Jeff Price

@article{0ae96dea8b184ffbb14ba0d4eda9cac3,

title = {Assessing the potential risks of climate change on the natural capital of six countries resulting from global warming of 1.5 to 4 °C above pre‑industrial levels},

author = {Jeff Price and Rachel Warren and Nicole Forstenhäusler and Rhosanna Jenkins and Erin Graham},

doi = {10.1007/s10584-023-03650-w},

issn = {0165-0009},

year  = {2024},

date = {2024-02-29},

journal = {Climatic Change},

volume = {177},

number = {3},

publisher = {Springer},

abstract = {We present the results from a new framework providing an assessment of how climate change risks to natural capital accrue with warming of 1.5–4 °C in six countries (China, Brazil, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, and India). Unlike typical biodiversity and climate change studies, this assessment also considers landcover and population changes across a range of 17 ecosystem services. The potential impacts of climate change (alone) on natural capital at 1.5 °C is greatest in Brazil and least in Ghana. However, when population and landcover change are included, areas projected to be at high natural capital risk begin to accrue by 1.5 °C in all countries. By 2 °C, Ethiopia and Ghana show increasing areas at high risk, even though they are at low risk owing to climate alone. Thus, current impacts to biodiversity and ecosystem services and changes in potential demand coupled with warming exceed changes projected by climate alone. However, this also indicates that there is adaptation potential, especially with warming of<2 °C, to reduce risk through restoring habitat. At lower levels of warming, targeted restoration of marginal agricultural habitats would increase the bank of natural capital for use by people and provide support for remaining agricultural lands. By 3 °C, the adaptation potential from restoration is substantially less:<1% in Brazil, India and Egypt; 7–8% in China and Ethiopia; but still 26% in Ghana. This indicates that restoration as an adaptation option for biodiversity, and thus, natural capital, rapidly decreases with increasing temperatures. By 2100, factoring in population change (SSP2), current ecological footprint, and current landcover, even with only 1.5 °C warming, large parts of Brazil, eastern China, most of Egypt, much of Ethiopia, southwestern Ghana (except for protected areas), and most of India are at high to extreme natural capital risk with an adaptation deficit potentially equating to a soft adaptation limit.},

note = {Funding information: The study was funded by the UK Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS).},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{4f23362f0fa24039a290e0065a9c2c85,

title = {Biodiversity losses associated with global warming of 1.5 to 4°C above pre-industrial levels in six countries},

author = {Jeff Price and Rachel Warren and Nicole Forstenhäusler},

doi = {10.1007/s10584-023-03666-2},

issn = {0165-0009},

year  = {2024},

date = {2024-02-29},

journal = {Climatic Change},

volume = {177},

number = {3},

publisher = {Springer},

abstract = {We quantify the projected impacts of alternative levels of global warming upon the climatically determined geographic ranges of plants and vertebrates in six countries (China, Brazil, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana and India), accounting for uncertainties in regional climate projection. We quantify in a spatially explicit fashion the species richness remaining or lost, allowing the identification of climate refugia which we define as areas where > 75% ]of the species currently present remain in a world with a particular level of global warming above pre-industrial levels. In all countries and in both taxa, species richness declines with warming, as does the proportion of each country remaining a climate refugium for plants or vertebrates. In percentage terms, refugia loss relative to a 1961–1990 baseline period is greatest in India and Brazil, and least in Ghana and Ethiopia for the same level of warming, and is greater for plants than for vertebrates. Taking account of present land uses (i.e. area still considered natural), and using species richness of plants as a proxy to indicate biodiversity more generally, the proportion of land acting as climate refugia for biodiversity in five of the countries variously declines from 54–75% of a country in the 1961–1990 baseline period to 20–64% for 1.5 °C global warming, 11–53% for 2 °C, 3–33% for 3 °C and 2–24% for 4 °C warming. In Ethiopia, India, Brazil and China, climate refugia decline rapidly with warming while in Ghana and China some refugia persist even with 3–4 °C of warming. Only small percentages of Brazil, India and China are both climate refugia and lie within protected areas; hence, an expansion of the protected area networks in these countries would be required to deliver climate resilient biodiversity conservation. These percentages are larger in Ethiopia and Ghana and, in some areas of Ghana, the only remaining refugia are in protected areas, the remaining landscape converted to other uses.},

note = {Data and code availability: This publication is based on the extraction of data from an existing well established database and hence code availability is not applicable. The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Funding information: This research leading to these results received funding from the UK Government, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, as part of the 1.5–4 °C warming project under contract number UKSBS CR18083-S2.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{f5483287847a4f0395fab9e0e45c529c,

title = {Risks associated with global warming of 1.5 to 4°C above pre-industrial levels in human and natural systems in six countries},

author = {Rachel Warren and Jeff Price and Nicole Forstenhäusler and Oliver Andrews and Sally Brown and Kristie Ebi and David Gernaat and Philip Goodwin and Dabo Guan and Yi He and Desmond Manful and Zhiqiang Yin and Yi Hu and Katie Jenkins and Rhosanna Jenkins and Alan Kennedy-Asser and Timothy J. Osborn and Detlef Vuuren and Craig Wallace and Daoping Wang and Rebecca Wright},

