Species interactions (CLIM 026) - Assessment published Nov 2012
Climate change (Primary topic)
Typology: Descriptive indicator (Type A - What is happening to the environment and to humans?)
- CLIM 026
Key policy question: How is climate change affecting food networks and other species interactions, and what are the implications for biodiversity?
- Climate change is affecting the interaction of species that depend on each other for food or other reasons. It can disrupt established interactions but also generate novel ones.
- Negative effects on single species are often amplified by changes in interactions with other species, in particular for specialist species.
- The impact of species interactions on ecosystems services depends on whether disrupted interactions can be buffered by system-intrinsic properties or by novel organisms.
Projected spatial mismatches of the Portuguese Dappled White butterfly and its host plants
Note: This figure shows spatial mismatches of the Portuguese Dappled White butterfly (Euchloe tagis) and its host plants under the BAMBU scenario (climate: A2) for 2050-2080. Green, suitable climate space for the host plants;orange, suitable climate space for the butterfly; red, suitable area for both butterfly and host plants; open circles, currently observed distribution. BAMBU: Business-As-Might-Be-Usual scenario.
- Range mismatching of interacting species under global change provided by Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ)
Direct observations of the effects of recent climate change on competition are scarce and are generally thought not to have led directly to the extinction of species in Europe [i]. However, independent studies have shown that observed changes in the distribution and abundance of Populus species (a group of trees that are relatively weak competitors) in the Late Glacial (ca. 13 000–10 000 years ago) and in the 20th century could only be explained when the effects of climate change on its competitors were taken into account [ii].
Climate change has already lead to temporal mismatches between species that depend on each other for feeding and for pollination. For example, the egg hatch of the winter moth (Operophtera brumata) has advanced more than the budburst date of its larval food plant, the pedunculate oak (Quercus robur), over the past two decades, with potentially severe consequences for its fitness [iii]. Similarly, over the last 30 years, the occurrence of the honey bee (Apis mellifera) and the Small White butterfly (Pieris rapae) in relation to the flowering of crucial host plants has changed from about 10 days and 5 days later to about 25 days and 15 days earlier, respectively [iv]. Such temporal mismatches can severely impact pollination activities and the seed set of plants [v]. Climate change has also disrupted several predator-prey relationships, such as between insectivorous birds and their insect prey [vi]. In some cases, differential changes in phenology can also strengthen existing or create new predator-prey relationships, as observed by an increased predation pressure of the fat dormouse (Glis glis) on several songbirds in the Czech Republic [vii].
Climate change can also generate new interactions in novel communities [viii]. In extreme cases, this can lead to severely transformed ecosystems where new species dominate. Such changes are particularly obvious at higher latitudes and altitudes, where growing and reproductive periods are prolonged or where previous thermal constraints are released with climate warming. For instance, the range of the pine processionary moth (Thaumetopoea pityocampa) is no longer limited by temperature in many regions, enabling the species to expand its existing range into new areas and causing serious damage in pine forests [ix].
A study on butterflies in Europe showed that most species are not limited by the distribution of their larval host plants and thus appear rather insensitive to spatial mismatching with their hosts under future climate change. However, there are exceptions such as the Portuguese Dappled White butterfly (Euchloe tagis), which is projected to lose 20–48 % of its current area based on the loss of suitable climatic conditions by 2080, and 50–74 % when a reduced availability of host plants was also considered (Figure 1) [x]. These findings highlight the need for a better understanding of ecological interactions that mediate species responses to climate change.
[i] M. A. Davis, „Biotic globalization: does competition from introduced species threaten biodiversity?“, Bioscience 53, Nr. 5 (2003): 481–489, doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053[0481:BGDCFI]2.0.CO;2.
[ii] Matthew C Peros, K. Gajewski, and André E Viau, „Continental‐scale Tree Population Response to Rapid Climate Change, Competition and Disturbance“, Global Ecology and Biogeography 17, Nr. 5 (September 1, 2008): 658–669, doi:10.1111/j.1466-8238.2008.00406.x; R. Van Bogaert et al., „Competitive interaction between aspen and birch moderated by invertebrate and vertebrate herbivores and climate warming“, Plant Ecology & Diversity 2, Nr. 3 (2009): 221–232, doi:10.1080/17550870903487456.
[iii] M. E. Visser and C. Both, „Shifts in phenology due to global climate change: the need for a yardstick“, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 272, Nr. 1581 (2005): 2561–2569, doi:10.1098/rspb.2005.3356; C. Parmesan, „Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change“, Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 37 (2006): 637–669, doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.37.091305.110100; M. van Asch and M.E. Visser, „Phenology of forest caterpillars and their host trees: the importance of synchrony“, Annual Review of Entomology 52 (2007): 37–55, doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.52.110405.091418; C. Both et al., „Climate change and unequal phenological changes across four trophic levels: constraints or adaptations?“, Journal of Animal Ecology 78, Nr. 1 (2009): 73–83, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2656.2008.01458.x.
[iv] O. Gordo and J.J. Sanz, „Phenology and climate change: a long-term study in a Mediterranean locality“, Oecologia 146, Nr. 3 (2005): 484–495, doi:10.1007/s00442-005-0240-z.
[v] G. Kudo et al., „Does seed production of spring ephemerals decrease when spring comes early?“, Ecological Research 19, Nr. 2 (2004): 255–259, doi:10.1111/j.1440-1703.2003.00630.x.
[vi] Marcel E. Visser, Leonard J. M. Holleman, and Philip Gienapp, „Shifts in Caterpillar Biomass Phenology Due to Climate Change and Its Impact on the Breeding Biology of an Insectivorous Bird“, Oecologia 147, Nr. 1 (Februar 1, 2006): 164–172.
[vii] P. Adamík and M. Král, „Climate and Resource-driven Long-term Changes in Dormice Populations Negatively Affect Hole-nesting Songbirds“, Journal of Zoology 275, Nr. 3 (Juli 1, 2008): 209–215, doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.2008.00415.x.
[viii] O. Schweiger et al., „Multiple stressors on biotic interactions: how climate change and alien species interact to affect pollination“, Biological Reviews 85, Nr. 4 (2010): 777–795, doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.2010.00125.x.
[ix] C. Robinet et al., „Modelling the effects of climate change on the potential feeding activity of Thaumetopoea pityocampa (Den. & Schiff.)(Lep., Notodontidae) in France“, Global Ecology and Biogeography 16, Nr. 4 (2007): 460–471, doi:10.1111/j.1466-8238.2006.00302.x.
[x] O. Schweiger et al., „Increasing range mismatching of interacting species under global change is related to their ecological characteristics“, Global Ecology and Biogeography 21, Nr. 1 (2012): 88–99, doi:10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00607.x.
Range mismatching of interacting species under global change
provided by Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ)
More information about this indicator
See this indicator specification for more details.
Contacts and ownership
EEA Contact InfoHans-Martin Füssel
EEA Management Plan2012 2.0.1 (note: EEA internal system)
Frequency of updates
This document is part of the SOER 2015 product.