Next Article in Journal
Antioxidative Response and Phenolic Content of Young Industrial Hemp Leaves at Different Light and Mycorrhiza
Previous Article in Journal
Non-Destructive Near-Infrared Technology for Efficient Cannabinoid Analysis in Cannabis Inflorescences
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 13
Issue 6
10.3390/plants13060839
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effects of Climate Change on the Distribution of Prosthechea mariae (Orchidaceae) and within Protected Areas in Mexico

by
José Luis Alanís-Méndez
1,
Víctor Soto
2 and
Francisco Limón-Salvador
1,*
1
Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas y Agropecuarias, Universidad Veracruzana, Región Poza Rica-Tuxpan, Tuxpan 92870, Veracruz, Mexico
2
Centro de Ciencias de la Tierra, Universidad Veracruzana, Xalapa 91090, Veracruz, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2024, 13(6), 839; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13060839
Submission received: 15 October 2023 / Revised: 7 December 2023 / Accepted: 19 December 2023 / Published: 14 March 2024
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The impact of climate change on the distribution of native species in the Neotropics remains uncertain for most species. Prosthechea mariae is an endemic epiphytic orchid in Mexico, categorized as threatened. The objective of this study was to assess the effect of climate change on the natural distribution of P. mariae and the capacity of protected areas (PAs) to safeguard optimal environmental conditions for the species in the future. Historical records were obtained from herbaria collections and through field surveys. We utilized climate variables from WorldClim for the baseline scenario and for the 2050 period, using the general circulation models CCSM4 and CNRM-CM5 (RCP 4.5). Three sets of climate data were created for the distribution models, and multiple models were evaluated using the kuenm package. We found that the species is restricted to the eastern region of the country. The projections of future scenarios predict not only a substantial reduction in habitat but also an increase in habitat fragmentation. Ten PAs were found within the current distribution area of the species; in the future, the species could lose between 36% and 48% of its available habitat within these PAs. The results allowed for the identification of locations where climate change will have the most severe effects, and proposals for long-term conservation are addressed.

1. Introduction

The increase in greenhouse gas concentrations has been altering the Earth’s climate since the early 20th century. Projections from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [1] indicate a global average temperature rise of 2–3 °C by the end of this century, with uncertain effects. In Mexico, the consequences of current climate forcing will be experienced to varying degrees across its diverse ecosystems. However, due to the topographical heterogeneity and resulting microclimates, the most pronounced impacts are observed in mountainous regions [2,3,4].
It is worth noting that even minor variations in rainfall patterns and temperature fluctuations can disrupt the ecological balance and pose potential threats to the different species which are dependent on them [5]. Conversely, climatic variability can also benefit certain species, leading to an expansion of their distribution range [6,7,8,9]. Regardless of the intensity and direction of these impacts, both flora and fauna will undergo ecological changes, potentially resulting in shifts in distribution, abundance, range, and ecosystem imbalances due to invasions and public health concerns, among other factors [10,11,12,13].
Several studies have been conducted in global flora research that integrate the spatiotemporal variation of climate elements and the distribution of different species dependent on them. These studies encompass tropical environments [14,15], circumpolar regions [11,16], and mountainous areas [17]. Some of these works are particularly significant as they analyze the climate impact on species with varying threat levels [9,18], especially endemic species [4,19].
In Mexico, protected areas (PAs) have been an effective conservation strategy since 1917 to preserve biodiversity and maintain ecosystem balance, especially for species with varying threat levels [20]. Given the diverse environments in Mexican territory, terrestrial conservation areas are distributed throughout the country, including mountainous regions on the eastern slope, such as the state of Veracruz, which is renowned for its rich and diverse ecosystems [21,22,23].
Species distribution models have proven to be effective predictive tools for spatially representing environmental suitability zones based on physiological requirements at different spatial scales [24,25,26,27]. These models have been refined over the past decade to study evolution, distribution, and conservation [28], particularly in the context of climate change [29,30,31].
The MaxEnt maximum entropy algorithm is the most widely used open-source tool for estimating the potential distribution of species based on the correlation of environmental variables [32,33,34]. In Mexico, MaxEnt has been successfully used to estimate the current and future potential distribution of plants, as well as for conservation purposes [35,36,37,38,39,40].
From a climatic perspective, each species is adapted to specific conditions of temperature, humidity, insolation, and other factors that determine their optimal physiology [41,42,43]. When climate variables surpass these thresholds, species are compelled to persist in suboptimal conditions or migrate to new areas in search of climatic comfort. However, the process of adaptation for plant species, if it occurs, often takes a significant amount of time [44,45,46], thereby exposing species to the risk of extinction during this process [47].
Prosthechea mariae (Ames) W.E.Higgins (Figure 1) also known by the synonyms Encyclia mariae (Ames), Epidendrum mariae (Ames) or Euchile mariae (Ames), is an orchid species endemic to Mexico. This species features diminutive pseudobulbs and white flowers adorned with central green veins. It is an epiphytic species highly valued for its ornamental appeal; consequently, it is subjected to excessive and illegal collection. Moreover, its wild populations have dwindled due to continual habitat destruction.
Despite its endemism and the significant threat it faces, little is known about its distribution. Considering the current climatic variability, this study aims to investigate the potential impacts of climate change on the distribution of the rare and endemic epiphytic orchid Prosthechea mariae within Mexico’s protected areas. The study employs the MaxEnt algorithm as the foundation for devising conservation strategies.

2. Results

2.1. Potential Distribution and Future Scenarios of P. mariae

Geographic projections from the models identified an area of 11,434 km2 currently suitable for P. mariae (Figure 2a). These suitable conditions are primarily found in oak and pine–oak forest vegetation, with small portions also occurring in deciduous lowland jungle and cloud forest. Our models indicate that the species is present in the states of Tamaulipas, San Luis Potosí, Veracruz, Querétaro, and Hidalgo. Additionally, suitable conditions for its distribution were identified in Puebla, where no historical records are available. Based on observation records, the greatest distance between records is 280 linear km.
In terms of future climate scenarios, both general circulation models, considering a moderate representative concentration pathway 4.5 (RCP4.5) for the year 2050, consistently predict a reduction in the extent of areas maintaining suitable conditions for P. mariae (Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4). The projected suitable area for the species would decrease to 7768 km2 (CNRM-CM5) and 4098 km2 (CCSM4), representing a loss of optimal conditions for the species’ distribution ranging from 32.06% to 64.16%, respectively.
Furthermore, the projections from both models indicate not only a significant habitat loss but also severe fragmentation, resulting in reduced connectivity. In this scenario, patches of varying sizes with suitable conditions for the species are dispersed throughout the current region of its habitat. These patches are separated by large distances, with at least 90 km between them, as observed in the CCSM4 model (Figure 2c). Both models also predict a latitudinal shift in the species’ distribution, extending towards both the north and south compared to its current range.