doi = {10.1007/s10584-023-03646-6},

issn = {0165-0009},

year  = {2024},

date = {2024-02-29},

journal = {Climatic Change},

volume = {177},

number = {3},

publisher = {Springer},

abstract = {The Topical Collection “Accrual of Climate Change Risk in Six Vulnerable Countries” provides a harmonised assessment of risks to human and natural systems due to global warming of 1.5–4 °C in six countries (China, Brazil, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, and India) using a consistent set of climate change and socioeconomic scenarios. It compares risks in 2100 if warming has reached 3 °C, broadly corresponding to current global greenhouse gas emission reduction policies, including countries’ National Determined Contributions, rather than the Paris Agreement goal of limiting warming to ‘well below’ 2 °C and ‘pursuing efforts’ to limit to 1.5 °C. Global population is assumed either constant at year 2000 levels or to increase to 9.2 billion by 2100. In either case, greater warming is projected to lead, in all six countries, to greater exposure of land and people to drought and fluvial flood hazard, greater declines in biodiversity, and greater reductions in the yield of maize and wheat. Limiting global warming to 1.5 °C, compared with ~ 3 °C, is projected to deliver large benefits for all six countries, including reduced economic damages due to fluvial flooding. The greatest projected benefits are the avoidance of a large increase in exposure of agricultural land to severe drought, which is 61%, 43%, 18%, and 21% lower in Ethiopia, China, Ghana, and India at 1.5 °C than at 3 °C, whilst avoided increases in human exposure to severe drought are 20–80% lower at 1.5 °C than 3 °C across the six countries. Climate refugia for plants are largely preserved at 1.5 °C warming in Ghana, China, and Ethiopia, but refugia shrink in areal extent by a factor of 2, 3, 3, 4, and 10 in Ghana, China, India, Ethiopia, and Brazil, respectively, if warming reaches 3 °C. Economic damages associated with sea-level rise are projected to increase in coastal nations, but more slowly if warming were limited to 1.5 °C. Actual benefits on the ground will also depend on national and local contexts and the extent of future investment in adaptation.},

note = {Data availability: This publication is based on the extraction of data from an existing well-established database, and hence, code availability is not applicable. The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Funding information: This research leading to these results received funding from the UK Government, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, as part of the 1.5–4 °C warming project under contract number UKSBS CR18083-S2.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{544cbfe56b0a4308b839d3531543b734,

title = {Integrating climate-change refugia into 30 by 30 conservation planning in North America},

author = {Sarah P. Saunders and Joanna Grand and Brooke L. Bateman and Mariah Meek and Chad B. Wilsey and Nicole Forstenhäusler and Erin Graham and Rachel Warren and Jeff Price},

doi = {10.1002/fee.2592},

issn = {1540-9295},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-03-01},

journal = {Frontiers in Ecology & the Environment},

volume = {21},

number = {2},

pages = {77–84},

publisher = {Ecological Society of America},

abstract = {Countries have set targets for conserving natural areas to mitigate biodiversity loss, such as the protection of 30% of lands by 2030, commonly referred to as “30 by 30”. Yet strategic conservation planning to align those targets with climate-change refugia is lacking. We investigated the feasibility of achieving 30 by 30 in North America by assessing the proportions of state/provincial/territorial land projected to provide refugia for terrestrial biodiversity and the proportions of those refugia that are currently protected. We also conducted a reserve selection prioritization to identify priority areas that complement the current protected area network and capture refugia for seven taxonomic groups. In North America, <15% of refugia are protected, but ample opportunity exists to expand protection if warming is limited to 2°C. Beyond 2°C, however, the majority of refugia will occur only at high latitudes and elevations. Incorporation of refugia into 30 by 30 efforts will facilitate species persistence under climate change.},

note = {Funding Information: Funding was provided by the UK Natural Environment Research Council grant NE/P014992/1.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{3210f3df482f4483826c1c9773d07ca3,

title = {Quantification of meteorological drought risks between 1.5°C and 4°C of global warming in six countries},

author = {Jeff Price and Rachel Warren and Nicole Forstenhäusler and Craig Wallace and Rhosanna Jenkins and Timothy J. Osborn and D. P. Van Vuuren},

doi = {10.1007/s10584-022-03359-2},

issn = {0165-0009},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-09-28},

journal = {Climatic Change},

volume = {174},

number = {1-2},

publisher = {Springer},

abstract = {We quantify the projected impacts of alternative levels of global warming upon the probability and length of severe drought in six countries (China, Brazil, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana and India). This includes an examination of different land cover classes, and a calculation of the proportion of population in 2100 (SSP2) at exposed to severe drought lasting longer than one year. Current pledges for climate change mitigation, which are projected to still result in global warming levels of 3°C or more, would impact all of the countries in this study. For example, with 3°C warming, more than 50% of the agricultural area in each country is projected to be exposed to severe droughts of longer than one year in a 30-year period. Using standard population projections, it is estimated that 80%-100% of the population in Brazil, China, Egypt, Ethiopia and Ghana (and nearly 50% of the population of India) are projected to be exposed to a severe drought lasting one year or longer in a 30-year period. In contrast, we find that meeting the long-term temperature goal of the Paris Agreement, that is limiting warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, is projected to greatly benefit all of the countries in this study, greatly reducing exposure to severe drought for large percentages of the population and in all major land cover classes, with Egypt potentially benefiting the most.},

