* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download A call to insect scientists: challenges and opportunities of managing
Hotspot Ecosystem Research and Man's Impact On European Seas wikipedia , lookup
Myron Ebell wikipedia , lookup
Soon and Baliunas controversy wikipedia , lookup
Global warming controversy wikipedia , lookup
Michael E. Mann wikipedia , lookup
Global warming wikipedia , lookup
Fred Singer wikipedia , lookup
ExxonMobil climate change controversy wikipedia , lookup
Climate change feedback wikipedia , lookup
Heaven and Earth (book) wikipedia , lookup
Climatic Research Unit email controversy wikipedia , lookup
General circulation model wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on human health wikipedia , lookup
Climate resilience wikipedia , lookup
Climate sensitivity wikipedia , lookup
Climatic Research Unit documents wikipedia , lookup
Economics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change denial wikipedia , lookup
Citizens' Climate Lobby wikipedia , lookup
Climate engineering wikipedia , lookup
Climate governance wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme wikipedia , lookup
Attribution of recent climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and agriculture wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Tuvalu wikipedia , lookup
Climate change adaptation wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in the United States wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Media coverage of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Public opinion on global warming wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on humans wikipedia , lookup
Scientific opinion on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report wikipedia , lookup
Climate change, industry and society wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
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