Potential Ecological Consequences

of Climate Change in South Florida

and the Everglades

Resource 

Evaluation 

Report

SFNRC Technical Series

2009:1

2008 Literature Synthesis

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

South Florida Natural Resources Center

Everglades National Park 
Potential Ecological Consequences

of Climate Change in South Florida

and the Everglades

2008 Literature Synthesis

Resource Evaluation Report

SFNRC Technical Series 2009:1

South Florida Natural Resources Center

Everglades National Park

Homestead, Florida

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Cover photograph shows the Ten Thousand Islands near Chokoloskee in Everglades National Park, looking toward the Gulf of Mexico. 

Photo by William Perry, ENP
ii South Florida Natural Resources Center Technical Series (2009:1)
Potential Ecological Consequences of Climate Change in South Florida and the Everglades: 2008 Literature Synthesis iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Global climate changes are likely to have profound effects on 

the Earth’s ecosystems and on our perspectives on ecological 

conservation. Regional models project varying trends across 

the United States and even between southern and northern 

Florida. The purpose of this report is to summarize climate 

change literature pertinent to south Florida, particularly the 

Everglades, and to assess potential ecosystem vulnerabilities 

and the capacity for adaptation to climate change in this important ecosystem. 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 

is unequivocal in stating that the Earth’s climate is warming 

on the basis of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising average global sea level during the last 100 years. Furthermore, 

anthropogenic drivers of climate change have greater influence than natural drivers (IPCC 2007a). 

General Climate Trends for Florida

6 Although climate observations have not shown a large 

warming for the southeastern United States to date, 

temperatures in south Florida have increased from 0.25 

to 1.4 oC between the two most recent 30-year temperature normals, 1961-90 and 1971-2000 (Soule 2005). Global 

climate models predict an additional increase to the end of 

the century of from 2 to 5.5 oC (IPCC 2007a). 

6 IPCC models also address precipitation changes and 

predict a slight decrease in rainfall during December, 

January, and February—months that are within the dry 

season. However, a decrease in rainfall of 10 to 15 percent 

for the wet season also is predicted. 

6 A shift is expected toward a more positive phase of the 

North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and an El Niño-like 

pattern with higher temperatures in the Pacific. With even 

modest decreases in rainfall and increases in temperature, extended droughts with increased evaporation are 

expected with an accompanying reduction of recharge in 

the Everglades wetland ecosystems and surface aquifers. 

This may have dramatic consequences for fire patterns.

6 Predictions for the amounts and timing of sea level rise 

are difficult to quantify. Seawater expands as it heats up, 

producing thermosteric sea level rise. Simulated changes 

in ocean temperature and salinity can be used over much 

of the ocean to forecast global average thermal expansion and sea level changes (Gregory et al. 2001, Lowe and 

Gregory 2006). Sea level rise along the coasts of Florida 

will at least approximate the global average (IPCC 2007a), 

which the IPCC projects to be between 0.2 and 0.6 meters 

(7 to 23 inches) by 2100, although observations of current 

sea level rise are higher than average adjacent to Florida 

coasts. These projections may be conservative primarily 

because of rapidly changing ice dynamics over land masses 

in Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets. Modeling of 

glacier and ice cap contributions to sea level rise predicts 

a rise of from 0.8 to 2.0 meters (2.6 to 6.6 feet) by the end 

of the century, but the lower end of the range is most plausible (Pfeffer et al. 2008).

6 Although changes in hurricane frequency and intensity are 

difficult to predict, models generally agree on increased 

wind strength and precipitation. The tropical North Atlantic Ocean is expected to experience more storms as well as 

more intense storms (IPCC 2007a). 

Potential Ecological Effects

Studies of species responses to potential climate change in 

south Florida Everglades habitat are limited. However, some 

broad categories of potential effects exist (Table 1), including 

6 direct responses to temperature increases, 

6 response to drought, fire, and other environmental 

changes, 

6 loss of species synchronization, and 

6 habitat loss. 

Species that are on the edge of their physiological range, 

that depend strongly on synchronizing life history events with 

environmental cues, or that have limited dispersal capability 

likely will be the most affected. Habitat fragmentation and urban development will complicate the ability of some animals 

to find new habitat. 

