Fourth National Climate Assessment

USGCRP

TRACEABLE ACCOUNTS

Process Description

Topics for the chapter were selected to improve the consistency of coverage of the report and to standardize the assessment process for ecosystems and biodiversity. Chapter leads went through the detailed technical input for the Third National Climate Assessment and pulled out key issues that they felt should be updated in the Fourth National Climate Assessment. The chapter leads then came up with an author team with expertise in these selected topics. To ensure that both terrestrial and marine issues were adequately covered, most sections have at least one author with expertise in terrestrial ecosystems and one with expertise in marine ecosystems.

Monthly author calls were held beginning in December 2016, with frequency increasing to every other week as the initial chapter draft deadline approached. During these calls, the team came up with a work plan and fleshed out the scope and content of the chapter. After the outline for the chapter was created, authors reviewed the scientific literature, as well as the technical input that was submitted through the public call. After writing the State of the Sector section, authors pulled out the main findings to craft the Key Messages.

KEY MESSAGES

Key Message 1: Impacts on Species and Populations

Climate change continues to impact species and populations in significant and observable ways (high confidence). Terrestrial, freshwater, and marine organisms are responding to climate change by altering individual characteristics, the timing of biological events, and their geographic ranges (likely, high confidence). Local and global extinctions may occur when climate change outpaces the capacity of species to adapt (likely, high confidence).

Description of evidence base

Changes in individual characteristics: Beneficial effects of adaptive capacity depend on adequate genetic diversity within the existing population and sufficient population sizes. In addition, successful adaptive responses require relatively slow or gradual environmental change in relation to the speed of individual or population-level responses.¹³ Empirical evidence continues to suggest that plastic changes and evolution have occurred in response to recent climate change¹⁰^,¹¹^,¹²^,²³³ and may be essential for species’ persistence.¹⁸⁶^,²³⁴^,²³⁵ However, adaptation is only possible if genetic diversity has not already been eroded as a result of non-climate related stressors such as habitat loss.¹⁵ Additionally, projections suggest that climate change may be too rapid for some species to successfully adapt.³⁵^,²³⁶ Adaptive capacity, and by extension the ability to avoid local or even global extinctions, is likely to vary among species and even populations within species.

Changes in range: Shifts in species’ ranges have been documented in both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems as species respond to climate change.³⁵^,³⁹ Approximately 55% of terrestrial and marine plant and animal species studied in temperate North America have experienced range shifts.³⁵ Climate change has led to contractions in the latitudinal or elevational ranges of 41% (97 of 238) of studied terrestrial plant and animal species in North America and Hawaiʻi in the last 50–100 years.³⁵ Range shifts in terrestrial animal communities average 3.8 miles per decade.¹⁰⁷ In marine communities, range shifts of up to 17.4 miles per decade have been documented.¹⁷ Planktonic organisms in the water column (that is, passively floating organisms in a body of water) more closely track the trajectory of preferred environmental conditions, resulting in more extensive range shifts; these organisms have exhibited rates of change from 4.3 miles per decade for species with broad environmental tolerances to 61.5 miles per decade for species with low tolerance of environmental change over a 60-year period.²³⁷ Walsh et al. 2015 ³⁸ documented significant changes in the center of distribution over two decades of 43% of planktonic larvae of 45 fish species.

These shifts have been linked to climate velocity—the rate and direction of change in temperature patterns.³⁰^,³⁹^,²³⁸^,²³⁹ Marked differences in observed patterns of climate velocity in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems have been observed.²⁹^,²⁴⁰ Climate velocity in the ocean can be greater than that on land by a factor of seven.¹⁷

Changes in phenology: In marine and freshwater systems, the transition from winter to spring temperatures is occurring earlier in the year, as evidenced by satellite measures of sea surface temperature dating back to 1981.²³ In addition, the timing of sea ice melt is occurring earlier in the spring at a rate of about 2 days per decade and has advanced by 25–30 days since 1979 in some regions.²⁴ Shifts in phenology have been well documented in terrestrial, marine, and freshwater systems.¹¹³ As with range shifts, changes to phenology are expected to continue as the climate warms.¹¹⁴

Extinction risks: The rate and magnitude of climate impacts can exceed the abilities of even the most adaptable species, potentially leading to tipping points and abrupt system changes. In the face of rapid environmental change, species with limited adaptive capacity may experience local extinctions or even global extinctions.¹²⁶^,¹²⁷

Major uncertainties

Changes in individual characteristics: Species and populations everywhere have evolved in response to reigning climate conditions, demonstrating that evolution will be necessary to survive climate change. Nonetheless, there is very limited evidence for evolutionary responses to recent climate change. As reviewed by Crozier and Hutchings 2014,¹⁰ only two case studies document evolutionary responses to contemporary climate change in fish, as opposed to plasticity without evolution or preexisting adaptation to local conditions, and both cases involved the timing of annual migration.²⁴¹^,²⁴² In the case of the sockeye salmon, for example, nearly two-thirds of the phenotypic response of an earlier migration date was explained by evolutionary responses rather than individual plastic responses.²⁴¹

Changes in range: Although the evidence for shifting ranges of many terrestrial and aquatic species is compelling, individual species are responding differently to the magnitude and direction of change they are experiencing related to their life history, complex mosaics of microclimate patterns, and climate velocity.²⁴³^,²⁴⁴^,²⁴⁵^,²⁴⁶^,²⁴⁷ Additionally, projections of future species distributions under climate change are complicated by the interacting effects of multiple components of climate change (such as changing temperature, precipitation, sea level rise, and so on) and effects from non-climate stressors (such as habitat loss and degradation); these multiple drivers of range shifts can have compounding or potentially opposing effects, further complicating projections of where species are likely to be found in the future.⁴¹

Description of confidence and likelihood

There is high confidence that species and populations continue to be impacted by climate change in significant and observable ways.

There is high confidence that terrestrial, freshwater, and marine organisms are likely responding to climate change by altering individual characteristics, the timing of biological events, and their geographic ranges.

There is high confidence that local and global extinctions are likely to occur when climate change outpaces the capacity of species to adapt.

Key Message 2: Impacts on Ecosystems

Climate change is altering ecosystem productivity, exacerbating the spread of invasive species, and changing how species interact with each other and with their environment (high confidence). These changes are reconfiguring ecosystems in unprecedented ways (likely, high confidence).

Description of evidence base

Primary productivity: Diverse observations suggest that global terrestrial primary production has increased over the latter 20th and early 21st centuries,⁴⁸^,⁴⁹^,⁵⁰^,⁵¹ and climate models project continued increases in global terrestrial primary production over the next century.¹³⁰^,¹³¹ Modest to moderate declines in ocean primary production are projected for most low- to midlatitude oceans over the next century,¹⁴³^,¹⁴⁴^,¹⁴⁵ but regional patterns of change are less certain.⁶⁰^,¹⁴³^,¹⁴⁵

Projections also suggest that changes in productivity will not be equal across trophic levels: changes in primary productivity are likely to be amplified at higher levels of the food web;¹⁴⁹^,¹⁵⁰^,¹⁵¹ for example, small changes in marine primary productivity are likely to result in even larger changes to the biomass of fisheries catch.¹⁵²

Changes in phenology: Synchronized timing of seasonal events across trophic levels ensures access to key seasonal food sources,²⁵^,²⁴⁸ particularly in the spring, and is especially important for migratory species dependent on resources with limited availability and for predator–prey relationships.²⁹ The match–mismatch hypothesis²⁴⁹ is a mechanism explaining how climate-induced phenological changes in producers and consumers can alter ecosystem food web dynamics.¹¹⁴ For example, Chevillot et al.²⁵⁰ found that reductions in temporal overlap of juvenile fish and their zooplankton prey within estuaries, driven by changes in temperature, salinity, and freshwater discharge rates, could threaten the sustainability of nursery functions and affect the recruitment of marine fishes. Secondary consumers may be less phenologically responsive to climate change than other trophic groups,¹¹⁴ causing a trophic mismatch that can negatively impact reproductive success and overall population levels by increasing vulnerability to starvation and predation.¹⁶^,¹⁵⁵ Long-distance migratory birds, which have generally not advanced their phenology as much as lower trophic levels,¹¹³ can be particularly vulnerable.²⁷ A recent study found that 9 out of 48 migratory bird species examined did not keep pace with the changing spring phenology of plants (termed green-up) in the period 2001–2012.²⁸ Trophic mismatch and an inability to sufficiently advance migratory phenology such that arrival remains synchronous with peak resource availability can cause declines in adult survival and breeding success.²⁸^,¹⁵⁵

Invasive species: Changes in habitat and environmental conditions can increase the viability of introduced species and their ability to establish.⁶⁹^,⁷⁵^,⁷⁶ Climate change may be advantageous to some nonnative species. Such species are, or could become, invasive, as this advantage might allow them to outcompete and decimate native species and the ecosystem services provided by the native species.

Invasive species’ impacts on ecosystems are likely to have a greater negative impact on human communities that are more dependent on the landscape/natural resources for their livelihood and cultural well-being.²⁵¹^,²⁵² Thus rural, ranching, fishing, and subsistence economies are likely to be negatively impacted. Some of these communities are economically vulnerable (for example, due to low population density, low median income, or reduced tax revenues) and therefore have limited resources and ability to actively manage invasive species.²⁵³^,²⁵⁴ Climate change and invasive species have both been recognized as two of the most significant issues faced by natural resource managers.⁶¹^,⁶² For example, the invasive cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) is predicted to increase in abundance with climate change throughout the American West, increasing the frequency of major economic impacts associated with the management and rehabilitation of cheatgrass-invaded rangelands.²⁵⁵^,²⁵⁶ Ecological and economic costs of invasive species are substantial, with global costs of invasive species estimated at over $1.4 trillion annually.⁶¹ Annual economic damages from climate change are complex and are projected to increase over time across most sectors that have been examined (such as coral reefs, freshwater fish, shellfish) (Ch. 29: Mitigation, Figure 29.2).

Species interactions and emergent properties: Human-caused stressors such as land-use change and development can also lead to novel environmental conditions and ecological communities that are further degraded by climate impacts (Ch. 11: Urban, KM 1) .¹³^,¹⁶³ Studies of emergent properties have progressed from making general predictions to providing more nuanced evaluations of behavioral mechanisms such as adjusting the timing of activity levels to avoid heat stress ⁶^,⁸¹^,⁸⁷ and predation,⁸⁸ tolerances to variable temperature fluctuations and water availability,⁷⁹^,⁸⁰^,⁸²^,²⁵⁷ adaptation to changes,⁸²^,²⁵⁸ turnover in community composition,²⁵⁹^,²⁶⁰ and specific traits such as dispersal ability.⁶⁷^,⁸⁵

Changes in community composition vary relative to invasion rates of new species, local extinction, and recruitment and growth rates of resident species, as well as other unknown factors.²⁶⁰ In some cases, such as Pacific Northwest forests, community turnover has been slow to date, likely due to low exposure or sensitivity to the direct and indirect impacts of climate change,²⁵⁹ while in other places, like high-latitude systems, dramatic shifts in community composition have been observed.²⁶¹ Differential responses within and across communities are expected due to individual sensitivities of community members. For example, as a result of the uncertainties associated with range shifts, the impact of individual species’ range shifts on ecosystem structure and function and the potential for the creation of novel community assemblages have medium certainty. The interplay of physical drivers resulting in range shifts and the ways in which interactions of species in new assemblages shape final outcomes affecting ecosystem dynamics is uncertain, although there is more certainty in how ecosystem services will change locally. There is still high uncertainty in the rate and magnitude at which community turnover will occur in many systems; still, there is widespread agreement of high turnover and major changes in age and size structure with future climate impacts and interactions with other disturbance regimes.²⁵⁹^,²⁶⁰^,²⁶¹

Climate-induced warming is predicted to increase overlaps between some species that would normally be separated in time. For example, tree host species could experience earlier bud burst, thus overlapping with the larval stage of insect pests; this increase in synchrony between normally disparate species can lead to major pest outbreaks that alter community composition, productivity, ecological functioning, and ecosystem services.²⁶² Direct climate impacts, such as warmer winters and drought-induced stress on forests, can interact with dynamics of pest populations to render systems more susceptible to damage in indirect ways. In the case of the bark beetle, for example, forests that have experienced drought are more vulnerable to damage from beetle attacks.¹³⁸^,²⁶³ Other potential outcomes of novel species assemblages are changes in energy and nutrient exchange (for example, altered carbon use in streams as new detritus-feeding or predator communities emerge)¹⁹³ and respiration^⁸⁹ within and among ecological communities. Abrupt and surprising changes or the disruption of trophic interactions have the potential for negative and irreversible impacts on food webs and ecosystem productivity that supports important provisioning services including fisheries and forest harvests for food and fiber. Abrupt changes in climate have been observed over geological timescales and have resulted in mass extinctions, decreased overall biodiversity, and ecological communities largely composed of generalists.⁶⁷

Major uncertainties

Primary productivity: There is still high uncertainty in how climate change will impact primary productivity for both terrestrial and marine ecosystems. For terrestrial systems, this uncertainty arises from an incomplete understanding of the impacts of continued carbon dioxide increases on plant growth;¹³²^,¹³³^,¹³⁴ underrepresented nutrient limitation effects;¹³⁵ effects of fire¹³⁶ and insect outbreaks;¹³⁷ and an incomplete understanding of the impacts of changing climate extremes¹³⁸^,¹³⁹ on primary production. Direct evidence for declines in marine primary production is limited. The suggestion that phytoplankton pigment has declined in many ocean regions,⁵⁵ indicating a decline in primary production, was found to be inconsistent with primary production time series⁵⁹ and potentially sensitive to analysis methodology.⁵⁶^,⁵⁸^,²⁶⁴ Subsequent work accounting for methodological criticisms still argued for a century-scale decline in phytoplankton pigment but acknowledged large uncertainty in the magnitude of this decline and that some areas show marked increases.⁵⁴ There is growing consensus for modest to moderate productivity declines at a global scale in the marine realm.¹⁴³^,¹⁴⁴^,¹⁴⁵ Considerable disagreement remains at regional scales.¹⁴³ For both the terrestrial and marine case, however, projections clearly support the potential for marked primary productivity changes.

Phenology: Models of phenology, particularly those leveraging advanced statistical modeling techniques that account for multiple drivers in phenological forecasts,²⁶⁵ enable extrapolation across space and time, given the availability of gridded climatological and satellite data.²¹^,²⁶⁶^,²⁶⁷^,²⁶⁸ However, effective characterization of phenological responses to changes in climate is often constrained by the availability of adequate in situ (ground-based) organismal data. Experimental manipulation of ecological communities may be insufficient to determine sensitivities; for example, E. M. Wolkovich et al. 2012²⁶⁹ compared observational studies to warming experiments across four continents and found that warming predicted smaller advances in the timing of flowering and leafing by 8.5- and 4.0-fold, respectively, than what has been observed through long-term observations.

The majority of terrestrial plant phenological research to date has focused on patterns and variability in the onset of spring, with far fewer studies focused on autumn.²⁷⁰ However, autumn models have large biases in describing interannual variation.²⁷¹^,²⁷² Additional research is needed on autumnal responses to environmental variation and change, which would greatly expand inferences related to the carbon uptake period, primary productivity, nutrient cycling, species interactions, and feedbacks between the biosphere and atmosphere.²⁷³^,²⁷⁴^,²⁷⁵^,²⁷⁶ While broad-based availability of phenological data has improved greatly in recent years, more extensive, long-term monitoring networks with consistently implemented protocols would further improve scientific understanding of phenological responses to climate change and would better inform management applications.²⁷⁷

Invasive species: There is some uncertainty in knowing how much a nonnative species will impact an environment, if and when it is introduced, although there are methods available for estimating this risk.²⁷⁸^,²⁷⁹ For example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture conducts Weed Risk Assessment,²⁸⁰ and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service publishes Ecological Risk Screening Summaries (https://www.fws.gov/fisheries/ans/species_erss_reports.html). New technologies, such as genetic engineering, environmental DNA, and improved detection via satellites and drones, offer promise in the fight against invasive species.²⁸¹ New technologies and novel approaches to both invasive species management and mitigation and adapting to climate change could reduce negative impacts to livelihoods, but there is some uncertainty in whether or not the application of new technologies can gain social acceptance and result in practical applications.

