S 2.“=^ (o TRANSACTIONS of the NORFOLK & NORWICH NATURALISTS' SOCIETY Volume 50 Part 1 2017 Pnatural history i ivlUSEUM LIBRARY 2 6 FEB 2018 1 1 _ 1 Natural History Museum Library 000332893 natural history MUSEUM LIBRARY 2 6 FEB 2018 Norfolk & Norwich Naturalists' Society TRANSACTIONS Volume 50 2017 TRANSACTIONS OF THE NORFOLK & NORWICH NATURALISTS'SOCIETY Volume 50 Part 1 2017 (published Feb 2018) Editor: NW Owens Assistant Editor: AR Leech Published by the Norfolk & Norwich Naturalists'Society www.nnns.org.uk Contributions for Volume 51 (2018) should be sent to the Editor, Nick Owens, 22 Springfield Close, Weybourne, Holt, Norfolk NR25 7TB [email protected], from whom notes for contributors can be obtained. The Norfolk& Norwich Naturalists'Society has as a principal aim the investigation and recording of Norfolk's wildlife and to this end it publishes: • An annual volume of Transactions, consisting of papers and notes on wildlife in the county. • The Norfolk Bird and Mammal Report v\/h\ch contains systematic lists of observations on the county's birds and mammals, as well as relevant articles. • The Norfolk Natterjack, a quarterly illustrated newsletter. All of these publications are free to members, as are Occasional Publications on specific topics. The Society also arranges lectures and field meetings which are planned to appeal to anyone interested in natural history. More specialist groups cover many aspects of the county's flora and fauna. The subscription rate is £20 per year, which includes all members of a family living at the same address. All enquiries should be made to: Jim Froud, Westward Ho, 4 Kingsley Road, Norwich NR1 3RB. [email protected] The Society gratefully acknowledges the support of the Sarnia Trust in the production of this publication. ISSN 0375 7226 © Norfolk & Norwich Naturalists' Society 20 / 7 Charity No. 29 7 604 No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electrical, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without permission, except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Design and Patents Act 1988. Applications for permission should be addressed to the Secretary (see address see website: www.nnns.org.uk). Printed by The Lavenham Press. 47 Water Street, Lavenham, Suffolk C010 9RN. The potential impacts of climate change on the biodiversity of Norfolk species Jeff Price Introduction on a trajectory for ~3.2°C increase (UNEP 2016). While this is an improvement over Climate change is posing, and will continue the previous 'business as usual' estimate to pose, increasing risks to biodiversity of 4°- 4.5°C, it is still likely to have a large (O'Neill et al. 2017). Changes in phenology impact on biodiversity. and range were first noted more than a decade ago (Root et al. 2003) with many This paper reviews the projected climate publications since. Land use change is change impacts (relative to 1961-1990 increasingly a problem as species are being baseline) on some of the biodiversity further challenged by barriers to their in Norfolk (including birds, mammals, potential dispersal with their preferred reptiles, amphibians, butterflies, common climate across fragmented landscapes macro moths, dragonflies, bumblebees, (Settele et al. 2014). Many studies have grasshoppers, shieldbugs, ferns, orchids, examined the potential future impacts and some trees and shrubs. The paper of climate change on biodiversity using concentrates on the species currently found a variety of modelling techniques. This in Norfolk (largely based on lists on the includes results from Wallace Initiative Norfolk and Norwich Naturalist's Society Phase 1 models showing the potential for website) and not on potential colonists range losses of greater than 50% across large from Europe. The exception is for some fractions of species globally at warming of the birds and dragonflies. For brevity levels of approximately 3.6 °C above pre¬ it concentrates on the climate changes industrial levels (Warren et al. 2013). associated with just two potential levels of warming: 2°C (the upper end of the Paris Article 2 of the United Nations Framework Climate Agreement) and 3.2°C (the upper Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) limit of the NDC pledges to date). calls for "...stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at Methods a level that would prevent dangerous The projected changes in biodiversity come anthropogenic interference with the climate from the Wallace Initiative Phase II and III system...within a time frame sufficient which modelled the potential impacts of to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change on nearly 125,000 species of climate change..." (UNFCCC 1992). More terrestrial plants, birds, mammals, reptiles, recently, the