4.8 Article

Future impacts of climate change on inland Ramsar wetlands

期刊

NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 45-+

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41558-020-00942-2

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41722101, 41830643, 41671079]
  2. ERC Synergy grant [ERC-2013-SyG-610028 IMBALANCE-P]
  3. ANR CLAND convergence institute
  4. Second Tibetan Plateau Scientific Expedition and Research Program [2019QZKK0303]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The 1971 Ramsar Convention promotes wetland conservation worldwide, and this study finds that while global wetland area expanded from 1980 to 2014, there is projected net area loss by 2100 due to climate change. Different regions will experience varying degrees of wetland loss, with Mediterranean, Mexico, Central America, and South Africa being particularly vulnerable, all important for seasonal waterbird migration. Climate mitigation efforts are crucial for the future conservation of Ramsar wetlands, along with reducing human disturbance.
The 1971 Ramsar Convention promotes wetland conservation worldwide, yet climate change impacts on wetland extent and associated biodiversity are unclear. Hydrological modelling and soil moisture estimates are used to quantify climate change-driven shifts in wetland area across 1,250 inland Ramsar sites. We estimate that net global wetland area expanded during 1980-2014, but 47% of sites experienced wetland loss. By 2100, a net area loss of at least 6,000 km(2) (about 1%) is projected. The number of sites with area loss over 10% will increase by 19-65% under low emissions, 148-243% under high emissions and similar to 16% with global mean warming of 2 degrees C relative to 1.5 degrees C. Sites most vulnerable to shrinkage are located in the Mediterranean, Mexico, Central America and South Africa-all seasonal waterbird migration hotspots. Our findings highlight that climate mitigation is essential for future Ramsar wetlands conservation, in addition to the minimization of human disturbance.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据