Species interactions and emergent properties: Climate change impacts to ecosystem properties are difficult to assess and predict, because they arise from interactions among multiple components of each system, and each system is likely to respond differently. One generalization that can be made arises from fossil records, which show climate-driven mass extinctions of specialists followed by novel communities dominated by generalists.⁶⁷ Although there is widespread consensus among experts that novel interactions and ecosystem transitions will result from ecological responses to climate change,⁸⁵ these are still largely predicted consequences, and direct evidence remains scarce; thus, estimates of how ecosystem services will change remain uncertain in many cases.¹³^,⁶⁷^,⁸⁴^,¹²⁸^,¹⁵⁹^,¹⁶¹^,¹⁶²^,¹⁶³^,²⁵⁸^,²⁸²^,²⁸³ Modeling and experimental studies are some of the few ways to assess complicated ecological interactions at this time. New and more sophisticated models that can account for multispecies interactions, community composition and structure, dispersal, and evolutionary effects are still needed to assess and make robust predictions about system responses and transitions.¹⁶¹^,²⁵⁸^,²⁸²

High uncertainty remains for many species and ecosystems due to a general lack of basic research on baseline conditions of biotic interactions; community composition, structure, and function; and adaptive capacity; as well as the interactive, synergistic, and antagonistic effects of multiple climate and non-climate stressors.⁶⁷^,¹²⁸^,²⁸³ Improved understanding of predator–prey defense mechanisms and tolerances are key to understanding how novel trophic interactions will manifest.²⁵⁷

Description of confidence and likelihood

There is high confidence that climate-induced changes are occurring within and across ecosystems in ways that alter ecosystem productivity and how species interact with each other and their environment.

There is high confidence that such changes can likely create mismatches in resources, facilitate the spread of invasive species, and reconfigure ecosystems in unprecedented ways.

Key Message 3: Ecosystem Services at Risk

The resources and services that people depend on for their livelihoods, sustenance, protection, and well-being are jeopardized by the impacts of climate change on ecosystems (likely, high confidence). Fundamental changes in agricultural and fisheries production, the supply of clean water, protection from extreme events, and culturally valuable resources are occurring (likely, high confidence).

Description of evidence base

Similar to the Third National Climate Assessment, results of this review conclude that climate change continues to affect the availability and delivery of ecosystem services to society through altered agricultural and fisheries production, protection from storms and flooding in coastal zones, a sustainable harvest, pollination services, the spread of invasive species, carbon storage, clean water supplies, the timing and intensity of wildfire, the spread of vector-borne diseases, and recreation.¹^,²⁹^,¹⁰⁴^,¹¹³^,¹⁵²^,²⁸⁴^,²⁸⁵

Provisioning services: Regional changes in critical provisioning services (food, fiber, and shelter) have been observed as range shifts occur. These result in spatial patterns of winners and losers for human communities dependent on these resources. For example, as the distribution of harvestable tree species changes over time in response to climate change, timber production will shift in ways that create disconnects between resource availability and ownership rights.²⁸⁶Although fisheries are more often treated as common property resources (with attendant problems related to the overuse and mismanagement of common resources),²⁸⁷ disconnects emerge with respect to the definitions of management units and jurisdictional conflict and uncertainty.⁹⁷ Shifting distribution patterns can potentially affect access to both harvested and protected natural resources, cultural services related to the rights of Indigenous peoples and to recreation, and the aesthetic appreciation of nature in general (Ch. 15: Tribes, KM 1).²⁸⁸

Additionally, changes in physical characteristics in response to climate change can impact ecosystem services. In the ocean, the combination of warmer water and less dissolved oxygen can be expected to promote earlier maturation, smaller adult body size, shorter generation times, and more boom–bust population cycles for large numbers of fish species.²⁸⁹ These changes would have profound ecosystem effects, which in turn would affect the value of ecosystem services and increase risk and volatility in certain industries.

Altered phenology can also impact ecosystem services. Based on standardized indices of the timing of spring onset,²¹ 2012 saw the earliest spring recorded since 1900 across the United States.²¹^,²⁹⁰ Much of the central and eastern parts of the contiguous United States experienced spring onset as much as 20 to 30 days ahead of 1981–2010 averages, and accelerated blooming in fruiting trees was followed by a damaging, but climatically normal, hard freeze in late spring, resulting in widespread reductions in crop productivity.²⁰ Mid-century forecasts predict that spring events similar to that of 2012 could occur as often as one out of every three years; because last freeze dates may not change at the same rate, more large-scale plant tissue damage and agricultural losses are possible.¹⁷⁷^,¹⁷⁸ Early springs with episodic frosts not only directly affect plant growth and seed production but can also indirectly alter ecosystem functions such as pollination.²⁹¹^,²⁹²

Potential asynchronies may impact some pollination services, although other pollinator–plant relationships are expected to be robust in the face of shifting phenology.²⁹¹^,²⁹³^,²⁹⁴^,²⁹⁵ For example, broad-tailed hummingbirds in Colorado and Arizona have advanced their arrival date between 1975 and 2011, but not sufficiently to track changes in their primary nectar sources.

Regulating services: Average carbon storage in the contiguous United States is projected to increase by 0.36 billion metric tons under RCP4.5 and 3.0 billion metric tons under RCP8.5.¹⁰⁴ However, carbon storage is projected to decrease for U.S. forests (Ch. 6: Forests, KM 2). Increases in overall carbon storage are projected for the Northwest, and decreases are projected for the Northeast and Midwest.¹⁰⁴ Furthermore, shorter winters and changing phenology may affect the incidence and geographic extent of vector-borne diseases (Ch. 14: Human Health, KM 1).²⁸⁴^,²⁹⁶^,²⁹⁷^,²⁹⁸^,²⁹⁹ Other examples of regulating ecosystem services that are impacted by climate include coastal protection from flooding and storm surge by natural reefs (Ch. 8: Coastal, KM 2),¹⁸⁷ the supply of clean water (Ch. 3: Water, KM 1),¹⁸⁸ and controls on the timing and frequency of wildfires (Ch. 6: Forests, KM 1).¹⁸⁹

Cultural services: Climate change is expected to impact recreation and tourism in the United States, as well as cultural resources for Indigenous peoples (Ch. 15: Tribes, KM 1).⁹⁵^,¹⁰⁴^,¹⁹² While some changes may be positive (such as increased biking and hiking access in colder seasons or cold-weather areas), other changes will have negative impacts (such as reduced skiing opportunities).⁹⁵^,¹⁰⁴

Supporting services: Climate change is impacting supporting services, which are the services that make all other ecosystem services possible. Climate change impacts include alterations in primary production and nutrient cycling.⁴⁸^,¹⁹³

Major uncertainties

One of the major challenges to understanding changes in ecosystem services due to climate change arises from matching the scale of the ecosystem change to the scale at which humans are impacted. Local conditions may vary greatly from changes expected at larger geographic scales. This uncertainty can work in both directions: local estimates of changes in ecosystems services can be overestimated when local impacts of climate change are less than regional-scale impacts. However, estimates of local impacts on ecosystem services can be underestimated when local impacts of climate change exceed regional projections. Another major source of uncertainty is related to the emergent properties of ecosystems related to climate change. Since observation of human impacts of these emergent ecosystem properties is lacking, it is difficult to predict how humans will be impacted and how they might adapt.

Description of confidence and likelihood

There is high confidence that the resources and services that people depend on for livelihoods, sustenance, protection, and well-being are likely jeopardized by the impacts of climate change on ecosystems.

There is high confidence that fundamental changes in agricultural and fisheries production, the supply of clean water, protection from extreme events, and culturally valuable resources are likely occurring.

Key Message 4: Challenges for Natural Resource Management

Traditional natural resource management strategies are increasingly challenged by the impacts of climate change (high confidence). Adaptation strategies that are flexible, consider interacting impacts of climate and other stressors, and are coordinated across landscape scales are progressing from theory to application. Significant challenges remain to comprehensively incorporate climate adaptation planning into mainstream natural resource management, as well as to evaluate the effectiveness of implemented actions (high confidence).

Description of evidence base

Climate change is increasingly being recognized as a threat to biodiversity and ecosystems. For example, a recently developed threat classification system for biodiversity³⁰⁰ has been adopted by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, which stands in contrast to previous frameworks that did not include climate change as a threat.³⁰¹ Moving away from traditional management strategies that aim to retain existing species and ecosystems and implementing climate-smart management approaches are likely to be the most effective way to conserve species, ecosystems, and ecosystem services in the future.¹⁹⁴

Ecosystem-based management strategies, where decisions are made at the ecosystem level,²¹⁷ and programs that consider climate change impacts along with other human-caused stressors are becoming more established and seek to optimize benefits among diverse societal goals.³⁰² A number of regional to national networks have been implemented, including the Department of the Interior’s (DOI) Climate Adaptation Science Centers³⁰³ and the NOAA Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessment Programs,³⁰⁴ that bring together multiple stakeholders to develop approaches for dealing with climate change. Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) were established by DOI Secretarial Order 3289 in 2009 to provide transboundary support and science capacity for adaptive resource management. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is no longer providing dedicated staff and funding to support the governance and operations of the 22 LCCs, consistent with its FY2018 and FY2019 budget requests. The Service will continue to support cooperative landscape conservation efforts as an equal partner, working with states and other partners on priority conservation and management issues. Federal and state agencies with responsibilities for natural resources have begun to implement proactive and climate-smart management approaches. Recent examples (within the last 10 years) include the development of the National Marine Fisheries Service’s Climate Science Strategy²¹⁵^,²¹⁷ and its commitment to ecosystem-based fisheries management;²¹⁶ the National Park Service’s Climate Change Response Program;³⁰⁵ the Forest Adaptation Planning and Practices collaborative, led by the Northern Institute of Applied Climate Science;³⁰⁶ the National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy;²¹⁸ the Southeast Conservation Adaptation Strategy,³⁰⁷ initiated by states of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the federal Southeast Natural Resource Leaders Group, the Southeast and Caribbean Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, and the Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership; and a range of individual state plans.³⁰² These newly formed collaborative programs better account for the various climate impacts on, and interactions between, ecosystem components, while optimizing benefits among diverse societal goals.

In addition, federal agencies are developing policies and approaches that consider ecosystem services and related climate impacts within existing planning and decision frameworks.²²⁵ For example, NOAA’s Fisheries Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management Policy specifically considers climate change and ecosystem services. By framing management strategies and actions within an ecosystem services context, communication about the range of benefits derived from biodiversity and natural ecosystems can be improved, and managers, policymakers, and the public can better envision decisions that support climate adaptation. Restoration efforts can also help conserve important ecosystem services (Ch. 21: Midwest, Figure 21.7).

An example of an effective, collaborative effort to manage climate impacts took place in Puerto Rico during a recent drought. In order to better manage the impacts of the drought on the environment, people, and water resources, Puerto Rico developed a special task force composed of government officials, federal partners, and members of academia to evaluate the progression, trends, and effects of drought in the territory. Weekly reports from the task force provided recommended actions for government officials and updated the public about the drought (Ch. 20: U.S. Caribbean, Box 20.3).

Changes in Individual characteristics: Maintaining habitat connectivity is important to ensure gene flow among populations and maintain genetic diversity, which provides the platform for evolutionary change. Additionally, assisted migration can be used to increase genetic diversity for less mobile species, which is important to facilitate evolutionary changes.²¹³

Changes in range: Climate-induced shifts in plant and animal populations can be most effectively addressed through landscape-scale and ecosystem-based conservation and management approaches. Increasing habitat connectivity for terrestrial, freshwater, and marine systems is a key climate adaptation action that will enable species to disperse and follow physiological niches as environmental conditions and habitats shift.²⁰⁶ More active approaches like seed sourcing and assisted migration may be considered for planted species or those with limited natural dispersal ability.³⁰⁸ However, for any assisted migration, there could be unforeseen and unwanted consequences. Although a provision to analyze and manage the potential consequences of assisted migration would not guarantee successful outcomes, developing such policies is warranted toward minimizing unintended consequences.²¹³^,²¹⁴ Systems that are already degraded or stressed from non-climate factors will have lower adaptive capacity and resilience to climate change impacts; therefore, restoration and conservation of land, freshwater, and marine areas that support valued species and habitats are key actions for natural resource managers to take. In addition, climate change refugia—areas relatively buffered from climate change that enable persistence—have become a focus of conservation and connectivity efforts to maintain highly valued vulnerable ecosystems and species in place as long as possible.²⁰⁷^,²⁰⁸

Changes in phenology: Direct management of climate-induced phenological shifts or mismatches is challenging, as managers have few if any direct measures of control on phenology.²⁴⁸ However, research into how species’ phenologies are changing has the potential to support improved conservation outcomes by identifying high-priority phenological periods and informing changes in management actions accordingly. In Vermont grassland systems, for example, research on grassland bird nesting phenology identified the timing of haying as a critical stressor. In response, the timing of haying has been modified to accommodate the nesting phenology of several declining species, including the bobolink, demonstrating the potential for phenological data to support a successful conservation program.³⁰⁹^,³¹⁰ Such monitoring and research efforts will become increasingly important as climate change results in further phenological shifts. Managing for phenological heterogeneity can also be an effective bet-hedging strategy to manage for a wide range of potential changes.²⁴⁸

Invasive species: Focusing efforts on the prevention, eradication, and control of invasive species and the implementation of early detection and rapid response (EDRR) can be considered an adaptation strategy to help maintain healthy ecosystems and preserve biodiversity such that natural systems are more resistant and resilient to climate change and extreme weather events.²⁰²^,²⁰³ Once an invasive species is established, EDRR is much more effective than efforts to control invasive species after they are widely established.²⁰⁵ The current U.S. National Invasive Species Council Management Plan³¹¹ recognizes the stressors of land-use change and climate change and calls for an assessment of national EDRR capabilities.

Major uncertainties

Better predictive models are necessary to create effective adaptation strategies, but they can be hampered by a lack of sufficient data to adequately incorporate important biological mechanisms and feedback loops that influence climate change responses.²³² This can be most effectively addressed if resource management approaches and monitoring efforts increasingly expand programs, especially at the community or ecosystem level, to detect and track changes in species composition, interactions, functioning, and tipping points, as well as to improve model inputs.³¹²^,³¹³^,³¹⁴

Changes in individual characteristics: Although genetic diversity is important for evolution and potentially for increasing the fitness of individuals, it does not guarantee that a species will adapt to future environmental conditions. Failure to adapt may occur when a species or population lacks genetic variability in a particular trait that is under selection (such as heat tolerance) as a result of climate change,⁷ despite having high overall genetic diversity.

Changes in Range: Although potential strategies for adaptation to range shifts can be readily identified, the lack of experience implementing these approaches to meet this issue results in uncertainty in the efficacy of different approaches. Another big uncertainty is the incomplete information on the ecology and responses of species and ecosystems to climate change.

Changes in phenology: Phenological sensitivity may also be an important component of organismal adaptive capacity³¹⁵ and thus species' vulnerability to climate change, although additional research is required before resource managers can utilize known relative vulnerabilities to prioritize management activities.

Invasive species: There is some uncertainty in the optimal management approach for a given species and location. Best practices for management actions are often context specific; one approach will not fit all scenarios. Management of climate change and invasive species needs to explore such variables as the biology of the target species, the time of year or day for maximizing effectiveness, the ecological and sociocultural context, legal and institutional frameworks, and budget constraints and timeliness.²⁸¹

Description of confidence and likelihood

There is high confidence that traditional natural resource management strategies are increasingly challenged by the impacts of climate change.

There is high confidence that adaptation strategies that are flexible, consider the emerging and interactive impacts of climate and other stressors, and are coordinated across local and landscape scales are progressing from theory to application.

There is high confidence that significant challenges remain to comprehensively incorporate climate adaptation planning into mainstream natural resource management, as well as to evaluate the effectiveness of implemented actions.

