the causes of climate change.<ref name=":2" />


==See also==
==See also==

Revision as of 19:37, 19 March 2019

For other uses, see Refugium (disambiguation).
European Last Glacial Maximum refugia, 20 kya.

In biology, a refugium (plural: refugia) is a location which supports an isolated or relict population of a once more widespread species. This isolation (allopatry) can be due to climatic changes, geography, or human activities such as deforestation and overhunting.

Present examples of refuge species are the mountain gorilla, isolated to specific mountains in central Africa, and the Australian sea lion, isolated to specific breeding beaches along the south-west coast of Australia, due to humans taking so many of their number as game. This resulting isolation, in many cases, can be seen as only a temporary state; however, some refugia may be longstanding, thereby having many endemic species, not found elsewhere, which survive as relict populations. The Indo-Pacific Warm Pool has been proposed to be a longstanding refugium, based on the discovery of the "living fossil" of a marine dinoflagellate called Dapsilidinium pastielsii, currently found in the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool only.[1]

In anthropology, refugia often refers specifically to Last Glacial Maximum refugia, where some ancestral human populations may have been forced back to glacial refugia, similar small isolated pockets in the face of the continental ice sheets during the last glacial period. Going from west to east, suggested examples include the Franco-Cantabrian region (in northern Iberia), the Italian and Balkan peninsulas, the Ukrainian LGM refuge, and the Bering Land Bridge. Archaeological and genetic data suggest that the source populations of Paleolithic humans survived the glacial maxima (incl. the Last Glacial Maximum) in sparsely wooded areas and dispersed through areas of high primary productivity while avoiding dense forest cover.[2]

More recently, refugia has been used to refer to areas that could offer relative climate stability in the face of modern climate change.[3]

Speciation

As an example of a locale refugia study, Jürgen Haffer first proposed the concept of refugia to explain the biological diversity of bird populations in the Amazonian river basin. Haffer suggested that climatic change in the late Pleistocene led to reduced reservoirs of habitable forests in which populations become allopatric. Over time, that led to speciation: populations of the same species that found themselves in different refugia evolved differently, creating parapatric sister-species. As the Pleistocene ended, the arid conditions gave way to the present humid rainforest environment, reconnecting the refugia.

Scholars have since expanded the idea of this mode of speciation and used it to explain population patterns in other areas of the world, such as Africa, Eurasia, and North America. Theoretically, current biogeographical patterns can be used to infer past refugia: if several unrelated species follow concurrent range patterns, the area may have been a refugium. Moreover, the current distribution of species with narrow ecological requirements tend to be associated with the spatial position of glacial refugia.[4]

Simple environment examples of temperature

One can provide a simple explanation of refugia involving core temperatures and exposure to sunlight. In the northern hemisphere, north-facing sites on hills or mountains, and places at higher elevations count as cold sites. The reverse are sun- or heat-exposed, lower-elevation, south-facing sites: hot sites. (The opposite directions apply in the southern hemisphere.) Each site becomes a refugium, one as a "cold-surviving refugium" and the other as a "hot-surviving refugium". Canyons with deep hidden areas (the opposite of hillsides, mountains, mesas, etc. or other exposed areas) lead to these separate types of refugia.

A concept not often referenced is that of "sweepstakes colonization":[5][6] when a dramatic ecological event occurs, for example a meteor strike, and global, multiyear effects occur. The sweepstake-winning species happens to already be living in a fortunate site, and their environment is rendered even more advantageous, as opposed to the "losing" species, which immediately fails to reproduce.[5][6]

Climate change refugia

In systematic conservation planning, the term refugium has been used to define areas that could be used in protected area development to protect species from climate change.[3] The term has been used alternatively to refer to areas with stable habitats or stable climates.[3] More specifically, the term in situ refugium is used to refer to areas that will allow species that exist in an area to remain there even as conditions change, whereas ex situ refugium refers to an area into which species distributions can move to in response to climate change.[3] Sites that offer in situ refugia are also called resilient sites in which species will continue to have what they need to survive even as climate changes.[7]

One study found with downscaled climate models that areas near the coast are predicted to experience overall less warming than areas toward the interior of the US State of Washington.[8] Other research has found that old-growth forests are particularly insulated from climatic changes due to evaporative cooling effects from evapotranspiration and their ability to retain moisture.[9] The same study found that such effects in the Pacific Northwest would create important refugia for bird species. A review of refugia-focused conservation strategy in the Klamath-Siskiyou Ecoregion found that, in addition to old-growth forest, the northern aspects of hillslopes and deep gorges would provide relatively cool areas for wildlife and seeps or bogs surrounded by mature and old-growth forests would continue to supply moisture even as water availability decreases.[10]

Beginning in 2010 concept of geodiversity (a term used previously in efforts to preserve scientifically important geological features) entered into the literature of conservation biologists as a potential way to identify climate change refugia and as a surrogate (in other words, a proxy used when planning for protected areas) for biodiversity.[11][12][13] While the language to describe this mode of conservation planning hadn't fully developed until recently, the use of geophysical diversity in conservation planning goes back at least as far as the work by Hunter and others in 1988,[14] and Richard Cowling and his colleagues in South Africa also used "spatial features" as surrogates for ecological processes in establishing conservation areas in the late 1990s and early 2000s.[15][16] The most recent efforts have used the idea of land facets (also referred to as geophysical settings, enduring features, or geophysical stages[7]), which are unique combinations of topographical features (such as slope steepness, slope direction, and elevation) and soil composition, to quantify physical features.[12] The density of these facets, in turn, is used as a measure of geodiversity.[13][7] Because geodiversity has been shown to be correlated with biodiversity,[11] even as species move in response to climate change, protected areas with high geodiversity may continue to protect biodiversity as niches get filled by the influx of species from neighboring areas.[7] Highly geodiverse protected areas may also allow for the movement of species within the area from one land facet or elevation to another.[7]

Conservation scientists, however, emphasize that the use of refugia to plan for climate change is not a substitute for fine-scale (more localized) and traditional approaches to conservation, as individual species and ecosystems will need to be protected where they exist in the present.[11][17] They also emphasize that responding to climate change in conservation is not a substitute for actually limiting the causes of climate change.[11]

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Mertens, K.N.; Takano, Y.; Head, M.J.; Matsuoka, K. (2014). "Living fossils in the Indo-Pacific warm pool: A refuge for thermophilic dinoflagellates during glaciations". Geology. 42: 531–534. doi:10.1130/G35456.1.
  2. ^ Gavashelishvili, A.; Tarkhnishvili, D. (2016). "Biomes and human distribution during the last ice age". Global Ecology and Biogeography. 25: 563–574. doi:10.1111/geb.12437.
  3. ^ a b c d Ashcroft, Michael B. (2010). "Identifying refugia from climate change". Journal of Biogeography. 37: 1407–1413. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2699.2010.02300.x – via Wiley Online.
  4. ^ Tarkhnishvili, David (2011). "Palaeoclimatic models help to understand current distribution of Caucasian forest species". Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 105: 231–248. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.2011.01788.x.
  5. ^ a b Petit, Rémy J; Hu, Feng Sheng; Dick, Christopher W. (2008). "Forests of the Past: A Window to Future Changes". Science. 320 (5882): 1450–1452. doi:10.1126/science.1155457.
  6. ^ a b Penny, Norman D; Penny, Fabio R. (10 April 2001). "Gulf of Guinea Islands Biodiversity Project". California Academy of Sciences. Retrieved 26 April 2016.
  7. ^ a b c d e "Climate Change Resilience in the Pacific Northwest". conservationgateway.org. Retrieved 2019-03-19.
  8. ^ "Washington Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Working Group". Retrieved 2019-03-19.
  9. ^ Betts, Matthew G.; Phalan, Ben; Frey, Sarah J. K.; Rousseau, Josée S.; Yang, Zhiqiang (2018-4). Albright, Thomas (ed.). "Old-growth forests buffer climate-sensitive bird populations from warming". Diversity and Distributions. 24 (4): 439–447. doi:10.1111/ddi.12688. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  10. ^ Olson, David; DellaSala, Dominick A.; Noss, Reed F.; Strittholt, James R.; Kass, Jamie; Koopman, Marni E.; Allnutt, Thomas F. (2012-1). "Climate Change Refugia for Biodiversity in the Klamath-Siskiyou Ecoregion". Natural Areas Journal. 32 (1): 65–74. doi:10.3375/043.032.0108. ISSN 0885-8608. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  11. ^ a b c d Anderson, Mark G.; Ferree, Charles E. (2010-07-14). Wright, Justin (ed.). "Conserving the Stage: Climate Change and the Geophysical Underpinnings of Species Diversity". PLoS ONE. 5 (7): e11554. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011554. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 2904386. PMID 20644646.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  12. ^ a b Beier, Paul; Brost, Brian (2010-01-11). "Use of Land Facets to Plan for Climate Change: Conserving the Arenas, Not the Actors: Land Facets for Climate-Change Planning". Conservation Biology. 24 (3): 701–710. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01422.x.
  13. ^ a b Anderson, M. G.; Comer, P. J.; Beier, P.; Lawler, J. J.; Schloss, C. A.; Buttrick, S.; Albano, C. M.; Faith, D. P. (2015-6). "Case studies of conservation plans that incorporate geodiversity: Geodiversity in Conservation Planning". Conservation Biology. 29 (3): 680–691. doi:10.1111/cobi.12503. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  14. ^ Hunter, Malcolm L.; Jacobson, George L.; Webb, Thompson (1988-12). "Paleoecology and the Coarse-Filter Approach to Maintaining Biological Diversity". Conservation Biology. 2 (4): 375–385. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.1988.tb00202.x. ISSN 0888-8892. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  15. ^ Cowling, R. M.; Pressey, R. L.; Lombard, A. T.; Desmet, P. G.; Ellis, A. G. (1999-1). "From representation to persistence: requirements for a sustainable system of conservation areas in the species-rich mediterranean-climate desert of southern Africa". Diversity Distributions. 5 (1–2): 51–71. doi:10.1046/j.1472-4642.1999.00038.x. ISSN 1366-9516. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  16. ^ Cowling, R.M; Pressey, R.L; Rouget, M; Lombard, A.T (2003-7). "A conservation plan for a global biodiversity hotspot—the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa". Biological Conservation. 112 (1–2): 191–216. doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(02)00425-1. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  17. ^ Heller, Nicole E.; Zavaleta, Erika S. (2009-1). "Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: A review of 22 years of recommendations". Biological Conservation. 142 (1): 14–32. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.10.006. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  18. ^ "Unepscs.org". Refugia.unepscs.org. Retrieved 2012-03-12.

References

Look up refugium in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Refugium_(population_biology)&oldid=888534511"