One of the greatest challenges in south Florida is invasive 

species management. Invasive species may find new mechanisms for introduction, new invasive species may appear, existing invasive species may have altered impacts and distributions, and the effectiveness of control programs may change 

over time. 

Vegetation Communities and Landscapes 

6 These communities are likely to change under scenarios 

of climate change and many may experience range expanPotential Ecological Consequences of Climate Change in South Florida and 

the Everglades: 2008 Literature Synthesis

Resource Evaluation Report

SFNRC Technical Series 2009:1
iv South Florida Natural Resources Center Technical Series (2009:1)

sions and contractions. If increased periods of drought 

occur as predicted, some species, especially those dependent on wetlands or impacted by compounding factors 

such as fire, may be adversely affected. 

6 In addition to overall temperature changes, sea level rise 

is anticipated to substantially impact vegetation communities. Sea level rise in the past has been slow enough to 

allow the protective mangrove and marl berms to continue 

upward accretion that, in company with a freshwater head, 

has been sufficient to inhibit saline intrusion. At the faster 

estimates of sea level rise, the berms are expected to be 

overstepped in numerous places by saline water with the 

accompanying loss of freshwater wetlands. At the fastest 

estimates of sea level rise, predictions point to catastrophic inundation of south Florida and loss of freshwater resources. 

6 Intense storms impact soil subsidence and accretion. 

Storms also may result in saltwater intrusion into freshwater wetlands and succession toward salinity-tolerant 

vegetation. 

6 Twenty-seven rare plant species (including four endemics) 

identified in coastal Everglades National Park are likely to 

be affected by sea level rise.

6 Blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) blooms in near-coastal 

waters may increase with temperature increases.

6 Restoration efforts that are aimed at increasing water flow 

to Shark River Slough and Florida Bay may be particularly 

important for maintaining the freshwater head necessary 

to offset saline transgressions as sea level rises. 

Fishes 

6 Fishes will likely be affected by altered hydrologic 

regimes, increased surface water temperatures resulting in decreased concentrations of dissolved oxygen, and 

increased toxicity of pollutants.

6 Rising CO2 concentrations are causing a reduction in pH 

with unknown impacts to marine species. Community 

composition is likely to change as ranges of many species 

shift. 

6 Commercial fisheries in interaction with climate stressors 

may exacerbate changes in fish populations, size structure, 

and distribution. 

6 Within the Everglades, extended droughts substantially 

reduce fish biomass and availability of refugia (DeAngelis 

et al. 2005). 

Coral 

6 Coral bleaching is caused by significant declines in zooxanthellae microalgae. Mass bleaching events have been 

exclusively linked to unusually high sea-surface temperatures (Glynn and D’Croz 1990, Brown 1997, Hoegh-Guldberg 1999, Patterson et al. 2006). Temperature increases of 

the magnitude projected to cause extensive coral bleaching and death are predicted to occur in south Florida and 

the Caribbean. Additionally, if sea level rises faster than 

reef formation is possible, lower light levels also will likely 

contribute to coral death (Glynn 1993). 

6 Predicted ocean acidification will reduce the availability of 

calcium carbonate that is used in reef building and could 

result in decreased growth and decreased skeletal density. 

6 Stewardship of fish and invertebrate herbivores can play 

an important conservation role in the resilience of reefs to 

larger-scale macroalgal disturbances.

Amphibians and Reptiles

6 Amphibians have been the most sensitive species to 

changes in temperature and precipitation (Corn 2005); 

some species have shown shifts in breeding. 

6 The amphibian immune system is highly temperature 

dependent. Species with an immune system that has Florida gar (Lepisosteus platyrhincus) in Everglades National 

Park. Photo by Elise Pearlstine, University of Florida.

Bleached coral (Montastraea faveolata). Photo by ©William Fit, 

University of Georgia, used with permission.
Potential Ecological Consequences of Climate Change in South Florida and the Everglades: 2008 Literature Synthesis v

evolved to successfully cope with pathogens adapted to 

specific temperature ranges may not be able to respond 

quickly to new pathogens in a changed climate (Fisher 

2007).

6 American alligators are at the southern edge of their tolerance range and may be affected by increased temperatures 

and changing hydropattern, habitat loss, and reduced prey 

availability. 

6 American crocodiles are at the northern edge of their 

range and may not experience as great a negative effect 

from climate warming as may be expected for American 

alligators. 

