Download A call to insect scientists: challenges and opportunities of managing

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
A call to insect scientists: challenges and opportunities
of managing insect communities under climate change
Jessica J Hellmann1, Ralph Grundel2, Chris Hoving3,4 and
Gregor W Schuurman5
As climate change moves insect systems into uncharted
territory, more knowledge about insect dynamics and the
factors that drive them could enable us to better manage and
conserve insect communities. Climate change may also require
us to revisit insect management goals and strategies and lead
to a new kind of scientific engagement in management
decision-making. Here we make five key points about the role
of insect science in aiding and crafting management decisions,
and we illustrate those points with the monarch butterfly and
the Karner blue butterfly, two species undergoing considerable
change and facing new management dilemmas. Insect biology
has a strong history of engagement in applied problems, and as
the impacts of climate change increase, a reimagined ethic of
entomology in service of broader society may emerge. We
hope to motivate insect biologists to contribute time and effort
toward solving the challenges of climate change.
Addresses
1
Institute on the Environment and Department of Ecology, Evolution,
and Behavior, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108, United
States
2
Great Lakes Science Center, US Geological Survey, Chesterton, IN
46304, United States
3
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI 48909, United
States
4
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, MI 48824, United States
5
Natural Resource Stewardship and Science, US National Park Service,
Fort Collins, CO 80525, United States
Corresponding author: Hellmann, Jessica J ([email protected])
Current Opinion in Insect Science 2016, 17:92–97
This review comes from a themed issue on Global change biology
increases voltinism [3], and changing conditions can
differentially affect the phenology of herbivorous insects
relative to their host plants [4,5]. Further, thermal tolerances often determine the geographic distribution of
insect species; thus, changes in climatic conditions can
alter, and sometimes diminish, insect ranges [6].
Such general expectations are helpful starting points for
conservation and management of insect populations, but
they are likely insufficient to guide management activities for most species and ecosystems. Research on many
more ecologically and socially important insect species
could benefit thoughtful and effective natural resource
management in the coming decades. This may be a
daunting task, but fortunately entomology has a long
and distinguished history of engaging in population management [7]. With more effort towards climate-related
research that directly aids management, insect biologists
could make a significant contribution toward biodiversity
conservation and decreasing harmful outbreaks.
For those who have not engaged in applied insect conservation, now is an ideal time. Much has been made of
uncertainty in atmospheric science, including carbon
feedbacks to the atmosphere, and regional realization
of a global phenomenon. But ecological and social uncertainties about the magnitude of impacts and the ways that
people and land managers will react to change are equally
large. In this essay, we seek to motivate scientists to
reduce our collective uncertainty about the impacts of
climate change on insect and insect–human systems and
what to do about those changes.
Edited by Vladimir Koštál and Brent J Sinclair
For a complete overview see the Issue and the Editorial
Available online 21st August 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2016.08.005
2214-5745/# 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Introduction
Many studies have documented species and ecosystems
responding to climate change [1]. For insects, general
rules have emerged: tropical insects may be more sensitive than temperate species to changes in thermal conditions [2], warming decreases generation time and
Current Opinion in Insect Science 2016, 17:92–97
The monarch and the Karner blue butterfly
Two species familiar to us — the monarch butterfly
(Danaus plexippus) and the Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides
melissa samuelis) — provide useful background for five key
points below about climate change and the research and
management response. Both species face complex conservation dilemmas under climate change. In the case of the
monarch, the oyamel fir forests (Abies religiosa) of Mexico
that protect overwintering monarch populations are projected to be displaced by climate change during this
century [8]. Habitat loss in wintering grounds, together
with declining food and nectar resources in the monarch’s
temperate range, have led to a petition for monarchs to be
listed as threatened or endangered under the US Endangered Species Act [9]. Occasional climatic extremes that
www.sciencedirect.com
A call to insect scientists Hellmann et al. 93
may or may not be increasing in frequency also play a role
in short-term monarch declines and these may undermine
long-term population viability [10]. In 2016, for example, a
late-spring snow storm may have killed larger numbers of
overwintering adults. Simply restoring overwintering habitat where it has historically occurred is unlikely to overcome emerging threats of climate change, be those steady
climatic changes or increased climatic extremes. Instead,
scientists, managers, and stakeholders are working together
to evaluate managed relocation of fir forests and devise
other novel management alternatives [8]. These new strategies will require information on specific habitat requirements, knowledge about climate effects on fir, and
information about monarch dispersal capabilities to understand if individuals could discover newly available habitat.
