Measuring the success of climate change adaptation and mitigation in terrestrial ecosystems

Measuring mitigation and adaptation As more and more carbon dioxide is emitted into the atmosphere, humans and the natural world are beset by the damaging consequences of a rapidly changing climate. Natural and seminatural ecosystems are likely to be the best starting place for immediate adaptation and mitigation solutions. First, though, many natural environments need restoration to maximize their own resilience to climate change. In reviewing our options, Morecroft et al. point out that we can directly observe the success of mitigation strategies by quantifying atmospheric carbon dioxide. Successful adaptation is more challenging because it involves a range of social and biodiversity measures. However, we could make matters worse if we do not constantly monitor the effects of the interventions we devise and react flexibly as changing conditions unfold. Science, this issue p. eaaw9256 BACKGROUND Responding effectively to climate change requires urgent action to halt net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and to adapt to changes that cannot be prevented. The Paris Agreement of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has committed governments to the following: keeping global temperature rise below 2°C, pursuing efforts to limit it to 1.5°C, and adapting to reduce the vulnerability of people and ecosystems to the damaging consequences of a changing climate. When protected, restored, or managed appropriately, natural and seminatural ecosystems make critical contributions to climate change mitigation and to helping people adapt to climate change. Ecosystems themselves are vulnerable to climate change, but by restoring natural ecosystem processes, resilience can be built, and a wide range of adaptation strategies can ameliorate the impacts. Both synergies and conflicts between different objectives can arise, and it is essential to have clarity about what constitutes success across the range of adaptation and mitigation outcomes and to track progress. The success of ecosystem-based mitigation can be measured in terms of falling net emissions and stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentration. Although this is conceptually straightforward, it can be difficult to measure ecosystem fluxes accurately. Adaptation is more complicated because it encompasses a wide range of objectives, with respect to people and biodiversity, including both reducing vulnerability and managing unavoidable change. ADVANCES Many studies have investigated how nature-based solutions can contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation. The evidence is now clear that protecting and restoring ecosystems is essential to holding global temperature rise to between 1.5° and 2°C. The value of different interventions for reducing GHG emissions and promoting carbon sequestration can be quantified with varying degrees of confidence. The evidence for the effectiveness, opportunities, and limitations of ecosystem-based adaptation in enabling people to cope with climate change is also growing, and these approaches are starting to be implemented. Adaptation to reduce the vulnerability of biodiversity and ecosystems themselves to climate change has been discussed over many years but proposed measures remain largely untested. This is starting to change, with recent studies gathering empirical evidence of the factors that influence the vulnerability of ecosystems and biodiversity. Nevertheless, evaluation and reporting of adaptation is currently focused on planning and implementation of actions rather than on assessment of whether these programs have successfully reduced vulnerability. OUTLOOK A picture is emerging of what successful adaptation and mitigation in terrestrial ecosystems looks like when it is built around protecting and restoring natural ecosystem processes. To realize the potential of ecosystems to ameliorate climate change requires integrated actions that are consistent with wider biodiversity and sustainable development goals. High-carbon ecosystems, particularly forests and peatlands, are essential, but other ecosystems, such as savannas, are also important elements of wider nature-based solutions and should be protected and restored. Pursuing mitigation objectives alone risks perverse outcomes that increase rather than reduce vulnerability. Further work is required to test the effectiveness of specific ecosystem-based mitigation and adaptation measures and what works best to support biodiversity in a changing climate. More-robust monitoring and evaluation are needed to drive progress. Measuring adaptation for biodiversity is particularly challenging, and monitoring and management will need to develop together as we learn from experience. The role of natural and seminatural ecosystems in adaptation to and mitigation of climate change. The flow diagram shows the relationships between adaptation for biodiversity, ecosystem-based adaptation for people, and ecosystem-based mitigation. Negative impacts of climate change are shown in dark gray, and positive responses are shown in green. Successful ecosystem response to climate change depends on an integrated approach to ensure that synergistic effects are maximized and harms are avoided. Natural and seminatural ecosystems must be at the forefront of efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change. In the urgency of current circumstances, ecosystem restoration represents a range of available, efficient, and effective solutions to cut net greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change. Although mitigation success can be measured by monitoring changing fluxes of greenhouse gases, adaptation is more complicated to measure, and reductions in a wide range of risks for biodiversity and people must be evaluated. Progress has been made in the monitoring and evaluation of adaptation and mitigation measures, but more emphasis on testing the effectiveness of proposed strategies is necessary. It is essential to take an integrated view of mitigation, adaptation, biodiversity, and the needs of people, to realize potential synergies and avoid conflict between different objectives.

