Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Potential effects of climate change on members of the Palaeotropical pitcher plant family Nepenthaceae

  • Laura K. Gray,

    Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

  • Charles Clarke,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Resources, Validation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Australian Tropical Herbarium, James Cook University Cairns Campus, Cairns, Queensland, Australia

  • G. R. William Wint,

    Roles Formal analysis, Methodology, Resources, Software, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Spatial Ecology and Epidemiology Group, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom, Environmental Research Group Oxford (ERGO), Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

  • Jonathan A. Moran

    Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    jonathan.moran@royalroads.ca

    Affiliation School of Environment and Sustainability, Royal Roads University, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

Abstract

Anthropogenic climate change is predicted to have profound effects on species distributions over the coming decades. In this paper, we used maximum entropy modelling (Maxent) to estimate the effects of projected changes in climate on extent of climatically-suitable habitat for two Nepenthes pitcher plant species in Borneo. The model results predicted an increase in area of climatically-suitable habitat for the lowland species Nepenthes rafflesiana by 2100; in contrast, the highland species Nepenthes tentaculata was predicted to undergo significant loss of climatically-suitable habitat over the same period. Based on the results of the models, we recommend that research be undertaken into practical mitigation strategies, as approximately two-thirds of Nepenthes are restricted to montane habitats. Highland species with narrow elevational ranges will be at particularly high risk, and investigation into possible mitigation strategies should be focused on them.

Introduction

The monotypic Palaeotropical family Nepenthaceae (genus Nepenthes) is the largest family of pitcher plants, comprising approximately 140 species. Nutrients from prey captured by the pitchers are used to supplement those taken up from the nutrient-poor substrates on which Nepenthes predominantly occur [1]. The Nepenthaceae has an extensive geographical range across the Palaeotropics, from Madagascar through Southeast Asia, to New Caledonia; the centre of diversity encompasses the islands of Borneo, Sumatra, and the Philippines. The majority of Nepenthes species fall into two rather broad groupings, defined largely by their altitudinal distributions: so-called "lowland" species occur in habitats ranging from 0 m to approximately 1100 m above sea level (asl), whereas "highland" species are restricted to cooler, montane habitats, usually above 1100 m asl [23]. Beyond these two major groups, a few species occupy intermediate altitudinal ranges from approximately 700 to 1400 m asl; in addition, some species can occasionally be found growing above or below their typical altitudinal thresholds. In general terms, the Nepenthaceae can be considered a largely highland family, as approximately two-thirds of the currently-recognized species occur at altitudes > 1100 m asl [3].

As a genus, Nepenthes is characterized by narrow endemism: the majority of species have very small extents of occurrence. More than half of the highland species are either confined to a single mountain summit, or occur on a small number of peaks within a single mountain range. By contrast, many of the lowland species have extensive ranges. For example, Nepenthes mirabilis (Lour.) Rafarin extends throughout the lowlands of Southeast Asia, as far eastwards as New Guinea and northern Australia. Another widespread lowland species is Nepenthes rafflesiana Jack, which is abundant on nutrient-deficient substrates in the lowlands of the Malay Peninsula, Borneo, and parts of Sumatra. However, some lowland species also have highly circumscribed ranges. For example, Nepenthes campanulata Sh. Kurata is an obligate limestone endemic from Borneo, and occurs in a small geographical area determined by the very limited distribution of a particular type of limestone formation [4]. Although there appear to be multiple drivers of narrow endemism within Nepenthes (few of which are well-understood), the overwhelming pattern is one of species being confined to relatively small geographical areas, where they occupy specialized niches. Unfortunately, narrow endemics are thought to be at greater risk from stochastic and deterministic disturbances than widespread species [5]. Many parts of Southeast Asia, the insular regions in particular, continue to experience unprecedented levels of anthropogenic habitat disturbance and destruction [6]. Thus, there is an urgent need to assess the consequences of these threats to narrow endemic species.

Anthropogenically-driven climate change is one such threat, and is expected to have profound effects on ecosystems worldwide in the coming century. Climate-driven changes in species distributions, community structure and vegetation dynamics, are already being observed in several ecosystems [79]. Tropical montane ecosystems (including the cloud forests that support more than half of all known Nepenthes species) house a substantial proportion of global biodiversity, and are at particularly high risk of species extinction [1014].

Given the established vulnerability of tropical highland taxa to the effects of climate change, the current study was undertaken to compare the possible consequences of these effects on the extent of climatically-suitable habitat for two Nepenthes—one highland and one lowland species—from the island of Borneo. Specifically, we posed the following question: How will predicted anthropogenically-driven climate change affect the areas of climatically-suitable habitat for the two species examined?

Materials and methods

Study species

The two Bornean species included in this study where chosen to represent lowland and montane Nepenthes. The widespread lowland species N. rafflesiana has an altitudinal range between 0 and ca. 1200 m asl, although the vast majority of populations occur below 100 m asl [2]. Nepenthes tentaculata Hook. f. is a highland species, inhabiting mossy forest between 700 and 2400 m asl, with the vast majority of localities lying above 1200 m asl [2]. In Borneo, it is widely distributed in suitable montane habitat.

Geographical coordinates (10 m accuracy) were obtained by direct observation of populations of both species in the field by one of the authors (CC) from 1987–2012, supplemented with herbarium records. For the latter, locality data were obtained from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (http://www.gbif.org/), with erroneous records and localities outside Borneo being discarded. For N. rafflesiana, 36 records were retrieved, and 25 retained. Added to the original field observations (CC), this gave a total of 164 localities; for N. tentaculata, 55 points were retrieved and 38 retained. Combined with the original field observations, this gave a total of 54 localities. The retained records were cross-checked against personal observations of locations of both species made in the field by CC from 1987 to 2012. Only records that have been ground truthed were used in the study. The Maxent modelling software (see below) treated all data points within a 1 km polygon as a single datum. Therefore, the total effective numbers of localities were 139 and 52 for N. rafflesiana and N. tentaculata, respectively. The location data are available in S1 and S2 Datasets.