The federally endangered Karner blue was historically
distributed from eastern Minnesota to the northeast US.
Just since its listing in 1992, the Karner blue was lost (and
sometimes restored) in five of the eight states and provinces where it occurred, as a consequence of a legacy of
loss and fragmentation of its barrens and savanna habitats.
Populations occur on a variety of landownerships, and the
species’ recovery is managed by the US Fish and Wildlife
Service. At the southern edge of its range in northern
Indiana, the Karner blue recently declined to local extinction despite extensive long-term habitat restoration and
efforts at species reintroduction, suggesting that recreating
historical habitat might not be sufficient for future conservation. This population’s decline occurred in conjunction
with steadily warming conditions in recent decades and
the historically early spring of 2012 [11], suggesting a
possible climate connection [12]. At its northern limit as
well, evidence suggests that the Karner is sensitive to high
temperatures and drought, as well as the interaction of
weather extremes and habitat loss [13,14].
Management options for this non-migratory species range
from enhancing accessibility to diverse microclimates
within a single occupied site [15–17] to facilitating geographic range shifts. For example, managers could promote lupine on cooler slopes to extend its growing season
in warm years in which drought might otherwise truncate
lupine availability when larvae are still feeding [18].
Managers could consider managed relocation to regions
where climate is coming in line with the climate envelope
of the Karner blue, to offset losses at the southern range
boundary [19,20]. Alternatively, they might experiment
with irrigation to maintain larval food sources during
hotter and drier summers. Each of these approaches will
require changes in management protocol, decisions about
the suitability of additional human intervention, and
research on the effectiveness of management techniques.
A future different than the past
These two examples show how ecological conditions for
some species are radically changing. This change may
www.sciencedirect.com
affect the very processes and methods that land managers
use to achieve conservation or control objectives. For
example, climate change may alter the effectiveness of
fire to control an invasive species or may modify the
preferred location for habitat creation. Adjusting to climate change, rather than maintaining historical conditions, likely becomes a primary management strategy
[21]. And it is critical to know which management options
are possible and likely to be effective in a future climate.
To help chart a new path for insect management and
conservation in an age of global change, we outline five
key points for entomologists of all stripes and flavors to
consider.
The geography of climate change is larger than many other
factors affecting insects
Adjusting to changing climate is difficult because the
scope of climate change exceeds the geography of individual land managers, and the changes occurring in many
species’ geographic ranges are larger than even the biggest land holdings and traditional management units.
Like the monarch, many insects live out their lives or
population dynamics over large geographic areas, requiring coordination over diverse jurisdictions and in the
context of a variety of interacting species and habitats.
Climate change also links distant geographies, connecting
regions hundreds of kilometers apart through rapidly
shifting climate envelopes. Fortunately, the case of the
monarch provides a useful example — the Trilateral
Monarch Butterfly Sister Area Network has worked for
over a decade across three nations to collaborate on
monarch conservation projects [22]. The Nutrient Network, is a useful model of large-scale collaborative ecological research — it is a cooperative system of
geographically distributed experimentation on plants that
systematically examines the relationship between productivity and plant diversity in a wide range of ecosystems worldwide [23]. Research networks like this allow us
to extract global patterns and improve our ability to
specify and generalize, and similar networks could be
good models for further use in insect biology.