REFERENCES

Alexander, J. M., J. M. Diez, S. P. Hart, and J. M. Levine, 2016: When climate reshuffles competitors: A call for experimental macroecology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 31 (11), 831–841. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2016.08.003. ↩
Allstadt, A. J., S. J. Vavrus, P. J. Heglund, A. M. Pidgeon, W. E. Thogmartin, and V. C. Radeloff, 2015: Spring plant phenology and false springs in the conterminous US during the 21st century. Environmental Research Letters, 10 (10), 104008. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/10/104008. ↩
Altieri, A. H., M. D. Bertness, T. C. Coverdale, N. C. Herrmann, and C. Angelini, 2012: A trophic cascade triggers collapse of a salt‐marsh ecosystem with intensive recreational fishing. Ecology, 93 (6), 1402–1410. doi:10.1890/11-1314.1. ↩
Amburgey, S. M., D. A. W. Miller, G. E. H. Campbell, T. A. G. Rittenhouse, M. F. Benard, J. L. Richardson, M. C. Urban, W. Hughson, A. B. Brand, C. J. Davis, C. R. Hardin, P. W. C. Paton, C. J. Raithel, R. A. Relyea, A. F. Scott, D. K. Skelly, D. E. Skidds, C. K. Smith, and E. E. Werner, 2018: Range position and climate sensitivity: The structure of among‐population demographic responses to climatic variation. Global Change Biology, 24 (1), 439–454. doi:10.1111/gcb.13817. ↩
Anderegg, W. R. L., J. A. Hicke, R. A. Fisher, C. D. Allen, J. Aukema, B. Bentz, S. Hood, J. W. Lichstein, A. K. Macalady, N. McDowell, Y. Pan, K. Raffa, A. Sala, J. D. Shaw, N. L. Stephenson, C. Tague, and M. Zeppel, 2015: Tree mortality from drought, insects, and their interactions in a changing climate. New Phytologist, 208 (3), 674–683. doi:10.1111/nph.13477. ↩
Andersen, M. C., H. Adams, B. Hope, and M. Powell, 2004: Risk assessment for invasive species. Risk Analysis, 24 (4), 787–793. doi:10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00478.x. ↩
Anderson, A. S., A. E. Reside, J. J. VanDerWal, L. P. Shoo, R. G. Pearson, and S. E. Williams, 2012: Immigrants and refugees: The importance of dispersal in mediating biotic attrition under climate change. Global Change Biology, 18 (7), 2126–2134. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02683.x. ↩
Anderson, J. H., G. R. Pess, R. W. Carmichael, M. J. Ford, T. D. Cooney, C. M. Baldwin, and M. M. McClure, 2014: Planning Pacific salmon and steelhead reintroductions aimed at long‐term viability and recovery. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 34 (1), 72–93. doi:10.1080/02755947.2013.847875. ↩
Anderson, M. G., M. Clark, and A. O. Sheldon, 2012: Resilient Sites for Terrestrial Conservation in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region. The Nature Conservancy, Eastern Conservation Science, Boston, MA, 197 pp. URL. ↩
Anderson, M. G., M. Clark, and B. H. McRae, 2015: Permeable Landscapes for Climate Change. The Nature Conservancy, Eastern Conservation Science, Boston, MA, 64 pp. URL. ↩
Ardyna, M., M. Babin, M. Gosselin, E. Devred, L. Rainville, and J.-É. Tremblay, 2014: Recent Arctic Ocean sea ice loss triggers novel fall phytoplankton blooms. Geophysical Research Letters, 41 (17), 6207–6212. doi:10.1002/2014GL061047. ↩
Arrigo, K. R., G. van Dijken, and S. Pabi, 2008: Impact of a shrinking Arctic ice cover on marine primary production. Geophysical Research Letters, 35 (19), L19603. doi:10.1029/2008GL035028. ↩
Asch, R. G., 2015: Climate change and decadal shifts in the phenology of larval fishes in the California Current ecosystem. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112 (30), E4065–E4074. doi:10.1073/pnas.1421946112. ↩
Ault, T. R., G. M. Henebry, K. M. de Beurs, M. D. Schwartz, J. L. Betancourt, and D. Moore, 2013: The false spring of 2012, earliest in North American record. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 94 (20), 181–182. doi:10.1002/2013EO200001. ↩
Ault, T. R., M. D. Schwartz, R. Zurita-Milla, J. F. Weltzin, and J. L. Betancourt, 2015: Trends and natural variability of spring onset in the coterminous United States as evaluated by a new gridded dataset of spring indices. Journal of Climate, 28 (21), 8363–8378. doi:10.1175/jcli-d-14-00736.1. ↩
Baker-Austin, C., J. Trinanes, N. Gonzalez-Escalona, and J. Martinez-Urtaza, 2017: Non-cholera vibrios: The microbial barometer of climate change. Trends in Microbiology, 25 (1), 76–84. doi:10.1016/j.tim.2016.09.008. ↩
Balch, J. K., B. A. Bradley, J. T. Abatzoglou, R. C. Nagy, E. J. Fusco, and A. L. Mahood, 2017: Human-started wildfires expand the fire niche across the United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114 (11), 2946–2951. doi:10.1073/pnas.1617394114. ↩
Baldos, U. L. C., and T. W. Hertel, 2014: Global food security in 2050: The role of agricultural productivity and climate change. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 58 (4), 554–570. doi:10.1111/1467-8489.12048. ↩
Barbier, E. B., S. D. Hacker, C. Kennedy, E. W. Koch, A. C. Stier, and B. R. Silliman, 2011: The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecological Monographs, 81 (2), 169–193. doi:10.1890/10-1510.1. ↩
Barnosky, A. D., E. A. Hadly, P. Gonzalez, J. Head, P. D. Polly, A. M. Lawing, J. T. Eronen, D. D. Ackerly, K. Alex, E. Biber, J. Blois, J. Brashares, G. Ceballos, E. Davis, G. P. Dietl, R. Dirzo, H. Doremus, M. Fortelius, H. W. Greene, J. Hellmann, T. Hickler, S. T. Jackson, M. Kemp, P. L. Koch, C. Kremen, E. L. Lindsey, C. Looy, C. R. Marshall, C. Mendenhall, A. Mulch, A. M. Mychajliw, C. Nowak, U. Ramakrishnan, J. Schnitzler, K. Das Shrestha, K. Solari, L. Stegner, M. A. Stegner, N. C. Stenseth, M. H. Wake, and Z. Zhang, 2017: Merging paleobiology with conservation biology to guide the future of terrestrial ecosystems. Science, 355 (6325), eaah4787. doi:10.1126/science.aah4787. ↩
Bartomeus, I., J. S. Ascher, D. Wagner, B. N. Danforth, S. Colla, S. Kornbluth, and R. Winfree, 2011: Climate-associated phenological advances in bee pollinators and bee-pollinated plants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108 (51), 20645–20649. doi:10.1073/pnas.1115559108. ↩
Basler, D., 2016: Evaluating phenological models for the prediction of leaf-out dates in six temperate tree species across central Europe. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 217, 10–21. doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2015.11.007. ↩
Bateman, B. L., A. M. Pidgeon, V. C. Radeloff, J. VanDerWal, W. E. Thogmartin, S. J. Vavrus, and P. J. Heglund, 2016: The pace of past climate change vs. potential bird distributions and land use in the United States. Global Change Biology, 22 (3), 1130–1144. doi:10.1111/gcb.13154. ↩
Beechie, T., H. Imaki, J. Greene, A. Wade, H. Wu, G. Pess, P. Roni, J. Kimball, J. Stanford, P. Kiffney, and N. Mantua, 2013: Restoring salmon habitat for a changing climate. River Research and Applications, 29 (8), 939–960. doi:10.1002/rra.2590. ↩
Beever, E. A., J. O'Leary, C. Mengelt, J. M. West, S. Julius, N. Green, D. Magness, L. Petes, B. Stein, A. B. Nicotra, J. J. Hellmann, A. L. Robertson, M. D. Staudinger, A. A. Rosenberg, E. Babij, J. Brennan, G. W. Schuurman, and G. E. Hofmann, 2016: Improving conservation outcomes with a new paradigm for understanding species' fundamental and realized adaptive capacity. Conservation Letters, 9 (2), 131–137. doi:10.1111/conl.12190. ↩
Beever, E. A., L. E. Hall, J. Varner, A. E. Loosen, J. B. Dunham, M. K. Gahl, F. A. Smith, and J. J. Lawler, 2017: Behavioral flexibility as a mechanism for coping with climate change. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 15 (6), 299–308. doi:10.1002/fee.1502. ↩
Berner, L. T., B. E. Law, A. J. H. Meddens, and J. A. Hicke, 2017: Tree mortality from fires, bark beetles, and timber harvest during a hot and dry decade in the western United States (2003–2012). Environmental Research Letters, 12 (6), 065005. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa6f94. ↩
Bewick, S., R. S. Cantrell, C. Cosner, and W. F. Fagan, 2016: How resource phenology affects consumer population dynamics. The American Naturalist, 187 (2), 151–166. doi:10.1086/684432. ↩
Blois, J. L., P. L. Zarnetske, M. C. Fitzpatrick, and S. Finnegan, 2013: Climate change and the past, present, and future of biotic interactions. Science, 341 (6145), 499–504. doi:10.1126/science.1237184. ↩
Bopp, L., L. Resplandy, J. C. Orr, S. C. Doney, J. P. Dunne, M. Gehlen, P. Halloran, C. Heinze, T. Ilyina, R. Séférian, J. Tjiputra, and M. Vichi, 2013: Multiple stressors of ocean ecosystems in the 21st century: Projections with CMIP5 models. Biogeosciences, 10 (10), 6225–6245. doi:10.5194/bg-10-6225-2013. ↩
Both, C., C. A. M. Van Turnhout, R. G. Bijlsma, H. Siepel, A. J. Van Strien, and R. P. B. Foppen, 2010: Avian population consequences of climate change are most severe for long-distance migrants in seasonal habitats. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 277 (1685), 1259–1266. doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.1525. ↩
Boyce, D. G., M. Dowd, M. R. Lewis, and B. Worm, 2014: Estimating global chlorophyll changes over the past century. Progress in Oceanography, 122, 163–173. doi:10.1016/j.pocean.2014.01.004. ↩
Boyce, D. G., M. R. Lewis, and B. Worm, 2010: Global phytoplankton decline over the past century. Nature, 466 (7306), 591–596. doi:10.1038/nature09268. ↩
Boyce, D. G., M. R. Lewis, and B. Worm, 2011: Boyce et al. reply. Nature, 472, E8. doi:10.1038/nature09953. ↩
Breeggemann, J. J., M. A. Kaemingk, T. J. DeBates, C. P. Paukert, J. R. Krause, A. P. Letvin, T. M. Stevens, D. W. Willis, and S. R. Chipps, 2016: Potential direct and indirect effects of climate change on a shallow natural lake fish assemblage. Ecology of Freshwater Fish, 25 (3), 487–499. doi:10.1111/eff.12248. ↩
Buitenwerf, R., L. Rose, and S. I. Higgins, 2015: Three decades of multi-dimensional change in global leaf phenology. Nature Climate Change, 5 (4), 364–368. doi:10.1038/nclimate2533. ↩
Burger, C., E. Belskii, T. Eeva, T. Laaksonen, M. Mägi, R. Mänd, A. Qvarnström, T. Slagsvold, T. Veen, M. E. Visser, K. L. Wiebe, C. Wiley, J. Wright, and C. Both, 2012: Climate change, breeding date and nestling diet: How temperature differentially affects seasonal changes in pied flycatcher diet depending on habitat variation. Journal of Animal Ecology, 81 (4), 926–936. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2656.2012.01968.x. ↩
Burgiel, S. W., and T. Hall, Eds., 2014: Bioinvasions in a Changing World: A Resource on Invasive Species–Climate Change Interactions for Conservation and Natural Resource Management. Beltsville, MD, 49 pp. URL. ↩
Burkle, L. A., J. C. Marlin, and T. M. Knight, 2013: Plant-pollinator interactions over 120 years: Loss of species, co-occurrence, and function. Science, 339 (6127), 1611–1615. doi:10.1126/science.1232728. ↩
Burrows, M. T., D. S. Schoeman, L. B. Buckley, P. Moore, E. S. Poloczanska, K. M. Brander, C. Brown, J. F. Bruno, C. M. Duarte, B. S. Halpern, J. Holding, C. V. Kappel, W. Kiessling, M. I. O'Connor, J. M. Pandolfi, C. Parmesan, F. B. Schwing, W. J. Sydeman, and A. J. Richardson, 2011: The pace of shifting climate in marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Science, 334, 652–655. doi:10.1126/science.1210288. ↩
Busch, D. S., R. Griffis, J. Link, K. Abrams, J. Baker, R. E. Brainard, M. Ford, J. A. Hare, A. Himes-Cornell, A. Hollowed, N. J. Mantua, S. McClatchie, M. McClure, M. W. Nelson, K. Osgood, J. O. Peterson, M. Rust, V. Saba, M. F. Sigler, S. Sykora-Bodie, C. Toole, E. Thunberg, R. S. Waples, and R. Merrick, 2016: Climate science strategy of the US National Marine Fisheries Service. Marine Policy, 74, 58–67. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2016.09.001. ↩
Cahill, A. E., M. E. Aiello-Lammens, M. C. Fisher-Reid, X. Hua, C. J. Karanewsky, H. Yeong Ryu, G. C. Sbeglia, F. Spagnolo, J. B. Waldron, O. Warsi, and J. J. Wiens, 2013: How does climate change cause extinction? Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 280 (1750) doi:10.1098/rspb.2012.1890. ↩
Cameron, D. R., D. C. Marvin, J. M. Remucal, and M. C. Passero, 2017: Ecosystem management and land conservation can substantially contribute to California's climate mitigation goals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114 (48), 12833–12838. doi:10.1073/pnas.1707811114. ↩
Campbell, J. E., J. A. Berry, U. Seibt, S. J. Smith, S. A. Montzka, T. Launois, S. Belviso, L. Bopp, and M. Laine, 2017: Large historical growth in global terrestrial gross primary production. Nature, 544, 84–87. doi:10.1038/nature22030. ↩
Campbell-Lendrum, D., L. Manga, M. Bagayoko, and J. Sommerfeld, 2015: Climate change and vector-borne diseases: What are the implications for public health research and policy? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 370 (1665) doi:10.1098/rstb.2013.0552. ↩
Chan, N. W., and C. J. Wichman, 2017: The Effects of Climate on Leisure Demand: Evidence from North America. WP 17-20. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, 47 pp. URL. ↩
Chen, I.-C., J. K. Hill, R. Ohlemüller, D. B. Roy, and C. D. Thomas, 2011: Rapid range shifts of species associated with high levels of climate warming. Science, 333 (6045), 1024–1026. doi:10.1126/science.1206432. ↩
Cheung, W. W. L., V. W. Y. Lam, J. L. Sarmiento, K. Kearney, R. Watson, D. Zeller, and D. Pauly, 2010: Large-scale redistribution of maximum fisheries catch potential in the global ocean under climate change. Global Change Biology, 16 (1), 24–35. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01995.x. ↩
Chevillot, X., H. Drouineau, P. Lambert, L. Carassou, B. Sautour, and J. Lobry, 2017: Toward a phenological mismatch in estuarine pelagic food web? PLOS ONE, 12 (3), e0173752. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0173752. ↩
Chivers, W. J., A. W. Walne, and G. C. Hays, 2017: Mismatch between marine plankton range movements and the velocity of climate change. Nature Communications, 8, 14434. doi:10.1038/ncomms14434. ↩
Chust, G., J. I. Allen, L. Bopp, C. Schrum, J. Holt, K. Tsiaras, M. Zavatarelli, M. Chifflet, H. Cannaby, I. Dadou, U. Daewel, S. L. Wakelin, E. Machu, D. Pushpadas, M. Butenschon, Y. Artioli, G. Petihakis, C. Smith, V. Garçon, K. Goubanova, B. Le Vu, B. A. Fach, B. Salihoglu, E. Clementi, and X. Irigoien, 2014: Biomass changes and trophic amplification of plankton in a warmer ocean. Global Change Biology, 20 (7), 2124–2139. doi:10.1111/gcb.12562. ↩
Climate Program Office, 2018: Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessment (RISA) [web site]. NOAA Climate Program Office, Silver Spring, MD. URL. ↩
Climate Science Centers, 2018: Climate Science Centers [web site]. U.S. Geological Survey, . URL. ↩
Cline, T. J., J. F. Kitchell, V. Bennington, G. A. McKinley, E. K. Moody, and B. C. Weidel, 2014: Climate impacts on landlocked sea lamprey: Implications for host-parasite interactions and invasive species management. Ecosphere, 5 (6), 1–13. doi:10.1890/ES14-00059.1. ↩
Crozier, L. G., and J. A. Hutchings, 2014: Plastic and evolutionary responses to climate change in fish. Evolutionary Applications, 7 (1), 68–87. doi:10.1111/eva.12135. ↩
Crozier, L. G., M. D. Scheuerell, and R. W. Zabel, 2011: Using time series analysis to characterize evolutionary and plastic responses to environmental change: A case study of a shift toward earlier migration date in sockeye salmon. The American Naturalist, 178 (6), 755–773. doi:10.1086/662669. ↩
Curtis, J. A., L. E. Flint, A. L. Flint, J. D. Lundquist, B. Hudgens, E. E. Boydston, and J. K. Young, 2015: Correction: Incorporating cold-air pooling into downscaled climate models increases potential refugia for snow-dependent species within the Sierra Nevada ecoregion, CA. PLOS ONE, 10 (4), e0124729. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0124729. ↩
Cushing, D. H., 1969: The regularity of the spawning season of some fishes. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 33 (1), 81–92. doi:10.1093/icesjms/33.1.81. ↩
Davis, C. L., D. A. W. Miller, S. C. Walls, W. J. Barichivich, J. W. Riley, and M. E. Brown, 2017: Species interactions and the effects of climate variability on a wetland amphibian metacommunity. Ecological Applications, 27 (1), 285–296. doi:10.1002/eap.1442. ↩
Deacy, W. W., J. B. Armstrong, W. B. Leacock, C. T. Robbins, D. D. Gustine, E. J. Ward, J. A. Erlenbach, and J. A. Stanford, 2017: Phenological synchronization disrupts trophic interactions between Kodiak brown bears and salmon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114 (39), 10432–10437. doi:10.1073/pnas.1705248114. ↩
DeGregorio, B. A., J. D. Westervelt, P. J. Weatherhead, and J. H. Sperry, 2015: Indirect effect of climate change: Shifts in ratsnake behavior alter intensity and timing of avian nest predation. Ecological Modelling, 312, 239–246. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.05.031. ↩
Dell, A. I., S. Pawar, and V. M. Savage, 2014: Temperature dependence of trophic interactions are driven by asymmetry of species responses and foraging strategy. Journal of Animal Ecology, 83 (1), 70–84. doi:10.1111/1365-2656.12081. ↩
Diez, J. M., C. M. D'Antonio, J. S. Dukes, E. D. Grosholz, J. D. Olden, C. J. B. Sorte, D. M. Blumenthal, B. A. Bradley, R. Early, I. Ibáñez, S. J. Jones, J. J. Lawler, and L. P. Miller, 2012: Will extreme climatic events facilitate biological invasions? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10 (5), 249–257. doi:10.1890/110137. ↩
Diez, J. M., I. Ibáñez, J. A. Silander, R. Primack, H. Higuchi, H. Kobori, A. Sen, and T. Y. James, 2014: Beyond seasonal climate: Statistical estimation of phenological responses to weather. Ecological Applications, 24 (7), 1793–1802. doi:10.1890/13-1533.1. ↩
