Summary
Rapid climate change is reducing the capacity of protected areas (PAs) to conserve biodiversity, but exposure metrics alone do not show whether species can reach areas where suitable climates persist. We developed a climate-informed connectivity framework integrating climate velocity, PA climatic residence time, PA size, and functional connectivity based on energetics-informed resistance surfaces from species distribution models. Using high-resolution climate projections and omnidirectional connectivity modelling across Europe, we show that climate-tracking opportunities are more limited and spatially uneven than structural connectivity alone suggests. Small, climate-exposed PAs are especially vulnerable because they provide little internal climatic buffering and are often embedded in landscapes with low movement feasibility, whereas larger and more climatically stable PAs are more often situated in landscapes that can support redistribution. These findings provide a spatially explicit basis for restoration and conservation planning to maintain the functionality of PA networks under future climate change. TeaserMany European protected areas are too isolated, climate-exposed, and energy-constrained to support climate-tracking connectivity.
Outcomes reported
Rapid climate change is reducing the capacity of protected areas (PAs) to conserve biodiversity, but exposure metrics alone do not show whether species can reach areas where suitable climates persist. We developed a climate-informed connectivity framework integrating climate velocity, PA climatic residence time, PA size, and functional connectivity based on energetics-informed resistance surfaces from species distribution models. Using high-resolution climate projections and omnidirectional connectivity modelling across Europe, we show that climate-tracking opportunities are more limited and spatially uneven than structural connectivity alone suggests. Small, climate-exposed PAs are especially vulnerable because they provide little internal climatic buffering and are often embedded in landscapes with low movement feasibility, whereas larger and more climatically stable PAs are more often situated in landscapes that can support redistribution. These findings provide a spatially explicit basis for restoration and conservation planning to maintain the functionality of PA networks under future climate change. TeaserMany European protected areas are too isolated, climate-exposed, and energy-constrained to support climate-tracking connectivity.
Dig deeper with Pulse AI.
Pulse AI has read the whole catalogue. Ask about this record, its theme, or how the findings apply to UK farming and policy — every answer cites the underlying studies.