Benefits of interdisciplinary collaboration
Understanding and anticipating change in insect species
depends on bringing together expertise from many fields,
including molecular biology, physiology, climatology, geography, and population and community ecology. For
example, our understanding of the life cycle and decline
of the monarch butterfly has been augmented by genetic
[24,25], population [26,27], hostplant [28], physiological
[29], and climate change [8,30,31] studies. Accurately
predicting effects of climate change relies on strong
understanding of adaptive capacity, including phenotypic
plasticity, evolutionary potential, and dispersal [32].
Intellectual division can impede our ability to make
realistic predictions or build future scenarios on a scale
that affects land management. Advancing technology in
Current Opinion in Insect Science 2016, 17:92–97
94 Global change biology
molecular genetics and nanosensors may make study of
these processes more feasible in a wide range of insect
systems, but their results would need to be integrated into
comprehensive impact assessments to affect management decisions.
Process-based modeling can build understanding and guide
management
Informed predictions about how systems will respond to
climate change are essential to forming new management
strategies. While models are always imperfect, predictions that allow for exploration of alternative management
techniques and reveal the most sensitive and important
factors in population dynamics under climate change can
be exceptionally helpful.
The relatively fast generation time and ectothermic
nature of insects can make them excellent subjects for
improving models used to predict dynamics under climate change. Much of the early work predicting effects of
climate on species and communities was niche-based,
defining the range of climates in which a species occurred
and projecting where those climates might be found in
the future [33], but process-based models that base
climate response predictions on physiological processes
such as lethal temperature limits can produce more
detailed and realistic responses [6]. With some careful
attention, these models can be readily parameterized for
many insect species (e.g. [34,35]). The diversity of
insects also allows for comparisons in responses to climate among related species that can advance general
theories linking life history traits to differential vulnerability (e.g. [36,37]). Finally, collaboration between insect
biologists and climate modelers can drive climate modeling improvements [38] because they can work together
on combined interest of thermal and moisture sensitivity
at small temporal and spatial scales. These fine-scale
processes are still lacking in most datasets of climate
change.
Ultimately, adapting to climate change in the context of
natural resource management means establishing new
ways to foster species persistence. A resistance strategy
favors stasis and sometimes involves active management
to prevent species or system change, such as taking
measures to prevent invasion [47]. A resilience strategy
entails management that helps a species or system to
return to a prior state after a perturbation that moves the
system away from that prior state. Insect communities are
well-suited for exploring resistance and resilience management strategies and for the evaluation of critical
tipping points at which significant changes in community
composition may occur rapidly [48]. Specifically, information about the sensitivity of ecological systems (e.g.
using the models from #3 above) can illuminate goalsetting conversations. In our experience, sensitivity analysis is useful within a decision-making process because
goal-setting for climate change adaptation will be iterative and exploratory [44,49].
Scientific inquiry and engagement with decision makers
has sparked a broad conversation about technique and
duty to take action in the community of researchers and
managers engaged in recovery of the Karner blue [50,51].
As climate change compels a shift in management away
from managing within the bounds of historic climate and,
instead, toward managing for continuous change, new
management goals would be needed, and a variety of
social values will inform their creation. To evaluate and
revise goals, studies have found that managers of Karner
blue populations could benefit from (1) projections of
climate change and ecological responses — including
model-associated uncertainty — over coming years and
decades, (2) understanding how their management unit
and actions fit into the larger landscape, and (3) information on how alternative goals are viewed from legal, policy,
economic, and ethical perspectives [51]. This kind of
conversation where scientific data are part of a broader
social dialog may make some natural scientists uneasy, but
gives special purpose to scientific problem solving.
Advances through new management goals and strategies
Because climate change brings conditions that differ from
the past, it challenges preservation-based management
objectives and asks us to wrestle with the implications of
novel communities and ecosystems [39,40–43]. Changing
life history parameters and species interactions can undermine management goals (objectives or desired outcomes), management strategies (methods and techniques),
or both [21,44,45]. Because goals and strategies involve
adjustments by humans to the management of natural
systems, both fall within a broader social-environmental
challenge known as climate change adaptation [46]. For
biologists, adaptation also can result from selection that
causes changes in a species genotype, phenotype, and
behavior. Limits of this kind of adaptation help determine whether a species persists as the environment
changes.