Dionne, M., K. M. Miller, J. J. Dodson, F. Caron, and L. Bernatchez, 2007: Clinal variation in MHC diversity with temperature: Evidence for the role of host–pathogen interaction on local adaptation in Atlantic salmon. Evolution, 61 (9), 2154–2164. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00178.x. ↩
Dobrowski, S. Z., and S. A. Parks, 2016: Climate change velocity underestimates climate change exposure in mountainous regions. Nature Communications, 7, 12349. doi:10.1038/ncomms12349. ↩
Dobrowski, S. Z., J. Abatzoglou, A. K. Swanson, J. A. Greenberg, A. R. Mynsberge, Z. A. Holden, and M. K. Schwartz, 2013: The climate velocity of the contiguous United States during the 20th century. Global Change Biology, 19 (1), 241–251. doi:10.1111/gcb.12026. ↩
Domke, G., C. A. Williams, R. Birdsey, J. Coulston, A. Finzi, C. Gough, B. Haight, J. Hicke, M. Janowiak, B. de Jong, W. Kurz, M. Lucash, S. Ogle, M. Olguín-Álvarez, Y. Pan, M. Skutsch, C. Smyth, C. Swanston, P. Templer, D. Wear, and C. Woodall, 2018: Forests. Second State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR2): A Sustained Assessment Report. Cavallaro, N., G. Shrestha, R. Birdsey, M. Mayes, R. Najjar, S. Reed, P. Romero-Lankao, and Z. Zhu, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, p. xx-yy. doi:10.7930/SOCCR2.2018.Ch9. ↩
Duffy, J. E., C. M. Godwin, and B. J. Cardinale, 2017: Biodiversity effects in the wild are common and as strong as key drivers of productivity. Nature, 549, 261–264. doi:10.1038/nature23886. ↩
Early, R., and D. F. Sax, 2011: Analysis of climate paths reveals potential limitations on species range shifts. Ecology Letters, 14 (11), 1125–1133. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01681.x. ↩
Early, R., B. A. Bradley, J. S. Dukes, J. J. Lawler, J. D. Olden, D. M. Blumenthal, P. Gonzalez, E. D. Grosholz, I. Ibañez, L. P. Miller, C. J. B. Sorte, and A. J. Tatem, 2016: Global threats from invasive alien species in the twenty-first century and national response capacities. Nature Communications, 7, 12485. doi:10.1038/ncomms12485. ↩
Ellwood, E. R., S. A. Temple, R. B. Primack, N. L. Bradley, and C. C. Davis, 2013: Record-breaking early flowering in the eastern United States. PLOS ONE, 8 (1), e53788. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053788. ↩
Elsen, P. R., and M. W. Tingley, 2015: Global mountain topography and the fate of montane species under climate change. Nature Climate Change, 5, 772–776. doi:10.1038/nclimate2656. ↩
Enquist, C. A. F., J. L. Kellermann, K. L. Gerst, and A. J. Miller-Rushing, 2014: Phenology research for natural resource management in the United States. International Journal of Biometeorology, 58 (4), 579–589. doi:10.1007/s00484-013-0772-6. ↩
EPA, 2016: Climate Change Indicators in the United States, 2016. 4th edition. EPA 430-R-16-004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 96 pp. URL. ↩
EPA, 2017: Multi-model Framework for Quantitative Sectoral Impacts Analysis: A Technical Report for the Fourth National Climate Assessment. EPA 430‐R‐17‐001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington, DC, 271 pp. URL. ↩
Executive Office of the President, 2015: Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Federal Decision Making. M-16-01. The White House, Washington, DC, URL. ↩
Fei, S., J. M. Desprez, K. M. Potter, I. Jo, J. A. Knott, and C. M. Oswalt, 2017: Divergence of species responses to climate change. Science Advances, 3 (5), e1603055. doi:10.1126/sciadv.1603055. ↩
Fischer, J., D. B. Lindenmayer, and A. D. Manning, 2006: Biodiversity, ecosystem function, and resilience: Ten guiding principles for commodity production landscapes. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 4 (2), 80–86. doi:10.1890/1540-9295(2006)004[0080:BEFART]2.0.CO;2. ↩
Forrest, J. R. K., 2015: Plant–pollinator interactions and phenological change: What can we learn about climate impacts from experiments and observations? Oikos, 124 (1), 4–13. doi:10.1111/oik.01386. ↩
Franks, P. J., M. A. Adams, J. S. Amthor, M. M. Barbour, J. A. Berry, D. S. Ellsworth, G. D. Farquhar, O. Ghannoum, J. Lloyd, N. McDowell, R. J. Norby, D. T. Tissue, and S. von Caemmerer, 2013: Sensitivity of plants to changing atmospheric CO2 concentration: From the geological past to the next century. New Phytologist, 197 (4), 1077–1094. doi:10.1111/nph.12104. ↩
Franks, S. J., J. J. Weber, and S. N. Aitken, 2014: Evolutionary and plastic responses to climate change in terrestrial plant populations. Evolutionary Applications, 7 (1), 123–139. doi:10.1111/eva.12112. ↩
Friend, A. D., W. Lucht, T. T. Rademacher, R. Keribin, R. Betts, P. Cadule, P. Ciais, D. B. Clark, R. Dankers, P. D. Falloon, A. Ito, R. Kahana, A. Kleidon, M. R. Lomas, K. Nishina, S. Ostberg, R. Pavlick, P. Peylin, S. Schaphoff, N. Vuichard, L. Warszawski, A. Wiltshire, and F. I. Woodward, 2014: Carbon residence time dominates uncertainty in terrestrial vegetation responses to future climate and atmospheric CO2. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111 (9), 3280–3285. doi:10.1073/pnas.1222477110. ↩
Gallinat, A. S., R. B. Primack, and D. L. Wagner, 2015: Autumn, the neglected season in climate change research. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 30 (3), 169–176. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2015.01.004. ↩
García Molinos, J., B. S. Halpern, D. S. Schoeman, C. J. Brown, W. Kiessling, P. J. Moore, J. M. Pandolfi, E. S. Poloczanska, A. J. Richardson, and M. T. Burrows, 2015: Climate velocity and the future global redistribution of marine biodiversity. Nature Climate Change, 6, 83–88. doi:10.1038/nclimate2769. ↩
Georgetown Climate Center, 2018: State and Local Adaptation Plans. URL. ↩
Gienapp, P., T. E. Reed, and M. E. Visser, 2014: Why climate change will invariably alter selection pressures on phenology. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 281 (1793) doi:10.1098/rspb.2014.1611. ↩
Glick, P., B. A. Stein, and N. A. Edelson, 2011: Scanning the Conservation Horizon: A Guide to Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C., 176 pp. ↩
Grabowski, J. H., R. D. Brumbaugh, R. F. Conrad, A. G. Keeler, J. J. Opaluch, C. H. Peterson, M. F. Piehler, S. P. Powers, and A. R. Smyth, 2012: Economic valuation of ecosystem services provided by oyster reefs. BioScience, 62 (10), 900–909. doi:10.1525/bio.2012.62.10.10. ↩
Graven, H. D., R. F. Keeling, S. C. Piper, P. K. Patra, B. B. Stephens, S. C. Wofsy, L. R. Welp, C. Sweeney, P. P. Tans, J. J. Kelley, B. C. Daube, E. A. Kort, G. W. Santoni, and J. D. Bent, 2013: Enhanced seasonal exchange of CO2 by northern ecosystems since 1960. Science, 341 (6150), 1085–1089. doi:10.1126/science.1239207. ↩
Graves, D., 2008: A GIS Analysis of Climate Change and Snowpack on Columbia Basin Tribal Lands. Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Portland, OR, 20 pp. URL. ↩
Gregory, R., L. Failing, M. Harstone, G. Long, T. McDaniels, and D. Ohlson, 2012: Structuring environmental management choices. Structured Decision Making: A Practical Guide to Environmental Management Choices., Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, UK, 1–20. ↩
Grieve, B. D., E. N. Curchitser, and R. R. Rykaczewski, 2016: Range expansion of the invasive lionfish in the Northwest Atlantic with climate change. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 546, 225–237. doi:10.3354/meps11638. ↩
Grimm, N. B., F. S. Chapin III, B. Bierwagen, P. Gonzalez, P. M. Groffman, Y. Luo, F. Melton, K. Nadelhoffer, A. Pairis, P. A. Raymond, J. Schimel, and C. E. Williamson, 2013: The impacts of climate change on ecosystem structure and function. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11 (9), 474–482. doi:10.1890/120282. ↩
Griscom, B. W., J. Adams, P. W. Ellis, R. A. Houghton, G. Lomax, D. A. Miteva, W. H. Schlesinger, D. Shoch, J. V. Siikamäki, P. Smith, P. Woodbury, C. Zganjar, A. Blackman, J. Campari, R. T. Conant, C. Delgado, P. Elias, T. Gopalakrishna, M. R. Hamsik, M. Herrero, J. Kiesecker, E. Landis, L. Laestadius, S. M. Leavitt, S. Minnemeyer, S. Polasky, P. Potapov, F. E. Putz, J. Sanderman, M. Silvius, E. Wollenberg, and J. Fargione, 2017: Natural climate solutions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114 (44), 11645–11650. doi:10.1073/pnas.1710465114. ↩
Groffman, P. M., P. Kareiva, S. Carter, N. B. Grimm, J. Lawler, M. Mack, V. Matzek, and H. Tallis, 2014: Ch. 8: Ecosystems, biodiversity, and ecosystem services. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. Melillo, J. M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, 195–219. doi:10.7930/J0TD9V7H. ↩
Hannah, L., L. Flint, A. D. Syphard, M. A. Moritz, L. B. Buckley, and I. M. McCullough, 2014: Fine-grain modeling of species' response to climate change: Holdouts, stepping-stones, and microrefugia. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 29 (7), 390–397. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2014.04.006. ↩
Hare, J. A., 2014: The future of fisheries oceanography lies in the pursuit of multiple hypotheses. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 71 (8), 2343–2356. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsu018. ↩
Hare, J. A., D. L. Borggaard, K. D. Friedland, J. Anderson, P. Burns, K. Chu, P. M. Clay, M. J. Collins, P. Cooper, P. S. Fratantoni, M. R. Johnson, J. P. Manderson, L. Milke, T. J. Miller, C. D. Orphanides, and V. S. Saba, 2016: Northeast Regional Action Plan: NOAA Fisheries Climate Science Strategy. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-239. NOAA Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA, 94 pp. URL. ↩
Hare, J. A., W. E. Morrison, M. W. Nelson, M. M. Stachura, E. J. Teeters, R. B. Griffis, M. A. Alexander, J. D. Scott, L. Alade, R. J. Bell, A. S. Chute, K. L. Curti, T. H. Curtis, D. Kircheis, J. F. Kocik, S. M. Lucey, C. T. McCandless, L. M. Milke, D. E. Richardson, E. Robillard, H. J. Walsh, M. C. McManus, K. E. Marancik, and C. A. Griswold, 2016: A vulnerability assessment of fish and invertebrates to climate change on the northeast U.S. continental shelf. PLOS ONE, 11 (2), e0146756. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0146756. ↩
Harrison, P. A., P. M. Berry, G. Simpson, J. R. Haslett, M. Blicharska, M. Bucur, R. Dunford, B. Egoh, M. Garcia-Llorente, N. Geamănă, W. Geertsema, E. Lommelen, L. Meiresonne, and F. Turkelboom, 2014: Linkages between biodiversity attributes and ecosystem services: A systematic review. Ecosystem Services, 9, 191–203. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.05.006. ↩
Havel, J. E., K. E. Kovalenko, S. M. Thomaz, S. Amalfitano, and L. B. Kats, 2015: Aquatic invasive species: Challenges for the future. Hydrobiologia, 750 (1), 147–170. doi:10.1007/s10750-014-2166-0. ↩
Hember, R. A., W. A. Kurz, and N. C. Coops, 2017: Relationships between individual-tree mortality and water-balance variables indicate positive trends in water stress-induced tree mortality across North America. Global Change Biology, 23 (4), 1691–1710. doi:10.1111/gcb.13428. ↩
Henderson, M. E., K. E. Mills, A. C. Thomas, A. J. Pershing, and J. A. Nye, 2017: Effects of spring onset and summer duration on fish species distribution and biomass along the Northeast United States continental shelf. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 27 (2), 411–424. doi:10.1007/s11160-017-9487-9. ↩
Henson, S. A., J. L. Sarmiento, J. P. Dunne, L. Bopp, I. Lima, S. C. Doney, J. John, and C. Beaulieu, 2010: Detection of anthropogenic climate change in satellite records of ocean chlorophyll and productivity. Biogeosciences, 7 (2), 621–640. doi:10.5194/bg-7-621-2010. ↩
Herstoff, E., and M. C. Urban, 2014: Will pre-adaptation buffer the impacts of climate change on novel species interactions? Ecography, 37 (2), 111–119. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0587.2013.00116.x. ↩
Hess, M. A., J. E. Hess, A. P. Matala, R. A. French, C. A. Steele, J. C. Lovtang, and S. R. Narum, 2016: Migrating adult steelhead utilize a thermal refuge during summer periods with high water temperatures. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 73 (10), 2616–2624. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsw120. ↩
Hicke, J. A., A. J. H. Meddens, and C. A. Kolden, 2016: Recent tree mortality in the western United States from bark beetles and forest fires. Forest Science, 62 (2), 141–153. doi:10.5849/forsci.15-086. ↩
HilleRisLambers, J., L. D. L. Anderegg, I. Breckheimer, K. M. Burns, A. K. Ettinger, J. F. Franklin, J. A. Freund, K. R. Ford, and S. J. Krolss, 2015: Implications of climate change for turnover in forest composition. Northwest Science, 89 (3), 201–218. doi:10.3955/046.089.0304. ↩
Hobbs, R. J., E. Higgs, C. M. Hall, P. Bridgewater, F. S. Chapin, E. C. Ellis, J. J. Ewel, L. M. Hallett, J. Harris, K. B. Hulvey, S. T. Jackson, P. L. Kennedy, C. Kueffer, L. Lach, T. C. Lantz, A. E. Lugo, J. Mascaro, S. D. Murphy, C. R. Nelson, M. P. Perring, D. M. Richardson, T. R. Seastedt, R. J. Standish, B. M. Starzomski, K. N. Suding, P. M. Tognetti, L. Yakob, and L. Yung, 2014: Managing the whole landscape: Historical, hybrid, and novel ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 12 (10), 557–564. doi:10.1890/130300. ↩
Hobbs, R. J., L. E. Valentine, R. J. Standish, and S. T. Jackson, 2018: Movers and stayers: Novel assemblages in changing environments. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 33 (2), 116–128. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2017.11.001. ↩
Hoffmann, A. A., and C. M. Sgrò, 2011: Climate change and evolutionary adaptation. Nature, 470, 479–485. doi:10.1038/nature09670. ↩
Holsman, K. K., J. Ianelli, K. Aydin, A. E. Punt, and E. A. Moffitt, 2016: A comparison of fisheries biological reference points estimated from temperature-specific multi-species and single-species climate-enhanced stock assessment models. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 134, 360–378. doi:10.1016/j.dsr2.2015.08.001. ↩
Houston, L., S. Capalbo, C. Seavert, M. Dalton, D. Bryla, and R. Sagili, 2018: Specialty fruit production in the Pacific Northwest: Adaptation strategies for a changing climate. Climatic Change, 146 (1–2), 159–171. doi:10.1007/s10584-017-1951-y. ↩
Hsiang, S., R. Kopp, A. Jina, J. Rising, M. Delgado, S. Mohan, D. J. Rasmussen, R. Muir-Wood, P. Wilson, M. Oppenheimer, K. Larsen, and T. Houser, 2017: Estimating economic damage from climate change in the United States. Science, 356 (6345), 1362–1369. doi:10.1126/science.aal4369. ↩
Hufkens, K., M. Friedl, O. Sonnentag, B. H. Braswell, T. Milliman, and A. D. Richardson, 2012: Linking near-surface and satellite remote sensing measurements of deciduous broadleaf forest phenology. Remote Sensing of Environment, 117, 307–321. doi:10.1016/j.rse.2011.10.006. ↩
Ianelli, J., K. K. Holsman, A. E. Punt, and K. Aydin, 2016: Multi-model inference for incorporating trophic and climate uncertainty into stock assessments. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 134, 379–389. doi:10.1016/j.dsr2.2015.04.002. ↩
Invasive Species Advisory Committee, 2017: Managed Relocation: Reducing the Risk of Biological Invasion. National Invasive Species Council Secretariat, Washington, DC, 6 pp. URL. ↩
IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Stocker, T. F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P. M. Midgley, Eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, 1535 pp. URL. ↩
Isaac‐Renton, M. G., D. R. Roberts, A. Hamann, and H. Spiecker, 2014: Douglas‐fir plantations in Europe: A retrospective test of assisted migration to address climate change. Global Change Biology, 20 (8), 2607–2617. doi:10.1111/gcb.12604. ↩
Isaak, D. J., C. H. Luce, D. L. Horan, G. L. Chandler, S. P. Wollrab, and D. E. Nagel, 2018: Global warming of salmon and trout rivers in the northwestern U.S.: Road to ruin or path through purgatory? Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 147 (3), 566–587. doi:10.1002/tafs.10059. ↩
Isaak, D. J., M. K. Young, D. E. Nagel, D. L. Horan, and M. C. Groce, 2015: The cold‐water climate shield: Delineating refugia for preserving salmonid fishes through the 21st century. Global Change Biology, 21 (7), 2540–2553. doi:10.1111/gcb.12879. ↩
Iverson, L. R., F. R. Thompson, S. Matthews, M. Peters, A. Prasad, W. D. Dijak, J. Fraser, W. J. Wang, B. Hanberry, H. He, M. Janowiak, P. Butler, L. Brandt, and C. Swanston, 2017: Multi-model comparison on the effects of climate change on tree species in the eastern U.S.: Results from an enhanced niche model and process-based ecosystem and landscape models. Landscape Ecology, 32 (7), 1327–1346. doi:10.1007/s10980-016-0404-8. ↩
Jenkerson, C., T. Maiersperger, and G. Schmidt, 2010: eMODIS: A User-Friendly Data Source. Open-File Report 2010–1055. USGS, Reston, VA, 10 pp. URL. ↩
Jeong, S.-J., and D. Medvigy, 2014: Macroscale prediction of autumn leaf coloration throughout the continental United States. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 23 (11), 1245–1254. doi:10.1111/geb.12206. ↩
Jeong, S.-J., D. Medvigy, E. Shevliakova, and S. Malyshev, 2013: Predicting changes in temperate forest budburst using continental-scale observations and models. Geophysical Research Letters, 40 (2), 359–364. doi:10.1029/2012Gl054431. ↩
Johnson, D. S., 2014: Fiddler on the roof: A northern range extension for the marsh fiddler crab Uca Pugnax. Journal of Crustacean Biology, 34 (5), 671–673. doi:10.1163/1937240X-00002268. ↩
