The interplay of climate and land use change affects the distribution of EU bumblebees

Bumblebees in Europe have been in steady decline since the 1900s. This decline is expected to continue with climate change as the main driver. However, at the local scale, land use and land cover (LULC) change strongly affects the occurrence of bumblebees. At present, LULC change is rarely included in models of future distributions of species. This study's objective is to compare the roles of dynamic LULC change and climate change on the projected distribution patterns of 48 European bumblebee species for three change scenarios until 2100 at the scales of Europe, and Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg (BENELUX). We compared three types of models: (1) only climate covariates, (2) climate and static LULC covariates and (3) climate and dynamic LULC covariates. The climate and LULC change scenarios used in the models include, extreme growth applied strategy (GRAS), business as might be usual and sustainable European development goals. We analysed model performance, range gain/loss and the shift in range limits for all bumblebees. Overall, model performance improved with the introduction of LULC covariates. Dynamic models projected less range loss and gain than climate-only projections, and greater range loss and gain than static models. Overall, there is considerable variation in species responses and effects were most pronounced at the BENELUX scale. The majority of species were predicted to lose considerable range, particularly under the extreme growth scenario (GRAS; overall mean: 64% ± 34). Model simulations project a number of local extinctions and considerable range loss at the BENELUX scale (overall mean: 56% ± 39). Therefore, we recommend species-specific modelling to understand how LULC and climate interact in future modelling. The efficacy of dynamic LULC change should improve with higher thematic and spatial resolution. Nevertheless, current broad scale representations of change in major land use classes impact modelled future distribution patterns.

[1]  Jennifer A. Miller,et al.  Mapping Species Distributions: Spatial Inference and Prediction , 2010 .

[2]  O. Schweiger,et al.  Improving International Trade Regulation by Considering Intraspecific Variation for Invasion Risk Assessment of Commercially Traded Species: The Bombus terrestris Case , 2016 .

[3]  A. Nieto.  European Red List of bees , 2014 .

[4]  R. Bommarco,et al.  Local and landscape-level floral resources explain effects of wildflower strips on wild bees across four European countries , 2015 .

[5]  T. Kram,et al.  The use of scenarios as the basis for combined assessment of climate change mitigation and adaptation , 2011 .

[6]  P. Ehrlich,et al.  Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction , 2015, Science Advances.

[7]  Pete Smith,et al.  A coherent set of future land use change scenarios for Europe , 2006 .

[8]  P. Verburg,et al.  From land cover change to land function dynamics: a major challenge to improve land characterization. , 2009, Journal of environmental management.

[9]  W. Lucht,et al.  Terrestrial vegetation and water balance-hydrological evaluation of a dynamic global vegetation model , 2004 .

[10]  L. Brotóns,et al.  Climate Change or Land Use Dynamics: Do We Know What Climate Change Indicators Indicate? , 2011, PloS one.

[11]  L. Maiorano,et al.  Knowing the past to predict the future: land‐use change and the distribution of invasive bullfrogs , 2010 .

[12]  Hans Van Dyck,et al.  Testing instead of assuming the importance of land use change scenarios to model species distributions under climate change , 2013 .

[13]  P. McCullagh,et al.  Generalized Linear Models , 1984 .

[14]  D. Michez,et al.  The survey of wild bees (Hymenoptera, Apoidea) in Belgium and France , 2005 .

[15]  Jessica C. Stanton,et al.  Combining static and dynamic variables in species distribution models under climate change , 2012 .

[16]  Paul H. Williams,et al.  Bumblebee vulnerability and conservation world-wide , 2009, Apidologie.

[17]  Damaris Zurell,et al.  Collinearity: a review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance , 2013 .

[18]  Niklaus E. Zimmermann,et al.  PAPER Where are the wild things? Why we need better data on species distribution , 2014 .

[19]  Steven J. Phillips,et al.  The art of modelling range‐shifting species , 2010 .

[20]  M. Bossard,et al.  CORINE land cover technical guide - Addendum 2000 , 2000 .

[21]  M. Rounsevell,et al.  Scenario-based studies of future land use in Europe , 2006 .

[22]  F. Jiguet,et al.  The fate of European breeding birds under climate, land‐use and dispersal scenarios , 2012 .

[23]  J. Houghton,et al.  Climate change 2001 : the scientific basis , 2001 .

[24]  Rebecca M. B. Harris,et al.  Improving the Use of Species Distribution Models in Conservation Planning and Management under Climate Change , 2014, PloS one.

[25]  M. Zappa,et al.  Climate change and plant distribution: local models predict high‐elevation persistence , 2009 .

[26]  Dan L Warren,et al.  Ecological niche modeling in Maxent: the importance of model complexity and the performance of model selection criteria. , 2011, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[27]  J. Biesmeijer,et al.  Testing projected wild bee distributions in agricultural habitats : predictive power depends on species traits and habitat , 2017 .

[28]  Gerald Busch,et al.  Future European agricultural landscapes—What can we learn from existing quantitative land use scenario studies? , 2006 .

[29]  J. Franklin.  Species distribution models in conservation biogeography: developments and challenges , 2013 .

[30]  Roy A. Sanderson,et al.  Effects of land use at a landscape scale on bumblebee nest density and survival , 2010 .

[31]  M. Schwartz,et al.  Multiple sources of uncertainty affect metrics for ranking conservation risk under climate change , 2015 .

[32]  S. Barros,et al.  Accretion-induced variability links young stellar objects, white dwarfs, and black holes , 2015, Science Advances.