Current Opinion in Insect Science 2016, 17:92–97
Increased participation by entomologists in social decisionmaking
Insect biologists may not usually play a role in natural
resource decision making (e.g. advising on new conservation strategies) but their participation would be valuable. Scientific information is often critical to goal setting,
political decision-making, and cost-benefit analysis, and
the science itself can benefit from being represented
throughout a values-inclusive decision process [52].
When defining new strategies and goals, stakeholders
need scientific interpretation of available ecological data
and processes, and a technical expert can often help
stakeholders and land managers explore the viability of
different management scenarios. Information can sometimes help overcome contentious debate by suggesting
alternate management options [53].
www.sciencedirect.com
A call to insect scientists Hellmann et al. 95
One example where policy-relevant and policy-engaged
science has been very effectively developed and applied
is the Wisconsin Initiative for Climate Change Impacts
(WICCI), a collaboration of scientists and stakeholders
totaling more than 70 entities that have worked for a
decade to develop, synthesize, and translate climate
science, assess and anticipate climate change impacts
to a diversity of resources and values, and develop adaptation strategies [54]. A striking feature of WICCI is the
strong coproduction process it has fostered, through
which stakeholders provide significant input in directing
the development of climate science and ecological response models. This role is characteristic of boundary
organizations that work at the interface between science
and decision making to ‘protect and sustain an interactive
space for co-production of science and decision-making
while simultaneously bridging the two domains’ [55].
There can be several impediments to direct engagement
between scientists and stakeholders, however. These
impediments include inexperience among some scientists in collaborating with stakeholders to provide information useful in guiding management decisions,
particularly decisions that might be uncharted or controversial. Failure to translate science to a language relevant
to non-scientists is another limitation. At worst, scientists
in some institutions and jobs can be actively discouraged
or penalized for engaging in collaboration with agencies or
NGOs (see [56]). That does not diminish the need for
such collaborations. On the other hand, those who are
encouraged to collaborate can learn how to bring scientific
expertise to a rich dialog that involves both science and
values. Scientists who listen to decision-makers, landowners, and the public also gain understanding of other
perspectives and through building trust can increase the
likelihood that scientific evidence is part of decisionmaking.
In the case of the Karner blue, we have found that
participating in the national recovery effort has helped
us better understand managers’ information needs and
therefore has empowered us to more effectively develop,
synthesize, and share relevant science and highlight
critical research gaps, such as predicting future habitat
suitability [20]. Managers working on federal, state, and
private lands to conserve Karner blue butterflies have
benefited through learning directly from scientists, and by
being presented research results that address management problems that they themselves articulated earlier in
the collaborative process [51].
capabilities than empirical research, as well as patience
and a willingness to receive public attention and scrutiny.
An emphasis on data delivery and exploratory modeling,
co-creation with diverse stakeholders, and working in the
spirit of serving the public good are useful principles for
scientists helping society navigating a future under climate change.
As climate change molds our planet, erasing some ecological systems and species and creating new assemblages
we hardly recognize, insect scientists can make important
contributions. Our ability to engage with new challenges
in ecosystem management will help to determine our
biological future. To be effective and have maximum
public benefit, this engagement must include interaction
with diverse kinds of data and methods, with different
kinds of scientists, and with different kinds of decisionmakers and values. Done well, insect science itself will
benefit, seeing greater interdisciplinary engagement,
building better models, and experiencing stronger support for scientific pursuits.
Acknowledgements
This article is Contribution 2072 of the U.S. Geological Survey Great Lakes
Science Center. We thank Brent Sinclair and Vladimir Kostal for editorial
suggestions. The opinions in this article reflect the opinions of the authors
and not their employers. This work did not receive any specific grant from
funding agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
References
1.