Johnson, D. S., 2015: The savory swimmer swims north: A northern range extension of the blue crab Callinectes Sapidus? Journal of Crustacean Biology, 35 (1), 105–110. doi:10.1163/1937240X-00002293. ↩
Kats, L. B., G. Bucciarelli, T. L. Vandergon, R. L. Honeycutt, E. Mattiasen, A. Sanders, S. P. D. Riley, J. L. Kerby, and R. N. Fisher, 2013: Effects of natural flooding and manual trapping on the facilitation of invasive crayfish–native amphibian coexistence in a semi-arid perennial stream. Journal of Arid Environments, 98, 109–112. doi:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2013.08.003. ↩
Katsanevakis, S., I. Wallentinus, A. Zenetos, E. Leppäkoski, M. E. Çinar, B. Oztürk, M. Grabowski, D. Golani, and A. C. Cardoso, 2014: Impacts of invasive alien marine species on ecosystem services and biodiversity: A pan-European review. Aquatic Invasions, 9 (4), 391–426. doi:10.3391/ai.2014.9.4.01. ↩
Kattan, G. H., J. Aronson, and C. Murcia, 2016: Does the novel ecosystem concept provide a framework for practical applications and a path forward? A reply to Miller and Bestelmeyer. Restoration Ecology, 24 (6), 714–716. doi:10.1111/rec.12453. ↩
Keenan, T. F., and A. D. Richardson, 2015: The timing of autumn senescence is affected by the timing of spring phenology: Implications for predictive models. Global Change Biology, 21 (7), 2634–2641. doi:10.1111/gcb.12890. ↩
Keppel, G., K. Mokany, G. W. Wardell-Johnson, B. L. Phillips, J. A. Welbergen, and A. E. Reside, 2015: The capacity of refugia for conservation planning under climate change. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 13 (2), 106–112. doi:10.1890/140055. ↩
Kleisner, K. M., M. J. Fogarty, S. McGee, J. A. Hare, S. Moret, C. T. Perretti, and V. S. Saba, 2017: Marine species distribution shifts on the U.S. Northeast Continental Shelf under continued ocean warming. Progress in Oceanography, 153, 24–36. doi:10.1016/j.pocean.2017.04.001. ↩
Kolar, C. S., and D. M. Lodge, 2002: Ecological predictions and risk assessment for alien fishes in North America. Science, 298 (5596), 1233–1236. doi:10.1126/science.1075753. ↩
Koop, A. L., L. Fowler, L. P. Newton, and B. P. Caton, 2012: Development and validation of a weed screening tool for the United States. Biological Invasions, 14 (2), 273–294. doi:10.1007/s10530-011-0061-4. ↩
Kovach, R. P., A. J. Gharrett, and D. A. Tallmon, 2012: Genetic change for earlier migration timing in a pink salmon population. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 279 (1743), 3870–3878. doi:10.1098/rspb.2012.1158. ↩
Kovach, R. P., C. C. Muhlfeld, A. A. Wade, B. K. Hand, D. C. Whited, P. W. DeHaan, R. Al-Chokhachy, and G. Luikart, 2015: Genetic diversity is related to climatic variation and vulnerability in threatened bull trout. Global Change Biology, 21 (7), 2510–2524. doi:10.1111/gcb.12850. ↩
Kovach, R. P., J. E. Joyce, J. D. Echave, M. S. Lindberg, and D. A. Tallmon, 2013: Earlier migration timing, decreasing phenotypic variation, and biocomplexity in multiple salmonid species. PLOS ONE, 8 (1), e53807. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053807. ↩
Kwiatkowski, L., L. Bopp, O. Aumont, P. Ciais, P. M. Cox, C. Laufkötter, Y. Li, and R. Séférian, 2017: Emergent constraints on projections of declining primary production in the tropical oceans. Nature Climate Change, 7, 355–358. doi:10.1038/nclimate3265. ↩
Labe, Z., T. Ault, and R. Zurita-Milla, 2017: Identifying anomalously early spring onsets in the CESM large ensemble project. Climate Dynamics, 48 (11), 3949–3966. doi:10.1007/s00382-016-3313-2. ↩
Lancaster, L. T., G. Morrison, and R. N. Fitt, 2017: Life history trade-offs, the intensity of competition, and coexistence in novel and evolving communities under climate change. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 372 (1712) doi:10.1098/rstb.2016.0046. ↩
Larsen, S., J. D. Muehlbauer, and E. Marti, 2016: Resource subsidies between stream and terrestrial ecosystems under global change. Global Change Biology, 22 (7), 2489–2504. doi:10.1111/gcb.13182. ↩
Laufkötter, C., M. Vogt, N. Gruber, M. Aita-Noguchi, O. Aumont, L. Bopp, E. Buitenhuis, S. C. Doney, J. Dunne, T. Hashioka, J. Hauck, T. Hirata, J. John, C. Le Quéré, I. D. Lima, H. Nakano, R. Seferian, I. Totterdell, M. Vichi, and C. Völker, 2015: Drivers and uncertainties of future global marine primary production in marine ecosystem models. Biogeosciences, 12 (23), 6955–6984. doi:10.5194/bg-12-6955-2015. ↩
Laws, A. N., and A. Joern, 2013: Predator–prey interactions in a grassland food chain vary with temperature and food quality. Oikos, 122 (7), 977–986. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0706.2012.20419.x. ↩
Lefort, S., O. Aumont, L. Bopp, T. Arsouze, M. Gehlen, and O. Maury, 2015: Spatial and body-size dependent response of marine pelagic communities to projected global climate change. Global Change Biology, 21 (1), 154–164. doi:10.1111/gcb.12679. ↩
Lemasson, A. J., S. Fletcher, J. M. Hall-Spencer, and A. M. Knights, 2017: Linking the biological impacts of ocean acidification on oysters to changes in ecosystem services: A review. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 492, 49–62. doi:10.1016/j.jembe.2017.01.019. ↩
Lenoir, J., and J. C. Svenning, 2015: Climate-related range shifts—A global multidimensional synthesis and new research directions. Ecography, 38 (1), 15–28. doi:10.1111/ecog.00967. ↩
Levi, T., F. Keesing, K. Oggenfuss, and R. S. Ostfeld, 2015: Accelerated phenology of blacklegged ticks under climate warming. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 370 (1665) doi:10.1098/rstb.2013.0556. ↩
Lewthwaite, J. M. M., D. M. Debinski, and J. T. Kerr, 2017: High community turnover and dispersal limitation relative to rapid climate change. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 26 (4), 459–471. doi:10.1111/geb.12553. ↩
Liang, Y., M. J. Duveneck, E. J. Gustafson, J. M. Serra‐Diaz, and J. R. Thompson, 2018: How disturbance, competition, and dispersal interact to prevent tree range boundaries from keeping pace with climate change. Global Change Biology, 24 (1), e335–e351. doi:10.1111/gcb.13847. ↩
Link, J. S., J. A. Nye, and J. A. Hare, 2011: Guidelines for incorporating fish distribution shifts into a fisheries management context. Fish and Fisheries, 12 (4), 461–469. doi:10.1111/j.1467-2979.2010.00398.x. ↩
Link, J. S., O. Thébaud, D. C. Smith, A. D. M. Smith, J. Schmidt, J. Rice, J. J. Poos, C. Pita, D. Lipton, M. Kraan, S. Frusher, L. Doyen, A. Cudennec, K. Criddle, and D. Bailly, 2017: Keeping humans in the ecosystem. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 74 (7), 1947–1956. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsx130. ↩
Link, J. S., R. Griffis, and S. Busch, Eds., 2015: NOAA Fisheries Climate Science Strategy. 70 pp. URL. ↩
Link, J., 2016: Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management Policy and Road Map. NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. URL. ↩
Loarie, S. R., P. B. Duffy, H. Hamilton, G. P. Asner, C. B. Field, and D. D. Ackerly, 2009: The velocity of climate change. Nature, 462 (7276), 1052–1055. doi:10.1038/nature08649. ↩
Lynch, A. J., B. J. E. Myers, C. Chu, L. A. Eby, J. A. Falke, R. P. Kovach, T. J. Krabbenhoft, T. J. Kwak, J. Lyons, C. P. Paukert, and J. E. Whitney, 2016: Climate change effects on North American inland fish populations and assemblages. Fisheries, 41 (7), 346–361. doi:10.1080/03632415.2016.1186016. ↩
Mace, G. M., K. Norris, and A. H. Fitter, 2012: Biodiversity and ecosystem services: A multilayered relationship. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 27 (1), 19–26. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2011.08.006. ↩
Mackas, D. L., 2011: Does blending of chlorophyll data bias temporal trend? Nature, 472, E4. doi:10.1038/nature09951. ↩
Mahmoud, M., Y. Liu, H. Hartmann, S. Stewart, T. Wagener, D. Semmens, R. Stewart, H. Gupta, D. Dominguez, F. Dominguez, D. Hulse, R. Letcher, B. Rashleigh, C. Smith, R. Street, J. Ticehurst, M. Twery, H. van Delden, R. Waldick, D. White, and L. Winter, 2009: A formal framework for scenario development in support of environmental decision-making. Environmental Modelling & Software, 24 (7), 798–808. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2008.11.010. ↩
Martín-López, B., E. Gómez-Baggethun, M. García-Llorente, and C. Montes, 2014: Trade-offs across value-domains in ecosystem services assessment. Ecological Indicators, 37, 220–228. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.03.003. ↩
Mayor, S. J., R. P. Guralnick, M. W. Tingley, J. Otegui, J. C. Withey, S. C. Elmendorf, M. E. Andrew, S. Leyk, I. S. Pearse, and D. C. Schneider, 2017: Increasing phenological asynchrony between spring green-up and arrival of migratory birds. Scientific Reports, 7 (1), 1902. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-02045-z. ↩
Mayr, E., 1982: The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance. Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA,. ↩
McCain, C. M., and S. R. B. King, 2014: Body size and activity times mediate mammalian responses to climate change. Global Change Biology, 20 (6), 1760–1769. doi:10.1111/gcb.12499. ↩
McCluney, K. E., and J. L. Sabo, 2016: Animal water balance drives top-down effects in a riparian forest—Implications for terrestrial trophic cascades. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 283 (1836) doi:10.1098/rspb.2016.0881. ↩
McClure, M. M., S. M. Carlson, T. J. Beechie, G. R. Pess, J. C. Jorgensen, S. M. Sogard, S. E. Sultan, D. M. Holzer, J. Travis, B. L. Sanderson, M. E. Power, and R. W. Carmichael, 2008: Evolutionary consequences of habitat loss for Pacific anadromous salmonids. Evolutionary Applications, 1 (2), 300–318. doi:10.1111/j.1752-4571.2008.00030.x. ↩
McGuire, J. L., J. J. Lawler, B. H. McRae, T. A. Nuñez, and D. M. Theobald, 2016: Achieving climate connectivity in a fragmented landscape. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113 (26), 7195–7200. doi:10.1073/pnas.1602817113. ↩
McQuatters-Gollop, A., P. C. Reid, M. Edwards, P. H. Burkill, C. Castellani, S. Batten, W. Gieskes, D. Beare, R. R. Bidigare, E. Head, R. Johnson, M. Kahru, J. A. Koslow, and A. Pena, 2011: Is there a decline in marine phytoplankton? Nature, 472, E6. doi:10.1038/nature09950. ↩
Mellin, C., M. Lurgi, S. Matthews, M. A. MacNeil, M. J. Caley, N. Bax, R. Przeslawski, and D. A. Fordham, 2016: Forecasting marine invasions under climate change: Biotic interactions and demographic processes matter. Biological Conservation, 204 (Part B), 459–467. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2016.11.008. ↩
Merilä, J., 2012: Evolution in response to climate change: In pursuit of the missing evidence. BioEssays, 34 (9), 811–818. doi:10.1002/bies.201200054. ↩
Merilä, J., and A. P. Hendry, 2014: Climate change, adaptation, and phenotypic plasticity: The problem and the evidence. Evolutionary Applications, 7 (1), 1–14. doi:10.1111/eva.12137. ↩
Messier, C., K. Puettmann, R. Chazdon, K. P. Andersson, V. A. Angers, L. Brotons, E. Filotas, R. Tittler, L. Parrott, and S. A. Levin, 2015: From management to stewardship: Viewing forests as complex adaptive systems in an uncertain world. Conservation Letters, 8 (5), 368–377. doi:10.1111/conl.12156. ↩
Millar, C. I., and N. L. Stephenson, 2015: Temperate forest health in an era of emerging megadisturbance. Science, 349 (6250), 823–826. doi:10.1126/science.aaa9933. ↩
Miller, K. M., A. Teffer, S. Tucker, S. Li, A. D. Schulze, M. Trudel, F. Juanes, A. Tabata, K. H. Kaukinen, N. G. Ginther, T. J. Ming, S. J. Cooke, J. M. Hipfner, D. A. Patterson, and S. G. Hinch, 2014: Infectious disease, shifting climates, and opportunistic predators: Cumulative factors potentially impacting wild salmon declines. Evolutionary Applications, 7 (7), 812–855. doi:10.1111/eva.12164. ↩
Miller, L. P., C. M. Matassa, and G. C. Trussell, 2014: Climate change enhances the negative effects of predation risk on an intermediate consumer. Global Change Biology, 20 (12), 3834–3844. doi:10.1111/gcb.12639. ↩
Miller-Rushing, A. J., T. T. Høye, D. W. Inouye, and E. Post, 2010: The effects of phenological mismatches on demography. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365 (1555), 3177–3186. doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0148. ↩
Mills, K. E., A. J. Pershing, C. J. Brown, Y. Chen, F.-S. Chiang, D. S. Holland, S. Lehuta, J. A. Nye, J. C. Sun, A. C. Thomas, and R. A. Wahle, 2013: Fisheries management in a changing climate: Lessons from the 2012 ocean heat wave in the Northwest Atlantic. Oceanography, 26 (2), 191–195. doi:10.5670/oceanog.2013.27. ↩
Mills, L. S., M. Zimova, J. Oyler, S. Running, J. T. Abatzoglou, and P. M. Lukacs, 2013: Camouflage mismatch in seasonal coat color due to decreased snow duration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110 (18), 7360–7365. doi:10.1073/pnas.1222724110. ↩
Monaghan, A. J., S. M. Moore, K. M. Sampson, C. B. Beard, and R. J. Eisen, 2015: Climate change influences on the annual onset of Lyme disease in the United States. Ticks and Tick-Borne Diseases, 6 (5), 615–622. doi:10.1016/j.ttbdis.2015.05.005. ↩
Monahan, W. B., A. Rosemartin, K. L. Gerst, N. A. Fisichelli, T. Ault, M. D. Schwartz, J. E. Gross, and J. F. Weltzin, 2016: Climate change is advancing spring onset across the U.S. national park system. Ecosphere, 7 (10), e01465. doi:10.1002/ecs2.1465. ↩
Moran, M. S., G. E. Ponce-Campos, A. Huete, M. P. McClaran, Y. Zhang, E. P. Hamerlynck, D. J. Augustine, S. A. Gunter, S. G. Kitchen, D. P. C. Peters, P. J. Starks, and M. Hernandez, 2014: Functional response of U.S. grasslands to the early 21st-century drought. Ecology, 95 (8), 2121–2133. doi:10.1890/13-1687.1. ↩
Morelli, T. L., C. Daly, S. Z. Dobrowski, D. M. Dulen, J. L. Ebersole, S. T. Jackson, J. D. Lundquist, C. I. Millar, S. P. Maher, W. B. Monahan, K. R. Nydick, K. T. Redmond, S. C. Sawyer, S. Stock, and S. R. Beissinger, 2016: Managing climate change refugia for climate adaptation. PLOS ONE, 11 (8), e0159909. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0159909. ↩
Mundim, F. M., and E. M. Bruna, 2016: Is there a temperate bias in our understanding of how climate change will alter plant-herbivore interactions? A meta-analysis of experimental studies. The American Naturalist, 188 (S1), S74–S89. doi:10.1086/687530. ↩
Murcia, C., J. Aronson, G. H. Kattan, D. Moreno-Mateos, K. Dixon, and D. Simberloff, 2014: A critique of the “novel ecosystem” concept. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 29 (10), 548–553. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2014.07.006. ↩
Márquez, I., E. García-Vázquez, and Y. J. Borrell, 2014: Possible effects of vaccination and environmental changes on the presence of disease in northern Spanish fish farms. Aquaculture, 431, 118–123. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2013.12.030. ↩
National Fish Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Partnership, 2012: National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy. Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Council on Environmental Quality, Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service., Washington, D.C., 120 pp. URL. ↩
National Invasive Species Council, 2016: Management Plan: 2016 - 2018. NISC Secretariat, Washington, DC, 42 pp. URL. ↩
Nelson, E. J., P. Kareiva, M. Ruckelshaus, K. Arkema, G. Geller, E. Girvetz, D. Goodrich, V. Matzek, M. Pinsky, W. Reid, M. Saunders, D. Semmens, and H. Tallis, 2013: Climate change's impact on key ecosystem services and the human well-being they support in the US. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11 (9), 483–893. doi:10.1890/120312. ↩
Nghiem, L. T. P., T. Soliman, D. C. J. Yeo, H. T. W. Tan, T. A. Evans, J. D. Mumford, R. P. Keller, R. H. A. Baker, R. T. Corlett, and L. R. Carrasco, 2013: Economic and environmental impacts of harmful non-indigenous species in Southeast Asia. PLOS ONE, 8 (8), e71255. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0071255. ↩
NIACS, Forest Adaptation Planning and Practices. Northern Institute of Applied Climate Science (NIACS), Houghton, MI. URL. ↩
Nicotra, A. B., E. A. Beever, A. L. Robertson, G. E. Hofmann, and J. O'Leary, 2015: Assessing the components of adaptive capacity to improve conservation and management efforts under global change. Conservation Biology, 29 (5), 1268–1278. doi:10.1111/cobi.12522. ↩
Norby, R. J., and D. R. Zak, 2011: Ecological lessons from Free-Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE) Experiments. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 42 (1), 181–203. doi:10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102209-144647. ↩
NPS, 2010: National Park Service Climate Change Response Strategy. U.S. National Park Service Climate Change Response Program, Fort Collins, Colorado, 36 pp. URL. ↩
NPS, 2013: Catoctin Mountain Park Resource Stewardship Strategy. NPS/CATO/841/121094. U.S. Departmentt of the Interior, National Park Service (NPS), 100 pp. URL. ↩
Ogilvie, J. E., S. R. Griffin, Z. J. Gezon, B. D. Inouye, N. Underwood, D. W. Inouye, and R. E. Irwin, 2017: Interannual bumble bee abundance is driven by indirect climate effects on floral resource phenology. Ecology Letters, 20 (12), 1507–1515. doi:10.1111/ele.12854. ↩
Ohlberger, J., S. J. Thackeray, I. J. Winfield, S. C. Maberly, and L. A. Vøllestad, 2014: When phenology matters: Age–size truncation alters population response to trophic mismatch. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 281 (1793) doi:10.1098/rspb.2014.0938. ↩