2.2. Species Protection under the Protected Areas Network

There are ten protected areas (PAs) located within the distribution area of the species, with six being of state domain and four being of federal competence. Combined, these PAs cover an area of 9410 km2 (Table 1). Although there are other PAs within the buffer considered in the modeling (area M), they were not included in the results as they do not intersect with the potential distribution of the species.
In the current scenario, these ten PAs collectively safeguard 2718 km2 of suitable habitat for the species. This means that the PAs protect 28.89% of the suitable conditions for the species (Table 1). However, under future scenarios, this protected area decreases to 18.25% (CNRM-CM5). In the CCSM4 scenario, the situation is even more concerning, with the protected area decreasing to 15% and resulting in the loss of protection for three PAs (Table 1). These findings indicate that the species could potentially lose between 36.8% and 48.1% of its currently available habitat within the PAs.

3. Discussion

The present study is focused on assessing the potential distribution of Prosthechea mariae and its conservation within protected areas (PAs) in the face of climate change. Our findings indicate that the species is currently limited to the eastern region of the country, particularly the Huasteca area. However, projected climate change scenarios suggest a significant decrease in the species’ potential distribution, ranging from 32% to 64%. Moreover, the capacity of PAs to safeguard suitable conditions for the species is also expected to decline, protecting only 18.2% to 15% of the habitat by 2050.

3.1. Potential Distribution and Future Scenarios of P. mariae

The models identified a potential expansion of the species’ suitable distribution area in the eastern part of the country, particularly in the Huasteca region, encompassing Tamaulipas, San Luis Potosí, Hidalgo, Puebla, and Veracruz [48,49,50]. This finding aligns with historical collection records and information reported by Soto-Arenas [48] regarding the species’ distribution. However, the likelihood of the species being present in the southern distribution, despite favorable environmental conditions indicated by the model, is considered very low. This is primarily due to the absence of records in those parts of Mexico, even though the flower of P. mariae is highly distinctive and easily recognizable.
The results demonstrate a reduction in suitable habitat under future climate conditions, with a shift in suitable zones towards the northern with regard to the current distribution, potentially influenced by a less warm climate. Similar to other studies on various biological groups, air warming is expected to drive species migration towards higher latitudes, and the rate of northward migration is positively associated with the degree of air temperature increasing [10,51,52,53].
The findings suggest that climate change poses a significant threat to P. mariae, despite the uncertainties inherent in the use of different general circulation models and representative concentration pathways. All model projections predict a drastic reduction in the availability of suitable habitat by 2050 (2041–2060). These projections indicate that areas with suitable climatic conditions for the species will become substantially smaller compared to the current distribution (Figure 2b,c).
Moreover, the projections indicate habitat fragmentation, with climatically suitable conditions for the species being confined to isolated patches of habitat, often separated by distances of 90 km or more (Figure 2b,c). It should be noted that the migration predicted in this study is solely based on the response of P. mariae to climate change and does not consider geographical barriers, dispersal capacity, and other factors that could further limit the actual habitat size. Migration capacity plays a crucial role in species’ adaptation to future climate change and is influenced by competition from existing plant communities, anthropogenic habitat fragmentation, and the loss of dispersal agents [54,55].
Despite these unfavorable scenarios, the species may have a chance of survival if it can tolerate and maintain stable populations under climatic conditions different from the current ones [46]. This possibility requires further evaluation through physiological studies, as some species have shown the ability to cope with climate change effects due to inherent phenotypic plasticity in physiological traits [56] or rapid niche shifts [57,58]. However, it is unlikely that niche shifts in P. mariae would occur within just five decades, given the limited information available on the genus, which suggests relatively small population sizes and annual generation times [59,60,61].

3.2. Analysis of the Environmental Protection of Protected Areas

Climate change is predicted to have global impacts across all environments. However, assessing the effects of climate change on protected areas is a priority for the long-term preservation of species, as these areas are typically established in regions known for their high biodiversity. Previous studies [62,63,64,65] have shown that protected areas can effectively safeguard environmental conditions for certain species, while for others [66,67,68], these conditions may be insufficient. Despite approximately 12% of the world’s terrestrial habitat being covered by protected areas, many of them fail to adequately protect biodiversity and ecological processes [69]. Human activities that modify vegetation within protected areas and their surrounding zones are among the main reasons for this failure [70].
In the case of P. mariae conservation, the species becomes more vulnerable due to the anticipated reduction in the proportion of land with suitable climatic conditions within the protected areas network by 2050 (Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4). The models indicate a potential shift in the species’ altitudinal distribution towards higher and cooler conditions, as shown in Figure 4, where the species’ environmental conditions contract spatially and shift latitudinally towards areas with higher humidity and lower temperature.
Even in the current model, the extent of suitable conditions is relatively small, accounting for 28.8% of its total potential distribution. However, the projected situation in the coming decades implies not only a decrease in extent but also the loss of three protected areas that will no longer be able to safeguard the optimal conditions for the species. This highlights the need not only to maintain existing protected areas but also to establish additional conservation areas. It is crucial to preserve habitat heterogeneity within protected areas and their surrounding zones to enable effective management [71]. Clear evidence of forest cover decline in the vicinity of protected areas in tropical regions has been observed in recent decades [72,73,74]. High human population densities and land use practices often isolate protected areas from their surroundings [75].

3.3. Ecological Niche Models and Model Evaluation

This study was aimed to reduce uncertainty associated with a single model and explore the future response of P. mariae by employing species distribution models with two climate scenarios. Unlike previous studies that relied solely on the default configuration of MaxEnt and a single model, we conducted an extensive exploration of various models, considering criteria that assess the complexity of the generated distribution models [33,76]. The selection of appropriate environmental variables is crucial in species distribution studies as climatic predictors are assumed to be determinants of species distribution.
In our study, we evaluated three distinct combinations, each based on an assumption, and identified the most suitable environmental set for the P. mariae data. The dataset 2, composed of a principal component analysis, showed the best model evaluation in our study (see Section 4 and Supplementary File S3). This strategy has proven to be convenient as it allowed us to extract the most information from all available environmental layers, effectively addressing the negative effects of variable collinearity (set 1), as well as objectively discriminating in the variable selection issue (set 3), which is common in studies involving species with heterogeneous responses to environmental variables [77,78].
The distribution of habitat suitability was simulated based on the response of climatic variables. This model does not consider vegetation, land use, among other factors, as variables in the potential distribution of the species [79]. Although it is an approach with limitations, the effects of climate change will directly impact temperature and precipitation. Thus, the obtained results allow for an objective understanding and prediction of the potentially suitable habitat of P. mariae under current and future conditions, aiding in making informed decisions for management policies, care, and conservation of this species.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Prosthechea mariae