Staudinger MD, Carter SL, Cross MS, Dubois NS, Duffy JE,
Enquist C, Griffis R, Hellmann JJ, Lawler JJ, O’Leary J et al.:
Biodiversity in a changing climate: a synthesis of current and
projected trends in the US. Front Ecol Environ 2013, 11:465-473.
2.
Deutsch CA, Tewksbury JJ, Huey RB, Sheldon KS, Ghalambor CK,
Haak DC, Martin PR: Impacts of climate warming on terrestrial
ectotherms across latitude. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2008,
105:6668-6672.
3.
Altermatt F: Climatic warming increases voltinism in
European butterflies and moths. Proc R Soc B: Biol Sci 2010,
277:1281-1287.
4.
Hellmann JJ: The effect of an environmental change on mobile
butterfly larvae and the nutritional quality of their hosts. J Anim
Ecol 2002, 71:925-936.
5.
Hellmann JJ: Butterflies as model systems for understanding
and predicting the biological effects of climatic change. In
Wildlife Responses to Climate Change. Edited by Schneider SH,
Root TL. Island Press; 2002:93-126.
6.
Overgaard J, Kearney MR, Hoffmann AA: Sensitivity to thermal
extremes in Australian Drosophila implies similar impacts of
climate change on the distribution of widespread and tropical
species. Glob Change Biol 2014, 20:1738-1750.
7.
Radcliffe EB, Hutchison WD, Cancelado RE: Integrated Pest
Management. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2008.
8.
Sáenz-Romero C, Rehfeldt GE, Duval P, Lindig-Cisneros RA:
Abies religiosa habitat prediction in climatic change scenarios
and implications for monarch butterfly conservation in
Mexico. Forest Ecol Manage 2012, 275:98-106.
9.
Bienkowski B: Environmental groups push feds on monarch
butterfly protections. Environmental Health News. 2016 http://
Conclusion
Climate change is the challenge of our generation, and the
conservation community could benefit from more insect
biologists willing to take the risk, learn new skills, and join
the research and adaptation response. Engagement with
decision-makers does require a different set of skills and
www.sciencedirect.com
Current Opinion in Insect Science 2016, 17:92–97
96 Global change biology
www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2016/jan/
enviro-groups-push-feds-on-monarch-butterfly-protections.
10. Anderson JB, Brower LP: Freeze-protection of overwintering
monarch butterflies in Mexico: critical role of the forest as a
blanket and an umbrella. Ecol Entomol 1996, 21:107-116.
11. Ault TR, Henebry GM, de Beurs KM, Schwartz MD, Betancourt JL,
Moore D: The false spring of 2012, earliest in North American
record. Eos, Trans Am Geophys Union 2013, 94:181-182.
12. McLaughlin JF, Hellmann JJ, Boggs CL, Ehrlich PR: The route to
extinction: population dynamics of a threatened butterfly.
Oecologia 2002, 132:538-548.
13. Packer L: The extirpation of the Karner blue butterfly in
Ontario. In Karner Blue Butterfly: A Symbol of a Vanishing
Landscape. Miscellaneous Publication 84-1994. Edited by Andow
DA, Baker RJ, Lane CP. Minnesota Agricultural Experiment
Station, University of Minnesota; 1994:143-151.
26. Inamine H, Ellner SP, Springer JP, Agrawal AA: Linking the
continental migratory cycle of the monarch butterfly to
understand its population decline. Oikos 2016, 125:1081-1091.
27. Semmens BX, Semmens DJ, Thogmartin WE, Wiederholt R,
López-Hoffman L, Diffendorfer JE, Pleasants JM, Oberhauser KS,
Taylor OR: Quasi-extinction risk and population targets for the
Eastern, migratory population of monarch butterflies (Danaus
plexippus). Sci Rep 2016, 6:23265.