note = {Funding: The research leading to these results received funding from the UK Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS). TJO also received support from the Belmont Forum and JPI-Climate project INTEGRATE funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (grant no. NE/P006809/1).},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{e65f2b44bd1e45c2a1c3fb666dca6848,

title = {Quantifying risks avoided by limiting global warming to 1.5 or 2°C above pre-industrial levels},

author = {Rachel Warren and Oliver Andrews and Sally Brown and Felipe J. Colón-González and Nicole Forstenhaeusler and David E. H. J. Gernaat and Philip Goodwin and Ian Harris and Helen He and Chris Hope and Desmond Manful and Timothy J. Osborn and Jeff Price and Detlef Vuuren and Rebecca Mary Wright},

doi = {10.1007/s10584-021-03277-9},

issn = {0165-0009},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-06-29},

urldate = {2022-06-29},

journal = {Climatic Change},

volume = {172},

number = {3-4},

publisher = {Springer},

abstract = {The Paris Agreement aims to constrain global warming to ‘well below 2 °C’ and to ‘pursue efforts’ to limit it to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels. We quantify global and regional risk-related metrics associated with these levels of warming that capture climate change–related changes in exposure to water scarcity and heat stress, vector-borne disease, coastal and fluvial flooding and projected impacts on agriculture and the economy, allowing for uncertainties in regional climate projection. Risk-related metrics associated with 2 °C warming, depending on sector, are reduced by 10–44% globally if warming is further reduced to 1.5 °C. Comparing with a baseline in which warming of 3.66 °C occurs by 2100, constraining warming to 1.5 °C reduces these risk indicators globally by 32–85%, and constraining warming to 2 °C reduces them by 26–74%. In percentage terms, avoided risk is highest for fluvial flooding, drought, and heat stress, but in absolute terms risk reduction is greatest for drought. Although water stress decreases in some regions, it is often accompanied by additional exposure to flooding. The magnitude of the percentage of damage avoided is similar to that calculated for avoided global economic risk associated with these same climate change scenarios. We also identify West Africa, India and North America as hotspots of climate change risk in the future.},

note = {Funding: This research leading to these results received funding from the UK Government, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, as part of the Implications of global warming of 1.5 °C and 2 °C project. OA, YH, JP and RW were also funded by joint UK NERC and UK Government Department of BEIS grant NE/P01495X/1.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{08c68b49873142f6834167c0fd7ed6f8,

title = {Quantification of impacts between 1.5°C and 4°C of global warming on flooding risks in six countries},

author = {Yi He and Desmond Manful and Rachel Warren and Nicole Forstenhaeusler and Timothy J. Osborn and Jeff Price and Rhosanna Jenkins and Craig Wallace and Dai Yamazaki},

doi = {10.1007/s10584-021-03289-5},

issn = {0165-0009},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-01-25},

journal = {Climatic Change},

volume = {170},

number = {1-2},

publisher = {Springer},

abstract = {We project climate change induced changes in fluvial flood risks for six global warming levels between 1.5 and 4°C by 2100, focusing on the major river basins of six countries. Daily time series of precipitation, temperature and monthly potential evapotranspiration were generated by combining monthly observations, daily reanalysis data, and projected changes in the five CMIP5 GCMs also selected in the ISI-MIP fast track project. These series were then used to drive the HBV hydrological model and the CaMa-Flood hydrodynamic model to simulate river discharge and flood inundation. Our results indicate that return periods of 1 in 100-year floods in the late 20th century (Q100-20C) are likely to decrease with warming. At 1.5°C warming, 47%, 66%, 27%, 65%, 62% and 92% of the major basin areas in Brazil, China, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana and India respectively experience a decrease in the return period of Q100-20C, increasing to 54%, 81%, 28%, 82%, 86% and 96% with 4°C warming. The decrease in return periods leads to increased number of people exposed to flood risks, particularly with 4°C warming, where exposure in the major river basin areas in the six countries increase significantly, ranging from a doubling (China) to more than 50-fold (Egypt). Limiting warming to 1.5°C would avoid much of these increased risks, resulting in increases ranging from 12% to 1266% for the 6 countries.},

note = {Funding Information: The study was funded by the UK Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS). TJO also received support from the Belmont Forum and JPI-Climate project INTEGRATE funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (grant no. NE/P006809/1). DY is funded by TOUGOU program by MEXT Japan (JPMXD0717935457). The observed discharge data was obtained from the Global Runoff Data Centre (GRDC).},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{c1c0e62aa8b24b23897fb072750da4c5,