Prosthechea mariae (Figure 1), is an endemic orchid species native to Mexico, with a limited distribution confined to select localities along the country’s eastern slope [80]. According to Soto-Arenas et al. [81], it thrives in a temperate to semi-warm climate with summer rainfall, typically experiencing an average annual temperature ranging from 15 to 22 °C and a significant diurnal temperature variation. In terms of humidity, it requires an annual rainfall exceeding 1000 mm but can withstand dry periods by capitalizing on high relative humidity and condensation in its epiphytic habitats [82].
P. mariae is recognized to inhabit mid-elevation forests (~800–1350 masl), predominantly among oak and liquidambar species. Its presence has been documented in the states of Tamaulipas, San Luis Potosí, Hidalgo, Puebla, and Veracruz [48,49,50]. Its growth occurs between May and November, thriving during the rainy season; flowering takes place in the early summer months, between May and June, with seed dispersal between March and April, during the dry months [83]. Seed maturation necessitates approximately 9 months, while in vitro embryo development spans 4–5 months. Vegetative propagation involves the division of pseudobulbs, typically containing two to three leaves. However, neither of these methods yields a sufficient number of plants to sustain commercialization [84]. Due to its ornamental allure, the species remains a target for uncontrolled and illegal extraction [49], further contributing to its endangered status. In Mexico, this orchid species holds a “threatened species” classification according to NOM-059 SEMARNAT 2010. However, internationally, it lacks protection within the IUCN Red List.

4.2. Presence Data of the Species

The occurrence records of P. mariae (from year 1956 to 2019) were obtained through physical and digital botanical collections from national herbaria and foreign collections (see Supplementary File S1). Locality records lacking geographic coordinates were georeferenced using Google Earth [85] and converted to decimal degrees using the WGS84 coordinate system. Additionally, data were acquired from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility [86] and the published literature. The historical presence records of the species were enriched through field surveys conducted by our research group and monitoring projects carried out by the group in 2009 and 2019 in the five states previously documented, during the flowering months of the species (May to July).
Only georeferenced data were retained, and the database was refined to remove duplicate entries from herbaria and databases. In total, 116 unique presence records of P. mariae were obtained. Prior to modeling, a spatial filtering procedure was applied to the occurrences to mitigate potential spatial autocorrelation effects and prevent overestimation in distribution models [87,88,89]. Considering the limited dispersal capacity of the orchid and the resolution of the environmental information, a filtering distance of 1 km was applied to the original dataset, resulting in 73 records (Figure 5, Supplementary File S2). The selection of records was conducted randomly. The spatial filtering was performed using NTBOX v 0.5.1.0 [90].

4.3. Environmental Variables and Future Climate Scenarios

We utilized bioclimatic data from the WorldClim v1.4 platform to ensure comparability in predictions across both spatial and temporal dimensions (current and future). This database comprises 19 climatic variables that encapsulate aspects of precipitation and temperature across the Earth’s surface [91]. Considering multicollinearity, to reduce dimensionality and overfitting in the dataset, the selection of environmental variables was analyzed using three datasets.
In the first dataset, collinearity among the 19 environmental variables was reduced by eliminating variables based on a pairwise Pearson correlation threshold (0.85), resulting in the selection of the following climate layers: BIO1 (annual mean temperature), BIO2 (mean diurnal range), BIO4 (temperature seasonality), BIO12 (annual precipitation), and BIO15 (precipitation seasonality). This procedure was performed using the NTBOX package v 0.5.1.0 [90] within the R programming environment [92]. The second dataset was constructed based on a principal component analysis (PCA) of the 19 layers, using the first five axes that represented 97.23% of the variance in the climatic data. Finally, in the third dataset, all 19 WorldClim layers were left intact. The selection of the best dataset was based on the statistics provided by the R package “kuenm” v1.1.2 [76].
To assess the effects of climate change on the potential distribution of P. mariae, the 2050-time period (average for 2041–2060) was selected, and the moderate representative concentration pathway RCP 4.5 was used, avoiding more drastic scenarios (RCP 8.5) or overly optimistic ones (RCP 2.6). Due to the uncertainty associated with future scenarios, climate projections from two general circulation models were used: CCSM4 and CNRM-CM5, which have shown good results for Mexican species [93,94,95,96,97]. Future climate layers were obtained from the same WorldClim v1.4 platform, all with a spatial resolution of 30” (approximately 1 km), and three analogous sets were constructed following the criteria of the present layers.

4.4. Ecological Niche Models and Validation

To model the climatic suitability of P. mariae, the maximum entropy algorithm was used due to its good performance with presence-only data [25,98,99], implemented in Maxent ver. 3.3.3k [100]. The algorithm estimates the suitability for each pixel given a background sample, under the assumption that the expected value for each feature (i.e., the climatic variables) should be equal to the empirical mean value of the species’ presence points [100,101].
The modeling procedures for the distribution of P. mariae took into account the species’ dispersal capacity by considering the BAM framework [102,103] in the background. This framework assumes that the geographic distribution of species is influenced by their biotic relationships (B), abiotic limitations (A), and the potential for dispersal movement (M).
The importance of considering dispersal information in model development has been demonstrated [104]. To avoid unrealistic modeling, the background calibration of the model was restricted to areas assumed to be accessible to the species through dispersal (M area). This area was defined by adding a 200 km buffer around each occurrence point. The selection of this buffering distance took into account the limited dispersal capabilities of both the species and its potential pollinator (which is unknown but possibly a moth), as well as the restricted distribution range of the species according to Soto-Arenas et al. [81]. The resulting extent, known as the M zone, was utilized throughout the study for analyses and future projections [101,104]. It represents a hypothesis about the available zone for future species dispersal, as explained in further detail below.
In the development of ecological niche models, there is currently a focus on maximizing model reproducibility and exploring multiple candidate models [105]. To adhere to this approach, a protocol for calibrating and evaluating the complexity of different candidate models was applied using the R package “kuenm” v1.1.2 [76].
In first instance, the models were executed using 70% of the presence records for model calibration and the remaining 30% for internal evaluation under different combinations of the set of environmental variables. Subsequently, combinations were made by modifying the feature types Linear (L), Quadratic (Q), Product (P), Threshold (T) and Hinge (H), as follows: L, Q, P, T, H, LQ, LP, LT, LH, QP, QT, QH, PT, PH, TH, LQP, LQT, LQH, LPT, LPH, QPT, QPH, QTH, PTH, LQPT, LQPH, LQTH, LPTH, LQPTH, and the values of the regularization multiplier: 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10. The changes in each of these parameters and their effect on the construction of the model can be consulted in detail at [101,106]. These combinations were made to evaluate a diverse set of candidate models. The selection of the best models was based on three criteria, first, the statistical significance of the partial ROC test [107], second, the lowest omission rate, and third, the Akaike information criterion (AICc) corrected for small sample sizes [101].
A total of 1479 candidate models were evaluated to assess the climatic suitability for species distribution. These models varied in parameters, including different combinations of regularization multiplier settings (17) and feature class combinations (29), along with three distinct sets of environmental variables (Supplementary File S3). The evaluation of model performance was based on three criteria. Among the total models, 1449 met the criterion of statistical significance (Partial_ROC), and an additional 592 models met the criterion of omission rate (OR). Only one model met the Akaike information criterion corrected for small sample sizes (AICc). Consequently, the best-selected model was M_0.9_F_lqp within Set 2, with the following performance metrics, Mean_AUC_ratio 1.767, Partial_ROC 0, Omission_rate 0.045, AICc 1815.129, and num_parameters 17 (Supplementary File S3).
Using the configuration of the best statistical model, projections were generated for the present time using 100% of the records and 5000 iterations with 10 replicates. These models were then applied to two future climate scenarios (CCSM4 and CNRM-CM5) without extrapolation or clamping (noEC) to avoid artificial projections based on extreme values of ecological variables [34,98,101]. The median values of the replicates were used to summarize the model predictions for each climate scenario. To compare the distribution area between the present and future periods, binary maps were generated using a minimum training presence threshold. All analyses were conducted using version 1.1.5 of the R package “kuenm” v1.1.2 [76].