Climate data

Nineteen bioclimatic variables were used as predictors of suitable habitat [15]; we chose to use the Bioclim variables rather than meteorological data (e.g. mean monthly rainfall or temperature), as the former have been shown to be more useful for describing the meteorological constraints on the distributions of species [1618], and have been used successfully to model distributions of many plant taxa [1922]. They are publicly available as global climate grids at 30 arc-seconds (~ 1 km) resolution from the WorldClim dataset Version 1.4 (http://www.worldclim.org/bioclim) [15, 23]. The variables are summarized in Table 1.

Maxent modelling and evaluation

We used Maxent v. 3.3.3k [2426] to model habitat suitability on the island of Borneo independently for each species. Model outputs present an estimate of the probability of presence for a given species between 0 and 1 for each 30 arc-second pixel, with lower values indicating that the pixel represents less suitable habitat. Sample size for N. tentaculata was below the minimum of 80 observations necessary for the use of product or threshold feature types [27]; therefore, we adopted a conservative approach, using only linear and quadratic features for our model execution for both species. By excluding product features, we created a more easily-interpreted additive model [27].

In order to allow the model a sufficient number of iterations for convergence, we increased the maximum number of iterations from 500 (the default) to 5000. This reduced the likelihood of Maxent either over- or under-predicting habitat suitability. In addition, we accounted for potential geographic sampling bias in the data (which may have occurred due to differing degrees of accessibility between sampling locations), by selecting pseudo-absences from background data with a similar sampling bias to the occurrence data [28]. Bias layers for each species were constructed using the smallest administrative unit for each of the three countries on the island of Borneo (Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia); an administrative unit was selected for the bias file if a species observation occurred within its boundary [29]. The inclusion of the bias file in each species model ensured that the default 10,000 pseudo-absences used in model calculations were selected from the small-scale geographic units in which species observations were recorded, and not from the whole study area.

The performance of each species model was evaluated by setting the random test percentage to 30; seventy percent of the observations were randomly selected as a training data set and the remaining 30% were used to test the model. In order to estimate the robustness of model outputs, the replicates option was set at 10, so that the selection of training and test data from the species observations, as well as the calculation of performance statistics, were repeated. Model fit was evaluated as the average area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) across all ten model replicates. AUC is a widely-used, threshold-independent measure of model evaluation, which represents the probability that the model classifier will correctly identify a randomly-chosen true presence [3031]. AUC values range from 0 to 1, with a value of 0.5 representing a model that correctly identifies true species occurrences equal to a random guess, and a value of 1 indicating a perfect model fit. While an alternative jackknife or "leave-one-out" procedure has been suggested to evaluate model accuracy for small sample sizes [32], the number of observations for both species in the current study is at least one and a half times greater than in the study for which that procedure was recommended. Thus, to prevent overoptimistic estimates of predictive power, we opted to use the standard AUC calculations.

For examination of which bioclimatic variables were driving the models, we used "Permutation Importance". This represents a measure of decrease in training AUC resulting from randomly permuting values of that variable during the training phase of model development; thus, the decrease in training AUC is proportional to the importance of that variable to the model [25]. All modified parameters listed above were common across each species' Maxent model, with the exception of the bias files.

Model future projections

Using Maxent, the models for each species were projected onto climate surfaces for the 2020s, 2050s, and 2080s, which represent forecasted climate trends over individual 30-year periods (2001–2040, 2041–2070, and 2071–2100). These surfaces were obtained from the EDENext Data Management Team (EDENext DMT; http://www.edenextdata.com/). For each time period, the EDENext DMT utilized climate projections generated from WorldClim climate grids at 30 arc-seconds (~ 1km) resolution, prepared by four modeling groups for the IPCC 4th Assessment [33], and incorporating three SRES emission scenarios: A1b, A2s, and B2a [3435]. The modeling groups included HADLEY (Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office, United Kingdom), CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Australia), CCCMA (Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis), and CCSR/NEIS (Center for Climate System Research and National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan). To account for the variation in projected climate and provide a consensus average set of projections, EDENext DMT developed composite ensemble grids across all modelling groups and emission scenarios for each bioclimatic variable in each time period, using the mean value of the inputs for each pixel. Graphical outputs were produced using ArcMap v. 10.1 (Esri Inc., Redlands, CA, USA).

Results

Model evaluation

Model evaluation statistics for both species are presented in Table 1. Mean AUC values from model replicates were high for both species (0.88 and 0.99). The AUC value is a measure of model accuracy, where, for instance, a value of 0.88 indicates that 88% of the time a random sample from presence predictions will have a greater probability of presence than a random selection from absence predictions across all available probability thresholds. In general, AUC values greater than 0.7, 0.8, and 0.9 are considered fair, good and excellent, respectively [31].

Results from the Permutation Importance analyses (Table 1) show that the model for the lowland N. rafflesiana is driven primarily by mean temperature of the warmest quarter (26.5%) and precipitation of the wettest quarter (30.23%). In contrast, the model for the highland N. tentaculata is driven primarily by minimum temperature of the coldest month (30.57%), mean temperature of the coldest quarter (37.85%), and annual precipitation (22.31%).

N. tentaculata shows a higher model accuracy than N. rafflesiana (Table 1). These results are likely to be related to the more limited range of the former, which is a highland species: many studies have found that species distribution models for species with smaller ranges or narrower ecological tolerances have higher prediction accuracy than models developed for more widespread species [3639]. These studies conclude that the higher predictive accuracy is a result of the fact that it is easier to separate suitable from unsuitable habitat for species with restricted environmental tolerances or very specific habitat requirements. In addition, although anecdotal accounts of additional Bornean N. rafflesiana and N. tentaculata populations exist, we did not have sufficiently accurate geographical coordinate data to include them in the current study. Consequently, the estimated ranges of both these species are somewhat conservative and exclude patches of currently suitable, occupied habitat elsewhere in Borneo. This confers a high degree of conservatism upon the current and predicted distributions of suitable habitat.

