Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorFesta, F
dc.contributor.authorAncillotto, L
dc.contributor.authorSantini, L
dc.contributor.authorPacifici, M
dc.contributor.authorRocha, R
dc.contributor.authorToshkova, N
dc.contributor.authorAmorim, F
dc.contributor.authorBenítez-López, A
dc.contributor.authorDomer, A
dc.contributor.authorHamidović, D
dc.contributor.authorKramer-Schadt, S
dc.contributor.authorMathews, F
dc.contributor.authorRadchuk, V
dc.contributor.authorRebelo, H
dc.contributor.authorRuczynski, I
dc.contributor.authorSolem, E
dc.contributor.authorTsoar, A
dc.contributor.authorRusso, D
dc.contributor.authorRazgour, O
dc.date.accessioned2022-09-05T10:41:38Z
dc.date.issued2022-08-21
dc.date.updated2022-09-05T10:13:38Z
dc.description.abstractUnderstanding how species respond to climate change is key to informing vulnerability assessments and designing effective conservation strategies, yet research efforts on wildlife responses to climate change fail to deliver a representative overview due to inherent biases. Bats are a species-rich, globally distributed group of organisms that are thought to be particularly sensitive to the effects of climate change because of their high surface-to-volume ratios and low reproductive rates. We systematically reviewed the literature on bat responses to climate change to provide an overview of the current state of knowledge, identify research gaps and biases and highlight future research needs. We found that studies are geographically biased towards Europe, North America and Australia, and temperate and Mediterranean biomes, thus missing a substantial proportion of bat diversity and thermal responses. Less than half of the published studies provide concrete evidence for bat responses to climate change. For over a third of studied bat species, response evidence is only based on predictive species distribution models. Consequently, the most frequently reported responses involve range shifts (57% of species) and changes in patterns of species diversity (26%). Bats showed a variety of responses, including both positive (e.g. range expansion and population increase) and negative responses (range contraction and population decrease), although responses to extreme events were always negative or neutral. Spatial responses varied in their outcome and across families, with almost all taxonomic groups featuring both range expansions and contractions, while demographic responses were strongly biased towards negative outcomes, particularly among Pteropodidae and Molossidae. The commonly used correlative modelling approaches can be applied to many species, but do not provide mechanistic insight into behavioural, physiological, phenological or genetic responses. There was a paucity of experimental studies (26%), and only a small proportion of the 396 bat species covered in the examined studies were studied using long-term and/or experimental approaches (11%), even though they are more informative about the effects of climate change. We emphasise the need for more empirical studies to unravel the multifaceted nature of bats' responses to climate change and the need for standardised study designs that will enable synthesis and meta-analysis of the literature. Finally, we stress the importance of overcoming geographic and taxonomic disparities through strengthening research capacity in the Global South to provide a more comprehensive view of terrestrial biodiversity responses to climate change.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipNatural Environment Research Council (NERC)en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipMUR Rita Levi Montalcini programen_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipPortuguese Foundation for Science and Technologyen_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipSpanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universitiesen_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipJunta de Andalucíaen_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipBulgarian National Science Funden_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipKaroll Knowledge Foundationen_GB
dc.format.mediumPrint-Electronic
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12893
dc.identifier.grantnumberNE/M018660/2en_GB
dc.identifier.grantnumber2020.01129.CEECIND/CP1601/CT0004en_GB
dc.identifier.grantnumberIJCI-2017-31419en_GB
dc.identifier.grantnumberEMERGIA20_00252en_GB
dc.identifier.grantnumberCP-06-COST/15en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/130672
dc.identifierORCID: 0000-0003-3186-0313 (Razgour, Orly)
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherWiley / Cambridge Philosophical Societyen_GB
dc.relation.urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36054527en_GB
dc.rights© 2022 The Authors. Biological Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Cambridge Philosophical Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.en_GB
dc.subjectbatsen_GB
dc.subjectclimate changeen_GB
dc.subjectconservationen_GB
dc.subjectlife traitsen_GB
dc.subjectphysiologyen_GB
dc.subjectspecies rangeen_GB
dc.titleBat responses to climate change: a systematic reviewen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2022-09-05T10:41:38Z
dc.identifier.issn1464-7931
exeter.place-of-publicationEngland
dc.descriptionThis is the final version. Available on open access from Wiley via the DOI in this recorden_GB
dc.identifier.eissn1469-185X
dc.identifier.journalBiological Reviewsen_GB
dc.relation.ispartofBiol Rev Camb Philos Soc
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/en_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2022-08-01
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2022-08-21
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2022-09-05T10:35:02Z
refterms.versionFCDVoR
refterms.dateFOA2022-09-05T10:41:53Z
refterms.panelAen_GB
refterms.dateFirstOnline2022-08-21


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© 2022 The Authors. Biological Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Cambridge Philosophical Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as © 2022 The Authors. Biological Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Cambridge Philosophical Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.