The authors developed a novel demographic model to improve our
understanding of impending risk of functional extinction of the eastern
North American monarch butterfly migratory phenomenon. They establish a tentative population increase target to bring the species to a level of
acceptable extinction risk. The monarch butterfly is being considered for
listing as an endangered species in the United States and this analysis is a
useful contribution to conservation planning and species status assessment.
28. Lemoine NP: Climate change may alter breeding ground
distributions of eastern migratory monarchs (Danaus
plexippus) via range expansion of Asclepias host plants. PLOS
ONE 2015, 10:e0118614.
14. Packer L: The status of two butterflies, Karner Blue (Lycaeides
melissa samuelis) and Frosted Elfin (Incisalia irus), restricted
to oak savannah in Ontario. In Conserving Carolinian Canada.
Edited by Allen GW, Eagles PFJ, Price SW. University of Waterloo
Press; 1991:253-271.
29. Guerra PA, Reppert SM: Sensory basis of lepidopteran
migration: focus on the monarch butterfly. Curr Opin Neurobiol
2015, 34:20-28.
15. Grundel R, Pavlovic NB, Sulzman CL: Habitat use by the
endangered Karner blue butterfly in oak woodlands: the
influence of canopy cover. Biol Conserv 1998, 85:47-53.
30. Zipkin EF, Ries L, Reeves R, Regetz J, Oberhauser KS: Tracking
climate impacts on the migratory monarch butterfly. Glob
Change Biol 2012, 18:3039-3049.
16. Grundel R, Pavlovic NB, Sulzman CL: The effect of canopy cover
and seasonal change on host plant quality for the endangered
Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis). Oecologia
1998, 114:243-250.
31. Saunders SP, Ries L, Oberhauser KS, Zipkin EF: Evaluating
confidence in climate-based predictions of population change
in a migratory species. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 2016, 25:1000-1012.
17. Grundel R, Pavlovic NB: Resource availability, matrix quality,
microclimate, and spatial pattern as predictors of patch use by
the Karner blue butterfly. Biol Conserv 2007, 135:135-144.
18. Oliver T, Roy DB, Hill JK, Brereton T, Thomas CD: Heterogeneous
landscapes promote population stability. Ecol Lett 2010,
13:473-484.
19. McLachlan JS, Hellmann JJ, Schwartz MW: A framework for
debate of assisted migration in an era of climate change.
Conserv Biol 2007, 21:297-302.
20. Hällfors MH, Liao J, Dzurisin J, Grundel R, Hyvärinen M, Towle K,
Wu GC, Hellmann JJ: Addressing potential local adaptation in
species distribution models: implications for conservation
under climate change. Ecol Appl 2016, 26:1154-1169.
Most ecological models that predict the response of species to climate
change assume that species are uniform across their range. Yet, we also
know that many species are composed of populations that are functionally differentiated. Populations are often isolated, and may be genetically
distinctive, in rare or fragmented species. This paper explores the potential importance of treating populations separately in range modeling using
two endangered and fragmented species: the Karner blue butterfly and
Siberian primrose. They find that model predict different future occupancy when the species are treated a single species versus distinct
populations with different climatic tolerances.
21. Stein BA, Staudt A, Cross MS, Dubois NS, Enquist C, Griffis R,
Hansen LJ, Hellmann JJ, Lawler JJ, Nelson EJ et al.: Preparing for
and managing change: climate adaptation for biodiversity and
ecosystems. Front Ecol Environ 2013, 11:502-510.
22. Commission for Environmental Cooperation: North American
Monarch Conservation Plan. Communications Dept. of the CEC
Secretariat; 2008.
23. Grace JB, Anderson TM, Seabloom EW, Borer ET, Adler PB,
Harpole WS, Hautier Y, Hillebrand H, Lind EM, Pärtel M et al.:
Integrative modelling reveals mechanisms linking productivity
and plant species richness. Nature 2016, 529:390-393.