[1]  Andrew Haywood,et al.  Adaptive monitoring in the real world: proof of concept. , 2011, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[2]  Des B. A. Thompson,et al.  Modelling edge effects of mature forest plantations on peatland waders informs landscape-scale conservation , 2014 .

[3]  F. Jiguet,et al.  Differences in the climatic debts of birds and butterflies at a continental scale , 2012 .

[4]  Claude A. Garcia,et al.  The global tree restoration potential , 2019, Science.

[5]  Richard M Cowling,et al.  Conservation planning in a changing world. , 2007, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[6]  Pete Smith,et al.  Natural climate solutions , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[7]  J. Lundgren,et al.  Regenerative agriculture: merging farming and natural resource conservation profitably , 2018, PeerJ.

[8]  I. Maclean,et al.  Using in situ management to conserve biodiversity under climate change , 2016, The Journal of applied ecology.

[9]  L. Poggio,et al.  Tiny niches and translocations: The challenge of identifying suitable recipient sites for small and immobile species , 2018 .

[10]  J. Sauer,et al.  Consistent response of bird populations to climate change on two continents , 2016, Science.

[11]  C. Field,et al.  The global overlap of bioenergy and carbon sequestration potential , 2018, Climatic Change.

[12]  D. Noble,et al.  How can assemblage structure indices improve monitoring of change in bird communities using ongoing survey data? , 2019, Ecological Indicators.

[13]  Chen Chen,et al.  Tracking global climate change adaptation among governments , 2019, Nature Climate Change.

[14]  Swanni T. Alvarado,et al.  Resilience and restoration of tropical and subtropical grasslands, savannas, and grassy woodlands , 2018, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[15]  Tom A. August,et al.  Extinction risk from climate change is reduced by microclimatic buffering , 2018, Nature Climate Change.

[16]  Bridget A. Emmett,et al.  Can tree shelterbelts on agricultural land reduce flood risk? , 2004 .

[17]  Susanne C. Moser,et al.  Navigating the Political and Emotional Terrain of Adaptation: Community Engagement When Climate Change Comes Home Chapter in: Moser, S.C. and M.T. Boykoff (eds.). Successful Adaptation to Climate Change: Linking Science and Policy in a Rapidly Changing World. Routledge, London, pp.289-305. , 2013 .

[18]  Peter H. Singleton,et al.  Restoring fire-prone Inland Pacific landscapes: seven core principles , 2015, Landscape Ecology.

[19]  M. Diekmann Species indicator values as an important tool in applied plant ecology – a review , 2003 .

[20]  Carrie A. Schloss,et al.  New concepts, models, and assessments of climate-wise connectivity , 2018, Environmental Research Letters.

[21]  Giselda Durigan,et al.  Woody encroachment and its consequences on hydrological processes in the savannah , 2016, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[22]  W. Adger,et al.  Successful adaptation to climate change across scales , 2005 .

[23]  D. Sear,et al.  The effects of river restoration on catchment scale flood risk and flood hydrology , 2016 .

[24]  C. Thomas,et al.  Climate change vulnerability for species – assessing the assessments , 2016, bioRxiv.

[25]  Rosalind J. Cornforth,et al.  Building climate resilience: Lessons of early warning in Africa , 2013 .

[26]  Benjamin Smith,et al.  Role of forest regrowth in global carbon sink dynamics , 2019, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[27]  Martijn Gough Climate change , 2009, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[28]  Daniel M. Griffith,et al.  Comment on “The global tree restoration potential” , 2019, Science.

[29]  Lisa Dilling,et al.  Is adaptation success a flawed concept? , 2019, Nature Climate Change.

[30]  David B. Lindenmayer,et al.  Direct Measurement Versus Surrogate Indicator Species for Evaluating Environmental Change and Biodiversity Loss , 2010, Ecosystems.

[31]  E. Zavaleta,et al.  Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: A review of 22 years of recommendations , 2009 .

[32]  E. Zavaleta,et al.  Harnessing nature to help people adapt to climate change , 2012 .

[33]  Don Monteith,et al.  An indicator highlights seasonal variation in the response of Lepidoptera communities to warming , 2016 .

[34]  T. Beechie,et al.  A systematic review of ecological attributes that confer resilience to climate change in environmental restoration , 2017, PloS one.

[35]  T. Stocker,et al.  Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. An overview of the Working Group 1 contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). , 2013 .

[36]  H. Chmura,et al.  MOVING THE CONSERVATION GOALPOSTS: A REVIEW OF CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION LITERATURE , 2011 .

[37]  T. E. Langford,et al.  The influence of riparian shade on lowland stream water temperatures in southern England and their viability for brown trout , 2011 .