6 Loss of sea turtle nesting habitat is likely where beaches 

are inundated by rising seas and enhanced beach erosion.

6 Reptiles are susceptible to increased ambient temperatures because the sex of some species, including the American alligator, American crocodile, and sea turtles, is determined by nest temperature during incubation.

Birds 

6 Birds already are responding to climate change with shifts 

in migratory phenology (Cotton 2003) and other phenological timing events (Parmesan 2007, Brown et al. 1999). 

6 Florida wading birds are likely to be affected by loss of 

coastal marshes through sea level rise and changes in prey 

availability. 

6 Migratory birds that fly through or winter in south Florida 

may leave their wintering grounds early to migrate north, 

increasing competitive interaction with local birds that 

often breed in late winter or early spring. 

6 Some Florida birds may experience a northern shift in 

their ranges. 

6 Rather than following seasonal patterns of spring, summer, 

fall, and winter, many Florida birds are accustomed to 

timing their breeding events with hydrologic patterns and 

depend on the availability of suitable water. More intense 

drought, storm events, and sea level rise are likely to interact negatively with avian habitat requirements. Interruptions to natural seasonal drydown and flooding patterns 

can cause nest abandonment, prey die-offs, and nesting 

failures. 

Mammals

6 Mammals will respond to changes in habitat and prey 

availability. 

6 Inundation of habitat in the low-lying barrier islands of 

the Florida Keys and Ten Thousand Islands would leave 

many species, including a variety of endemic, rare species, 

particularly vulnerable. 

Insects 

6 Insects likely will experience many of the same effects as 

vertebrates, including changed migratory patterns, loss of 

plant species that are food or shelter sources, and northern 

range expansion. 

6 Insects living in tropical climates are likely to be less tolerant of climate warming because they are already living 

in environments near the upper limits of their optimal 

temperature range (Deutsch et al. 2008).

6 Butterflies are very sensitive to temperature and humidity 

and commonly are dependent on specific plant hosts and 

nectar sources. Climate and habitat changes could cause 

major physiological disruptions for these insect species.

Key deer (Odocoileus virginianus clavium). Photo by ©Katy 

Dimos Raits, used with permission.

Purple Gallinule (Porphyrio martinica) nest with eggs. Photo by 

Elise Pearlstine, University of Florida.
vi South Florida Natural Resources Center Technical Series (2009:1)

Natural Resource Management 

Implications

6 The Everglades ecosystem is at risk from the combined 

expected trends in greenhouse gases, temperature, precipitation, storm events, and sea level rise. 

6 Species frequently are not responding to a single environmental trend but to a complex relation of multiple environmental factors including geographic and hydrologic 

patterns, interactions with other species, and restriction to 

migration. 

6 The result of present and future climate changes and irreversible human alterations of the landscape is that restoration must be defined in terms of reducing ecosystem 

vulnerability and promoting adaptation and resilience. 

Climate change imposes variably continuous change on 

the system over the long term, making management goals 

a moving target and systems responses only partial indicators of success. 

6 Goals for Everglades restoration that are defined in terms 

of reducing ecosystem vulnerability and promoting adaptation and resilience should include maintenance of multiple areas of habitat and large-scale connectivity to facilitate species migration and protection of coastal communities. Meeting these goals will require attention to group 

decision and support tactics that include scientific, social, 

and political learning. 

6 Baseline biotic and environmental monitoring and continued development of region-wide spatial databases will 

be critical for forecasting spatial processes and responses 

to climate change. Continued, long-term commitment is 

required for monitoring networks to assist early warning 

and forecasts of potential ecosystem changes. 

6 Ecological research should address critical needs such as 

furthering understanding of differential floral and faunal 

responses to habitat changes by dispersal to new areas 

or disruptions in phenological synchronization among 

species and the potential for evolutionary adaptations. 