Paris Climate Agreement amphibians, and invertebrates. The meth¬ set a goal of limiting the global average ods used in this study largely follow those temperature increase to "well below 2-C in Warren et al. 2013 and are summarized above pre-industrial levels", and 'pursuing here, along with the modifications made efforts' to limit it to 1.5-C, a challenging since 2013. For a more complete review of proposition. However, to date, countries' the methods, limitations and caveats please individual pledges in terms of emission see the Supplemental Information in War¬ reductions fall far short of the levels ren et al. (2013). necessary to reach 2°C, much less 1.5°C. If countries actually meet their pledges it is Biodiversity occurrence data were obtained estimated that the global temperature is from the Global Biodiversity Information Trans. Norfolk Norwich Nat. Soc. 2017 50(1) 1 Facility (GBIF; Yesson et al. 2007). GBIF minutes (approximately 20 km x 20 km). facilitates acquisition of data from many The eight bioclimatic variables used in global datasets, including the National the models were the average maximum Biodiversity Network. Thus, some of the temperature of warmest month of the underlying occurrence data used in this year, average minimum temperature of paper may have originally come from the coldest month of the year, annual mean readers of this journal. These data were temperature, temperature seasonality, total then checked and cleaned for locational annual rainfall, rainfall seasonality, rainfall consistency and outliers (Warren et al. of the wettest quarter, and rainfall of the 2013). driest quarter. These variables were selected after extensive testing showed them to be Climate data comes from the Tyndall the best predictive variables for the broadest Climate Change Centre's Community Integrated Assessment System (CIAS) range of species out of the potential 18 and its component module ClimGEN. In bioclimatic variables. A reduced set of this approach, a simple climate model is variables was used in order to minimize used to project global temperature rise potential issues with autocorrelation and to probabilistically (in order to encompass prevent 'overfitting' of the MaxEnt model the key uncertainties in state-of-the-art species distributions. Ten cross-validated global climate change projection) over runs were then performed to assess the the 21®* century. Outputs from 21 general MaxEnt model accuracy. The Area under circulation models (GCM) from a model the Receiver Operating Characteristic inter-comparison project (CMIP5, used (AUC) was used to select species models in IPCC AR5; IPCC 2013) provided for projection over all climate scenarios. the pattern of how climate variables Each future climatic range for each species are projected to change regionally for was then projected into the future for each particular levels of global temperature of the 21 climate models at global warming rise. ClimGEN scales these patterns to the levels of 1.5°C to 6°C. amount of warming that is provided by the Lists of species in Norfolk were sourced time series in order to create 21 patterns from the website of the Norfolk and of projected changes corresponding to Norwich Naturalists' Society http:// differing levels of temperature rise (with norfolknaturalists.org.uk/wp/, specifically accompanying changes in precipitation). the species guides. The list of birds came The global temperature time series used from http://www.norfolkbirds.com/; and in this study were provided by the UK that of common macro moths from https:// Met Office Hadley Centre and used in the www.norfolkmoths.co.uk/macrolist. AVOID2 (Avoiding Dangerous Climate There are many other groups, such as Change) project (Bernie & Lowe 2014). The flowering plants, other bees, beetles, micro advantage of using these scenarios is that moths, etc. that could be looked at in they are internally consistent as to when a future papers. Furthermore, many taxa, given global temperature is reached across especially moths, vagrants and potential climate models, making them more useful immigrants have yet to be examined and for comparing different policy options. some of these may increase with warming. To model the potential impacts on This will be explored in a future paper . individual species GBIF occurrence, data The 50**^ percentile (averaged across all was combined with the climate data to climate models for a given temperature) develop individual species distribution map of each species on the list was then models using the MaxENT (Phillips et al. examined to see the degree of potential 2006) program at a spatial scale of 10 arc change (including increasing likelihood of 2 Trans. Norfolk Norwich Nat. Soc. 2017 50(1)