Climate change and conservation of threatened tree species in the Doce River Basin: an ecological niche modeling approach

Résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Tropical forests, particularly the Atlantic Forest, are among the most biodiverse and threatened ecosystems on Earth. Intense fragmentation, historical deforestation, and climate change have compromised their integrity and endangered endemic and rare species. The situation is even more critical in the Doce River Basin (DRB), a biodiversity hotspot in southeastern Brazil, due to the expansion of pastureland and mining, as well as the 2015 Mariana disaster. Understanding how future climate may affect the persistence of threatened tree species in the region is essential. This study evaluated the effects of climate scenarios on the distribution of 26 rare and/or threatened tree species in the DRB. We used Species Distribution Models (SDMs), combining algorithms (GLM, RDF, SVM, MaxEnt) into a consensus ensemble model under SSP3-7.0 and SSP5-8.5 scenarios for 2050 and 2090. Climatic, topographic, and edaphic variables were predictors, with climate explaining most environmental variation. Among the 26 species, 19 are projected to lose over 75% of their suitable area, with local extinction likely for range-restricted and specialized species such as Handroanthus arianeae and Grazielodendron rio-docensis . Species associated with mature forests and humid microclimates were most severely affected, while some generalists showed resilience, maintaining or expanding suitable areas. Although all species retain some suitable habitats within Protected Areas (PAs), results indicate the current PA network will be insufficient for long-term conservation. Complementary strategies such as assisted translocation, habitat connectivity, and priority-area identification based on climate projections are needed. This study provides critical insights for policies and land-use planning aimed at conserving the DRB’s threatened flora.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.