Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-14 (section)

==== 14.5.1.3 Adaptation in Terrestrial and Freshwater Ecosystems ====

<div id="h3-3-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Adaptation efforts to assess vulnerability of species and ecosystems, predict adaptive capacity and identify conservation-oriented options have increased markedly across North America (e.g., [[#Hagerman--2018|Hagerman and Pelai, 2018]] ; [[#Keeley--2018|Keeley et al., 2018]] ; [[#Thurman--2020|Thurman et al., 2020]] ; [[#Peterson%20St-Laurent--2021|Peterson St-Laurent et al., 2021]] ; [[#Thompson--2021|Thompson et al., 2021]] ). Scenario-based planning, an approach for addressing uncertainty, continues to gain traction and is regularly applied by the US National Park Service ( [[#Star--2016|Star et al., 2016]] ). Nonetheless, barriers to implementation of specific actions often exist (e.g., inflexible policies, lack of resources and stakeholder buy-in, political will), hampering progress ( [[#Stein--2013|Stein et al., 2013]] ; [[#Shi--2021|Shi and Moser, 2021]] ). Efforts to evaluate the efficacy of implemented adaptation actions are also lacking ( [[#Prober--2019|Prober et al., 2019]] ), but some cases show progress. For example, ongoing efforts are quantifying how variable water releases from the Colorado River’s Glen Canyon Dam affect endangered fish species ( [[#Melis--2016|Melis et al., 2016]] ). Nature-based Solutions (NbS) for adaptation (see Box 14.7) are increasingly being evaluated, especially at larger scales.

Effective climate-informed ecosystem management requires a well-coordinated suite of adaptation efforts (e.g., assessment, planning, funding, implementation and evaluation) that is co-produced among stakeholders, Indigenous Peoples and across sectors ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Millar--2015|Millar and Stephenson, 2015]] ; [[#Dilling--2019|Dilling et al., 2019]] ). New applications of conventional strategies can be modified to achieve conservation goals under climate change ( [[#USGCRP--2019|USGCRP, 2019]] ). For example, mechanical thinning and prescribed burning (to reduce fuel loads and benefit ecosystems) could be used in combination with planting species better suited to new conditions to build resilience in western US forests to longer and hotter drought conditions ( [[#Bradford--2017|Bradford and Bell, 2017]] ; [[#Vernon--2018|Vernon et al., 2018]] ). Protection of buffer areas, such as riparian strips in arid regions and boreal ecosystems, reduces water temperature, builds resistance to invasive species, increases suitable habitat ( [[#Johnson--2016|Johnson and Almlof, 2016]] ) and facilitates protection of freshwater systems from runoff during and after intense rain events ( [[#National%20Research%20Council--2002|National Research Council, 2002]] ).

Innovative approaches may facilitate species’ responses to climate change, particularly when vulnerability is exacerbated by habitat loss and fragmentation. Strategies include improved landscape connectivity for species dispersal ( [[#Carroll--2018|Carroll et al., 2018]] ; [[#Littlefield--2019|Littlefield et al., 2019]] ; [[#Lawler--2020|Lawler et al., 2020]] ; [[#Thomas--2020|Thomas, 2020]] ) or assisted migration (also called managed relocation) to climatically suitable locations ( [[#Schwartz--2012|Schwartz et al., 2012]] ; [[#Dobrowski--2015|Dobrowski et al., 2015]] ). Examples include translocation of salmon in the Columbia River ( [[#Holsman--2012|Holsman et al., 2012]] ), genetic rescue (i.e., assisted gene flow increases genetic diversity to address local maladaptation) ( [[#Aitken--2013|Aitken and Whitlock, 2013]] ) and locating and conserving climate refugia, such as in alpine meadows of the Sierra Nevada ( [[#Javeline--2015|Javeline et al., 2015]] ; [[#Morelli--2016|Morelli et al., 2016]] ). Maintaining diverse spawning habitats and salmon runs can increase resilience of salmonid populations to climate change ( [[#Schoen--2017|Schoen et al., 2017]] ; [[#Crozier--2021|Crozier et al., 2021]] ). Newer modelling approaches can facilitate the visualisation of future management scenarios, per a recent study of fires in the southwest USA ( [[#Loehman--2018|Loehman et al., 2018]] ), in addition to technologies in genomics for monitoring species and modifying adaptive traits ( [[#Phelps--2019|Phelps, 2019]] ).

Adaptation actions have important limitations ( [[#Dow--2013|Dow et al., 2013]] ), particularly in the context of biodiversity conservation goals. ‘Hard’ limits include species extinctions and vegetation mortality events, despite conservation action (i.e., besides significant emissions reductions to mitigate warming, few if any interventions could have prevented these losses). In contrast, ‘soft’ adaptation limits exist primarily as a function of the social–ecological value systems of local communities and government entities that are reflected as goals and objectives in their management plans for ecosystems and species across North America. Soft limits are often mutable or can be removed altogether ( [[#Dow--2013|Dow et al., 2013]] ). In contrast, human modifications of landscapes that change or irreparably damage can limit adaptation by reducing connectivity and therefore range shifts ( [[#Parks--2020|Parks and Abatzoglou, 2020]] ).

<div id="14.5.2" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="ocean-and-coastal-socialecological-systems"></span>