While the sampling points do appear clustered in some areas (Figs 1 and 2), spatial autocorrelation was not deemed a significant concern in the current study. It has been argued that spatial autocorrelation in species distribution models is a concern when, for example, ecological or evolutionary processes prevent taxa from shifting their distributions [40]. For both N. rafflesiana and N. tentaculata, their relatively widespread observed occurrences suggest that such processes have not exerted strong constraints on these species shifting their distributions over time.

thumbnail
Fig 1. Modeled habitat suitability on the island of Borneo for the lowland species Nepenthes rafflesiana, using Maxent (n = 139 localities).

Habitat suitability is presented for the periods 1960–1990 (left panel), 2011–2040 (second panel), 2041–2070 (third panel), and 2071–2100 (right panel). Model results are overlaid onto an elevation map for illustration purposes. Probability of habitat suitability, ranging from 0 to 1, is plotted on a color scale, with orange representing values of 0.3–0.4, and dark blue representing values of 0.9–1. Areas with < 30% probability of habitat suitability are not illustrated. Inset boxes show higher resolution maps for areas of high occurrence. Scale bar refers to center row of images.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183132.g001

thumbnail
Fig 2. Modeled habitat suitability on the island of Borneo for the montane species Nepenthes tentaculata, using Maxent (n = 52 localities).

Habitat suitability is presented for the periods 1960–1990 (left panel), 2011–2040 (second panel), 2041–2070 (third panel), and 2071–2100 (right panel). Model results are overlaid onto an elevation map for illustration purposes. Probability of habitat suitability, ranging from 0 to 1, is plotted on a color scale, with orange representing values of 0.3–0.4, and dark blue representing values of 0.9–1. Areas with < 30% probability of habitat suitability are not illustrated. Inset boxes show higher resolution maps for areas of high occurrence. Scale bar refers to center row of images.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183132.g002

Predicted habitat suitability and changes in area of climatically suitable habitat

Graphical representations of modeled habitat suitability are presented in Figs 1 and 2 for N. rafflesiana and N. tentaculata, respectively. Modeled habitat suitability is presented for the periods 1960–1990 (current climate surfaces), 2011–2040, 2041–2070, and 2071–2100 (EDENext projections). The model results have been overlaid onto an elevation layer from the SRTM 90 m resolution Digital Elevation Database v. 4.1 [41]. The elevation layer was not used as a predictor variable in the Maxent modelling, and has been included in the Figs solely to illustrate the topographic characteristics of locations where each of the species currently occurs or may occur in the future. Probability of habitat suitability, ranging from 0 to 1, is plotted on a color scale, where orange represents values of 0.3–0.4 and dark blue represents values of 0.9–1. Areas with < 30% probability of being suitable habitat are not illustrated. The inset boxes show higher resolution maps for areas of high occurrence for each species. The estimated effects of climate change on variables identified by Permutation Importance analysis as driving the models are presented in Fig 3.

thumbnail
Fig 3. Projected changes in important Bioclim variables on the island of Borneo identified in Table 1.

Images represent changes in Bioclim variables relative to the 1961–1990 climate surfaces, projected to 2040, 2070, and 2100. Changes in temperature variables (Bio6, Bio10, and Bio11) are presented as °C; changes for precipitation variables (Bio12, Bio16) are presented as percentages.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183132.g003

Projected changes in area of climatically-suitable habitat (defined here as area denoting habitat suitability of ≥60%) are presented in Table 2. The 60% value represents a conservative approach [42]. N. rafflesiana is predicted to experience a small decrease in climatically-suitable area to 2040 and 2070 (-8 and -11%, respectively), then an increase of 111% by 2100. Climatically-suitable habitat for N. rafflesiana is constrained primarily by precipitation of the wettest quarter and mean temperature of the warmest quarter (Table 1). Comparisons of shifts in these two bioclimatic variables over our projection periods show that habitat losses along the northwestern coast are likely associated with an increase in mean temperature of warmest quarter of approximately 2°C in that region (Fig 3). Conversely, the projected increase in precipitation of the wettest quarter by 2100 in the southeastern corner of Borneo corresponds to where the expansion of climatically-suitable habitat for N. rafflesiana is the greatest (Fig 3). In contrast to N. rafflesiana, climatically-suitable habitat for N. tentaculata is predicted to undergo a 50% reduction by 2040, and an 89% reduction by 2100 (Table 2).

thumbnail
Table 2. Predicted net % change in area of climatically-suitable habitat relative to the 1961–1990 climate surfaces, for the periods 2011–2040, 2041–2070, and 2071–2100 for N. rafflesiana and N. tentaculata.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183132.t002

Discussion

Comparison of predicted effects on lowland and highland Nepenthes species

A recent review of the threats to carnivorous plants worldwide cited habitat loss to agriculture as the dominant anthropogenic pressure; other threats included over-collection of specimens, and pollution [43]. Neither species in the current study are significantly threatened by over-collection, land clearing or logging: the soils that support N. rafflesiana are too nutrient-poor to support agriculture, and much of the range occupied by N. tentaculata is in topography that precludes extensive logging, or in forest formations that are not desirable for harvest (CC, pers. obs.). However, our results suggest that climate change should be added to the list of threats to montane Nepenthes species. The degree of risk posed by climate change will be dependent to a large degree upon the elevational distributions of individual species and the characteristics of the niches they occupy on high mountain summits and ridges.