24. Flockhart DTT, Wassenaar LI, Martin TG, Hobson KA, Wunder MB,
Norris DR: Tracking multi-generational colonization of the
breeding grounds by monarch butterflies in eastern North
America. Proc R Soc B: Biol Sci 2013, 280.
25. Zhan S, Zhang W, Niitepõld K, Hsu J, Haeger JF, Zalucki MP,
Altizer S, De Roode JC, Reppert SM, Kronforst MR: The genetics
of monarch butterfly migration and warning colouration.
Nature 2014, 514:317-321.
Current Opinion in Insect Science 2016, 17:92–97
32. Beever EA, O’Leary J, Mengelt C, West JM, Julius S, Green N,
Magness D, Petes L, Stein B, Nicotra AB et al.: Improving
conservation outcomes with a new paradigm for
understanding species’ fundamental and realized adaptive
capacity. Conserv Lett 2016, 9:131-137.
This paper explores the importance of adaptive capacity, including
evolutionary change and plasticity, in determining the response of species and ecosystems to climate change. At the same time, the authors
explain that few frameworks or empirical data exist to generate a rich
understanding of adaptive capacity. They put forward a theoretical
framework based on niche theory suggesting that adaptive capacity
can be increased from a ‘fundamental’ level to a ‘realized’ level through
management.
33. Morin X, Thuiller W: Comparing niche- and process-based
models to reduce prediction uncertainty in species range
shifts under climate change. Ecology 2009, 90:1301-1313.
34. Régnière J, St-Amant R, Duval P: Predicting insect distributions
under climate change from physiological responses: spruce
budworm as an example. Biol Invas 2012, 14:1571-1586.
35. Nail KR, Batalden RV, Oberhauser KS: What’s too hot and what’s
too cold? Lethal and sublethal effects of extreme
temperatures on developing monarchs. In Monarchs in A
Changing World: Biology and Conservation of An Iconic Butterfly.
Edited by Oberhauser KS, Nail KR, Altizer SM. Cornell University
Press; 2015:99-108.
36. Pelini SL, Dzurisin JDK, Prior KM, Williams CM, Marsico TD,
Sinclair BJ, Hellmann JJ: Translocation experiments with
butterflies reveal limits to enhancement of poleward
populations under climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
2009, 106:11160-11165.
37. O’Neil ST, Dzurisin JDK, Williams CM, Lobo NF, Higgins JK,
Deines JM, Carmichael RD, Zeng E, Tan JC, Wu GC et al.: Gene
expression in closely related species mirrors local adaptation:
consequences for responses to a warming world. Mol Ecol
2014, 23:2686-2698.
38. Root TL, Schneider SH: Can large-scale climatic models be
linked with multiscale ecological studies? Conserv Biol 1993,
7:256-270.
39. Millar CI, Stephenson NL, Stephens SL: Climate change and
forests of the future: managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecol
Appl 2007, 17:2145-2151.
40. Marris E: Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in A Post-Wild
World. New York, NY, USA: Bloomsbury Publishing; 2013.
www.sciencedirect.com
A call to insect scientists Hellmann et al. 97
41. Sgrò CM, Lowe AJ, Hoffmann AA: Building evolutionary
resilience for conserving biodiversity under climate change.
Evol Appl 2011, 4:326-337.
48. Memmott J, Craze PG, Waser NM, Price MV: Global warming and
the disruption of plant–pollinator interactions. Ecol Lett 2007,
10:710-717.
42. Aronson J, Murcia C, Kattan GH, Moreno-Mateos D, Dixon K,
Simberloff D: The road to confusion is paved with novel
ecosystem labels: a reply to Hobbs et al.. Trends Ecol Evol 2014,
29:646-647.
49. Hering D, Schmidt-Kloiber A, Murphy J, Lücke S, ZamoraMuñoz C, López-Rodrı́guez MJ, Huber T, Graf W: Potential
impact of climate change on aquatic insects: a sensitivity
analysis for European caddisflies (Trichoptera) based on
distribution patterns and ecological preferences. Aquat Sci
2009, 71:3-14.