Oliver, T. H., N. J. B. Isaac, T. A. August, B. A. Woodcock, D. B. Roy, and J. M. Bullock, 2015: Declining resilience of ecosystem functions under biodiversity loss. Nature Communications, 6, 10122. doi:10.1038/ncomms10122. ↩
Ostfeld, R. S., and J. L. Brunner, 2015: Climate change and Ixodes tick-borne diseases of humans. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 370 (1665), 20140051. doi:10.1098/rstb.2014.0051. ↩
Ostrom, E., 2008: Tragedy of the commons. The new Palgrave dictionary of economics. Durlauf, S., and L. E. Blume, Eds., Palgrave Macmillan, New York, p. v.8: 360-363. ↩
Otero, J., J. H. L'Abée-Lund, T. Castro-Santos, K. Leonardsson, G. O. Storvik, B. Jonsson, B. Dempson, I. C. Russell, A. J. Jensen, J.-L. Baglinière, M. Dionne, J. D. Armstrong, A. Romakkaniemi, B. H. Letcher, J. F. Kocik, J. Erkinaro, R. Poole, G. Rogan, H. Lundqvist, J. C. MacLean, E. Jokikokko, J. V. Arnekleiv, R. J. Kennedy, E. Niemelä, P. Caballero, P. A. Music, T. Antonsson, S. Gudjonsson, A. E. Veselov, A. Lamberg, S. Groom, B. H. Taylor, M. Taberner, M. Dillane, F. Arnason, G. Horton, N. A. Hvidsten, I. R. Jonsson, N. Jonsson, S. McKelvey, T. F. Næsje, Ø. Skaala, G. W. Smith, H. Sægrov, N. C. Stenseth, and L. A. Vøllestad, 2014: Basin-scale phenology and effects of climate variability on global timing of initial seaward migration of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Global Change Biology, 20 (1), 61–75. doi:10.1111/gcb.12363. ↩
Pacifici, M., P. Visconti, S. H. M. Butchart, J. E. M. Watson, F. M. Cassola, and C. Rondinini, 2017: Species' traits influenced their response to recent climate change. Nature Climate Change, 7, 205–208. doi:10.1038/nclimate3223. ↩
Paini, D. R., A. W. Sheppard, D. C. Cook, P. J. De Barro, S. P. Worner, and M. B. Thomas, 2016: Global threat to agriculture from invasive species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113 (27), 7575–7579. doi:10.1073/pnas.1602205113. ↩
Parain, E. C., D. Gravel, R. P. Rohr, L.-F. Bersier, and S. M. Gray, 2016: Mismatch in microbial food webs: Predators but not prey perform better in their local biotic and abiotic conditions. Ecology and Evolution, 6 (14), 4885–4897. doi:10.1002/ece3.2236. ↩
Pardee, G. L., D. W. Inouye, and R. E. Irwin, 2018: Direct and indirect effects of episodic frost on plant growth and reproduction in subalpine wildflowers. Global Change Biology, 24 (2), 848–857. doi:10.1111/gcb.13865. ↩
Parham, P. E., J. Waldock, G. K. Christophides, D. Hemming, F. Agusto, K. J. Evans, N. Fefferman, H. Gaff, A. Gumel, S. LaDeau, S. Lenhart, R. E. Mickens, E. N. Naumova, R. S. Ostfeld, P. D. Ready, M. B. Thomas, J. Velasco-Hernandez, and E. Michael, 2015: Climate, environmental and socio-economic change: Weighing up the balance in vector-borne disease transmission. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 370 (1665) doi:10.1098/rstb.2013.0551. ↩
Parmesan, C., and G. Yohe, 2003: A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature, 421 (6918), 37–42. doi:10.1038/nature01286. ↩
Parmesan, C., and M. E. Hanley, 2015: Plants and climate change: Complexities and surprises. Annals of Botany, 116 (6), 849–864. doi:10.1093/aob/mcv169. ↩
Pecl, G. T., M. B. Araújo, J. D. Bell, J. Blanchard, T. C. Bonebrake, I.-C. Chen, T. D. Clark, R. K. Colwell, F. Danielsen, B. Evengård, L. Falconi, S. Ferrier, S. Frusher, R. A. Garcia, R. B. Griffis, A. J. Hobday, C. Janion-Scheepers, M. A. Jarzyna, S. Jennings, J. Lenoir, H. I. Linnetved, V. Y. Martin, P. C. McCormack, J. McDonald, N. J. Mitchell, T. Mustonen, J. M. Pandolfi, N. Pettorelli, E. Popova, S. A. Robinson, B. R. Scheffers, J. D. Shaw, C. J. B. Sorte, J. M. Strugnell, J. M. Sunday, M.-N. Tuanmu, A. Vergés, C. Villanueva, T. Wernberg, E. Wapstra, and S. E. Williams, 2017: Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: Impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. Science, 355 (6332), eaai9214. doi:10.1126/science.aai9214. ↩
Peer, A. C., and T. J. Miller, 2014: Climate change, migration phenology, and fisheries management interact with unanticipated consequences. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 34 (1), 94–110. doi:10.1080/02755947.2013.847877. ↩
Pellissier, L., P. B. Eidesen, D. Ehrich, P. Descombes, P. Schönswetter, A. Tribsch, K. B. Westergaard, N. Alvarez, A. Guisan, N. E. Zimmermann, S. Normand, P. Vittoz, M. Luoto, C. Damgaard, C. Brochmann, M. S. Wisz, and I. G. Alsos, 2016: Past climate‐driven range shifts and population genetic diversity in arctic plants. Journal of Biogeography, 43 (3), 461–470. doi:10.1111/jbi.12657. ↩
Perlut, N. G., A. M. Strong, and T. J. Alexander, 2011: A model for integrating wildlife science and agri-environmental policy in the conservation of declining species. Journal of Wildlife Management, 75 (7), 1657–1663. doi:10.1002/jwmg.199. ↩
Perlut, N. G., and A. M. Strong, 2011: Grassland birds and rotational-grazing in the northeast: Breeding ecology, survival and management opportunities. Journal of Wildlife Management, 75 (3), 715–720. doi:10.1002/jwmg.81. ↩
Peterson, A. G., and J. T. Abatzoglou, 2014: Observed changes in false springs over the contiguous United States. Geophysical Research Letters, 41 (6), 2156–2162. doi:10.1002/2014GL059266. ↩
Peterson, G. D., G. S. Cumming, and S. R. Carpenter, 2003: Scenario planning: A tool for conservation in an uncertain world. Conservation Biology, 17 (2), 358–366. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01491.x. ↩
Phillips, B. L., G. P. Brown, and R. Shine, 2010: Life‐history evolution in range‐shifting populations. Ecology, 91 (6), 1617–1627. doi:10.1890/09-0910.1. ↩
Pinsky, M. L., and M. Fogarty, 2012: Lagged social-ecological responses to climate and range shifts in fisheries. Climatic Change, 115 (3–4), 883–891. doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0599-x. ↩
Pinsky, M. L., B. Worm, M. J. Fogarty, J. L. Sarmiento, and S. A. Levin, 2013: Marine taxa track local climate velocities. Science, 341 (6151), 1239–1242. doi:10.1126/science.1239352. ↩
Poloczanska, E. S., C. J. Brown, W. J. Sydeman, W. Kiessling, D. S. Schoeman, P. J. Moore, K. Brander, J. F. Bruno, L. B. Buckley, M. T. Burrows, C. M. Duarte, B. S. Halpern, J. Holding, C. V. Kappel, M. I. O'Connor, J. M. Pandolfi, C. Parmesan, F. Schwing, S. A. Thompson, and A. J. Richardson, 2013: Global imprint of climate change on marine life. Nature Climate Change, 3, 919–925. doi:10.1038/nclimate1958. ↩
Ponce-Campos, G. E., M. S. Moran, A. Huete, Y. Zhang, C. Bresloff, T. E. Huxman, D. Eamus, D. D. Bosch, A. R. Buda, S. A. Gunter, T. H. Scalley, S. G. Kitchen, M. P. McClaran, W. H. McNab, D. S. Montoya, J. A. Morgan, D. P. C. Peters, E. J. Sadler, M. S. Seyfried, and P. J. Starks, 2013: Ecosystem resilience despite large-scale altered hydroclimatic conditions. Nature, 494, 349–352. doi:10.1038/nature11836. ↩
Post, E., 2017: Implications of earlier sea ice melt for phenological cascades in arctic marine food webs. Food Webs, 13, 60–66. doi:10.1016/j.fooweb.2016.11.002. ↩
Powell, E. J., M. C. Tyrrell, A. Milliken, J. M. Tirpak, and M. D. Staudinger, 2017: A synthesis of thresholds for focal species along the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf Coasts: A review of research and applications. Ocean & Coastal Management, 148, 75–88. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.07.012. ↩
Pratt, C. F., K. L. Constantine, and S. T. Murphy, 2017: Economic impacts of invasive alien species on African smallholder livelihoods. Global Food Security, 14, 31–37. doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2017.01.011. ↩
Pureswaran, D. S., L. De Grandpré, D. Paré, A. Taylor, M. Barrette, H. Morin, J. Régnière, and D. D. Kneeshaw, 2015: Climate-induced changes in host tree–insect phenology may drive ecological state-shift in boreal forests. Ecology, 96 (6), 1480–1491. doi:10.1890/13-2366.1. ↩
Pyke, G. H., J. D. Thomson, D. W. Inouye, and T. J. Miller, 2016: Effects of climate change on phenologies and distributions of bumble bees and the plants they visit. Ecosphere, 7 (3), e01267. doi:10.1002/ecs2.1267. ↩
Ralston, J., W. V. DeLuca, R. E. Feldman, and D. I. King, 2017: Population trends influence species ability to track climate change. Global Change Biology, 23 (4), 1390–1399. doi:10.1111/gcb.13478. ↩
Rangwala, I., C. Dewes, and J. Barsugli, 2016: High-resolution climate modeling for regional adaptation. Eos, 97 doi:10.1029/2016EO048615. ↩
Rapacciuolo, G., S. P. Maher, A. C. Schneider, T. T. Hammond, M. D. Jabis, R. E. Walsh, K. J. Iknayan, G. K. Walden, M. F. Oldfather, D. D. Ackerly, and S. R. Beissinger, 2014: Beyond a warming fingerprint: Individualistic biogeographic responses to heterogeneous climate change in California. Global Change Biology, 20 (9), 2841–2855. doi:10.1111/gcb.12638. ↩
Rasmann, S., L. Pellissier, E. Defossez, H. Jactel, and G. Kunstler, 2014: Climate-driven change in plant–insect interactions along elevation gradients. Functional Ecology, 28 (1), 46–54. doi:10.1111/1365-2435.12135. ↩
Reed, T. E., D. E. Schindler, M. J. Hague, D. A. Patterson, E. Meir, R. S. Waples, and S. G. Hinch, 2011: Time to evolve? Potential evolutionary responses of Fraser River sockeye salmon to climate change and effects on persistence. PLOS ONE, 6 (6), e20380. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0020380. ↩
Reed, T. E., S. Jenouvrier, and M. E. Visser, 2013: Phenological mismatch strongly affects individual fitness but not population demography in a woodland passerine. Journal of Animal Ecology, 82 (1), 131–144. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2656.2012.02020.x. ↩
Reeves, M. C., M. E. Manning, J. P. DiBenedetto, K. A. Palmquist, W. K. Lauenroth, J. B. Bradford, and D. R. Schlaepfer, 2018: Effects of climate change on rangeland vegetation in the Northern Rockies. Climate Change and Rocky Mountain Ecosystems. Halofsky, J. E., and D. L. Peterson, Eds., Springer International Publishing, Cham, 97–114. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-56928-4_6. ↩
Richards, R. A., M. J. Fogarty, D. G. Mountain, and M. H. Taylor, 2012: Climate change and northern shrimp recruitment variability in the Gulf of Maine. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 464, 167–178. doi:10.3354/meps09869. ↩
Richardson, A. D., R. S. Anderson, M. A. Arain, A. G. Barr, G. Bohrer, G. Chen, J. M. Chen, P. Ciais, K. J. Davis, A. R. Desai, M. C. Dietze, D. Dragoni, S. R. Garrity, C. M. Gough, R. Grant, D. Y. Hollinger, H. A. Margolis, H. McCaughey, M. Migliavacca, R. K. Monson, J. W. Munger, B. Poulter, B. M. Raczka, D. M. Ricciuto, A. K. Sahoo, K. Schaefer, H. Tian, R. Vargas, H. Verbeeck, J. Xiao, and Y. Xue, 2012: Terrestrial biosphere models need better representation of vegetation phenology: Results from the North American Carbon Program Site Synthesis. Global Change Biology, 18 (2), 566–584. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02562.x. ↩
Richardson, A. D., T. F. Keenan, M. Migliavacca, Y. Ryu, O. Sonnentag, and M. Toomey, 2013: Climate change, phenology, and phenological control of vegetation feedbacks to the climate system. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 169, 156–173. doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2012.09.012. ↩
Roberts, C. M., B. C. O'Leary, D. J. McCauley, P. M. Cury, C. M. Duarte, J. Lubchenco, D. Pauly, A. Sáenz-Arroyo, U. R. Sumaila, R. W. Wilson, B. Worm, and J. C. Castilla, 2017: Marine reserves can mitigate and promote adaptation to climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114 (24), 6167–6175. doi:10.1073/pnas.1701262114. ↩
Roberts, T. C., 1991: Cheatgrass: Management implications in the 90's. Rangelands, 13 (2), 70–72. URL. ↩
Rogers, B. M., P. Jantz, and S. J. Goetz, 2017: Vulnerability of eastern US tree species to climate change. Global Change Biology, 23 (8), 3302–3320. doi:10.1111/gcb.13585. ↩
Rosenblatt, A. E., and O. J. Schmitz, 2014: Interactive effects of multiple climate change variables on trophic interactions: A meta-analysis. Climate Change Responses, 1 (1), 8. doi:10.1186/s40665-014-0008-y. ↩
Rosenblatt, A. E., L. M. Smith-Ramesh, and O. J. Schmitz, 2017: Interactive effects of multiple climate change variables on food web dynamics: Modeling the effects of changing temperature, CO2, and water availability on a tri-trophic food web. Food Webs, 13, 98–108. doi:10.1016/j.fooweb.2016.10.002. ↩
Rosenzweig, C., J. Elliott, D. Deryng, A. C. Ruane, C. Müller, A. Arneth, K. J. Boote, C. Folberth, M. Glotter, N. Khabarov, K. Neumann, F. Piontek, T. A. M. Pugh, E. Schmid, E. Stehfest, H. Yang, and J. W. Jones, 2014: Assessing agricultural risks of climate change in the 21st century in a global gridded crop model intercomparison. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111 (9), 3268–3273. doi:10.1073/pnas.1222463110. ↩
Rowe, K. C., K. M. C. Rowe, M. W. Tingley, M. S. Koo, J. L. Patton, C. J. Conroy, J. D. Perrine, S. R. Beissinger, and C. Moritz, 2015: Spatially heterogeneous impact of climate change on small mammals of montane California. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 282 (1799), 20141857. doi:10.1098/rspb.2014.1857. ↩
Rykaczewski, R. R., and J. P. Dunne, 2010: Enhanced nutrient supply to the California Current Ecosystem with global warming and increased stratification in an earth system model. Geophysical Research Letters, 37 (21), L21606. doi:10.1029/2010GL045019. ↩
Rykaczewski, R. R., and J. P. Dunne, 2011: A measured look at ocean chlorophyll trends. Nature, 472 (7342), E5–E6. doi:10.1038/nature09952. ↩
Salafsky, N., D. Salzer, A. J. Stattersfield, C. Hilton‐Taylor, R. Neugarten, S. H. M. Butchart, B. Collen, N. Cox, L. L. Master, S. O'Connor, and D. Wilkie, 2008: A standard lexicon for biodiversity conservation: Unified classifications of threats and actions. Conservation Biology, 22 (4), 897–911. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00937.x. ↩
Santos, M. J., A. B. Smith, J. H. Thorne, and C. Moritz, 2017: The relative influence of change in habitat and climate on elevation range limits in small mammals in Yosemite National Park, California, U.S.A. Climate Change Responses, 4 (1), 7. doi:10.1186/s40665-017-0035-6. ↩
Scheffers, B. R., L. De Meester, T. C. L. Bridge, A. A. Hoffmann, J. M. Pandolfi, R. T. Corlett, S. H. M. Butchart, P. Pearce-Kelly, K. M. Kovacs, D. Dudgeon, M. Pacifici, C. Rondinini, W. B. Foden, T. G. Martin, C. Mora, D. Bickford, and J. E. M. Watson, 2016: The broad footprint of climate change from genes to biomes to people. Science, 354 (6313) doi:10.1126/science.aaf7671. ↩
Schilthuizen, M., and V. Kellermann, 2014: Contemporary climate change and terrestrial invertebrates: Evolutionary versus plastic changes. Evolutionary Applications, 7 (1), 56–67. doi:10.1111/eva.12116. ↩
Schwartz, M. W., J. J. Hellmann, J. M. McLachlan, D. F. Sax, J. O. Borevitz, J. Brennan, A. E. Camacho, G. Ceballos, J. R. Clark, H. Doremus, R. Early, J. R. Etterson, D. Fielder, J. L. Gill, P. Gonzalez, N. Green, L. Hannah, D. W. Jamieson, D. Javeline, B. A. Minteer, J. Odenbaugh, S. Polasky, D. M. Richardson, T. L. Root, H. D. Safford, O. Sala, S. H. Schneider, A. R. Thompson, J. W. Williams, M. Vellend, P. Vitt, and S. Zellmer, 2012: Managed relocation: Integrating the scientific, regulatory, and ethical challenges. BioScience, 62 (8), 732–743. doi:10.1525/bio.2012.62.8.6. ↩
SECAS, Southeast Conservation Adaptation Strategy. Southeast Conservation Adaptation Strategy (SECAS), . URL. ↩
Seebens, H., T. M. Blackburn, E. E. Dyer, P. Genovesi, P. E. Hulme, J. M. Jeschke, S. Pagad, P. Pyšek, M. Winter, M. Arianoutsou, S. Bacher, B. Blasius, G. Brundu, C. Capinha, L. Celesti-Grapow, W. Dawson, S. Dullinger, N. Fuentes, H. Jäger, J. Kartesz, M. Kenis, H. Kreft, I. Kühn, B. Lenzner, A. Liebhold, A. Mosena, D. Moser, M. Nishino, D. Pearman, J. Pergl, W. Rabitsch, J. Rojas-Sandoval, A. Roques, S. Rorke, S. Rossinelli, H. E. Roy, R. Scalera, S. Schindler, K. Štajerová, B. Tokarska-Guzik, M. van Kleunen, K. Walker, P. Weigelt, T. Yamanaka, and F. Essl, 2017: No saturation in the accumulation of alien species worldwide. Nature Communications, 8, 14435. doi:10.1038/ncomms14435. ↩
Seidl, R., T. A. Spies, D. L. Peterson, S. L. Stephens, and J. A. Hicke, 2016: REVIEW: Searching for resilience: Addressing the impacts of changing disturbance regimes on forest ecosystem services. Journal of Applied Ecology, 53 (1), 120–129. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12511. ↩
Sheil, D., 2016: Disturbance and distributions: Avoiding exclusion in a warming world. Ecology and Society, 21 (1), 10. doi:10.5751/ES-07920-210110. ↩
Smith, P., M. R. Ashmore, H. I. J. Black, P. J. Burgess, C. D. Evans, T. A. Quine, A. M. Thomson, K. Hicks, and H. G. Orr, 2013: REVIEW: The role of ecosystems and their management in regulating climate, and soil, water and air quality. Journal of Applied Ecology, 50 (4), 812–829. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12016. ↩
Smith, W. K., S. C. Reed, C. C. Cleveland, A. P. Ballantyne, W. R. L. Anderegg, W. R. Wieder, Y. Y. Liu, and S. W. Running, 2016: Large divergence of satellite and Earth system model estimates of global terrestrial CO2 fertilization. Nature Climate Change, 6 (3), 306–310. doi:10.1038/nclimate2879. ↩
Sorte, C. J. B., 2014: Synergies between climate change and species invasions: Evidence from marine systems. Invasive species and global climate change. Ziska, L. H., and J. S. Dukes, Eds., CABI, Wallingford, UK, 101–116. doi:10.1079/9781780641645.0101. ↩