title = {Economic impacts of climate-induced crop yield changes: Evidence from agri-food industries in six countries},

author = {Daoping Wang and Katie Jenkins and Nicole Forstenhäusler and Tianyang Lei and Jeff Price and Rachel Warren and Rhosanna Jenkins and Dabo Guan},

doi = {10.1007/s10584-021-03062-8},

issn = {0165-0009},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-06-03},

journal = {Climatic Change},

volume = {166},

number = {3-4},

publisher = {Springer},

abstract = {The potential impact of climate change on agriculture has been one of the most discussed topics in the literature on climate change. Although the possible impacts of climate change on crop yields have been widely studied, there remains little quantitative understanding of the heterogeneous economic responses to climate-induced crop yield changes in different economies, particularly at higher levels of warming. This study assesses the economic impacts of eight scenarios of warming, from 1.5 to 4 °C, on rice and wheat yields in China, India, Brazil, Egypt, Ghana and Ethiopia. The role of both natural and social factors in crop production is considered by coupling a statistical crop model (ClimaCrop) and a global economic model (GTAP). Changes in economic outputs, consumer and producer prices and national economic welfare are presented. The study shows marginal benefits of crop yield changes on GDP and welfare in China up to 3.5 and 3.0 °C, respectively. This is due to projected increases in rice yields which lower domestic consumer rice prices. Although at higher warming levels these trends begin to reverse. The other countries are negatively impacted due to declining crop yields, with increasing consumer prices of domestic and imported rice and wheat. GDP and welfare declines, with more severe reductions associated with the higher warming levels, particularly in India and Ethiopia. The method is beneficial as the economic outputs reflect a more in-depth picture of the response of global markets and ultimately regional consequences of agricultural impacts that will be of importance to decision makers.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{6fe500ef16a14be6bdba00e7e6ecc161,

title = {Endemism increases species' climate change risk in areas of global biodiversity importance},

author = {Stella Manes and Mark J. Costello and Heath Beckett and Anindita Debnath and Eleanor Devenish-Nelson and Kerry-Anne Grey and Rhosanna Jenkins and Tasnuva Ming Khan and Wolfgang Kiessling and Cristina Krause and Shobha S. Maharaj and Guy F. Midgley and Jeff Price and Gautam Talukdar and Mariana M. Vale},

doi = {10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109070},

issn = {0006-3207},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-05-01},

journal = {Biological Conservation},

volume = {257},

publisher = {Elsevier},

abstract = {Climate change affects life at global scales and across systems but is of special concern in areas that are disproportionately rich in biological diversity and uniqueness. Using a meta-analytical approach, we analysed >8000 risk projections of the projected impact of climate change on 273 areas of exceptional biodiversity, including terrestrial and marine environments. We found that climate change is projected to negatively impact all assessed areas, but endemic species are consistently more adversely impacted. Terrestrial endemics are projected to be 2.7 and 10 times more impacted than non-endemic natives and introduced species respectively, the latter being overall unaffected by climate change. We defined a high risk of extinction as a loss of >80% due to climate change alone. Of endemic species, 34% and 46% in terrestrial and marine ecosystems, and 100% and 84% of island and mountain species were projected to face high extinction risk respectively. A doubling of warming is projected to disproportionately increase extinction risks for endemic and non-endemic native species. Thus, reducing extinction risks requires both adaptation responses in biodiversity rich-spots and enhanced climate change mitigation.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{119c544d6b7b4b889636b2254c04152c,

title = {Investigating the potential impact of 1.5, 2 and 3 °C global warming levels on crop suitability and planting season over West Africa},

author = {Temitope Samuel Egbebiyi and Olivier Crespo and Christopher Lennard and Modathir Zaroug and Grigory Nikulin and Ian Harris and Jeff Price and Nicole Forstenhäusler and Rachel Warren},