[33]  Millenium Ecosystem Assessment.  Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis , 2005 .

[34]  Wolfgang Lucht,et al.  Three centuries of dual pressure from land use and climate change on the biosphere , 2015 .

[35]  Miroslav Dudík,et al.  Modeling of species distributions with Maxent: new extensions and a comprehensive evaluation , 2008 .

[36]  J. Biesmeijer,et al.  Susceptibility of pollinators to ongoing landscape changes depends on landscape history , 2015 .

[37]  J. Friedman.  Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine. , 2001 .

[38]  Á. Felicísimo,et al.  Profile or group discriminative techniques? Generating reliable species distribution models using pseudo‐absences and target‐group absences from natural history collections , 2010 .

[39]  Carsten Rahbek,et al.  Predicting continental-scale patterns of bird species richness with spatially explicit models , 2007, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[40]  T. Carter,et al.  Representing two centuries of past and future climate for assessing risks to biodiversity in Europe , 2012 .

[41]  B. McGill,et al.  Testing the predictive performance of distribution models , 2013 .

[42]  J. Biesmeijer,et al.  Fit-for-Purpose: Species Distribution Model Performance Depends on Evaluation Criteria – Dutch Hoverflies as a Case Study , 2013, PloS one.

[43]  Andy Purvis,et al.  Predicting bee community responses to land-use changes: Effects of geographic and taxonomic biases , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[44]  Y. Clough,et al.  Bumble bees show trait-dependent vulnerability to landscape simplification , 2015, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[46]  M. D. A. Rounsevella,et al.  Future scenarios of European agricultural land use II . Projecting changes in cropland and grassland , 2005 .

[47]  T. Carter,et al.  Future scenarios of European agricultural land use: II. Projecting changes in cropland and grassland , 2005 .

[48]  Harris David,et al.  A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists , 2013 .

[49]  T. D. Mitchell,et al.  A comprehensive set of high-resolution grids of monthly climate for Europe and the globe: the observed record (1901-2000) and 16 scenarios (2001-2100). , 2004 .

[50]  Paul Galpern,et al.  Climate change impacts on bumblebees converge across continents , 2015, Science.

[51]  P. Leadley,et al.  Impacts of climate change on the future of biodiversity. , 2012, Ecology letters.

[52]  W. Courtens,et al.  Modelling pink‐footed goose (Anser brachyrhynchus) wintering distributions for the year 2050: potential effects of land‐use change in Europe , 2008 .

[53]  J. Lobo,et al.  Threshold criteria for conversion of probability of species presence to either–or presence–absence , 2007 .

[54]  J. Biesmeijer,et al.  Developing European conservation and mitigation tools for pollination services: approaches of the STEP (Status and Trends of European Pollinators) project , 2011 .

[55]  C. Mantyka‐Pringle,et al.  Interactions between climate and habitat loss effects on biodiversity: a systematic review and meta‐analysis , 2012 .

[56]  Rebecca M. B. Harris,et al.  To Be Or Not to Be? Variable selection can change the projected fate of a threatened species under future climate , 2013 .

[57]  C. Marshall,et al.  Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? , 2011, Nature.

[58]  M. Luoto,et al.  The role of land cover in bioclimatic models depends on spatial resolution , 2006 .

[59]  Patrick Bogaert,et al.  A statistical method to downscale aggregated land use data and scenarios , 2006 .

[60]  J. Biesmeijer,et al.  Climatic Risk and Distribution Atlas of European Bumblebees , 2015 .

[61]  Isabelle Reginster,et al.  Scenarios for investigating risks to biodiversity , 2012 .

[62]  Artificial watering points are focal points for activity by an invasive herbivore but not native herbivores in conservation reserves in arid Australia , 2014, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[63]  T. Sohl.  The Relative Impacts of Climate and Land-Use Change on Conterminous United States Bird Species from 2001 to 2075 , 2014, PloS one.

[64]  P. Jones,et al.  Representing Twentieth-Century Space–Time Climate Variability. Part I: Development of a 1961–90 Mean Monthly Terrestrial Climatology , 1999 .

[65]  Wolfgang Cramer,et al.  Biodiversity scenarios neglect future land‐use changes , 2016, Global change biology.

[66]  Robert J. Hijmans,et al.  Geographic Data Analysis and Modeling , 2015 .

[67]  Megan McKerchar,et al.  The impact of over 80 years of land cover changes on bee and wasp pollinator communities in England , 2015, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[68]  J. Elith,et al.  Species Distribution Models: Ecological Explanation and Prediction Across Space and Time , 2009 .

[69]  S. Lavorel,et al.  Do we need land‐cover data to model species distributions in Europe? , 2004 .

[70]  J. Lobo,et al.  The use of occurrence data to predict the effects of climate change on insects. , 2016, Current opinion in insect science.

[71]  Steven J. Phillips,et al.  Sample selection bias and presence-only distribution models: implications for background and pseudo-absence data. , 2009, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[72]  Isabelle Reginster,et al.  Projecting trends in plant invasions in Europe under different scenarios of future land-use change , 2012 .

[73]  A. P. Schaffers,et al.  Parallel Declines in Pollinators and Insect-Pollinated Plants in Britain and the Netherlands , 2006, Science.

[74]  Quentin Groom,et al.  Species richness declines and biotic homogenisation have slowed down for NW-European pollinators and plants , 2013, Ecology letters.

[75]  P. Rundel,et al.  Land Use Compounds Habitat Losses under Projected Climate Change in a Threatened California Ecosystem , 2014, PloS one.