In the case of the lowland N. rafflesiana, the predicted increase in climatically-suitable habitat by 2100 based on climate projections needs to be viewed with a degree of caution. This species is not encountered in the lowland dipterocarp forests that typify the original natural cover of much of Southeast Asia; the requirements for botanical carnivory (low soil nutrient availability, high water availability and high incident radiation [44]) are seldom met in these forests [3]. Thus, much of the climatically-suitable habitat predicted by the model will be unavailable for colonization, due to edaphic and other constraints (however, see below for an exception to this general rule). N. rafflesiana is restricted largely to heath forest formations that have developed on acidic, nitrogen-poor sandy soils [2,45], and many—though by no means all—of these formations occur in low-lying, coastal areas. Projected increases in sea level as a result of climate change are predicted to have significant negative effects on the extent of coastal land in Borneo and other parts of Southeast Asia [4647]. In a recent study, it was estimated that coastal land losses of 1% and 15% might be expected for Borneo and the Philippines, respectively, in the event of a 1m rise in sea level [48]. Indeed, islands are at particularly high risk of inundation: a recent analysis of the exposure of island biodiversity hotspots to this particular risk, identified the islands of Sundaland (Borneo, Sumatra, and Java) and the Philippines as particularly vulnerable in this respect [49]. This region circumscribes the centre of diversity for Nepenthes. Thus, species that are restricted to the coastal lowlands of this area may be at risk of habitat loss, despite favorable future trends in suitable climate. That said, N. rafflesiana occurs up to ca. 1100 m asl, as do the majority of the lowland Bornean Nepenthes [3], and so is unlikely to face extinction as a direct result of sea level rise. Furthermore, the creation of new nutrient-deficient substrates, due to the removal of nutrient-rich top soil when lowland forest formations are cleared for development, can give rise to a vegetation type known as "Adinandra belukar", which resembles heath forest in many respects and supports many species that naturally occur in that forest type [50]. In many parts of Malaysia, Adinandra belukar is aggressively colonized by N. rafflesiana, as well as by Nepenthes gracilis Korth. Recent field observations conducted by CC demonstrate that N. rafflesiana is now conspicuous at a number of locations where it was rare or absent in the 1980s.

With regards to the montane N. tentaculata, the predictive models generated in the current study should come as little surprise, as similar reductions in suitable habitat for montane species have been predicted across multiple taxa and geographic regions [5154], and several studies have demonstrated changes in altitudinal distributions of plant and animal species at multi-decadal or even decadal scales [8,12,5556].

The effects of elevational range

Elevational range (ER) is the breadth of altitude encompassing the distribution of a species (i.e., the range between the lowest and highest elevations at which the species occurs), and has an effect on the vulnerability of montane taxa to climate change. For example, one recent study identified a strong negative relationship between ER and extinction risk in birds [57]. Elevational range can be thought of as providing an inverse measure of thermal specialization, and likely reflects the degree of inherent plasticity of a species (physiological and/or behavioral) in response to fluctuations in ambient conditions [58]. An exception to this may be species that are restricted to the summit of one mountain, as it is not possible to test whether or not the low ER for such species is due to lack of plasticity with regards to climatic conditions, or lack of upslope habitat. A frequency histogram of ERs of Nepenthes species is presented in Fig 4. It can be seen that the distribution is skewed heavily towards narrow ranges: out of 134 species, 28 (21% of the total) are confined to ranges ≤ 100 m, and 70 species (52%) have ranges of ≤ 500 m. It must be stressed that not all of the Nepenthes species with narrow ERs are montane; however, those that are, are likely to be subject to greater risk of extinction due to climate change. In this respect, several montane species appear to be at particularly high risk, including Nepenthes macrophylla (Marabini) Jebb & Cheek, which occurs only around the summit of Mount Trusmadi (ER ca. 450 m; JM pers. obs.), Nepenthes deaniana Macfarl, a species that is endemic to Thumb Peak (ER 110 m; CC pers. obs.), and Nepenthes murudensis Culham ex Jebb & Cheek, which is endemic to Mount Murud (ER 300 m [2]). Although high mountains such as Mount Kinabalu (Borneo, 4095 m asl) and Mount Doorman (New Guinea, 3557 m asl), may serve as refugia for montane endemic Nepenthes species during periods of elevated global temperatures, lower mountains are liable to act as "summit traps", which prevent sufficient uphill migration towards climatically-suitable zones to allow populations to persist [59]. Nepenthes species that are endemic to low mountains are thus at particular risk in a warming climate. The most prominent examples of this are in the mountains of Palawan (e.g., Mt. Victoria (Nepenthes attenboroughii A.S. Rob., S. McPherson & V.B. Heinrich), Thumb Peak (N. deaniana) and Sultan Peak (Nepenthes palawanensis S. McPherson, Cervancia, Chi. C. Lee, Jaunzems, Mey & A.S. Rob.)), the majority of which are < 1500 m in height.

thumbnail
Fig 4. Frequency histogram of elevational range (ER) for 134 Nepenthes species.

Data from Clarke and Moran (2015) [3].

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183132.g004

Limitations of the models

It is important to acknowledge the potential limitations on model accuracy imposed by an analysis carried out at 30 arc-second resolution in areas of high topographic variability. A 30 arc-second polygon (~ 1 km2) projected onto mountainous terrain, will almost certainly encompass a heterogeneous mix of highly-localized microhabitats that have been shaped by unique combinations of aspect, slope, prevailing winds, etc. Not all of these microhabitats will necessarily be suitable for a given highland Nepenthes species, many of which are almost exclusively confined to stunted vegetation on mountain summits and ridge tops (CC, pers. obs.). Thus, it is feasible that the area of habitat occupancy of a montane narrow endemic Nepenthes may be constrained not only by climatic conditions, but by highly localized environmental factors and processes that operate at levels below the scale of a 30 arc-second polygon. This has two broad implications: first, suitable niche habitats that are extremely restricted in area may not be detected and/or could persist (or arise) at spatial scales that are too fine to be captured by the model; and second, other environmental factors and processes may operate at very fine spatial scales and may have more or less influence over the distribution of a species than the temperature and rainfall patterns that can be detected at 30 arc-second resolution. Despite these potential sources of error, we believe that the models nonetheless provide valid predictions of the overall patterns regarding changes in the extent of climatically-suitable habitat.