doi = {10.7717/peerj.8851},

issn = {2167-8359},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-05-05},

journal = {PeerJ},

volume = {8},

publisher = {PeerJ},

abstract = {West African rainfed agriculture is highly vulnerable to climate variability and change. Global warming is projected to result in higher regional warming and have a strong impact on agriculture. This study specifically examines the impact of global warming levels (GWLs) of 1.5°, 2° and 3 °C relative to 1971–2000 on crop suitability over West Africa. We used 10 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase5 Global Climate Models (CMIP5 GCMs) downscaled by Coordinated Regional Downscaling Experiment (CORDEX) Rossby Centre’s regional Atmospheric model version 4, RCA4, to drive Ecocrop, a crop suitability model, for pearl millet, cassava, groundnut, cowpea, maize and plantain. The results show Ecocrop simulated crop suitability spatial representation with higher suitability, observed to the south of latitude 14°N and lower suitability to its north for 1971–2000 for all crops except for plantain (12°N). The model also simulates the best three planting months within the growing season from September-August over the past climate. Projected changes in crop suitability under the three GWLs 1.5–3.0 °C suggest a spatial suitability expansion for legume and cereal crops, notably in the central southern Sahel zone; root and tuber and plantain in the central Guinea-Savanna zone. In contrast, projected decreases in the crop suitability index value are predicted to the south of 14°N for cereals, root and tuber crops; nevertheless, the areas remain suitable for the crops. A delay of between 1-3 months is projected over the region during the planting month under the three GWLs for legumes, pearl millet and plantain. A two month delay in planting is projected in the south, notably over the Guinea and central Savanna zone with earlier planting of about three months in the Savanna-Sahel zones. The effect of GWL2.0 and GWL3.0 warming in comparison to GWL1.5 °C are more dramatic on cereals and root and tuber crops, especially cassava. All the projected changes in simulated crop suitability in response to climatic variables are statistically significant at 99% confidence level. There is also an increasing trend in the projected crop suitability change across the three warming except for cowpea. This study has implications for improving the resilience of crop production to climate changes, and more broadly, to food security in West Africa.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{20756b4c8b7b4852ba91090ad1045eff,

title = {Impacts on terrestrial biodiversity of moving from a 2ᵒC to a 1.5ᵒC target},

author = {Pete Smith and Jeff Price and Amy Molotoks and Rachel Warren and Yadvinder Malhi},

doi = {10.1098/rsta.2016.0456},

issn = {1364-503X},

year  = {2018},

date = {2018-05-13},

journal = {Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences},

volume = {376},

number = {2119},

publisher = {The Royal Society},

abstract = {We applied a recently developed tool to examine the reduction in climate risk to biodiversity in moving from a 2°C to a 1.5°C target. We then reviewed the recent literature examining the impact of (a) land-based mitigation options and (b) land-based greenhouse gas removal options on biodiversity. We show that holding warming to 1.5°C versus 2°C can significantly reduce the number of species facing a potential loss of 50% of their climatic range. Further, there would be an increase of 5.5–14% of the globe that could potentially act as climatic refugia for plants and animals, an area equivalent to the current global protected area network. Efforts to meet the 1.5°C target through mitigation could largely be consistent with biodiversity protection/enhancement. For impacts of land-based greenhouse gas removal technologies on biodiversity, some (e.g. soil carbon sequestration) could be neutral or positive, others (e.g. bioenergy with carbon capture and storage) are likely to lead to conflicts, while still others (e.g. afforestation/reforestation) are context-specific, when applied at scales necessary for meaningful greenhouse gas removal. Additional effort to meet the 1.5°C target presents some risks, particularly if inappropriately managed, but it also presents opportunities. This article is part of the theme issue ‘The Paris Agreement: understanding the physical and social challenges for a warming world of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels'.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{2086,

title = {How much difference does half a degree of global warming make to insects, vertebrates and plants?},

author = {R Warren and J Price and J VanDerWal and E Graham and N Forstenhaeusler},

url = {http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6390/791},

doi = {10.1126/science.aar3646},

year  = {2018},

date = {2018-01-01},

journal = {Science},

abstract = {<p>In the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, the United Nations is pursuing efforts to limit global warming to 1.5textdegreeC, whereas earlier aspirations focused on a 2textdegreeC limit. With current pledges, corresponding to ~3.2textdegreeC warming, climatically determined geographic range losses of >50% are projected in ~49% of insects, 44% of plants, and 26% of vertebrates. At 2textdegreeC, this falls to 18% of insects, 16% of plants, and 8% of vertebrates and at 1.5textdegreeC, to 6% of insects, 8% of plants, and 4% of vertebrates. When warming is limited to 1.5textdegreeC as compared with 2textdegreeC, numbers of species projected to lose >50% of their range are reduced by ~66% in insects and by ~50% in plants and vertebrates.</p>},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{2057,

title = {Impacts on terrestrial biodiversity of moving from a 2 degrees C to a 1.5 degrees C target},

author = {P Smith and J Price and A Molotoks and R Warren and Y Malhi},

url = {http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/376/2119/20160456},

doi = {10.1098/rsta.2016.0456},

year  = {2018},

date = {2018-01-01},

journal = {Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A - Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences},

volume = {376},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{2064,

title = {The implications of the United Nations Paris Agreement on climate change for globally significant biodiversity areas},

author = {R Warren and J Price and J VanDerWal and S Cornelius and H Sohl},

url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-018-2158-6},

doi = {10.1007/s10584-018-2158-6},

year  = {2018},

date = {2018-01-01},

journal = {Climatic Change},

volume = {147},

pages = {395-409},

chapter = {395},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{2063,

title = {The projected effect on insects, vertebrates, and plants of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees C rather than 2 degrees C},

author = {R Warren and J Price and E Graham and N Forstenhaeusler and J VanDerWal},

url = {http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6390/791},

doi = {10.1126/science.aar3646},

year  = {2018},

date = {2018-01-01},

journal = {Science},

volume = {360},

chapter = {791},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{2011,

title = {Risks associated with global warming of 1.5 or 2C},

author = {R Warren and O Andrews and S Brown and N Forstenhaeusler and D Gernaat and P Goodwin and I Harris and Y He and C Home and FJ Colón-González and R Nicholls and T Osborn and J Price and D Van Vuuren and R Wright},