[38]  R. A. Garcia,et al.  Climate change vulnerability assessment of species , 2018, WIREs Climate Change.

[39]  Claire Stewart,et al.  The exceptional value of intact forest ecosystems , 2018, Nature Ecology & Evolution.

[40]  J. Rowan,et al.  Evaluating wider benefits of natural flood management strategies: an ecosystem-based adaptation perspective , 2014 .

[41]  Atul K. Jain,et al.  Global Carbon Budget 2018 , 2014, Earth System Science Data.

[42]  Christel Prudhomme,et al.  Interacting effects of climate change and habitat fragmentation on drought-sensitive butterflies , 2015 .

[43]  H. Muri The role of large—scale BECCS in the pursuit of the 1.5°C target: an Earth system model perspective , 2018 .

[44]  J. Pearce‐Higgins,et al.  Site-based adaptation reduces the negative effects of weather upon a southern range margin Welsh black grouse Tetrao tetrix population that is vulnerable to climate change , 2019, Climatic Change.

[45]  R. Bradstock,et al.  Defining pyromes and global syndromes of fire regimes , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[46]  J. Turunen,et al.  Carbon loss in drained forestry peatlands in Finland, estimated by re‐sampling peatlands surveyed in the 1980s , 2012 .

[47]  D. Noble,et al.  Developing indicators for European birds , 2005, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[48]  Brian Huntley,et al.  Assisted colonization in a changing climate: a test‐study using two U.K. butterflies , 2009 .

[49]  S. Lewis,et al.  Restoring natural forests is the best way to remove atmospheric carbon , 2019, Nature.

[50]  Anita Wreford,et al.  Ecosystem-based solutions for disaster risk reduction: Lessons from European applications of ecosystem-based adaptation measures , 2017, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction.

[51]  F. Tubiello,et al.  New estimates of CO2 forest emissions and removals: 1990-2015 , 2015 .

[52]  A. Andersen,et al.  The underestimated biodiversity of tropical grassy biomes , 2016, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[53]  Veronica A. J. Doerr,et al.  Shifting the conservation paradigm: a synthesis of options for renovating nature under climate change , 2019, Ecological Monographs.

[54]  Tom A. August,et al.  A national-scale assessment of climate change impacts on species: Assessing the balance of risks and opportunities for multiple taxa , 2017 .

[55]  L. Boschetti,et al.  FAOSTAT estimates of greenhouse gas emissions from biomass and peat fires , 2016, Climatic Change.

[56]  S. Natali,et al.  Wetlands In a Changing Climate: Science, Policy and Management , 2018, Wetlands.

[57]  B. Mackey,et al.  Ecosystem-based Adaptation: A review of the constraints , 2018, Environmental Science & Policy.

[58]  Humphrey Q. P. Crick,et al.  Resilience to climate change: translating principles into practice , 2012 .

[59]  William V. Dube,et al.  Translating principles into practice , 2013 .

[60]  K. Schaefer,et al.  The impact of the permafrost carbon feedback on global climate , 2014 .

[61]  Assessing Floodplain Forests: Using Flow Modeling and Remote Sensing to Determine the Best Places for Conservation , 2010 .

[62]  Pierre Hiernaux,et al.  Savanna Vegetation-Fire-Climate Relationships Differ Among Continents , 2014, Science.

[63]  Sarah C. Sawyer,et al.  Managing Climate Change Refugia for Climate Adaptation , 2016, PloS one.

[64]  Melanie Volkamer,et al.  Proof of Concept , 2009 .

[65]  S. Ormerod,et al.  Beyond cool: adapting upland streams for climate change using riparian woodlands , 2016, Global change biology.

[66]  C. Wamsler,et al.  The promises and pitfalls of ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change as a vehicle for social empowerment , 2019, Ecology and Society.

[67]  Alfons Bora,et al.  Final Report to the European Commission , 2004 .

[68]  Pete Smith,et al.  Contribution of the land sector to a 1.5 °C world , 2019, Nature Climate Change.

[69]  L. Menichetti,et al.  The underappreciated potential of peatlands in global climate change mitigation strategies , 2018, Nature Communications.

[70]  Brian J. Harvey,et al.  The nature of the beast: examining climate adaptation options in forests with stand‐replacing fire regimes , 2018 .

[71]  E. Tuittila,et al.  Greenhouse gas emission factors associated with rewetting of organic soils , 2016 .

[72]  M. Rivington,et al.  Climate change and Ecosystem-based Adaptation: a new pragmatic approach to buffering climate change impacts , 2013 .

[73]  Nigel G. Yoccoz,et al.  Ecosystem-based monitoring in the age of rapid climate change and new technologies , 2017 .