Conclusions

The results of the current study suggest a rather bleak outlook for N. tentaculata, and a similar future could await several other montane Nepenthes species from the higher mountains of Borneo, such as Nepenthes lowii Hook.f., Nepenthes rajah Hook.f., Nepenthes villosa Hook. f. and N. macrophylla. Although the current study uses Bornean examples, it is important to note that the findings are applicable to Nepenthes species endemic to mountainous areas throughout the extensive geographical area occupied by the Nepenthaceae. It is worth reiterating the fact that the Nepenthaceae is largely a montane family, and particularly rich in cloud forest endemic species; in fact, only about one-third of Nepenthes species are restricted to lowland habitats [3]. Therefore, many montane endemic Nepenthes species outside of Borneo are potentially at risk from anthropogenic climate change. For instance, a number of species from Palawan are confined to the uppermost parts of the island's highest mountains. An example is N. attenboroughii, which is confined to the uppermost 100 m around the summit of a single mountain. Even a slight change to local temperature and rainfall patterns could be sufficient to threaten this species with extinction. By contrast, we believe that the genus as a whole is unlikely to succumb completely to the predicted effects of anthropogenically-driven climate change. Nepenthes are thought to have been in existence for tens of millions of years [2,60]. If this timescale is correct, the genus has likely endured equivalent or perhaps even greater climatic upheavals than those currently predicted.

In the long term, uphill forcing of montane species due to climate change will help to drive allopatric speciation. It can be expected that widely-dispersed populations on tropical mountain ranges will be forced upslope, causing them to split into discrete, thermally-isolated sub-populations [53]. This may be followed by genetic drift if the isolated populations persist for a sufficient number of generations, leading in some instances to reproductive barriers and consequent speciation [6162]. That the same process has occurred in Nepenthes in the past, is suggested by the current distribution of closely-related Bornean montane species such as N. villosa and N. macrophylla. The former occurs on Mount Kinabalu and Mount Tambuyukon, while the latter is restricted to Mount Trusmadi, 55 km to the south. A similar example is provided by the closely-related Bornean species N. lowii and Nepenthes ephippiata Danser [3]. Such separation into small subpopulations via uphill migration during past periods of elevated global temperatures, is probably responsible for the high degree of montane endemism currently observed in Nepenthes. However, this long-term prospect will be scant consolation for observers in the coming century, as several montane Nepenthes species with restricted ERs face increased risk of extinction, unless measures are taken to address the problem.

Possible future actions

We believe that there are a number of possible courses of action with regards to highland Nepenthes species with narrow ERs. These are not mutually exclusive, and a combination of in situ and ex situ approaches might be required to maintain sufficient genetic variability to allow persistence of a given species [63]. The possible options include:

  1. Collection of seeds of vulnerable species for long term storage in germplasm banks, planned so as to collect representative genetic variation of endangered populations. This ex situ approach has been suggested for vulnerable Mexican Quercus spp. and Pinus spp., as well as South American montane endemic plant species [51,63]. There are a number of large-scale seed banks in operation, such as the Millennium Seedbank [64]. However, the systematic collection, preparation (e.g. in situ drying) and long-term storage of seeds, would require considerable logistical resources; further, the administrative and legal hurdles associated with the collection of seeds from multiple regional and state jurisdictions, would be considerable. In the absence of suitable habitat for reintroduction, this strategy alone will be less than optimal. We emphatically do not recommend that private/individual initiatives be undertaken;
  2. Assisted upslope migration of seeds or seedlings of vulnerable highland species. Assisted migration has a highly controversial history [6571]. Although policy with regard to assisted migration is beyond the scope of this article, a number of papers provide frameworks that may be adaptable to Nepenthes conservation [7274]. Given the possibility of unintended ecological consequences from assisted migration, then if this strategy is to be considered at all, we recommend that small-scale trials be carried out, as has been done for North American forest tree species [7576]. In the case of montane Nepenthes species that have mutualistic associations with terrestrial mammals (N. lowii, N. macrophylla, and N. rajah [7779]), decisions regarding assisted migration will need to take into account the presence/absence of the mammalian partner(s) at sites selected for seed or seedling translocation. There is also the possibility that translocated Nepenthes populations may not encounter the spectrum of potential prey taxa that they have evolved to attract and capture;
  3. Establishment of metapopulations that include patches of suitable habitat not currently inhabited by the target species [80]. Species that are currently restricted to the summit areas of lower mountains (and thus, potentially headed for "summit traps" [59]) would be potential candidates for this strategy. This third option would entail the establishment of new populations, for instance on mountains that do not currently support the target species. New populations established in climatically-suitable habitat would need to be close enough to other populations (existing or newly-established) to allow free gene flow, and research would need to be undertaken into seed dispersal ranges for the target species to ensure this.

However, a significant danger of this approach is the very real possibility of hybridization with congeners already present at the new sites [81]. Given the facility with which Nepenthes species hybridize under natural conditions [2,82], the potential for introgression exists, especially if both species flower at the same time of year. Should hybrid progeny be allowed to persist at the new site, the potential exists for the generation of a reproductively-independent hybrid swarm. Intervention to remove unwanted hybrid progeny would be time-consuming, logistically difficult, and expensive. In the case of highland Nepenthes that have resource-exchange mutualistic associations with small terrestrial mammals (N. lowii, N. rajah, and N. macrophylla), pitcher shape, proportions, scent and color are finely tuned to the geometry and sensory modalities of their mammalian partners [7779,83]. It is unlikely that hybrids between these and more "typical" species would produce pitchers of the required geometry to maintain this association. Thus, introgression would result in the reduction in number of these specialist pitchers, potentially causing local collapse of the mutualistic association.

