| Literature DB >> 29311629 |
Ivan N Bolotov1,2, Alexander A Makhrov3, Mikhail Yu Gofarov4,5, Olga V Aksenova4,5, Paul E Aspholm6, Yulia V Bespalaya4,5, Mikhail B Kabakov5, Yulia S Kolosova4,5, Alexander V Kondakov4,5, Thomas Ofenböck7, Andrew N Ostrovsky8,9, Igor Yu Popov10, Ted von Proschwitz11, Mudīte Rudzīte12, Māris Rudzītis12, Svetlana E Sokolova5, Ilmari Valovirta13, Ilya V Vikhrev4,5, Maxim V Vinarski14, Alexey A Zotin15.
Abstract
The effects of climate change on oligotrophic rivers and their communities are almost unknown, albeit these ecosystems are the primary habitat of the critically endangered freshwater pearl mussel and its host fishes, salmonids. The distribution and abundance of pearl mussels have drastically decreased throughout Europe over the last century, particularly within the southern part of the range, but causes of this wide-scale extinction process are unclear. Here we estimate the effects of climate change on pearl mussels based on historical and recent samples from 50 rivers and 6 countries across Europe. We found that the shell convexity may be considered an indicator of the thermal effects on pearl mussel populations under warming climate because it reflects shifts in summer temperatures and is significantly different in viable and declining populations. Spatial and temporal modeling of the relationship between shell convexity and population status show that global climate change could have accelerated the population decline of pearl mussels over the last 100 years through rapidly decreasing suitable distribution areas. Simulation predicts future warming-induced range reduction, particularly in southern regions. These results highlight the importance of large-scale studies of keystone species, which can underscore the hidden effects of climate warming on freshwater ecosystems.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29311629 PMCID: PMC5758527 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-18873-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1European distribution range of Margaritifera margaritifera with our sampling localities, adult mussels and their habitat. (A) Map of the distribution range of the freshwater pearl mussel in Europe and our sampling localities. The pink hatching indicates the approximate distribution range of the species[21]. Blue dots indicate historical samples (~1840–1940; n = 13); yellow dots indicate recent declining populations (1984–2013; n = 24); green dots indicate recent viable populations (1984–2013; n = 21); and black dots indicate recent populations with unknown status (1984–2013; n = 4). Map was performed by using ESRI ArcGIS 10 software (www.esri.com/arcgis). The base of the map was created with Natural Earth Free Vector and Raster Map Data (www.naturalearthdata.com). (B) A mussel specimen (photo: Oleg N. Bespaliy). (C) Undisturbed mussel bed, Finland (photo: Panu Oulasvirta). (D) Habitat, NW Russia (photo: Olga V. Aksenova).
Figure 2Variability of the relative shell convexity (SCI) and maximum age of Margaritifera margaritifera populations. The dashed lines are the 95% confidence bounds of the regression models. (A) Latitude vs. mean SCI scatterplot in populations from lowland rivers across Europe (<200 m altitude). Each point represents the mean value in a population; red points are recent lowland populations (1984–2013, n = 25, significant latitudinal trend: Spearman’s rank correlation, P = 0.000001), and blue points are historical lowland populations (~1840–1940, n = 12, no significant latitudinal trend: Spearman’s rank correlation, P = 0.53). (B) Altitude vs. mean SCI scatterplot in recent populations from mountainous rivers in Austria (>300 m altitude). Each point represents the mean value in a population (1992, n = 20, significant altitudinal trend: Spearman’s rank correlation, P = 0.02). (C) Scatterplot of population shell length vs. shell width. Each point represents the mean value in a population; green points are recent viable populations (1984–2013, n = 21), yellow points are recent declining populations (1984–2013, n = 24), and blue points are historical populations (~1840–1940, n = 13). (D) Scatterplot of mean summer temperature (MST20, 20-year mean before sampling) vs. mean SCI (equation 1). (E) Scatterplot of mean SCI vs. maximum age (equation 2). Each point represents the mean value in a population (n = 49).
Results of general linear models (GLMs) of shell width in recent (1984–2013) and historical (~1840–1940) populations of Margaritifera margaritifera.
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| shell width | Intercept | — | — | — | n.s. | — | — | — | n.s. | — | — | — | n.s. |
| length | 32555.5 | 1 | 24740.6 | <0.001 | 23308.6 | 1 | 18437.7 | <0.001 | 24573.8 | 1 | 21576.3 | <0.001 | |
| Population group | 51.9 | 1 | 39.4 | <0.001 | — | — | — | n.s. | 47.6 | 1 | 41.8 | <0.001 | |
| Length × Population group | — | — | — | n.s. | — | — | — | n.s. | — | — | — | n.s. | |
| Error | 56.6 | 43 | 41.7 | 33 | 39.9 | 35 | |||||||
Regression models were simplified to the minimal adequate models.
Figure 3Spatial models of climatically suitable areas for freshwater pearl mussels across Europe in the past and future, based on equation 1 (see Methods section). Legend: green – suitable thermal conditions, viable populations; yellow – possible negative thermal effects, declining populations; red – most probably unsuitable areas. (A) Climatically suitable areas during the cold period from 1901–1920. (B) Climatically suitable areas during the warm period from 1991–2010. (C–E) Climatically suitable areas during the period from 2061–2080 under future climate change scenarios, low RCP 2.6 (C), moderate RCP 4.5 (D), and extreme RCP 8.5 (E). (F) Shift in climatically suitable areas based on spatial modeling. Areas are subdivided with respect to the prospective status of mussel populations: viable (green), declining (yellow), and under extinction or extinct (red). The climate change scenarios for 2051–2070 are as follows: low RCP 2.6, moderate RCP 4.5, and extreme RCP 8.5. Maps were performed by using ESRI ArcGIS 10 software (www.esri.com/arcgis). Climatic data sets were obtained from the CRU TS v. 3.23 climate database (Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia) and from the WorldClim v. 1.4 database. The base of the maps was created with Natural Earth Free Vector and Raster Map Data (www.naturalearthdata.com).