Conservation planning is incorporating climate change

© Pixabay

Climate-smart conservation is a dynamic process to explicitly address climate impacts in conservation responses. Flexibility is key, with both management actions and conservation goals evolving with time. It is important to consider how species may move across landscapes and regions and plan for both current and future needs.

Climate change is already influencing species distributions (Zuckerberg et al. 2009, Auer and King 2014, Environmental Protection Agency 2014, Virkkala and Lehikoinen 2014, Gillings et al. 2015) and species interactions (McKinnon et al. 2012, Møller et al. 2010, Adamık and Kral 2008). Conservation action can therefore no longer have the traditional view of preserving ecosystems in their current state, or restoring habitat to a historical state, because environmental conditions are increasingly dynamic, making it essential for management to be dynamic too (Stein et al. 2014).

Large avian community, behaviour and general ecosystem changes are predicted by the end of the century (Huntley et al. 2008, Barbet-Massin et al. 2009, Hole et al. 2009, Araujo et al. 2011, Bagchi et al. 2013, Langham et al. 2015), and unless emissions are vastly reduced, these changes are likely to extend into future centuries. Future needs therefore need to be incorporated into management actions, as well as placing management action into the broader landscape context. To enable effective conservation into the future and across whole landscapes, a large number of private stakeholders will need to be on board.

Whilst many species may be able to adapt to changing environmental conditions (Devictor et al. 2012), there are limits to these abilities, and this will be largely affected by the speed and intensity of climate change. A species may for example be able to adapt to a gradual change, but not a rapid change. Additional conservation measures will be vital for enabling many populations to adapt. An example of this includes the management of drought sensitive drained peatlands wherein the blocking of drains may benefit Eurasian Golden Plovers Pluvialis apricaria by helping to maintain cranefly numbers (Carrol et al. 2011).

Management actions must where possible account for uncertainty; uncertainty in how species will respond, how much climate will change or how humans might respond to their changing environment. Approaches that result in an acceptable outcome across multiple possible scenarios will be preferable to investing time and money into an action that may only work when depending on certain assumptions. Predictions on how bird ranges are expected to shift under climate change tend to account for uncertainty by predicting them under several emission scenarios (Bagchi et al. 2013, Langham et al. 2015) or through accounting for differing species responses (Schuetz et al. 2015). The relative importance of different sites can therefore be identified with some confidence, regardless of differing emission trajectories or little known species dispersal abilities.

Management adaptations can be either reactive or anticipatory, and the instances in which one becomes more likely than the other will change. Overall, forward thinking actions are therefore required, and flexibility is key; the impacts of any actions implemented should be monitored to enable effective evaluation, feedback and subsequent adjustment to practise (Stein et al. 2014).

This case study is taken from ‘The Messengers: What birds tell us about threats from climate change and solutions for nature and people’. To download the report in full click here

Related Species


Auer, S. K. and King, D. I. (2014) Ecological and life-history traits explain recent boundary shifts in elevation and latitude of western North American songbirds. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 23: 867–875.
Adamík, P. and Král, M. (2008) Climate- and resource-driven long-term changes in dormice populations negatively affect hole-nesting songbirds. J. Zool. 275: 209–215.
Araújo, M. B., Alagador, D., Cabeza, M., Nogués-Bravo, D. and Thuiller, W. (2011) Climate change threatens European conseration areas. Ecol. Lett. 14: 484–492. Bagchi, R., Crosby, M., Huntley, B., Hole, D. G., Butchart, S. H. M., Collingham, Y., Kalra, M., Rajkumar, J., Rahmani, A., Pandey, M., Gurung, H., Trai, L-T., Quang, N. and Willis, S. G. (2013) Evaluating the effectiveness of conservation site networks under climate change: accounting for uncertainty. Glob. Change Biol. 19: 1236–1248.

Barbet-Massin, M., Walther, B. A., Thuiller, W., Rahbek, C. and Jiguet, F. (2009) Potential impacts of climate change on the winter distribution of Afro-Palaearctic migrant passerines. Biol. Lett. 5: 248–251.
Devictor, V., Swaay, C. V., Brereton, T., Brotons, L., Chamberlain, D., Heliölä, J., Herrando, S., Julliard, R., Kuussaari, M., Lindström, A., Reif, J., Roy, D. B., Schweiger, O., Settele, J., Stefanescu, C., Strien, A. V., Turnhout, C. V., Vermouzek, Z., WallisDeVries, M., Wynhoff, I. and Jiguet, F. (2012) Differences in the climatic debts of birds and butterflies at a continental scale. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2: 121–124.
Environmental Protection Agency (2014) Climate change indicators in the United States: Bird Wintering Ranges. Available at:

Gillings, S., Balmer, D. E. and Fuller, R. J. (2015) Directionality of recent bird distribution shifts and climate change in Great Britain. Glob. Change Biol. 21: 2155–2168.Huntley, B., Collingham, Y. C., Willis, S. G. and Green, R. E. (2008) Potential impacts of climatic change on European breeding birds. PLoS ONE 3: e1439.
Hole, D. G., Willis, S. G., Pain, D. J., Fishpool, L. D., Butchart, S. H. M., Collingham, Y. C., Rahbek, C. and Huntley, B. (2009) Projected impacts of climate change on a continent-wide protected area network. Ecol. Lett. 12: 420–431.
McKinnon, L., Picotin, M., Bolduc, E., Juillet, C. and Bêty, J. (2012) Timing of breeding, peak food availability, and effects of mismatch on chick growth in birds nesting in the High Arctic. Can. J. Zool. 90: 961–971.
MØller, A. P., Saino, N., Adamík, P., Ambrosini, R., Antonov, A., Campobello, D., Stokke, B. G., Fossoy, F., Lehikoinen, E., Martin-Vivaldi, M., Moksnes, A., Moskat, C., Roskaft, E., Rubolini, D., Schulze-Hagen, K., Soler, M. and Shykoff, J. A. (2010) Rapid change in host use of the common cuckoo Cuculus canorus linked to climate change. Proc. Roy. Soc. B 278: 733–738.
Virkkala, R. and Lehikoinen, A. (2014) Patterns of climate-induced density shifts of species: poleward shifts faster in northern boreal birds than in southern birds. Glob. Change Biol. 20: 2995–3003.
Zuckerberg, B., Woods, A. M. and Porter, W. F. (2009) Poleward shifts in breeding bird distributions in New York State. Glob. Change Biol. 15: 1866–1883.
Langham, G. M., Schuetz, J. G., Distler, T., Soykan, C. U. and Wilsey, C. (2015) Conservation status of North American birds in the face of future climate change. PLoS ONE 10: e0135350.
Carroll, M. J., Dennis, P., Pearce-Higgins, J. W. and Thomas, C. D. (2011) Maintaining northern peatland ecosystems in a changing climate: effects of soil moisture, drainage and drain blocking on craneflies. Glob. Change Biol. 17: 2991–3001.
Schuetz, J. G., Langham, G. M., Soykan, C. U., Wilsey, C. B., Auer, T. and Sanchez, C. C. (2015) Making spatial prioritizations robust to climate change uncertainties: a case study with North American birds. Ecol. Appl. doi: 10.1890/14-1903.1.
Stein, B. A., Glick, P., Edelson, N. and Staudt, A. (eds.) (2014) Climate smart conservation: Putting adaptation principles into practice. Washington DC, USA: National Wildlife Federation.

Compiled: 2015    Copyright: 2015   

Recommended Citation:
BirdLife International (2015) Conservation planning is incorporating climate change. Downloaded from on 03/10/2022