Sorte, C. J. B., I. Ibáñez, D. M. Blumenthal, N. A. Molinari, L. P. Miller, E. D. Grosholz, J. M. Diez, C. M. D'Antonio, J. D. Olden, S. J. Jones, and J. S. Dukes, 2013: Poised to prosper? A cross-system comparison of climate change effects on native and non-native species performance. Ecology Letters, 16 (2), 261–270. doi:10.1111/ele.12017. ↩
Spalding, M. D., S. Ruffo, C. Lacambra, I. Meliane, L. Z. Hale, C. C. Shepard, and M. W. Beck, 2014: The role of ecosystems in coastal protection: Adapting to climate change and coastal hazards. Ocean & Coastal Management, 90, 50–57. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2013.09.007. ↩
Staudinger, M. D., N. B. Grimm, A. Staudt, S. L. Carter, F. S. Chapin III, P. Kareiva, M. Ruckelshaus, and B. A. Stein, 2012: Impacts of Climate Change on Biodiversity, Ecosystems, and Ecosystem Services. Technical Input to the 2013 National Climate Assessment. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, 296 pp. URL. ↩
Staudinger, M. D., S. L. Carter, M. S. Cross, N. S. Dubois, J. E. Duffy, C. Enquist, R. Griffis, J. J. Hellmann, J. J. Lawler, J. O'Leary, S. A. Morrison, L. Sneddon, B. A. Stein, L. M. Thompson, and W. Turner, 2013: Biodiversity in a changing climate: A synthesis of current and projected trends in the US. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11 (9), 465–473. doi:10.1890/120272. ↩
Staudt, A., A. K. Leidner, J. Howard, K. A. Brauman, J. S. Dukes, L. J. Hansen, C. Paukert, J. Sabo, and L. A. Solórzano, 2013: The added complications of climate change: Understanding and managing biodiversity and ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11 (9), 494–501. doi:10.1890/120275. ↩
Stein, B. A., A. Staudt, M. S. Cross, N. S. Dubois, C. Enquist, R. Griffis, L. J. Hansen, J. J. Hellmann, J. J. Lawler, E. J. Nelson, and A. Pairis, 2013: Preparing for and managing change: Climate adaptation for biodiversity and ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11 (9), 502–510. doi:10.1890/120277. ↩
Stein, B., P. Glick, N. Edelson, and A. Staudt, 2014: Climate-Smart Conservation: Putting Adaptation Principles into Practice. National Wildlife Foundation, Washington, DC, 262 pp. URL. ↩
Stireman, J. O., L. A. Dyer, D. H. Janzen, M. S. Singer, J. T. Lill, R. J. Marquis, R. E. Ricklefs, G. L. Gentry, W. Hallwachs, P. D. Coley, J. A. Barone, H. F. Greeney, H. Connahs, P. Barbosa, H. C. Morais, and I. R. Diniz, 2005: Climatic unpredictability and parasitism of caterpillars: Implications of global warming. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102 (48), 17384–17387. doi:10.1073/pnas.0508839102. ↩
Stock, C. A., J. G. John, R. R. Rykaczewski, R. G. Asch, W. W. L. Cheung, J. P. Dunne, K. D. Friedland, V. W. Y. Lam, J. L. Sarmiento, and R. A. Watson, 2017: Reconciling fisheries catch and ocean productivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114 (8), E1441–E1449. doi:10.1073/pnas.1610238114. ↩
Stock, C. A., J. P. Dunne, and J. G. John, 2014: Drivers of trophic amplification of ocean productivity trends in a changing climate. Biogeosciences, 11 (24), 7125–7135. doi:10.5194/bg-11-7125-2014. ↩
Sundby, S., K. F. Drinkwater, and O. S. Kjesbu, 2016: The North Atlantic spring-bloom system—Where the changing climate meets the winter dark. Frontiers in Marine Science, 3 (28) doi:10.3389/fmars.2016.00028. ↩
Swanston, C., and M. Janowiak Eds., 2012: Forest Adaptation Resources: Climate Change Tools and Approaches for Land Managers. General Technical Report NRS-87. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Newtown Square, PA, 121 pp. URL. ↩
Thackeray, S. J., P. A. Henrys, D. Hemming, J. R. Bell, M. S. Botham, S. Burthe, P. Helaouet, D. G. Johns, I. D. Jones, D. I. Leech, E. B. Mackay, D. Massimino, S. Atkinson, P. J. Bacon, T. M. Brereton, L. Carvalho, T. H. Clutton-Brock, C. Duck, M. Edwards, J. M. Elliott, S. J. G. Hall, R. Harrington, J. W. Pearce-Higgins, T. T. Høye, L. E. B. Kruuk, J. M. Pemberton, T. H. Sparks, P. M. Thompson, I. White, I. J. Winfield, and S. Wanless, 2016: Phenological sensitivity to climate across taxa and trophic levels. Nature, 535, 241–245. doi:10.1038/nature18608. ↩
Thackeray, S. J., T. H. Sparks, M. Frederiksen, S. Burthe, P. J. Bacon, J. R. Bell, M. S. Botham, T. M. Brereton, P. W. Bright, L. Carvalho, T. I. M. Clutton-Brock, A. Dawson, M. Edwards, J. M. Elliott, R. Harrington, D. Johns, I. D. Jones, J. T. Jones, D. I. Leech, D. B. Roy, W. A. Scott, M. Smith, R. J. Smithers, I. J. Winfield, and S. Wanless, 2010: Trophic level asynchrony in rates of phenological change for marine, freshwater and terrestrial environments. Global Change Biology, 16 (12), 3304–3313. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02165.x. ↩
Thomas, A. C., A. J. Pershing, K. D. Friedland, J. A. Nye, K. E. Mills, M. A. Alexander, N. R. Record, R. Weatherbee, and M. Elisabeth Henderson, 2017: Seasonal trends and phenology shifts in sea surface temperature on the North American northeastern continental shelf. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene, 5, 48. doi:10.1525/elementa.240. ↩
Thompson, L. M., M. D. Staudinger, and S. L. Carter, 2015: Summarizing components of U.S. Department of the Interior vulnerability assessments to focus climate adaptation planning. Open-File Report 2015-1110. U. S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, 17 pp. doi:10.3133/ofr20151110. ↩
Timpane-Padgham, B. L., T. Beechie, and T. Klinger, 2017: A systematic review of ecological attributes that confer resilience to climate change in environmental restoration. PLOS ONE, 12 (3), e0173812. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0173812. ↩
Tingley, M. W., M. S. Koo, C. Moritz, A. C. Rush, and S. R. Beissinger, 2012: The push and pull of climate change causes heterogeneous shifts in avian elevational ranges. Global Change Biology, 18 (11), 3279–3290. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02784.x. ↩
Tinsley, R. C., L. C. Stott, M. E. Viney, B. K. Mable, and M. C. Tinsley, 2015: Extinction of an introduced warm-climate alien species, Xenopus laevis, by extreme weather events. Biological Invasions, 17 (11), 3183–3195. doi:10.1007/s10530-015-0944-x. ↩
Todd-Brown, K. E. O., J. T. Randerson, F. Hopkins, V. Arora, T. Hajima, C. Jones, E. Shevliakova, J. Tjiputra, E. Volodin, T. Wu, Q. Zhang, and S. D. Allison, 2014: Changes in soil organic carbon storage predicted by Earth system models during the 21st century. Biogeosciences, 11 (8), 2341–2356. doi:10.5194/bg-11-2341-2014. ↩
Tommasi, D., C. A. Stock, A. J. Hobday, R. Methot, I. C. Kaplan, J. P. Eveson, K. Holsman, T. J. Miller, S. Gaichas, M. Gehlen, A. Pershing, G. A. Vecchi, R. Msadek, T. Delworth, C. M. Eakin, M. A. Haltuch, R. Séférian, C. M. Spillman, J. R. Hartog, S. Siedlecki, J. F. Samhouri, B. Muhling, R. G. Asch, M. L. Pinsky, V. S. Saba, S. B. Kapnick, C. F. Gaitan, R. R. Rykaczewski, M. A. Alexander, Y. Xue, K. V. Pegion, P. Lynch, M. R. Payne, T. Kristiansen, P. Lehodey, and F. E. Werner, 2017: Managing living marine resources in a dynamic environment: The role of seasonal to decadal climate forecasts. Progress in Oceanography, 152, 15–49. doi:10.1016/j.pocean.2016.12.011. ↩
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2016: Guidelines for the USDA-APHIS-PPQ Weed Risk Assessment Process. TP E-300, Ver. 2.2. USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Raleigh, NC, 124 pp. URL. ↩
U.S. Department of the Interior, 2016: Safeguarding America's Lands and Waters from Invasive Species: A National Framework for Early Detection and Rapid Response. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC, 55 pp. URL. ↩
U.S. Department of the Interior, 2016: The Innovation Summit: Vision + Science + Technology = Solutions. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC, 5 pp. URL. ↩
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010: Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-month finding on a petition to list the American pika as threatened or endangered; Proposed rule. Federal Register, 75 (26), 6438–6471. URL. ↩
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2014: Biological Carbon Sequestration Accomplishments Report 2009-2013. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge System, 35 pp. URL. ↩
Urban, M. C., 2015: Accelerating extinction risk from climate change. Science, 348 (6234), 571–573. doi:10.1126/science.aaa4984. ↩
Urban, M. C., G. Bocedi, A. P. Hendry, J.-B. Mihoub, G. Pe'er, A. Singer, J. R. Bridle, L. G. Crozier, L. De Meester, W. Godsoe, A. Gonzalez, J. J. Hellmann, R. D. Holt, A. Huth, K. Johst, C. B. Krug, P. W. Leadley, S. C. F. Palmer, J. H. Pantel, A. Schmitz, P. A. Zollner, and J. M. J. Travis, 2016: Improving the forecast for biodiversity under climate change. Science, 353 (6304) doi:10.1126/science.aad8466. ↩
USFWS, 2008: Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of threatened status for the polar bear (Ursus maritimus) throughout its range. Final rule. U.S. Fish Wildlife Service. Federal Register, 73 (95), 28211–28303. URL. ↩
Valéry, L., H. Fritz, J.-C. Lefeuvre, and D. Simberloff, 2008: In search of a real definition of the biological invasion phenomenon itself. Biological Invasions, 10 (8), 1345–1351. doi:10.1007/s10530-007-9209-7. ↩
Van Zuiden, T. M., M. M. Chen, S. Stefanoff, L. Lopez, and S. Sharma, 2016: Projected impacts of climate change on three freshwater fishes and potential novel competitive interactions. Diversity and Distributions, 22 (5), 603–614. doi:10.1111/ddi.12422. ↩
Vancoppenolle, M., L. Bopp, G. Madec, J. Dunne, T. Ilyina, P. R. Halloran, and N. Steiner, 2013: Future Arctic Ocean primary productivity from CMIP5 simulations: Uncertain outcome, but consistent mechanisms. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 27 (3), 605–619. doi:10.1002/gbc.20055. ↩
Verdeny-Vilalta, O., and J. Moya-Laraño, 2014: Seeking water while avoiding predators: Moisture gradients can affect predator–prey interactions. Animal Behaviour, 90, 101–108. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.01.027. ↩
Vergés, A., C. Doropoulos, H. A. Malcolm, M. Skye, M. Garcia-Pizá, E. M. Marzinelli, A. H. Campbell, E. Ballesteros, A. S. Hoey, A. Vila-Concejo, Y.-M. Bozec, and P. D. Steinberg, 2016: Long-term empirical evidence of ocean warming leading to tropicalization of fish communities, increased herbivory, and loss of kelp. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113 (48), 13791–13796. doi:10.1073/pnas.1610725113. ↩
Wahl, M., S. Schneider Covachã, V. Saderne, C. Hiebenthal, J. D. Müller, C. Pansch, and Y. Sawall, 2018: Macroalgae may mitigate ocean acidification effects on mussel calcification by increasing pH and its fluctuations. Limnology and Oceanography, 63 (1), 3–21. doi:10.1002/lno.10608. ↩
Wallmo, K., and D. K. Lew, 2012: Public willingness to pay for recovering and downlisting threatened and endangered marine species. Conservation Biology, 26 (5), 830–839. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01899.x. ↩
Walsh, H. J., D. E. Richardson, K. E. Marancik, and J. A. Hare, 2015: Long-term changes in the distributions of larval and adult fish in the northeast U.S. shelf ecosystem. PLOS ONE, 10 (9), e0137382. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0137382. ↩
Walther, G.-R., E. Post, P. Convey, A. Menzel, C. Parmesan, T. J. C. Beebee, J.-M. Fromentin, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, and F. Bairlein, 2002: Ecological responses to recent climate change. Nature, 416, 389–395. doi:10.1038/416389a. ↩
Waples, R. S., and A. Audzijonyte, 2016: Fishery‐induced evolution provides insights into adaptive responses of marine species to climate change. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14 (4), 217–224. doi:10.1002/fee.1264. ↩
Wenzel, S., P. M. Cox, V. Eyring, and P. Friedlingstein, 2016: Projected land photosynthesis constrained by changes in the seasonal cycle of atmospheric CO2. Nature, 538 (7626), 499–501. doi:10.1038/nature19772. ↩
West, D. C., and D. M. Post, 2016: Impacts of warming revealed by linking resource growth rates with consumer functional responses. Journal of Animal Ecology, 85 (3), 671–680. doi:10.1111/1365-2656.12491. ↩
West, T. O., N. Gurwick, M. E. Brown, R. Duren, S. Mooney, K. Paustian, E. McGlynn, E. Malone, A. Rosenblatt, N. Hultman, and I. Ocko, 2018: Carbon cycle science in support of decision making. Second State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR2): A Sustained Assessment Report. Cavallaro, N., G. Shrestha, R. Birdsey, M. Mayes, R. Najjar, S. Reed, P. Romero-Lankao, and Z. Zhu, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, p. xx-yy. doi:10.7930/SOCCR2.2018.Ch18. ↩
Westerling, A. L., 2016: Correction to “‘Increasing western US forest wildfire activity: sensitivity to changes in the timing of spring.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 371 (1707) doi:10.1098/rstb.2016.0373. ↩
Whiteley, A. R., S. W. Fitzpatrick, W. C. Funk, and D. A. Tallmon, 2015: Genetic rescue to the rescue. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 30 (1), 42–49. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2014.10.009. ↩
Wieder, W. R., C. C. Cleveland, W. K. Smith, and K. Todd-Brown, 2015: Future productivity and carbon storage limited by terrestrial nutrient availability. Nature Geoscience, 8 (6), 441–444. doi:10.1038/ngeo2413. ↩
Wiens, J. J., 2016: Climate-related local extinctions are already widespread among plant and animal species. PLOS Biology, 14 (12), e2001104. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2001104. ↩
Wilcove, D. S., D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips, and E. Losos, 1998: Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States: Assessing the relative importance of habitat destruction, alien species, pollution, overexploitation, and disease. BioScience, 48 (8), 607–615. doi:10.2307/1313420. ↩
Williams, J. W., and S. T. Jackson, 2007: Novel climates, no-analog communities, and ecological surprises. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 5 (9), 475–482. doi:10.1890/070037. ↩
Wiseman, J., C. Bigg, L. Rickards, and T. Edwards, 2011: Scenarios for climate adaptation: Guidebook for practitioners. VCCCAR Publication 03/2011. Victoria Centre for Climate Adaptation Research (VICCAR) , Carlton, Australia, 76 pp. URL. ↩
Wolf, A., N. B. Zimmerman, W. R. L. Anderegg, P. E. Busby, and J. Christensen, 2016: Altitudinal shifts of the native and introduced flora of California in the context of 20th‐century warming. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 25 (4), 418–429. doi:10.1111/geb.12423. ↩
Wolkovich, E. M., and E. E. Cleland, 2014: Phenological niches and the future of invaded ecosystems with climate change. AoB PLANTS, 6, plu013-plu013. doi:10.1093/aobpla/plu013. ↩
Wolkovich, E. M., B. I. Cook, J. M. Allen, T. M. Crimmins, J. L. Betancourt, S. E. Travers, S. Pau, J. Regetz, T. J. Davies, N. J. B. Kraft, T. R. Ault, K. Bolmgren, S. J. Mazer, G. J. McCabe, B. J. McGill, C. Parmesan, N. Salamin, M. D. Schwartz, and E. E. Cleland, 2012: Warming experiments underpredict plant phenological responses to climate change. Nature, 485, 494–497. doi:10.1038/nature11014. ↩
Wood, E. M., and J. L. Kellermann, Eds., 2017: Phenological Synchrony and Bird Migration: Changing Climate and Seasonal Resources in North America. Studies in Avian Biology 47. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 246 pp. ↩
Woodward, G., J. B. Dybkjær, J. S. Ólafsson, G. M. Gíslason, E. R. Hannesdóttir, and N. Friberg, 2010: Sentinel systems on the razor's edge: Effects of warming on Arctic geothermal stream ecosystems. Global Change Biology, 16 (7), 1979–1991. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.02052.x. ↩
Young, I., K. Gropp, A. Fazil, and B. A. Smith, 2015: Knowledge synthesis to support risk assessment of climate change impacts on food and water safety: A case study of the effects of water temperature and salinity on Vibrio parahaemolyticus in raw oysters and harvest waters. Food Research International, 68, 86–93. doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2014.06.035. ↩
Young, K. R., 2014: Biogeography of the Anthropocene: Novel species assemblages. Progress in Physical Geography, 38 (5), 664–673. doi:10.1177/0309133314540930. ↩
Yue, X., N. Unger, T. F. Keenan, X. Zhang, and C. S. Vogel, 2015: Probing the past 30-year phenology trend of US deciduous forests. Biogeosciences, 12 (15), 4693–4709. doi:10.5194/bg-12-4693-2015. ↩
Zander, A., L.-F. Bersier, and S. M. Gray, 2017: Effects of temperature variability on community structure in a natural microbial food web. Global Change Biology, 23 (1), 56–67. doi:10.1111/gcb.13374. ↩
Zhang, Y., M. Susan Moran, M. A. Nearing, G. E. Ponce Campos, A. R. Huete, A. R. Buda, D. D. Bosch, S. A. Gunter, S. G. Kitchen, W. Henry McNab, J. A. Morgan, M. P. McClaran, D. S. Montoya, D. P. C. Peters, and P. J. Starks, 2013: Extreme precipitation patterns and reductions of terrestrial ecosystem production across biomes. Journal of Geophysical Research Biogeosciences, 118 (1), 148–157. doi:10.1029/2012JG002136. ↩
Zhu, Z., S. Piao, R. B. Myneni, M. Huang, Z. Zeng, J. G. Canadell, P. Ciais, S. Sitch, P. Friedlingstein, A. Arneth, C. Cao, L. Cheng, E. Kato, C. Koven, Y. Li, X. Lian, Y. Liu, R. Liu, J. Mao, Y. Pan, S. Peng, J. Penuelas, B. Poulter, T. A. M. Pugh, B. D. Stocker, N. Viovy, X. Wang, Y. Wang, Z. Xiao, H. Yang, S. Zaehle, and N. Zeng, 2016: Greening of the Earth and its drivers. Nature Climate Change, 6 (8), 791–795. doi:10.1038/nclimate3004. ↩