year  = {2018},

date = {2018-01-01},

publisher = {Tyndall Centre Briefing Note},

abstract = {<p>This Briefing Note summarises research examining the risks associated with global warming of 1.5<strong>textdegree</strong>C and 2<strong>textdegree</strong>C funded by the UK department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) undertaken by researchers at the Tyndall Centre.</p>},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{07e7f42c803c4e128ad1b804ff69de32,

title = {IPCC reasons for concern regarding climate change risks},

author = {Brian C. O'Neill and Michael Oppenheimer and Rachel Warren and Stephane Hallegatte and Robert E. Kopp and Hans O. Pörtner and Robert Scholes and Joern Birkmann and Wendy Foden and Rachel Licker and Katharine J. Mach and Phillippe Marbaix and Michael D. Mastrandrea and Jeff Price and Kiyoshi Takahashi and Jean-Pascal Ypersele and Gary Yohe},

doi = {10.1038/nclimate3179},

issn = {1758-678X},

year  = {2017},

date = {2017-01-04},

journal = {Nature Climate Change},

volume = {7},

pages = {28–37},

publisher = {Nature Publishing Group},

abstract = {The reasons for concern framework communicates scientific understanding about risks in relation to varying levels of climate change. The framework, now a cornerstone of the IPCC assessments, aggregates global risks into five categories as a function of global mean temperature change. We review the framework's conceptual basis and the risk judgments made in the most recent IPCC report, confirming those judgments in most cases in the light of more recent literature and identifying their limitations. We point to extensions of the framework that offer complementary climate change metrics to global mean temperature change and better account for possible changes in social and ecological system vulnerability. Further research should systematically evaluate risks under alternative scenarios of future climatic and societal conditions.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{1990,

title = {The potential impacts of climate change on the biodiversity of Norfolk},

author = {J Price},

year  = {2017},

date = {2017-01-01},

journal = {Trans. Norfolk Norwich Nat. Soc},

volume = {50},

chapter = {1-8},

abstract = {<p>Climate change is posing, and will continue to pose, increasing risks to biodiversity.  This paper reviews the projected climate change impacts (relative to a 1961-1990 baseline) on some of the biodiversity in Norfolk (including birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, butterflies, common macro moths, dragonflies, bumblebees, grasshoppers, shieldbugs, ferns, orchids, and some trees and shrubs.  Of the 834 species examined, the taxa potentially most at risk to loss of climate suitability with 2textdegreeC of warming are the Grasshoppers and Bush Crickets (75% of the species), Bumblebees (72%) and common Macro Moths (68%).  By 3.2textdegreeC this goes to 88% of the Grasshoppers and Bush Crickets, 84% of the common macro moths, 83% of the shieldbugs and 78% of the butterflies.  While animals fare better climatically, they are still likely to be impacted by the projected losses of some of their food resources and the loss of bumblebees could have a major impact on pollination.</p>},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{c2bdcbd40084415a854967759d76ae34,

title = {Sensitivity of UK butterflies to local climatic extremes: Which life stages are most at risk?},

author = {Osgur McDermott Long and Rachel Warren and Jeff Price and Tom M. Brereton and Marc S. Botham and Aldina M. A. Franco},

doi = {10.1111/1365-2656.12594},

issn = {0021-8790},

year  = {2017},

date = {2017-01-01},

journal = {Journal of Animal Ecology},

volume = {86},

number = {1},

pages = {108–116},

publisher = {Wiley},

abstract = {1. There is growing recognition as to the importance of extreme climatic events (ECEs) in determining changes in species populations. In fact it’s often the extent of climate variability that determines a population’s ability to persist at a given site. 2. This study examined the impact of ECEs on the resident UK butterfly species (n=41) over a 37 year period. The study investigated the sensitivity of butterflies to four extremes (Drought, Extreme Precipitation, Extreme Heat, Extreme Cold), identified at the site level, across each species’ life stages. Variations in the vulnerability of butterflies at the site level were also compared based on 3 life history traits (voltinism, habitat requirement, and range). 3. This is the first study to examine the effects of ECEs at the site level across all life stages of a butterfly, identifying sensitive life stages and unravelling the role life history traits play in species sensitivity to ECEs. 4. Butterfly population changes were found to be primarily driven by temperature extremes. Extreme heat was detrimental during overwintering periods and beneficial during adult periods and extreme cold had opposite impacts on both of these life stages. Previously undocumented detrimental effects were identified for extreme precipitation during the pupal life stage for univoltine species. Generalists were found to have significantly more negative associations with ECEs than specialists. 5. With future projections of warmer, wetter winters and more severe weather events, UK butterflies could come under severe pressure given the findings of this study.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{9bd70177073c4bfb91b05bf06a02b4d8,

title = {The Biodiversity and Climate Change Virtual Laboratory: Where ecology meets big data},

