| Literature DB >> 29438428 |
Francisco Ramírez1,2, Carlos Rodríguez3, Javier Seoane4, Jordi Figuerola1, Javier Bustamante1,5.
Abstract
Global warming and direct anthropogenic impacts, such as water extraction, largely affect water budgets in Mediterranean wetlands, thereby increasing wetland salinities and isolation, and decreasing water depths and hydroperiods (duration of the inundation period). These wetland features are key elements structuring waterbird communities. However, the ultimate and net consequences of these dynamic conditions on waterbird assemblages are largely unknown. We combined regular sampling of waterbird presence through one annual cycle with in-situ data on relevant environmental predictors of waterbird distribution to model habitat selection for 69 species in a typical Mediterranean wetland network in southwestern Spain. Species associations with environmental features were subsequently used to predict changes in habitat suitability for each species under three climate change scenarios (encompassing changes in environmental predictors that ranged from 10% to 50% change as predicted by regional climatic models). Waterbirds distributed themselves unevenly throughout environmental gradients and water salinity was the most important gradient structuring the distribution of the community. Environmental suitability for the guilds of diving birds and vegetation gleaners will decline in future climate scenarios, while many small wading birds will benefit from changing conditions. Resident species and those that breed in this wetland network will also be more negatively impacted than those using this area for wintering or stopover. We provide a tool that can be used in a horizon-scanning framework to identify emerging issues in waterbird conservation and to anticipate suitable management actions.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29438428 PMCID: PMC5811028 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192702
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Study area.
Point-counts were carried out fortnightly at 80 different localities (black dots) within an area of ca. 6,000 km2 in southwestern Spain that encompasses permanent and temporary water masses within the provinces of Huelva, Cadiz and Seville. This wetland network includes the Tinto & Odiel marshes (1), the Doñana wetland complex (2) and Bay of Cadiz (3).
Fig 2Meteorological conditions in the study area.
Yearly anomalies (deviations from the long-term -1994 to 2016- mean) in the annual accumulated precipitation (blue bars, in mm) and the yearly-averaged daily mean temperature (black line, in °C). Red bar indicates our sampling year, i.e. the year in which our point-counts were carried out.
Predictors and control factors.
Complete list of predictors and control factors considered for modelling habitat associations in the waterbird community in the southwestern Spain wetland network.
| Observer (two-level factor) | |
| Visibility (three-level factor) | |
| Meteorology (four different two-level factors) | |
| Day time (covariate -4 d.f. spline-) | |
| Date (covariate -4 d.f. spline-) | |
| Geographic locations (two covariates) | |
| Distance to coastline (covariate) | |
| Water (two-level factor) | |
| Isolation (covariate) | |
| Hydroperiod (covariate) | |
| Relative flooded area (covariate) | |
| Salinity (six covariates) | |
| Depth (three-level factor) | |
| Mean Depth (covariate) | |
| Vegetation cover (five different two-level factors) | |
| Mudflats (two-level factor) | |
List of species considered within guilds.
(T) denotes that the species is threatened according to BirdLife International categorization SPEC 1 (European species of global conservation concern), SPEC 2 (species with global population concentrated in Europe and with an unfavourable conservation status in Europe) and SPEC 3 (species not concentrated in Europe, but with an unfavourable conservation status in Europe).