Front Matter

National Topics

National Topics (cont.)

Regions

Responses

Appendices

Key Message 1Impacts on Species and Populations

Key Message 2Impacts on Ecosystems

Key Message 3Ecosystem Services at Risk

Key Message 4Challenges for Natural Resource Management

Key Message 1

Key Message 2

Key Message 3

Key Message 4

Likelihood

Confidence Level

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Chapter 7: Ecosystems, Ecosystem Services, and Biodiversity

Climate Change, Ecosystems, and Ecosystem Services

CHAPTER 7 Ecosystems, Ecosystem Services, and Biodiversity

State of the Sector

Authors

Contributors

Recommended Citation

Related Links

Table 7.1: Key Messages from Third National Climate Assessment

Figure 7.1: Climate Change, Ecosystems, and Ecosystem Services

Species and Populations

Figure 7.2: Genetic Diversity and Climate Exposure

Figure 7.3: Trends in First Leaf and First Bloom Dates

Ecosystems

Figure 7.4: Projected Range Expansion of Invasive Lionfish

Ecosystem Services

Regional Summary

Figure 7.5: Regional Ecosystems Impacts

Northwest

Northern Great Plains

Midwest

Northeast

Southwest

Southern Great Plains

Southeast

Alaska

Hawaii and U.S.-Affiliated Pacific Islands

U.S. Caribbean

Impacts on Species and Populations

Impacts on Ecosystems

Ecosystem Services at Risk

Figure 7.6: Agricultural Productivity

Challenges for Natural Resource Management

TRACEABLE ACCOUNTS

Process Description

KEY MESSAGES

Key Message 1: Impacts on Species and Populations

Description of evidence base

Major uncertainties

Description of confidence and likelihood

Key Message 2: Impacts on Ecosystems

Description of evidence base

Major uncertainties

Description of confidence and likelihood

Key Message 3: Ecosystem Services at Risk

Description of evidence base

Major uncertainties

Description of confidence and likelihood

Key Message 4: Challenges for Natural Resource Management

Description of evidence base

Major uncertainties

Description of confidence and likelihood

REFERENCES

Key Message 1
Impacts on Species and Populations

Key Message 2
Impacts on Ecosystems

Key Message 3
Ecosystem Services at Risk

Key Message 4
Challenges for Natural Resource Management

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Chapter 7: Ecosystems, Ecosystem Services, and Biodiversity

CHAPTER 7
Ecosystems, Ecosystem Services, and Biodiversity