author = {Willow Hallgren and Linda Beaumont and Andrew Bowness and Lynda Chambers and Erin Graham and Hamish Holewa and Shawn Laffan and Brendan Mackey and Henry Nix and Jeff Price and Jeremy Vanderwal and Rachel Warren and Gerhard Weis},

doi = {10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.10.025},

issn = {1364-8152},

year  = {2016},

date = {2016-02-01},

journal = {Environmental Modelling and Software},

volume = {76},

pages = {182–186},

publisher = {Elsevier},

abstract = {Advances in computing power and infrastructure, increases in the number and size of ecological and environmental datasets, and the number and type of data collection methods, are revolutionizing the field of Ecology. To integrate these advances, virtual laboratories offer a unique tool to facilitate, expedite, and accelerate research into the impacts of climate change on biodiversity. We introduce the uniquely cloud-based Biodiversity and Climate Change Virtual Laboratory (BCCVL), which provides access to numerous species distribution modelling tools; a large and growing collection of biological, climate, and other environmental datasets; and a variety of experiment types to conduct research into the impact of climate change on biodiversity.Users can upload and share datasets, potentially increasing collaboration, cross-fertilisation of ideas, and innovation among the user community. Feedback confirms that the BCCVL's goals of lowering the technical requirements for species distribution modelling, and reducing time spent on such research, are being met.},

note = {© 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{1730,

title = {The Biodiversity and Climate Change Virtual Laboratory: Where ecology meets big data},

author = {Willow Hallgren and Linda Beaumont and Andrew Bowness and Lynda Chambers and Erin Graham and Hamish Holewa and Shawn Laffan and Brendan Mackey and Henry Nix and Jeff Price},

doi = {DOI: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.10.025},

year  = {2016},

date = {2016-01-01},

abstract = {<p>Advances in computing power and infrastructure, increases in the number and size of ecological and environmental datasets, and the number and type of data collection methods, are revolutionizing the field of Ecology. To integrate these advances, virtual laboratories offer a unique tool to facilitate, expedite, and accelerate research into the impacts of climate change on biodiversity. We introduce the uniquely cloud-based Biodiversity and Climate Change Virtual Laboratory (BCCVL), which provides access to numerous species distribution modelling tools; a large and growing collection of biological, climate, and other environmental datasets; and a variety of experiment types to conduct research into the impact of climate change on biodiversity.<br><br>Users can upload and share datasets, potentially increasing collaboration, cross-fertilisation of ideas, and innovation among the user community. Feedback confirms that the BCCVLtextquoterights goals of lowering the technical requirements for species distribution, modelling, and reducing time spent on such research, are being met. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.</p>},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{ae7c3f21988c4bc4a272f1ca44696f4e,

title = {Global crop yield response to extreme heat stress under multiple climate change futures},

author = {Delphine Deryng and Declan Conway and Navin Ramankutty and Jeff Price and Rachel Warren},

doi = {10.1088/1748-9326/9/3/034011},

issn = {1748-9326},

year  = {2014},

date = {2014-03-01},

journal = {Environmental Research Letters},

volume = {9},

number = {3},

publisher = {IOP Publishing Ltd},

abstract = {Extreme heat stress during the crop reproductive period can be critical for crop productivity. Projected changes in the frequency and severity of extreme climatic events are expected to negatively impact crop yields and global food production. This study applies the global crop model PEGASUS to quantify, for the first time at the global scale, impacts of extreme heat stress on maize, spring wheat and soybean yields resulting from 72 climate change scenarios for the 21st century. Our results project maize to face progressively worse impacts under a range of RCPs but spring wheat and soybean to improve globally through to the 2080s due to CO2 fertilization effects, even though parts of the tropic and sub-tropic regions could face substantial yield declines. We find extreme heat stress at anthesis (HSA) by the 2080s (relative to the 1980s) under RCP 8.5, taking into account CO2 fertilization effects, could double global losses of maize yield (ΔY = −12.8 ± 6.7% versus − 7.0 ± 5.3% without HSA), reduce projected gains in spring wheat yield by half (ΔY = 34.3 ± 13.5% versus 72.0 ± 10.9% without HSA) and in soybean yield by a quarter (ΔY = 15.3 ± 26.5% versus 20.4 ± 22.1% without HSA). The range reflects uncertainty due to differences between climate model scenarios; soybean exhibits both positive and negative impacts, maize is generally negative and spring wheat generally positive. Furthermore, when assuming CO2 fertilization effects to be negligible, we observe drastic climate mitigation policy as in RCP 2.6 could avoid more than 80% of the global average yield losses otherwise expected by the 2080s under RCP 8.5. We show large disparities in climate impacts across regions and find extreme heat stress adversely affects major producing regions and lower income countries.},

note = {Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{629b,

title = {Global crop yield response to extreme heat stress under multiple climate change futures},