Consequently, investigations into the feasibility of this third option should focus on identification of suitable patches of future habitat within protected areas, as well as constraints on seed dispersal by target species, and possible negative consequences to the receiving ecosystem (especially the potential for hybridization). Option 3 would be the riskiest of the potential actions outlined here, and investigation into its feasibility would need to be undertaken with a commensurately high degree of caution. We include this option in order to stimulate discussion, not as an endorsement.

Supporting information

S1 Dataset. Location coordinates for Nepenthes rafflesiana in Borneo.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183132.s001

(CSV)

S2 Dataset. Location coordinates for Nepenthes tentaculata in Borneo.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183132.s002

(CSV)

Acknowledgments

We thank A. Moran, L. Kumar and two anonymous referees for helpful comments on the manuscript. For Ben (2005–2017).

References

  1. 1. Juniper BE, Robins RJ, Joel DM. The carnivorous plants. London: Academic Press; 1989.
  2. 2. Clarke C. Nepenthes of Borneo. Kota Kinabalu: Natural History Publications; 1997.
  3. 3. Clarke C, Moran JA. Climate, soils and vicariance—their roles in shaping the diversity and distribution of Nepenthes in Southeast Asia. Plant Soil. 2016; 403: 37–51.
  4. 4. Clarke C, Lee CC, Enar V. Observations of the natural history and ecology of Nepenthes campanulata. Carn Plant Newslett. 2014; 43: 7–13.
  5. 5. Marrero-Gómez MV, Oostermeijer JGB, Carqué-Álamo E, Bañares-Baudet A. Population viability of the narrow endemic Helianthemum juliae (CISTACEAE) in relation to climate variability. Biol Conserv. 2007; 136: 552–562.
  6. 6. Miettinen J, Dhi C, Liew SC. Deforestation rates in insular Southeast Asia between 2000 and 2010. Global Change Biol. 2011; 17: 2261–2270.
  7. 7. Parmesan C. Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2006; 37: 637–669.
  8. 8. Kopp CW, Cleland EE. Shifts in plant species elevational range limits and abundances observed over nearly five decades in a western North America mountain range. J Veg Sci. 2014; 25: 135–146.
  9. 9. Krishnaswamy J, John R, Joseph S. Consistent response of vegetation dynamics to recent climate change in tropical mountain regions. Global Change Biol. 2014; 20: 203–215.
  10. 10. Loope LL, Giambelluca TW. Vulnerability of island tropical montane cloud forests to climate change, with special reference to East Maui, Hawaii. Clim Chang. 1998; 39: 503–517.
  11. 11. Foster P. The potential negative impacts of global climate change on tropical montane cloud forests. Earth-Sci Rev. 2001; 55: 73–106.
  12. 12. Raxworthy CJ, Pearson RG, Rabibisoa N, Rakotondrazafy AM, Ramanamanjato J-B, Raselimanana AP, et al. Extinction vulnerability of tropical montane endemism from warming and upslope displacement: a preliminary appraisal for the highest massif in Madagascar. Global Change Biol. 2008; 14: 1704–1720.
  13. 13. La Sorte FA, Jetz W. Projected range contractions of montane biodiversity under global warming. Proc R Soc B. 2010; 277: 3401–3410. pmid:20534610
  14. 14. Boehmer HJ. Vulnerability of tropical montane rain forest ecosystems due to climate change. In: Brauch H.G. et al., editors. Coping with global environmental change, disasters and security, Hexagon Series on Human and Environmental Security and Peace. 2011; 5: 789–802.
  15. 15. Hijmans RJ, Cameron SE, Parra JL, Jones PG, Jarvis A. Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int J Climatol. 2005; 25: 1965–1978.
  16. 16. Graham CH, Hijmans RJ. A comparison of methods for mapping species ranges and species richness. Glob Ecol Biogeog. 2006; 15: 578–587.
  17. 17. Murienne J, Guilbert E, Grandcolas P. Species’ diversity in the New Caledonian endemic genera Cephalidiosus and Nobarnus (Insecta: Heteroptera: Tingidae), an approach using phylogeny and species’ distribution modelling. Biol J Linnean Soc. 2009; 97: 177–184.
  18. 18. Moran JA, Gray LK, Clarke C, Chin L. Capture mechanism in palaeotropical pitcher plants (Nepenthaceae) is constrained by climate. Ann Bot. 2013; 112: 1279–1291. pmid:23975653
  19. 19. Kumar S, Stohlgren TJ, Chong GW. Spatial heterogeneity influences native and non- native plant species richness. Ecology. 2006; 87: 3186–3199. pmid:17249242
  20. 20. Guisan A, Graham CH, Elith J, Huettmann F. Sensitivity of predictive species distribution models to change in grain size. Diversity and Distribution. 2007; 13: 332–340.
  21. 21. Guisan A, Zimmermann NE, Elith J, Graham CH. Phillips S, Peterson AT. What matters for predicting the occurrences of trees: techniques, data or species' characteristics? Ecological Monographs. 2007; 77: 615–630.
  22. 22. Kumar S, Stohlgren TJ. Maxent modeling for predicting suitable habitat for threatened and endangered tree Canacomyrica monticola in New Caledonia. J Ecol Nat Environ. 2009; 1: 94–98.
  23. 23. Hutchinson MF. Interpolating mean rainfall using thin plate smoothing splines. Int J Geogr Inf Syst. 1995; 9: 385–403.
  24. 24. Phillips SJ, Dudík M, Schapire RE. A maximum entropy approach to species distribution modeling. Proceedings of the Twenty-First International Conference on Machine Learning. 2004; 655–662.