Projected 

Event

Possible Effect Taxa/Group Affected

Increased 

temperature

Changing phenology of vegetation and plant communities

Loss of species synchronization

Increased surface-water temperatures with decreased 

concentration of dissolved oxygen and increased 

toxicity of pollutants

Range shifts of fish and other vertebrates

CO2

 concentrations reduce pH value

Changing hydropattern

Plant communities including graminoids

Cyanobacteria

Fish

Coral

Invertebrate herbivores

Aquatic communities

Amphibians

Insect eaters

Migrants – birds and butterflies

Pollinators

Seed-eaters

Invasive species

Species on the edge of their range (either northern or southern)

Weather 

uncertainty/more 

extreme storm 

events

Altered fire patterns and dynamics

Increased wind strength and precipitation during storms

More storms and higher intensity storms

Droughts

Soil – subsidence or accretion

Disconnect between breeding patterns of birds and 

hydrologic events

Vegetation communities

Marshes and wetlands

Mangroves

Aquatic fauna

Amphibians

Florida Bay species

Wading birds

Species that time nesting/breeding with hydrologic cycles

Most wildlife species

Colonial waterbirds

Precipitation 

changes

Decreased rainfall during dry season

Decreased rainfall during wet season

Loss of dry season refugia

Amphibians

Fish, especially small species

Plants and plant communities

Sea level rise Saltwater intrusion

Increased sea level in current coastal areas – loss of 

protective berms

Increased inundation of Florida Keys and Ten Thousand 

Islands

Habitat loss in low-lying areas in general, including coastal 

nurseries for important marine fish species

Plant communities, especially mangrove, freshwater marsh, 

saltwater marsh, etc.

Coastal tidal flats

Rare or endemic coastal plant species

Sea turtles

Wading birds

Vertebrate species of the Florida Keys and other low-lying areas

Shift to more 

positive North 

Atlantic Oscillation

Extended droughts

Increased evaporation

Reduction of recharge in Everglades wetlands and aquifers

Changes in fire patterns

Wetland vegetation communities

Wetland-dependent wildlife species

General plant and wildlife impacts from changes in fire regime 

and droughts

Increased 

atmospheric CO2

concentration

Reduced pH in oceanic waters

Photosynthetic pathways

Coral

Fishes

C3 vegetation

Table 1. Summary of potential effects of global climate change on south Florida biodiversity. Groups affected in each event may 

experience one or more of the possible effects.
Potential Ecological Consequences of Climate Change in South Florida and the Everglades: 2008 Literature Synthesis vii

Table of Contents

Contributing authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

Foreword. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

IPCC AND GLOBAL CLIMATE MODELS IN BRIEF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

GENERAL TRENDS FOR FLORIDA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Temperature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Precipitation and Drought. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Sea Level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Storms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Ocean Circulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

POTENTIAL EVERGLADES ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Landscapes and Vegetation Communities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Fishes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Coral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Amphibians and Reptiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Birds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Mammals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Insects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Goals for Resilience in Everglades Restoration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Broad Monitoring and Research Needs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

LITERATURE CITED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

APPENDIX: Additional RESOURCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
viii South Florida Natural Resources Center Technical Series (2009:1)

This report should be cited as:

Pearlstine, L.G., E.V. Pearlstine, J. Sadle, and T. Schmidt. 2009. Potential ecological consequences of climate change in south 

Florida and the Everglades: 2008 literature synthesis. National Park Service, Everglades National Park, South Florida Natural 

Resources Center, Homestead, FL. Resource Evaluation Report. SFNRC Technical Series 2009:1. 35 pp.

Printed on 30% post-consumer waste paper with vegetable-based inks. Fiber sourced from responsibly managed forests.

Contributing aut hors

Leonard G. Pearlstine1, Elise V. Pearlstine2, Jimi Sadle1, and Tom Schmidt1

1

South Florida Natural Resources Center, Everglades National Park, 950 N. Krome Avenue, Homestead, FL 33030-4443

2

Everglades Research and Education Center, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Belle Glade, FL 

33430-4702

Comments and Questions: Leonard_Pearlstine@nps.gov

Acknowledgments

The authors are indebted to the following internal and external reviewers who provided thoughtful comments and much appreciated edits: Alicia LoGalbo, Nick Aumen, Vic Engel, David Hallac, Roy Sonenshein, Larry Perez, Dan Kimball, Ellen Hardy, and 

Alice Clarke (Everglades National Park, National Park Service), Tom Smith and Virginia Burkett (U.S. Geological Survey), and 

Betty Grizzle and Todd Hopkins (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Joy Brunk (Everglades National Park, National Park Service) 

was desktop publisher for this report. The final version of this document is much improved as a result of these contributions. 