43. Hobbs RJ, Higgs ES, Harris JA: Novel ecosystems: concept or
inconvenient reality? A response to Murcia et al.. Trends Ecol
Evol 2014, 29:645-646.
44. Stein BAP, Glick, Edelson N, Staudt A (Eds): Climate-Smart
Conservation: Putting Adaptation Principles into Practice.
Washington, DC: National Wildlife Federation; 2014.
This guidance document was developed by an expert panel drawn from
federal and state agencies and non-governmental organizations. The report
provides a framework for designing and implementing conservation in the
context of a changing climate. The target audience for the report is natural
resource managers. However, it has value in this context as a window into
the unique challenges and opportunities that resource managers face when
conserving insects and other species in a changing climate.
45. Fisichelli NA, Schuurman GW, Hoffman CH: Is ‘Resilience’
maladaptive? Towards an accurate lexicon for climate change
adaptation. Environ Manage 2016, 57:753-758.
This paper critically examines the term ‘resilience’ in the context of natural
resource management in protected areas. The authors — members of the
National Park Service Climate Change Response Program — argue that
the term deserves scrutiny because it is ambiguous, often misunderstood,
and difficult to apply consistently across disciplines and spatial and
temporal scales to support conservation efforts. Because divergent concepts of climate change resilience impede cross-jurisdictional adaptation
efforts and complicate use of adaptive management frameworks, authors
argue in favor of language that distinguishes among strategies that seek to
resist change, accommodate change, and direct change, which they
identify as prerequisite to clear communication about climate change
adaptation goals and management intentions in conservation areas.
46. IPCC: Summary for policymakers. In Climate Change 2014:
Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral
Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Edited
by Field CB, Barros VR, Dokken DJ, Mach KJ, Mastrandrea MD,
Bilir TE, Chatterjee M, Ebi KL, Estrada YO., Genova RC.et al.:
Cambridge University Press; 2014:1-32.
47. Downing AS, van Nes EH, Mooij WM, Scheffer M: The resilience
and resistance of an ecosystem to a collapse of diversity.
PLoS ONE 2012, 7:e46135.
www.sciencedirect.com
50. Bried J, Tear T, Shirer R, Zimmerman C, Gifford N, Campbell S,
O’Brien K: A framework to integrate habitat monitoring and
restoration with endangered insect recovery. Environ Manage
2014, 54:1385-1398.
51. Hess RJ, Hess AN: Conserving Karner blue butterflies in
Wisconsin: a development of management techniques. Am
Entomol 2015, 61:96-113.
The authors are scientists and state natural resource biologists who have
been involved in management and recovery of the endangered Karner
blue butterfly in Wisconsin. This paper provides a chronology of the
evolution of management of an endangered species that occupies a large
area in Wisconsin. Insight is provided into the role science has played in
landscape level and local management and planning. Challenges arising
at the intersection of land and species management, ecological research,
and political and societal needs for an endangered insect are well
illustrated.
52. Canessa S, Guillera-Arroita G, Lahoz-Monfort JJ, Southwell DM,
Armstrong DP, Chadès I, Lacy RC, Converse SJ: When do we
need more data? A primer on calculating the value of
information for applied ecologists. Methods Ecol Evol 2015,
6:1219-1228.
53. Pielke RA Jr: The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in
Policy and Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press;
2007.
54. Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts: Wisconsin’s
Changing Climate: Impacts and Adaptation. 2011.
55. Kirchhoff CJ, Lemos MC, Kalafatis S: Narrowing the gap
between climate science and adaptation action: the role of
boundary chains. Clim Risk Manage 2015, 9:1-5.
56. Bentley P, Kyvik S: Academic staff and public communication:
a survey of popular science publishing across 13 countries.
Public Understand Sci 2011, 20:48-63.
Current Opinion in Insect Science 2016, 17:92–97