author = {D Deryng and D Conway and N Ramankutty and J Price and Rachel Warren},

year  = {2014},

date = {2014-01-01},

journal = {Environmental Research Letters},

volume = {9},

abstract = {<p>Extreme heat stress during the crop reproductive period can be critical for crop productivity. Projected changes in the frequency and severity of extreme climatic events are expected to negatively impact crop yields and global food production. This study applies the global crop model PEGASUS to quantify, for the first time at the global scale, impacts of extreme heat stress on maize, spring wheat and soybean yields resulting from 72 climate change scenarios for the 21st century. Our results project maize to face progressively worse impacts under a range of RCPs but spring wheat and soybean to improve globally through to the 2080s due to CO_{<font size="2">2</font>} fertilization effects, even though parts of the tropic and sub-tropic regions could face substantial yield declines. We find extreme heat stress at anthesis (HSA) by the 2080s (relative to the 1980s) under RCP 8.5, taking into account CO_{<font size="2">2</font>} fertilization effects, could double global losses of maize yield (\emph{Δ}Y = -12.8 textpm 6.7% versus - 7.0 textpm 5.3% without HSA), reduce projected gains in spring wheat yield by half (\emph{Δ}Y = 34.3 textpm 13.5% versus 72.0 textpm 10.9% without HSA) and in soybean yield by a quarter (\emph{Δ}Y = 15.3 textpm 26.5% versus 20.4 textpm 22.1% without HSA). The range reflects uncertainty due to differences between climate model scenarios; soybean exhibits both positive and negative impacts, maize is generally negative and spring wheat generally positive. Furthermore, when assuming CO_{<font size="2">2</font>} fertilization effects to be negligible, we observe drastic climate mitigation policy as in RCP 2.6 could avoid more than 80% of the global average yield losses otherwise expected by the 2080s under RCP 8.5. We show large disparities in climate impacts across regions and find extreme heat stress adversely affects major producing regions and lower income countries.</p>},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{1380,

title = {Quantifying the benefit of early climate change mitigation in avoiding biodiversity loss},

author = {Rachel Warren and J VanDerWal and J Price and JA Welbergen and I Atkinson and J Ramirez-Villegas and TJ Osborn and A Jarvis and LP Shoo and SE Williams and J Lowe},

year  = {2013},

date = {2013-01-01},

journal = {Nature Climate Change},

abstract = {<p>Climate change is expected to have significant influences on terrestrial biodiversity at all system levels, including species-level reductions in range size and abundance, especially amongst endemic species. However, little is known about how mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions could reduce biodiversity impacts, particularly amongst common and widespread species. Our global analysis of future climatic range change of common and widespread species shows that without mitigation, 57textpm6% of plants and 34textpm7% of animals are likely to lose >=50% of their present climatic range by the 2080s. With mitigation, however, losses are reduced by 60% if emissions peak in 2016 or 40% if emissions peak in 2030. Thus, our analyses indicate that without mitigation, large range contractions can be expected even amongst common and widespread species, amounting to a substantial global reduction in biodiversity and ecosystem services by the end of this century. Prompt and stringent mitigation, on the other hand, could substantially reduce range losses and buy up to four decades for climate change adaptation.</p><p> </p>},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{a7e3a026957c4c7e8cebb1a6d476e98c,

title = {Increasing impacts of climate change upon ecosystems with increasing global mean temperature rise},

author = {Rachel Warren and Jeff Price and Andreas Fischlin and Santiago Nava Santos and Guy Midgley},

doi = {10.1007/s10584-010-9923-5},

issn = {0165-0009},

year  = {2010},

date = {2010-01-01},

journal = {Climatic Change},

volume = {106},

number = {2},

pages = {141–177},

publisher = {Springer},

abstract = {In a meta-analysis we integrate peer-reviewed studies that provide quantified estimates of future projected ecosystem changes related to quantified projected local or global climate changes. In an advance on previous analyses, we reference all studies to a common pre-industrial base-line for temperature, employing up-scaling techniques where necessary, detailing how impacts have been projected on every continent, in the oceans, and for the globe, for a wide range of ecosystem types and taxa. Dramatic and substantive projected increases of climate change impacts upon ecosystems are revealed with increasing annual global mean temperature rise above the pre-industrial mean (?Tg). Substantial negative impacts are commonly projected as ?Tg reaches and exceeds 2°C, especially in biodiversity hotspots. Compliance with the ultimate objective of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Article 2) requires that greenhouse gas concentrations be stabilized within a time frame "sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change". Unless ?Tg is constrained to below 2°C at most, results here imply that it will be difficult to achieve compliance. This underscores the need to limit greenhouse gas emissions by accelerating mitigation efforts and by protecting existing ecosystems from greenhouse-gas producing land use change processes such as deforestation.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{962,

title = {Millennial timescale carbon cycle and climate change in an efficient Earth system model},

author = {T Lenton and P Wilkinson and N Edwards and R Marsh and J Price and A Ridgwell and J Shepherd and SJ Cox},

year  = {2006},

date = {2006-01-01},

journal = {Climate Dynamics},

volume = {26},

pages = {687-711},

chapter = {687},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}