4.5. Analysis of Distribution Patterns

The importance of protected areas (PAs) as spaces capable of preserving optimal bioclimatic conditions for the species was calculated as the proportion of current and future potential distribution areas within PAs systems. For this purpose, layers (shapefile) hosted in CONABIO’s Geoportal, corresponding to state and federal Protected Areas [108] were used and delimited to the region of the study area.

5. Conclusions

The current distribution of P. mariae is limited to the eastern part of Mexico, primarily within oak and oak–pine forest ecosystems. However, climate change in the medium term (by 2050) will likely lead to habitat reduction and fragmentation, potentially causing the species to migrate to new areas that offer suitable climatic conditions for its survival. This projected impact of climate change on the geographical distribution of suitable areas implies a loss of habitat for P. mariae.
The models used to assess future climate scenarios within protected areas indicate that these areas will no longer support the persistence of the species in the coming decades, highlighting the potential failure of some protected areas to fulfill their conservation role for P. mariae.
Conserving P. mariae poses various challenges, including addressing the impacts of climate change, land use changes, natural and human-induced fires, and the limited knowledge about the species. To ensure the long-term preservation of the species, it is crucial to develop action plans that focus on in situ conservation of the species and its ecosystem, as well as identify potential areas for establishing new protected areas.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/plants13060839/s1, Supplementary File S1. Names of the herbaria and their acronyms consulted to document the presence records of P. mariae. Supplementary File S2. 73 unique spatial records used in the analysis of the potential distribution of P. mariae. Supplementary File S3. Description of the model calibration and selection process.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.L.-S. and J.L.A.-M.; methodology, F.L.-S. and V.S.; software, F.L.-S. and V.S.; validation, F.L.-S., J.L.A.-M. and V.S.; formal analysis, F.L.-S., J.L.A.-M. and V.S-M.; data curation, F.L.-S., and J.L.A.-M.; writing—original draft preparation, F.L-S.; writing—review and editing, F.L.-S., J.L.A.-M. and V.S.; visualization, F.L.-S. and V.S.; supervision, F.L.-S. and J.L.A.-M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our gratitude to the curators and conservators of the herbaria for their accessibility to species records, to the collaborators who assisted in obtaining field data, and to the reviewers who provided valuable comments that significantly improved the quality of this manuscript. F. Limon thanks Fabiola Lopez for all her support over the years.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. IPCC. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Available online: https://report.ipcc.ch/ (accessed on 17 July 2023).
  2. Gómez-Mendoza, L.; Galicia, L. Temperate Forests and Climate Change in Mexico: From Modelling to Adaptation Strategies; Climate change and Variability; SCIYO: Rijeka, Croatia, 2010; pp. 195–210. [Google Scholar]
  3. Trejo, I.; Martínez-Meyer, E.; Calixto-Pérez, E.; Sánchez-Colón, S.; Vázquez De La Torre, R.; Villers-Ruiz, L. Analysis of the Effects of Climate Change on Plant Communities and Mammals in México. Atmósfera 2011, 24, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  4. Jiménez-García, D.; Peterson, A.T. Climate Change Impact on Endangered Cloud Forest Tree Species in Mexico. Rev. Mex. Biodivers. 2019, 90, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Soto, V.H.; Delgado Granados, H. Estimación de La Temperatura Del Aire En La Alta Montaña Mexicana Mediante Un Modelo de Elevación Del Terreno: Caso Del Volcán Nevado de Toluca (México). Ería Rev. Cuatrimest. Geogr. 2020, 40, 167–182. [Google Scholar]
  6. Gallardo, B.; Aldridge, D.C.; González-Moreno, P.; Pergl, J.; Pizarro, M.; Pyšek, P.; Thuiller, W.; Yesson, C.; Vilà, M. Protected Areas Offer Refuge from Invasive Species Spreading under Climate Change. Glob. Change Biol. 2017, 23, 5331–5343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Bellard, C.; Jeschke, J.M.; Leroy, B.; Mace, G.M. Insights from Modeling Studies on How Climate Change Affects Invasive Alien Species Geography. Ecol. Evol. 2018, 8, 5688–5700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Lamsal, P.; Kumar, L.; Aryal, A.; Atreya, K. Invasive Alien Plant Species Dynamics in the Himalayan Region under Climate Change. Ambio 2018, 47, 697–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Wilkening, J.; Pearson-Prestera, W.; Mungi, N.A.; Bhattacharyya, S. Endangered Species Management and Climate Change: When Habitat Conservation Becomes a Moving Target. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2019, 43, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Arar, A.; Nouidjem, Y.; Bounar, R.; Tabet, S.; Kouba, Y. Modeling of the Current and Future Potential Distribution of Atlas Cedar (Cedrus atlantica) Forests Revealed Shifts in the Latitudinal, Longitudinal and Altitudinal Range towards More Humid Conditions. Ecol. Quest. 2020, 31, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hufnagel, L.; Garamvölgyi, Á. Impacts of Climate Change on Vegetation Distribution. No. 1: Climate Change Induced Vegetation Shifts in the Palearctic Region. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2013, 11, 79–122. [Google Scholar]
  12. Vegas-Vilarrúbia, T.; Nogué, S.; Rull, V. Global Warming, Habitat Shifts and Potential Refugia for Biodiversity Conservation in the Neotropical Guayana Highlands. Biol. Conserv. 2012, 152, 159–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bridle, J.R.; Vines, T.H. Limits to Evolution at Range Margins: When and Why Does Adaptation Fail? Trends Ecol. Evol. 2007, 22, 140–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Wang, S.; Xu, X.; Shrestha, N.; Zimmermann, N.E.; Tang, Z.; Wang, Z. Response of Spatial Vegetation Distribution in China to Climate Changes since the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0175742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Liu, Y.; Xue, Y.; MacDonald, G.; Cox, P.; Zhang, Z. Global Vegetation Variability and Its Response to Elevated CO2, Global Warming, and Climate Variability—A Study Using the Offline SSiB4/TRIFFID Model and Satellite Data. Earth Syst. Dyn. 2019, 10, 9–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Singh, J.; Singh, R.P.; Khare, R. Influence of Climate Change on Antarctic Flora. Polar Sci. 2018, 18, 94–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Grabherr, G.; Gottfried, M.; Pauli, H. Climate Change Impacts in Alpine Environments. Geogr. Compass 2010, 4, 1133–1153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Nneji, L.M.; Salako, G.; Oladipo, S.O.; Ayoola, A.O.; Onadeko, A.B.; Adedeji, B.E.; Omotoso, O.; Ugwumba, A.A.A.; Adeola, A.C. Species Distribution Modelling Predicts Habitat Suitability and Reduction of Suitable Habitat under Future Climatic Scenario for Sclerophrys perreti: A Critically Endangered Nigerian Endemic Toad. Afr. J. Ecol. 2020, 58, 481–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Dagnino, D.; Guerrina, M.; Minuto, L.; Mariotti, M.G.; Médail, F.; Casazza, G. Climate Change and the Future of Endemic Flora in the South Western Alps: Relationships between Niche Properties and Extinction Risk. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2020, 20, 121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. CONANP. 100 Años de Conservación en México: Áreas Naturales Protegidas; Semarnat-Conanp: Mexico City, Mexico, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  21. Williams-Linera, G.; Toledo-Garibaldi, M.; Hernández, C.G. How Heterogeneous Are the Cloud Forest Communities in the Mountains of Central Veracruz, Mexico? Plant Ecol. 2013, 214, 685–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gómez-Díaz, J.A.; Krömer, T.; Carvajal-Hernández, C.I.; Gerold, G.; Heitkamp, F. Richness and Distribution of Herbaceous Angiosperms along Gradients of Elevation and Forest Disturbance in Central Veracruz, Mexico. Bot. Sci. 2017, 95, 307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Gómez-Díaz, J.A.; Brast, K.; Degener, J.; Krömer, T.; Ellis, E.; Heitkamp, F.; Gerold, G. Long-Term Changes in Forest Cover in Central Veracruz, Mexico (1993–2014). Trop. Conserv. Sci. 2018, 11, 1940082918771089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Guisan, A.; Thuiller, W. Predicting Species Distribution: Offering More than Simple Habitat Models. Ecol. Lett. 2005, 8, 993–1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Elith, J.; Graham, C.H.; Anderson, R.P.; Dudik, M.; Ferrier, S.; Guisan, A.; Hijmans, R.J.; Huettmann, F.; Leathwick, J.R.; Lehmann, A.; et al. Novel Methods Improve Prediction of Species’ Distributions from Occurrence Data. Ecography 2006, 29, 129–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Marmion, M.; Parviainen, M.; Luoto, M.; Heikkinen, R.K.; Thuiller, W. Evaluation of Consensus Methods in Predictive Species Distribution Modelling. Divers. Distrib. 2009, 15, 59–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Oliveira, M.R.; Tomas, W.M.; Guedes, N.M.R.; Peterson, A.T.; Szabo, J.K.; Júnior, A.S.; Camilo, A.R.; Padovani, C.R.; Garcia, L.C. The Relationship between Scale and Predictor Variables in Species Distribution Models Applied to Conservation. Biodivers. Conserv. 2021, 30, 1971–1990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zurell, D.; Franklin, J.; König, C.; Bouchet, P.J.; Dormann, C.F.; Elith, J.; Fandos, G.; Feng, X.; Guillera-Arroita, G.; Guisan, A.; et al. A Standard Protocol for Reporting Species Distribution Models. Ecography 2020, 43, 1261–1277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Beaumont, L.J.; Hughes, L.; Pitman, A.J. Why Is the Choice of Future Climate Scenarios for Species Distribution Modelling Important? Ecol. Lett. 2008, 11, 1135–1146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Booth, T.H. Species Distribution Modelling Tools and Databases to Assist Managing Forests under Climate Change. For. Ecol. Manag. 2018, 430, 196–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Srivastava, V. Species Distribution Models (SDM): Applications, Benefits and Challenges in Invasive Species Management. CAB Rev. 2019, 14, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Phillips, S.J.; Dudík, M. Modeling of Species Distributions with Maxent: New Extensions and a Comprehensive Evaluation. Ecography 2008, 31, 161–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Radosavljevic, A.; Anderson, R.P. Making Better MAXENT Models of Species Distributions: Complexity, Overfitting and Evaluation. J. Biogeogr. 2014, 41, 629–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gomes, V.H.F.; IJff, S.D.; Raes, N.; Amaral, I.L.; Salomão, R.P.; de Souza Coelho, L.; de Almeida Matos, F.D.; Castilho, C.V.; de Andrade Lima Filho, D.; López, D.C.; et al. Species Distribution Modelling: Contrasting Presence-Only Models with Plot Abundance Data. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Salinas-Rodríguez, M.M.; Sajama, M.J.; Gutiérrez-Ortega, J.S.; Ortega-Baes, P.; Estrada-Castillón, A.E. Identification of Endemic Vascular Plant Species Hotspots and the Effectiveness of the Protected Areas for Their Conservation in Sierra Madre Oriental, Mexico. J. Nat. Conserv. 2018, 46, 6–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Antúnez, P.; Suárez-Mota, M.; Valenzuela-Encinas, C.; Ruiz-Aquino, F. The Potential Distribution of Tree Species in Three Periods of Time under a Climate Change Scenario. Forests 2018, 9, 628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Vargas-Piedra, G.; Valdez-Cepeda, R.D.; López-Santos, A.; Flores-Hernández, A.; Hernández-Quiroz, N.S.; Martínez-Salvador, M. Current and Future Potential Distribution of the Xerophytic Shrub Candelilla (Euphorbia antisyphilitica) under Two Climate Change Scenarios. Forests 2020, 11, 530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Charre-Medellín, J.F.; Mas, J.-F.; Chang-Martínez, L.A. Potential Expansion of Hass Avocado Cultivation under Climate Change Scenarios Threatens Mexican Mountain Ecosystems. Crop Pasture Sci. 2021, 72, 291–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Martínez-Sifuentes, A.R.; Villanueva-Díaz, J.; Crisantos De La Rosa, E.; Stahle, D.W. Current and Future Spatial Modeling of Habitat Suitability of the Mexicanbaldcypress (Taxodium mucronatum Ten.): A Proposal for Conservation in Mexico. Bot. Sci. 2021, 99, 752–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hernández De La Cruz, M.; Alanís-Méndez, J.L.; Chagoya-Fuentes, J.L.; Enciso-Díaz, O.J. Potential Distribution of Six Endemic Species of Stanhopea (Orchidaceae) Genus in Mexico. Curr. Bot. 2022, 13, 81–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Pulliam, H.R. On the Relationship between Niche and Distribution. Ecol. Lett. 2000, 3, 349–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Soberón, J. Grinnellian and Eltonian Niches and Geographic Distributions of Species. Ecol. Lett. 2007, 10, 1115–1123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kijowska-Oberc, J.; Staszak, A.M.; Kamiński, J.; Ratajczak, E. Adaptation of Forest Trees to Rapidly Changing Climate. Forests 2020, 11, 123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Thom, D.; Rammer, W.; Seidl, R. Disturbances Catalyze the Adaptation of Forest Ecosystems to Changing Climate Conditions. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2017, 23, 269–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Holsinger, L.; Parks, S.A.; Parisien, M.-A.; Miller, C.; Batllori, E.; Moritz, M.A. Climate Change Likely to Reshape Vegetation in North America’s Largest Protected Areas. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2019, 1, e50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Anderson, J.T.; Song, B.-H. Plant Adaptation to Climate Change—Where Are We? J. Syst. Evol. 2020, 58, 533–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Parmesan, C.; Hanley, M.E. Plants and Climate Change: Complexities and Surprises. Ann. Bot. 2015, 116, 849–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Soto-Arenas, M.A. Euchile mariae (Ames) Withner; Lámina 584; Soto, E.H.M., Ed.; Asociación Mexicana de Orquideología AC: Mexico City, Mexico, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  49. Suárez-Quijada, I.; Hernández-Altamirano, M.; Chávez-Ávila, V.M.; Sandoval-Zapotitla, E.; Martinez-Palacios, A. Propagación in vitro y aclimatización de Euchile mariae (Ames) Withner (Orchidaceae). Lankesteriana Int. J. Orchid. 2007, 7, 388–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Suárez-Quijada, I.; Sandoval-Zapotitla, E.; Hernández-Altamirano, M.; Chávez-Ávila, V.M. Determinación Histológica de Regenerantes de Euchile mariae (Ames) Withner, (Orchidaceae), Obtenidos a Partir de Protocormos Cultivados in Vitro. Lankesteriana Int. J. Orchid. 2007, 7, 394–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ikeda, H.; Senni, K.; Fujii, N.; Setoguchi, H. High Mountains of the Japanese Archipelago as Refugia for Arctic-Alpine Plants: Phylogeography of Loiseleuria procumbens (L.) Desvaux (Ericaceae). Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 2009, 97, 403–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Bocedi, G.; Atkins, K.E.; Liao, J.; Henry, R.C.; Travis, J.M.J.; Hellmann, J.J. Effects of Local Adaptation and Interspecific Competition on Species’ Responses to Climate Change. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2013, 1297, 83–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Guevara, L. Altitudinal, Latitudinal and Longitudinal Responses of Cloud Forest Species to Quaternary Glaciations in the Northern Neotropics. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 2020, 130, 615–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Buchanan, J.; Zuccarello, G.C. Decoupling of Short- and Long-Distance Dispersal Pathways in the Endemic New Zealand Seaweed Carpophyllum maschalocarpum (Phaeophyceae, Fucales). J. Phycol. 2012, 48, 518–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ghazoul, J. Pollen and Seed Dispersal among Dispersed Plants. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 2005, 80, 413–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Hetem, R.S.; Fuller, A.; Maloney, S.K.; Mitchell, D. Responses of Large Mammals to Climate Change. Temperature 2014, 1, 115–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Chen, I.-C.; Hill, J.K.; Ohlemüller, R.; Roy, D.B.; Thomas, C.D. Rapid Range Shifts of Species Associated with High Levels of Climate Warming. Science 2011, 333, 1024–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Jezkova, T.; Olah-Hemmings, V.; Riddle, B.R. Niche Shifting in Response to Warming Climate after the Last Glacial Maximum: Inference from Genetic Data and Niche Assessments in the Chisel-Toothed Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys Microps). Glob. Change Biol. 2011, 17, 3486–3502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Camacho-Domínguez, E.; Ávila-Díaz, I. Mating System and Female Reproductive Success of the Endemic, Epiphytic Prosthechea Aff. karwinskii (Orchidaceae). Lankesteriana 2011, 11, e18300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ray, H.A.; Stuhl, C.J.; Kane, M.E.; Ellis, J.D.; Daniels, J.C.; Gillett-Kaufman, J.L. Aspects of the Pollination Biology of Encyclia tampensis, the Commercially Exploited Butterfly Orchid, and Prosthechea Cochleata, the Endangered Clamshell Orchid, in South Florida. Fla. Entomol. 2019, 102, 154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ray, H.A.; Kane, M.E.; Gillett-Kaufman, J.L. Effect of Self- and Cross-Pollination Treatments and Microhabitat on Seed Germination of Prosthechea cochleata and Encyclia tampensis (Orchidaceae) in Southern Florida. Southeast. Nat. 2020, 19, 601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Geldmann, J.; Barnes, M.; Coad, L.; Craigie, I.D.; Hockings, M.; Burgess, N.D. Effectiveness of Terrestrial Protected Areas in Reducing Habitat Loss and Population Declines. Biol. Conserv. 2013, 161, 230–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Gomes, V.H.F.; Vieira, I.C.G.; Salomão, R.P.; ter Steege, H. Amazonian Tree Species Threatened by Deforestation and Climate Change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2019, 9, 547–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Guerra, C.A.; Rosa, I.M.D.; Pereira, H.M. Change versus Stability: Are Protected Areas Particularly Pressured by Global Land Cover Change? Landsc. Ecol. 2019, 34, 2779–2790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Lehikoinen, P.; Santangeli, A.; Jaatinen, K.; Rajasärkkä, A.; Lehikoinen, A. Protected Areas Act as a Buffer against Detrimental Effects of Climate Change—Evidence from Large-scale, Long-term Abundance Data. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2019, 25, 304–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Johnson, D.; Adelaide Ferreira, M.; Kenchington, E. Climate Change Is Likely to Severely Limit the Effectiveness of Deep-Sea ABMTs in the North Atlantic. Mar. Policy 2018, 87, 111–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Bruno, J.F.; Bates, A.E.; Cacciapaglia, C.; Pike, E.P.; Amstrup, S.C.; van Hooidonk, R.; Henson, S.A.; Aronson, R.B. Climate Change Threatens the World’s Marine Protected Areas. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2018, 8, 499–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Bruno, J.F.; Côté, I.M.; Toth, L.T. Climate Change, Coral Loss, and the Curious Case of the Parrotfish Paradigm: Why Don’t Marine Protected Areas Improve Reef Resilience? Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 2019, 11, 307–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Seiferling, I.S.; Proulx, R.; Peres-Neto, P.R.; Fahrig, L.; Messier, C. Measuring Protected-Area Isolation and Correlations of Isolation with Land-Use Intensity and Protection Status. Conserv. Biol. 2012, 26, 610–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. DeFries, R.; Hansen, A.; Newton, A.C.; Hansen, M.C. Increasing Isolation of Protected Areas in Tropical Forests over the Past Twenty Years. Ecol. Appl. 2005, 15, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Oliver, T.; Roy, D.B.; Hill, J.K.; Brereton, T.; Thomas, C.D. Heterogeneous Landscapes Promote Population Stability. Ecol. Lett. 2010, 13, 473–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Curran, L.M.; Trigg, S.N.; McDonald, A.K.; Astiani, D.; Hardiono, Y.M.; Siregar, P.; Caniago, I.; Kasischke, E. Lowland Forest Loss in Protected Areas of Indonesian Borneo. Science 2004, 303, 1000–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Laurance, W.F.; Carolina Useche, D.; Rendeiro, J.; Kalka, M.; Bradshaw, C.J.A.; Sloan, S.P.; Laurance, S.G.; Campbell, M.; Abernethy, K.; Alvarez, P.; et al. Averting Biodiversity Collapse in Tropical Forest Protected Areas. Nature 2012, 489, 290–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Heino, M.; Kummu, M.; Makkonen, M.; Mulligan, M.; Verburg, P.H.; Jalava, M.; Räsänen, T.A. Forest Loss in Protected Areas and Intact Forest Landscapes: A Global Analysis. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0138918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Joppa, L.N.; Loarie, S.R.; Pimm, S.L. On Population Growth Near Protected Areas. PLoS ONE 2009, 4, e4279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Cobos, M.E.; Peterson, A.T.; Barve, N.; Osorio-Olvera, L. Kuenm: An R Package for Detailed Development of Ecological Niche Models Using Maxent. PeerJ 2019, 7, e6281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Tourne, D.C.M.; Ballester, M.V.R.; James, P.M.A.; Martorano, L.G.; Guedes, M.C.; Thomas, E. Strategies to Optimize Modeling Habitat Suitability of Bertholletia Excelsa in the Pan-Amazonia. Ecol. Evol. 2019, 9, 12623–12638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. De Marco, P.; Nóbrega, C.C. Evaluating Collinearity Effects on Species Distribution Models: An Approach Based on Virtual Species Simulation. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0202403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Amiri, M.; Tarkesh, M.; Jafari, R.; Jetschke, G. Bioclimatic Variables from Precipitation and Temperature Records vs. Remote Sensing-Based Bioclimatic Variables: Which Side Can Perform Better in Species Distribution Modeling? Ecol. Inform. 2020, 57, 101060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. García-Cruz, J.; Sánches, L.M.; Jimenéz, R.; Solano, R. Orchidaceae, Tribu Epidendraeae. Flora Del Bajío Reg. Adyac. 2003, 119, 19. [Google Scholar]
  81. Soto-Arenas, M.A.; Hágsater, E.; Jiménez-Machorro, R.S.-C.; Ruíz-Contreras, I. Las Orquídeas de México Catálogo Digital; Herbario AMO, Insituto Chinoin, AC: Miguel Hidalgo, Mexico, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  82. Téllez, M. de los Á.A. Diagnóstico de la Familia Orchidaceae en México:(Prosthechea Citrina, Prosthechea Vitellina, Stanhopea Tigrina, Encyclia Adenocaula, Laelia Speciosa, Laelia Gouldiana y Rhynchostele Rossii); Chapingo Autonomous University: Texcoco, Mexico, 2011; ISBN 607-12-0206-X. [Google Scholar]
  83. Soto-Arenas, M.A.; Solano-Gómez, A.R. Ficha Técnica de Euchile Mariae: Proyecto No. W029; Bases de datos SNIB-CONABIO; Herbario de la Asociación Mexicana de Orquideología A.C.: Mexico City, Mexico; Instituto Chinoin A.C.: Mexico City, Mexico, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  84. Santos Díaz, M.D.S.; Carranza Álvarez, C. Plant Regeneration through Direct Shoot Formation from Leaf Cultures and from Protocorm-like Bodies Derived from Callus of Encyclia mariae (Orchidaceae), a Threatened Mexican Orchid. Vitr. Cell. Dev. Biol.-Plant 2009, 45, 162–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Google. Google Earth Pro, Version 7.3.1; Google: Mountain View, CA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  86. GBIF. GBIF (Global Biodiversity Information Facility). Available online: http://gbif.org (accessed on 31 May 2019).
  87. Peterson, A.T.; Nakazawa, Y. Environmental Data Sets Matter in Ecological Niche Modelling: An Example with Solenopsis Invicta and Solenopsis Richteri. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2007, 17, 135–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Veloz, S.D. Spatially Autocorrelated Sampling Falsely Inflates Measures of Accuracy for Presence-Only Niche Models. J. Biogeogr. 2009, 36, 2290–2299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Monterrubio-Rico, T.C.; Charre-Medellín, J.F.; Pacheco-Figueroa, C.; Arriaga-Weiss, S.; de Dios Valdez-Leal, J.; Cancino-Murillo, R.; Escalona-Segura, G.; Bonilla-Ruz, C.; Rubio-Rocha, Y. Distribución Potencial Histórica y Contemporánea de La Familia Psittacidae En México. Rev. Mex. Biodivers. 2016, 87, 1103–1117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Osorio-Olvera, L.; Lira-Noriega, A.; Soberón, J.; Townsend Peterson, A.; Falconi, M.; Contreras-Díaz, R.G.; Martínez-Meyer, E.; Barve, V.; Barve, N. ntbox: An R package with graphical user interface for modeling and evaluating multidimensional ecological niches. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2020, 11, 1199–1206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Hijmans, R.J.; Cameron, S.E.; Parra, J.L.; Jones, P.G.; Jarvis, A. Very High Resolution Interpolated Climate Surfaces for Global Land Areas. Int. J. Climatol. 2005, 25, 1965–1978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Core Team: Vienna, Austria, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  93. Pinedo-Alvarez, C.; Renteria-Villalobos, M.; Aguilar-Soto, V.; Vega-Mares, J.H.; Melgoza-Castillo, A. Distribution Dynamics of Picea chihuahuana Martínez Populations under Different Climate Change Scenarios in Mexico. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2019, 17, e00559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Hernandez-Guzman, R. Predicting Ambystoma ordinarium Distribution under Differentclimate Scenarios in Central Mexico. Herpetol. J. 2019, 29, 71–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Martínez-Sifuentes, A.; Villanueva-Díaz, J.; Manzanilla-Quiñones, U.; Becerra-López, J.; Hernández-Herrera, J.; Estrada-Ávalos, J.; Velázquez-Pérez, A. Spatial Modeling of the Ecological Niche of Pinus greggii Engelm. (Pinaceae): A Species Conservation Proposal in Mexico under Climatic Change Scenarios. IForest—Biogeosci. For. 2020, 13, 426–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Sierra-Morales, P.; Rojas-Soto, O.; Ríos-Muñoz, C.A.; Ochoa-Ochoa, L.M.; Flores-Rodríguez, P.; Almazán-Núñez, R.C. Climate Change Projections Suggest Severe Decreases in the Geographic Ranges of Bird Species Restricted to Mexican Humid Mountain Forests. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2021, 30, e01794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Cruz-Jiménez, I.; Delgado-Sánchez, P.; Guerrero-González, M.D.L.L.; Puente-Martínez, R.; Flores, J.; De-Nova, J.A. Predicting Geographic Distribution and Habitat Suitability of Opuntia Streptacantha in Paleoclimatic, Current, and Future Scenarios in Mexico. Ecol. Evol. 2023, 13, e10050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Elith, J.; Phillips, S.J.; Hastie, T.; Dudík, M.; Chee, Y.E.; Yates, C.J. A Statistical Explanation of MaxEnt for Ecologists. Divers. Distrib. 2011, 17, 43–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Soberon, J.; Nakamura, M. Niches and Distributional Areas: Concepts, Methods, and Assumptions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 19644–19650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Phillips, S.J.; Anderson, R.P.; Schapire, R.E. Maximum Entropy Modeling of Species Geographic Distributions. Ecol. Model. 2006, 190, 231–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Merow, C.; Smith, M.J.; Silander, J.A. A Practical Guide to MaxEnt for Modeling Species’ Distributions: What It Does, and Why Inputs and Settings Matter. Ecography 2013, 36, 1058–1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Soberon, J.; Peterson, A.T. Interpretation of Models of Fundamental Ecological Niches and Species’ Distributional Areas. Biodivers. Inform. 2005, 2, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Peterson, A.T. Ecological Niche Conservatism: A Time-Structured Review of Evidence. J. Biogeogr. 2011, 38, 817–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Barve, N.; Barve, V.; Jiménez-Valverde, A.; Lira-Noriega, A.; Maher, S.P.; Peterson, A.T.; Soberón, J.; Villalobos, F. The Crucial Role of the Accessible Area in Ecological Niche Modeling and Species Distribution Modeling. Ecol. Model. 2011, 222, 1810–1819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Feng, X.; Park, D.S.; Walker, C.; Peterson, A.T.; Merow, C.; Papeş, M. A Checklist for Maximizing Reproducibility of Ecological Niche Models. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2019, 3, 1382–1395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Phillips, S.J.; Anderson, R.P.; Dudík, M.; Schapire, R.E.; Blair, M.E. Opening the Black Box: An Open-source Release of Maxent. Ecography 2017, 40, 887–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Peterson, A.T.; Papeş, M.; Soberón, J. Rethinking Receiver Operating Characteristic Analysis Applications in Ecological Niche Modeling. Ecol. Model. 2008, 213, 63–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. SEMARNAT-CONANP. Áreas Naturales Protegidas Estatales, Municipales, Ejidales, Comunitarias y Privadas de México 2020; Catálogo de Metadatos Geográficos; SEMARNAT-CONANP: Mexico City, Mexico, 2020. [Google Scholar]
Plants 13 00839 g001
Figure 1. Prosthechea mariae (Ames) W. E. Higgins in the protected area, Sierra de Otontepec. Photo by Ivan Rosales Cárdenas.
Figure 1. Prosthechea mariae (Ames) W. E. Higgins in the protected area, Sierra de Otontepec. Photo by Ivan Rosales Cárdenas.
Plants 13 00839 g001
Plants 13 00839 g002
Figure 2. Potential distribution of P. mariae: (a) green, current distribution model, (b) blue, 2050 CNRM-CM5 scenario, (c) red, 2050 CCSM4 scenario, and (d) ensemble of current and future (2050) potential distribution.
Figure 2. Potential distribution of P. mariae: (a) green, current distribution model, (b) blue, 2050 CNRM-CM5 scenario, (c) red, 2050 CCSM4 scenario, and (d) ensemble of current and future (2050) potential distribution.
Plants 13 00839 g002
Plants 13 00839 g003
Figure 3. Current potential distribution of P. mariae in green color. The protected areas network: State (orange) and Federal (purple) PAs.
Figure 3. Current potential distribution of P. mariae in green color. The protected areas network: State (orange) and Federal (purple) PAs.
Plants 13 00839 g003
Plants 13 00839 g004
Figure 4. Climate suitability change of P. mariae within four protected areas: Altas Cumbres, El Cielo, Sierra de Otontepec, and Sierra de Tamaulipas. Potential current (in green, top) and future (in the middle, CNRM-CM5 model in blue; below, CCSM4 model in red) distributions.
Figure 4. Climate suitability change of P. mariae within four protected areas: Altas Cumbres, El Cielo, Sierra de Otontepec, and Sierra de Tamaulipas. Potential current (in green, top) and future (in the middle, CNRM-CM5 model in blue; below, CCSM4 model in red) distributions.
Plants 13 00839 g004
Plants 13 00839 g005
Figure 5. Study area for the distribution of P. mariae and its occurrence records.
Figure 5. Study area for the distribution of P. mariae and its occurrence records.
Plants 13 00839 g005
Table 1. Protected areas that safeguard the environmental conditions of Prosthechea mariae.
Table 1. Protected areas that safeguard the environmental conditions of Prosthechea mariae.
Protection TypeNamePAs Decreed Area km2Current Surface Area km2 (%)Projected Surface Area 2050 CNRM-CM5 km2 (%)Projected Surface Area 2050 CCSM4 km2 (%)
FederalSierra Gorda3835.671142.45 (29.78)400.21 (10.43)-
FederalSierra de Tamaulipas3088.88827.03 (26.77)324.63 (10.51)487.26 (15.77)
StateEl Cielo1375.01451.79 (32.86)720.49 (52.40)677.13 (49.25)
FederalCuenca Hidrográfica del Rio Necaxa421.5310.99 (2.61)184.69 (43.81)98.31 (23.32)
StateAltas Cumbres315.942.35 (0.75)35.84 (11.34)54.40 (17.22)
FederalSierra del Abra Tanchipa214.84134.61 (62.65)3.13 (1.46)72.71 (33.84)
StateSierra de Otontepec151.59143.41 (94.61)46.29 (30.53)21.55 (14.21)
StateLa Hoya de las Huahuas4.073.32 (81.61)--
StateEl Sótano de Las Golondrinas2.822.82 (100)2.18 (77.30)0.08 (2.82)
StateLas Cuevas del Viento y la Fertilidad0.080.08 (100)--
Total 9410.442718.85 (28.89)1717.45 (18.25)1411.43 (15)
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Alanís-Méndez, J.L.; Soto, V.; Limón-Salvador, F. Effects of Climate Change on the Distribution of Prosthechea mariae (Orchidaceae) and within Protected Areas in Mexico. Plants 2024, 13, 839. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13060839

AMA Style

Alanís-Méndez JL, Soto V, Limón-Salvador F. Effects of Climate Change on the Distribution of Prosthechea mariae (Orchidaceae) and within Protected Areas in Mexico. Plants. 2024; 13(6):839. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13060839

Chicago/Turabian Style

Alanís-Méndez, José Luis, Víctor Soto, and Francisco Limón-Salvador. 2024. "Effects of Climate Change on the Distribution of Prosthechea mariae (Orchidaceae) and within Protected Areas in Mexico" Plants 13, no. 6: 839. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13060839

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop