Affiliation:
1. University of Bucharest
2. Columbia University
3. Vrancea Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
Abstract
Climate change poses an increasing risk to biodiversity and habitats important for saproxylic beetles are likely to experience severe pressure and threats. The diversity of saproxylic beetles is an indicator of healthy forest ecosystems, and thus, the conservation of beetles is now a priority for EU Member States. We developed ensemble species distribution models for five saproxylic beetles for current and three-time future horizons under two emission scenarios and two GCMs. We then used a systematic conservation planning approach to assess the effectiveness and resilience to climate change of Romanian Natura 2000 network for saproxylic beetles while identifying future areas for protected area expansion to meet EU conservation targets. Our study revealed that under all scenarios and time horizons, the saproxylic beetles will lose over 80% of their suitable habitat and restrict their distribution to higher elevations. According to the prioritization analysis, we found that when considering 30% of the landscape as protected, an average of 85% of species distribution is retained with priority areas overlapping the Carpathian Mountains, while for the current conditions (18% of Romania’s terrestrial surface), the existing Natura 2000 network does not perform well, with almost ~30% of the saproxylic species distributions falling inside. Our results support the idea that the distribution of saproxylic beetles could change as a result of climate change, and the effectiveness of the current Natura 2000 network is put into question as it may be insufficient in protecting these species. To achieve the goals of the EU Biodiversity Strategy 2030 of protecting at least 30% of the EU’s land, we urge the expansion of the Natura 2000 sites.
Publisher
Research Square Platform LLC
Reference99 articles.
1. Aiello-Lammens ME, Boria RA, Radosavljevic A, et al (2015) spThin: an R package for spatial thinning of species occurrence records for use in ecological niche models. Ecography 38:541–545. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.01132
2. Allouche O, Tsoar A, Kadmon R (2006) Assessing the accuracy of species distribution models: prevalence, kappa and the true skill statistic (TSS). Journal of Applied Ecology 43:1223–1232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01214.x
3. Barbet-Massin M, Jiguet F, Albert CH, Thuiller W (2012) Selecting pseudo-absences for species distribution models: how, where and how many? Methods in Ecology and Evolution 3:327–338. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2011.00172.x
4. Bărbuceanu D, Niculescu M, Boruz V, et al (2015) Protected saproxylic coleoptera in “the forests in the southern part of the Cândeşti Piedmont”, a Romanian Natura 2000 Protected Area. Annals of the University of Craiova - Agriculture, Montanology, Cadastre Series XLV:18–25
5. Bardiani M, Chiari S, Maurizi E, et al (2017) Guidelines for the monitoring of Lucanus cervus. NC 20:37–78. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.20.12687