  25. 25. Phillips SJ, Anderson RP, Schapire RE. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol Model. 2006; 190: 231–259.
  26. 26. Phillips SJ, Dudík M. Modeling of species distributions with Maxent: new extensions and a comprehensive evaluation. Ecography. 2008; 31: 161–175.
  27. 27. Elith J, Phillips SJ, Hastie T, Dudík M, Chee YE, Yates CJ. A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists. Divers Distrib. 2011; 17: 43–57.
  28. 28. Phillips SJ, Dudík M, Elith J, Graham CH, Lehmann A, Leathwick J, et al. Sample selection bias and presence-only distribution models: implications for background and pseudo-absence data. Ecol Appl. 2009; 19: 181–197. pmid:19323182
  29. 29. Young N, Carter L, Evangelista P. A MaxEnt Model v3.3.3e Tutorial (ArcGIS v10). http://ibis.colostate.edu/WebContent/WS/ColoradoView/TutorialsDownloads/A_Maxent _Model_v7.pdf; 2011.
  30. 30. Fielding AH, Bell JF. A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environ Conserv. 1997; 24: 38–49.
  31. 31. Fawcett T. An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recogn Lett. 2006; 27: 861–874.
  32. 32. Pearson RG, Raxworthy CJ, Nakamura M, Townsend Peterson A. Predicting species distributions from small numbers of occurrence records: a test case using cryptic geckos in Madagascar. J Biogeog. 2007; 34: 102–117.
  33. 33. Solomon S. Climate change 2007-the physical science basis: Working group I contribution to the fourth assessment report of the IPCC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007.
  34. 34. Nakicenovic N, Alcamo J, Davis G, de Vries B, Fenhann J, Gaffin S, et al. IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.
  35. 35. Moss RH, Edmonds JA, Hibbard KA, Manning MR, Rose SK, Van Vuuren DP, et al. The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature. 2010; 463: 747–756. pmid:20148028
  36. 36. Segurado P, Araújo MB. An evaluation of methods for modelling species distributions. J Biogeog. 2004; 31: 1555–1568.
  37. 37. Hernandez PA, Graham CH, Master LL, Albert DL. The effect of sample size and species characteristics on performance of different species distribution modeling methods. Ecography. 2006; 29: 773–785.
  38. 38. Syphard AD, Franklin J. Differences in spatial predictions among species distribution modeling methods vary with species traits and environmental predictors. Ecography. 2009; 32: 907–918.
  39. 39. Anderson RP, Gonzalez I. Species-specific tuning increases robustness to sampling bias in models of species distributions: an implementation with Maxent. Ecol Model. 2011; 222: 2796–2811.
  40. 40. Record S, Fitzpatrick MC, Finley AO, Veloz S, Ellison AM. Should species distribution models account for spatial autocorrelation? A test of model projections across eight millennia of climate change. Global Ecology and Biogeography. 2013; 22: 760–771.
  41. 41. Jarvis A, Reuter HI, Nelson A, Guevara E. Hole-filled SRTM for the globe Version 4. Available from the CGIAR-CSI SRTM 90m Database (http://srtm.csi.cgiar.org); 2008.
  42. 42. Elith J, Graham CH. Do they? How do they? WHY do they differ? On finding reasons for differing performances of species distribution models. Ecography. 2009; 32: 66–77.
  43. 43. Jennings DE, Rohr JR. A review of the conservation threats to carnivorous plants. Biol Conserv. 2011; 144: 1356–1363.
  44. 44. Givnish TJ, Burkhardt EL, Happel RE, Weintraub JD. Carnivory in the bromeliad Brocchinia reducta with a cost/benefit model for the general restriction of carnivorous plants to sunny, moist, nutrient poor habitats. Am Nat. 1984; 124: 479–497.
  45. 45. Moran JA, Barker MG, Moran AJ, Becker P, Ross SM. A comparison of the soil water, nutrient status and litterfall characteristics of tropical heath and mixed dipterocarp forest sites in Brunei. Biotropica. 2000; 32: 2–13.
  46. 46. Johnson JA. Assessing the impact of climate change in Borneo. Washington: World Wildlife Fund; 2012.
  47. 47. Wetzel FT, Kissling WD, Beissmann H, Penn DJ. Future climate change driven sea- level rise: secondary consequences from human displacement for island biodiversity. Global Change Biol. 2012; 18: 2707–2719.
  48. 48. Wetzel FT, Beissmann H, Penn DJ, Jetz W. Vulnerability of terrestrial island invertebrates to projected sea-level rise. Global Change Biol. 2013; 19: 2058–2070.
  49. 49. Bellard C, Leclerc C, Courchamp F. Impact of sea level rise on the 10 insular biodiversity hotspots. Global Ecol Biogeogr. 2014; 23: 203–212.
  50. 50. Sim JWS, Tan HTW, Turner IM. Adinandra belukar: an anthropogenic heath forest in Singapore. Vegetatio. 1992; 102: 125–137.
  51. 51. Gómez-Mendoza L, Arriaga L. Modeling the effect of climate change on the distribution of oak and pine species of Mexico. Conserv Biol. 2007; 21: 1545–1555. pmid:18173478
  52. 52. Lawler JJ, Shafer SL, Bancroft BA, Blaustein AR. Projected climate impacts for the amphibians of the Western Hemisphere. Conserv Biol. 2009; 24: 38–50.
  53. 53. Forero-Medina G, Joppa L, Pimm SL. Constraints to species' elevational range shifts as climate changes. Conserv Biol. 2010; 25: 163–171. pmid:21198846
  54. 54. Schwallier R, Raes N, de Boer HJ, Vos RA, van Vught RR, Gravendeel B. Phylogenetic analysis of niche divergence reveals distinct evolutionary histories and climate change implications for tropical carnivorous pitcher plants. Divers Distrib. 2016; 22: 97–110.