| Guild | Spp | Abbreviation | Num |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dabbling ducks | Anaacu (T) | 1 | |
| Anacly (T) | 2 | ||
| Anacre | 3 | ||
| Anapen | 4 | ||
| Anapla | 5 | ||
| Anastr (T) | 6 | ||
| Ansans | 7 | ||
| Tadtad | 8 | ||
| Diving birds | Aytfer (T) | 9 | |
| Netruf | 10 | ||
| Oxyleu (T) | 11 | ||
| Phacar | 12 | ||
| Podcri | 13 | ||
| Podnig | 14 | ||
| Tacruf | 15 | ||
| Fishing birds | Chlhyb (T) | 16 | |
| Chlnig (T) | 17 | ||
| Laraud (T) | 18 | ||
| Larfus | 19 | ||
| Largen (T) | 20 | ||
| Larmic | 21 | ||
| Larrid | 22 | ||
| Panhal (T) | 23 | ||
| Stealb (T) | 24 | ||
| Stecas (T) | 25 | ||
| Stenil (T) | 26 | ||
| Stesan (T) | 27 | ||
| Large wading birds | Ardcin | 28 | |
| Ardpur (T) | 29 | ||
| Ardral (T) | 30 | ||
| Bubibi | 31 | ||
| Ciccic (T) | 32 | ||
| Egralb | 33 | ||
| Egrgar | 34 | ||
| Ixomin (T) | 35 | ||
| Nycnyc (T) | 36 | ||
| Phoros (T) | 37 | ||
| Plaleu (T) | 38 | ||
| Plefal (T) | 39 | ||
| Raptors | Ciraer | 40 | |
| Milmig (T) | 41 | ||
| Milmil (T) | 42 | ||
| Small wading birds | Acthyp (T) | 43 | |
| Areint | 44 | ||
| Calalb | 45 | ||
| Calalp (T) | 46 | ||
| Calfer | 47 | ||
| Calmin | 48 | ||
| Chaale (T) | 49 | ||
| Chadub | 50 | ||
| Chahia | 51 | ||
| Galgal (T) | 52 | ||
| Glapra (T) | 53 | ||
| Haeost | 54 | ||
| Himhim | 55 | ||
| Limlap | 56 | ||
| Limlim (T) | 57 | ||
| Numarq (T) | 58 | ||
| Numpha | 59 | ||
| Plusqu | 60 | ||
| Recavo | 61 | ||
| Trineb | 62 | ||
| Trioch | 63 | ||
| Tritot (T) | 64 | ||
| Vanvan (T) | 65 | ||
| Vegetation gleaners | Fulatr | 66 | |
| Fulcri (T) | 67 | ||
| Galchl | 68 | ||
| Porpor (T) | 69 |
Fig 3Climate projections.
Averaged and smoothed regional projections of climatic variables in the study area (including all available regional models for the provinces of Seville, Cadiz and Huelva; sourced online from AEMET–Agencia Estatal de Meteorología–: http://www.aemet.es/es/serviciosclimaticos/cambio_climat; accessed on March 2017). Trends (2010–2100) for temperature and precipitation are shown for two different Representative Concentration Pathways–RCP–: RCP 8.5 (8.5 W·m-2) and RCP 4.5 (4.5 W·m-2). Changes in precipitation regimes are split by season. Horizontal dotted lines represent the % change (10%, 30% and 50%) we used for generating the different scenarios in our horizon scanning assessments.
Relative importance of each variable as predictors of waterbird occurrence.
For GAMs, we show the percentage of waterbird species (n = 69) for which the predictor was included in the final models. For BRTs, we show the mean relative importance.
| GAMs | BRTs | |
|---|---|---|
| % Spp | Mean importance | |
| Water salinity | 88.41 | 24.79 |
| Water depth | 71.01 | 8.38 |
| Waterbody isolation | 69.57 | 8.95 |
| Hydroperiod | 63.77 | 2.55 |
| Green helophytes | 62.32 | 1.02 |
| Submerged vegetation | 62.32 | 1.09 |
| Mudflats | 62.32 | 1.63 |
| Relative flooded area | 59.42 | 7.55 |
| Dry helophytes | 44.93 | 0.30 |
| Emergent aquatic vegetation | 39.13 | 0.91 |
| Distance to coastline | 75.36 | 12.74 |
Fig 4Waterbirds’ associations with environmental features.
Waterbird species (n = 69) are grouped into 7 different guilds. Lines connect waterbird guilds with those habitat variables driving their distribution. Those environmental features making up > 15% relative importance for BRT and included in the final GAMs for >80% of species within guilds are highlighted with bold lines. In the case of GAMs, red lines indicate negative effects on respective guilds, whereas blue lines indicate positive effects.
Fig 5Change in waterbird habitat suitability per guild.
We show the effect predicted for three different scenarios with changes of 10%, 30%, and 50% in the main environmental predictors (see Methods). Colours denote the guild and ellipses summarize the distribution of species per guild by considering the variance/covariance matrix. We show the Standard Ellipses corrected for small sample sizes (SEAc) using the R-package SIAR (Parnell et al. 2008). Numeration as in Table 2.
Fig 6Change in waterbird habitat suitability per life-history strategy and conservation status.
We show the effect predicted for three different scenarios with changes of 10%, 30%, and 50% in the main environmental predictors (see Methods). Colours denote waterbird life-history strategy (resident, breeding and wintering) and conservation status (solid lines and solid dots indicate non-endangered species). Ellipses summarize the distribution of species per life-history strategy and conservation status by considering the variance/covariance matrix. We show the Standard Ellipses corrected for small sample sizes (SEAc) using the R-package SIAR (Parnell et al. 2008). Numeration as in Table 2.
Fig 7A horizon scan exercise to anticipate conservation issues.
Percentage of species per guild whose conservation status may change; i.e. non-endangered species that will be negatively impacted by predicted environmental changes and endangered species that may benefit from the new Climate Change scenarios (CC).