No one-size-fits-all approach in a changing climate, changing land

August 18, 2014 by Kelly April Tyrrell, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Researchers say they looked at the combined effects of land use decisions and climate change because, while there are many studies of each, the two factors need to be examined together. Credit: iStock

As climate change alters habitats for birds and bees and everything in between, so too does the way humans decide to use land. Researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Aarhus University in Denmark have, for the first time, found a way to determine the potential combined impacts of both climate and land-use change on plants, animals and ecosystems across the country.

The study, which looks at estimates of climate and land-use change speeds, is from Jack Williams, UW-Madison professor of geography; Volker Radeloff, UW-Madison associate professor in the Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology; and postdoctoral researchers Alejandro Ordonez, from Aarhus University and UW-Madison, and Sebastian Martinuz, of UW-Madison. It was published today (Aug. 18, 2014) in the journal Nature Climate Change.

The estimates—relevant to the first 50 years of the 21st century—provide a basis for national, regional and local policy discussions about how to conserve biodiversity and ecosystems in a rapidly changing world. Combining climate and land-use change, the researchers say, may lead to different actions than consideration of either alone.

"For conservation, as the world is changing, we want to know, how will wildlife respond," Radeloff says. "We need to take both land use and climate into account as we look at the future."

For example, flat areas of the Midwest are more vulnerable to climate change than mountainous regions of the country. Conversely, areas in the northeastern U.S. may experience more intensive rates of land use. High demand for cropland in New England would lead to greater destruction of forest, while, in the upper Midwest, it would lead to slower growth of cities.

The analyses thus show different impacts for different regions. Regions exposed to high climate change rates and reductions in habitat due to more rapid land-use change may be higher priority for policy efforts than other areas. In some regions, such as the Great Plains, high rates of land-use change may actually lead to increased forest cover.

"There are lots of studies that look at climate change and a lot of studies that look at land-use change, but very few quantitatively integrate the two together," says Williams, who is also director of the Center for Climatic Research in the UW-Madison Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies.

In their approach, the researchers used the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 5th Assessment Report and socioeconomic parameters from the U.S. Natural Resources Inventory to create scenarios that looked at the rate of change of both climate and land use, referred to as the speed of climate and land-use change. The land-use scenarios came from models previously developed by Radeloff and his team in 2012.

For climate, this meant looking at changes in variables like precipitation, water deficit, and temperature. For land use, it meant assessing changes to housing prices, agricultural taxes, carbon subsidies and more.

The speed of climate change in a particular place matters because it determines how quickly a given species of plant or animal must migrate from one region to another to stay within its optimal climate, or how quickly it must adapt to new conditions. Similarly, land-use speeds measure how quickly land cover changes, which can lead to new or lost habitat, species isolation, or barriers to species entering or leaving an area.

The combined scenarios are not, Williams and Radeloff say, meant to advise policymakers what to do, but rather, to show what is likely given specific changes to policy in the context of a changing climate and changing land.

It's not "what's going to happen, but a range of what might be likely," says Radeloff. "If we change these policies, this is what's likely to happen."

The team found that, overall, climate change has an order of magnitude more impact than land use, but the relative impact of both differs by region.

"Across the U.S., the rates of climate change are a big deal," says Williams. "If we are thinking about land use and conservation planning, these results put both into perspective."

The researchers joined forces across fields because they say the sweep of global change requires coordinated research. Change is inevitable, they say, but humans have the chance to mitigate their impact in ways that give the world's wildlife a chance to thrive.

"We won't stop but maybe we can slow it … we may be able to give species time to adapt," says Radeloff. "Now we have geese living on golf courses, but Aldo Leopold was worried they were going to go extinct. That's probably not going to happen."

Explore further: The double threat of climate and land use change enhances risks to biodiversity

Related Stories

Recommended for you

A decade on, smartphone-like software finally heads to space

March 20, 2019

Once a traditional satellite is launched into space, its physical hardware and computer software stay mostly immutable for the rest of its existence as it orbits the Earth, even as the technology it serves on the ground continues ...

Tiny 'water bears' can teach us about survival

March 20, 2019

Earth's ultimate survivors can weather extreme heat, cold, radiation and even the vacuum of space. Now the U.S. military hopes these tiny critters called tardigrades can teach us about true toughness.

Researchers find hidden proteins in bacteria

March 20, 2019

Scientists at the University of Illinois at Chicago have developed a way to identify the beginning of every gene—known as a translation start site or a start codon—in bacterial cell DNA with a single experiment and, through ...

Turn off a light, save a life, says new study

March 20, 2019

We all know that turning off lights and buying energy-efficient appliances affects our financial bottom line. Now, according to a new study by University of Wisconsin-Madison researchers, we know that saving energy also saves ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 18, 2014
Seriously? Science isn't "allowed" to say it's "proven" but you "believers" can? How is that not neocon like fear mongering? Prove that science "believes" as much as you "believers" do.

32 MORE years of science's; "Help my planet could be on fire maybe?" is unsustainable.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
2.5 / 5 (2) Aug 18, 2014
I'm really excited to see what 3d printing evolves into as the technology matures. Maybe someday we'll all just be able to print our own solar panels for the basic material cost as we need them. If vertical farming ever gets root, that will be great for consumers as well. Better diets could also do a lot to mediate the effects of global warming as well, which people seem to be doing on their own to some extent, eat your fruits an vegetables.

But as technology develops, it trickles down to the poorer nations of the world and with it comes education. The internet is really a revolutionary thing and enables people to get a better grasp of resource management, personal health, and family planning, which conveniently enough are the things we need to help the earth, and its all good things for us as well.
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 18, 2014
Seriously? Science isn't "allowed" to say it's "proven" but you "believers" can? How is that not neocon like fear mongering? Prove that science "believes" as much as you "believers" do.

32 MORE years of science's; "Help my planet could be on fire maybe?" is unsustainable.

Ladies and gentlemen, take a good look - this is what stupid looks like.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 18, 2014
Ladies and gentlemen, take a good look - this is what stupid looks like.

Good contribution, sorry you live in a shallow pool in which philosophy goes no deeper than politics. What a miserable way to live, you could of had something interesting to say.
1 / 5 (3) Aug 18, 2014
I would bet my last dollar that this will never even come close to being correct. You can't just put climate change and land usage together without man's own self destruction. Frequent major nuclear disasters, illegal dumping, air pollution, fracking is all major players to our animals and ecosystem. This is the same reason they can't predict climate change! You can't possibly put numbers to man own self destruction.
2 / 5 (4) Aug 18, 2014
Apparently NSF has more money than it needs to. How else would you explain the endless flow of junk studies like this? We need global warming parasites (ex)terminator.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.