  55. 55. Telwala Y, Brook BW, Manish K, Pandit MK. Climate-induced range shifts and increase in plant species richness in a Himalayan biodiversity epicentre. PLoS ONE. 2013; 8, e57103. pmid:23437322
  56. 56. Warren RJ, Chick L. Upward ant distribution shift corresponds with minimum, not maximum, temperature tolerance. Global Change Biol. 2013; 19: 2082–2088.
  57. 57. Şekercioğlu ÇH, Schneider SH, Fay JP, Loarie SR. Climate change, elevational range shifts, and bird extinctions. Conserv Biol. 2008; 22: 140–150. pmid:18254859
  58. 58. Laurance WF, Useche DC, Shoo LP, Herzog SK, Kessler M, Escobar F, et al. Global warming, elevational ranges and the vulnerability of tropical biota. Biol Conserv. 2011; 144: 548–557.
  59. 59. Sauer J, Domisch S, Nowak C, Haase P. Low mountain ranges: summit traps for montane freshwater species under climate change. Biodivers Conserv. 2011; 20: 3133–3146.
  60. 60. Danser BH. The Nepenthaceae of the Netherlands Indies. Bull Jard Bot Buitenzorg Série III. 1928; 9: 249–438.
  61. 61. Carstens BC, Knowles LL. Shifting distributions and speciation: species divergence during rapid climate change. Molecular Ecol. 2007; 16: 619–627.
  62. 62. Cadena CD, Kozak KH, Gómez JP, Parra JL, McCain CM, Bowie RCK, et al. Latitude, elevational climatic zonation, and speciation in New World vertebrates. Proc R Soc B. 2012; 279: 194–201. pmid:21632626
  63. 63. Rull V, Vegas-Vilarrúbia T, Nogué S, Huber O. Conservation of the unique neotropical vascular flora of the Guayana Highlands in the face of global warming. Conserv Biol. 2009; 23: 1323–1327. pmid:19549217
  64. 64. Griffiths KE, Balding ST, Dickie JB, Lewis GP, Pearce TR, Grenyer R. Maximizing the phylogenetic diversity of seed banks. Conserv Biol. 2014; 29: 370–381. pmid:25196170
  65. 65. Hunter ML. Climate change and moving species: furthering the debate on assisted colonization. Conserv Biol. 2007; 21:1356–1358. pmid:17883502
  66. 66. 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. pmid:17391179
  67. 67. Vitt P, Havens K, Kramer AT, Sollenberger D, Yates E. Assisted migration of plants: changes in latitudes, changes in attitudes. Biol Conserv. 2010; 143: 18–27.
  68. 68. Hewitt N, Klenk N, Smith AL, Bazely DR, Yan N, Wood S, et al. Taking stock of the assisted migration debate. Biol Conserv. 2011; 144: 2560–2572.
  69. 69. Lunt ID, Byrne M, Hellmann JJ, Mitchell NJ, Garnett ST, Hayward MW, et al. Using assisted colonisation to conserve biodiversity and restore ecosystem function under climate change. Biol Conserv. 2013; 157: 172–177.
  70. 70. Neff MW, Larson BMH. Scientists, managers, and assisted colonization: four contrasting perspectives entangle science and policy. Biol Conserv. 2014; 172: 1–7.
  71. 71. Palmer C, Larson BMH. Should we move the whitebark pine? Assisted migration, ethics and global environmental change. Environ Values. 2014; 23: 641–662.
  72. 72. Schwartz MW, Hellmann JJ, Mclachlan JM, Sax DF, Borevitz JO, Brennan J, et al. Managed relocation: integrating the scientific, regulatory, and ethical challenges. BioScience. 2012; 62: 732–743.
  73. 73. Richardson DM, Hellmann JJ, McLachlan JS, Sax DF, Schwartz MW, Gonzalez P, et al. Multidimensional evaluation of managed relocation. PNAS. 2009; 106: 9721–9724. pmid:19509337
  74. 74. Sansilvestri R, Frascaria-Lacoste N, Fernández-Manjarrés JF. Reconstructing a deconstructed concept: policy tools for implementing assisted migration for species and ecosystem management. Environ Sci Policy. 2015; 51: 192–201.
  75. 75. Gray LK, Gylander T, Mbogga MS, Chen P-Y, Hamann A. Assisted migration to address climate change: recommendations for aspen reforestation in western Canada. Ecol Appl. 2011; 21: 1591–1603. pmid:21830704
  76. 76. McLane SC, Aitken SN. Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) assisted migration potential: testing establishment north of the species range. Ecol Appl. 2012; 22: 142–153. pmid:22471080
  77. 77. Clarke CM, Bauer U, Lee CC, Tuen AA, Rembold K, Moran JA. Tree shrew lavatories: a novel nitrogen sequestration strategy in a tropical pitcher plant. Biol Lett. 2009; 5: 632–635. pmid:19515656
  78. 78. Chin L, Moran JA, Clarke C. Trap geometry in three giant montane pitcher plant species from Borneo is a function of tree shrew body size. New Phytol. 2010; 186: 461–470. pmid:20100203
  79. 79. Moran JA, Clarke C, Greenwood M, Chin L. Tuning of colour contrast signals to visual sensitivity maxima of tree shrews by three Bornean highland Nepenthes species. Plant Signal Behav. 2012; 7: 1267–1270. pmid:22902686
  80. 80. Thomas CD. Translocation of species, climate change, and the end of trying to recreate past ecological communities. TREE. 2011; 26: 216–221. pmid:21411178
  81. 81. Ricciardi A, Simberloff D. Assisted colonization is not a viable conservation strategy. TREE. 2009; 24: 248–253. pmid:19324453
  82. 82. Clarke C. Nepenthes of Sumatra and Peninsular Malaysia. Kota Kinabalu: Natural History Publications; 2001.
  83. 83. Wells K, Lakim MB, Schulz S, Ayasse M. Pitchers of Nepenthes rajah collect faecal droppings from both diurnal and nocturnal small mammals and emit fruity odour. J Trop Ecol. 2011; 27: 347–353.