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the National Park 

Service. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report.
Potential Ecological Consequences of Climate Change in South Florida and the Everglades: 2008 Literature Synthesis ix

Forew ord

This report, “Potential Ecological Consequences of Climate Change in South Florida and the Everglades: 

2008 Literature Synthesis,” highlights current scientific literature on climate change trends and potential 

impacts to the ecosystems of south Florida and the Everglades. It represents one aspect of our continuing 

efforts to stay abreast of current scientific knowledge and projections of future changes to our environment. 

Understanding the implications of climate change and the range of uncertainties in projections for climate 

change and associated impacts such as sea level rise and ocean acidification is critical to forward-looking 

natural resource management. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has documented 

substantial changes taking place in the Earth’s climate systems and projects that decadal average warming 

by 2030 is likely to be at least twice as large as natural variability during the entire 20th century. The 

Committee on Independent Scientific Review of Everglades Restoration Progress (National Research Council 

of the National Academies) notes that we can no longer depend on past observations of natural variability to 

guide planning for the future.

The general IPCC climate change predictions for this area suggest a temperature increase of 2 to 5.5 o

C 

by the end of the century and a 10 to 15 percent decrease in wet season rainfall that could lead to extended 

droughts and increased evaporation. These changes are particularly troubling to the numerous south Florida 

species that are at the edge of their physiological ranges. Projected sea level rise of at least 7 to 23 inches by 

2100 along the Florida coastline will significantly impact coastal vegetative communities, which have a 

large proportion of rare and endemic species. Restoration efforts need to substantially increase water flows 

through the southern Everglades and Florida/Biscayne Bays to maintain the freshwater head necessary 

to offset projected saline transgressions. Everglades restoration components must be flexible and promote 

adaptation and resilience to changing conditions in the ecosystem and potentially greater climate variability. 

It is our hope that the collective knowledge in this report will serve to inspire management and research 

directions for a changing ecosystem. Everglades National Park managers and scientists continue to work 

with our partner agencies, cooperators, local governments, and the public to promote a sustainable, natural 

Everglades for future generations and the long-term health of our environment.

Robert Johnson

Director

South Florida Natural Resources Center

Everglades National Park

June 2009
x South Florida Natural Resources Center Technical Series (2009:1)
Potential Ecological Consequences of Climate Change in South Florida and the Everglades: 2008 Literature Synthesis 1

INTRODUCTION

Global climate changes are likely to have profound effects on 

the Earth’s ecosystems and on our perspectives on ecological 

conservation. Although climate change is global in extent and 

effect, rates and directions of change are not uniform. Indeed, 

global and regional models project varying trends across the 

United States as well as between southern and northern Florida (IPCC 2007a). This literature compilation synthesizes current published scientific research pertinent to Florida south of 

Lake Okeechobee, and particularly the Everglades, relative to 

species and ecosystem vulnerabilities and capacity for adaptation to climate change. Most of this report focuses on direct 

ecological responses to current and future climate change. Social and economic responses to climate change have not been 

reviewed, although they are likely to have substantial impacts 

to ecological systems.

The Everglades (Fig. 1) have received international recognition for their exceptional conservation value. The area includes the largest congressionally designated wilderness area 

east of the Rocky Mountains, mandated to protect in perpetuity the wild and untamed nature of the Florida Everglades. 

Everglades National Park has been named a Wetland of 

International Importance under the Ramsar Convention of 

1987, a UNESCO International Biosphere Reserve (1976), 

and a UNESCO World Heritage Site (1979). The unique position of the Everglades, at the interface between temperate and 

subtropical America and between fresh and brackish water, 

creates a complex of habitats that includes

6 the largest protected stand of freshwater sawgrass 

(Cladium jamaicense) prairie in North America, 

6 the largest protected mangrove ecosystem in the Western 

Hemisphere, 

6 the most significant forage and breeding grounds for tropical wading birds in North America, and

6 habitat for a high diversity of threatened, endangered, 

candidate, and endemic species, many with tropical affinities (IUCN 1979). 

Twenty-eight terrestrial vertebrates, 3 marine vertebrates 

[West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), gulf sturgeon 

(Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi), and smalltooth sawfish (Pristis 

pectinata)], 5 invertebrates [4 butterflies and the Stock Island 

tree snail (Orthalicus reses reses)], and 26 plants that are federally listed as threatened, endangered, or candidate species rely 

on habitat south of Lake Okeechobee (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 2009). The landscapes surrounding the Everglades 

are essential to the integrity and biodiversity of the region and 

include expansive areas of cypress that grade to wet, mesic, 

and upland pinelands to the west, Biscayne Bay and coastal 

communities to the east, and the estuaries of Florida Bay to 

the south. Culturally, the area historically served as a refuge 

for a diverse assemblage of peoples, and the area remains the 

present homeland of the Miccosukee and Seminole Tribes of 

Indians. The world community, in general, and south Florida, 

in particular, benefit greatly from the landscape. 

At a gradient of about 0.1 foot of elevation per mile, the 

Everglades rise from sea level at Florida Bay to a maximum 

elevation of approximately 14 feet above sea level at the 

northern end of Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge. The 

low topography and coastal proximity of the Everglades make 

natural areas in south Florida vulnerable to sea level rise and 

saltwater intrusion. Climate change also has particular potential for impacts to isolated species such as the Cape Sable 

Seaside Sparrow (Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis) and 

Key Largo woodrat (Neotoma floridana smalli) as a result of 

habitat fragmentation (such as in the pine rocklands, which 

contain the highest diversity of rare and endemic plant species 

in south Florida). Competing demands exist for water across a 

wet grassland sheetflow ecosystem that has been modified by 

about 2,600 miles of canals and levees. In addition, hundreds 

of water management structures provide water delivery and 

flood control for the built environment and approximately 6 

million people that depend on it. In juxtaposition with dense 

coastal populations and agriculture are a multitude of Federal 

and State jurisdictions. Fifty-eight percent of the lands south 

of Lake Okeechobee are in ownership for conservation and 

water management. The Federal government owns 64 percent of southern Florida conservation lands (such as parks, 

refuges, and preserves) and the State owns 33 percent (parks, 

wildlife management areas, and water conservation areas). 

The remaining lands are in county, city, tribal, or private 

ownership. It is within these multiple agency authorities that 

coordinated policy and management decisions must be made 

in regard to climate change.

Because of rapidly increasing coverage of climate issues in 

the scientific literature, 30 percent of the articles cited in this 

report were written within the last 2 years. This report provides a baseline of literature for researchers integrating their 

science with other disciplines in natural resources. 

Although this report illustrates potential for profound 

climate change impacts on much of the south Florida environment, clear uncertainties about the extent and direction 

of effects remain for many natural communities. This is in part 

because of the difficulties of scaling from global trend models 

to predictions of changes at the local physical environment, 

particularly given the climatic and meteorological interactions of a narrow land mass (south Florida) protruding into 

the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. Just as important are 

the unknowns surrounding natural community responses to 

those changes. Current literature addresses climate-related 

responses, and in some cases, adaptability, of some species 

to changes predominantly in single variables. Rarely are there 

syntheses of multiple effects, potentially with a high degree of 

variability, that are associated with landscape level inter-species interactions. Anticipated south Florida and Evergladesspecific physical and biological modeling studies are the most 

likely source of information on multiple variable interactions 

in the near future. 
2 South Florida Natural Resources Center Technical Series (2009:1)

Lake

Okeechobee

Big

Cypress

National Preserve

Biscayne

Bay

Cape Sable

Gulf of

Mexico

Miami

Canal

Ten Thousand Islands

Florida Keys

Florida

Bay

Naples

Miami

Dry Tortugas 

National Park 

Everglades

Agricultural Area

Everglades 

National

Park

Biscayne 

National

Park

Ft. Lauderdale

M

a

n

g

r

o

v

e s

Figure 1. Location of the Everglades and surrounding environments in south Florida. 

“In times of profound change, the learners inherit the earth, while the learned find themselves beautifully 

equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists.”

Al Rogers
Potential Ecological Consequences of Climate Change in South Florida and the Everglades: 2008 Literature Synthesis 3

IPCC AND GLOBAL CLIMATE MODELS 

IN BRIEF

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a 

scientific body established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and by the United Nations Environment Programme to provide an objective source of information about 

climate change. In 2007, the IPCC released its 4th Assessment 

Report (AR4), which includes probabilistic assessments of climate model simulations and projections through the end of 

this century using detailed atmosphere-ocean coupled models from 18 modeling centers around the world (IPCC 2007a). 

The multi-model approach to examining trends and variability among models, as well as alternative scenarios of continuing anthropogenic emissions (IPCC 2000), has established the 

IPCC assessment reports as the reference standard.

The IPCC (2000, 2007a) considers different radiative 

forcing agents due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases and 

aerosols that would be present in the atmosphere in 2100 as 

a result of a range of scenarios. The scenarios integrate different futures of global population growth and economic, 

social, and environmental stability. Current atmospheric 

CO2

 concentrations are approximately 380 parts per million. 

Scenarios B1, A1B, and A2 have been the focus of many of 

the multi-model comparisons and represent approximate 

CO2

 equivalent concentrations in 2100 of about 600, 850, and 

1,250 parts per million, respectively. Scenario B1 represents 

a world with an emphasis on global solutions to economic, 

social, and environmental sustainability, including converging 

per capita income and cultural interaction, rapid economic 

growth, and rapid population growth to mid-century with 

declines thereafter. B1 is identified as a service and information economy with clean and resource-efficient technologies. 

Scenario A1B’s economic and population growth and social 

convergence is similar, but without a substantial change to a 

service economy. Energy sources in A1B are a balance of fossil 

intensive and non-fossil energy systems with similar improvement rates applied to all energy supplies and technologies. 

Scenario A2 describes a very heterogeneous world with continuously increasing populations. Economic development is 

regionally oriented and economic per capita and technology 

change is fragmented and slower than the other scenarios.

The IPCC is unequivocal in its conclusion that the Earth’s 

climate system is warming based on increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow 

and ice, and rising global average sea level over the last 100 

years. Additionally, anthropogenic drivers of climate change 

have far more influence than natural drivers.

“Model experiments show that even if all radiative forcing agents were held constant at year 2000 levels, a further 

warming trend would occur in the next two decades at a rate 

of about 0.1 °C per decade, due mainly to the slow response 

of the oceans. About twice as much warming (0.2 °C per decade) would be expected if emissions are within the range of 

the [IPCC] scenarios. Best-estimate projections from models 

indicate that decadal average warming over each inhabited 

continent by 2030 is insensitive to the choice among [emission] scenarios and is very likely to be at least twice as large as 

the corresponding model-estimated natural variability during 

the 20th century” (IPCC 2007a, p. 12).

Meteorological instrumentation at the CO2 flux monitoring station in Shark River Slough. Photo by Jordan Barr, ENP.
4 South Florida Natural Resources Center Technical Series (2009:1)

GENERAL TRENDS FOR FLORIDA

Temperature

Temperature trends are variable temporally and spatially 

across the United States, where a cooling trend in the mid1950s was followed by a mostly steady warming trend since 

1970 (Fig. 2). According to the U.S. Climate Change Science 

Program (CCSP) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 7 of the 10 warmest years since 1951 have 

occurred since 1997 (CSSP 2008a). Greenland (2001) also 

observed this temporal pattern of cooling and then warming 

after the 1970s from a small sample of sites (n=5) across the 

southeastern United States. 

The linear trend of annual surface temperature in most 

of the United States (1951 to 2006) is +0.90 ± 0.1 °C (1.6 ± 

0.2 °F), but the trend has been less pronounced in the southeast (CCSP 2008a). Reanalysis of historic climate data (CCSP 

2008a) suggests that surface ocean temperatures appear to 

play an important role in temperature trends in the United 

States and that more than half of the warming is likely the 

result of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. For the 

southeastern United States, Soule (2005) compared the differences in temperature normals for two time periods, 1961–90 

and 1971–2000, and reported an increase of only 0.1 oC for 

the southeast as a whole, though the lower coastal plain 

physiographic region had significant increases. South Florida 

increased 0.25 to 1.4 oC (0.5 to 2.5 oF) when the 1971-2000 

three-decade period was compared to the earlier period (with 

the exception of Miami Beach, which cooled by 0.06 oC). 

Temperature changes anticipated by the end of this century, based on the mid-range IPCC A1B scenario, over North 

America are shown in Figure 3. General circulation models 

(GCMs) employed in these analyses are appropriate for global 

Surface Temperature

suisleC seergeD

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

1.25

−1.25

0.75

−0.75

0.25

−0.25

0

Year

Figure 3. Temperature change over North America from the multi-model A1B simulations: Annual mean, DJF (December, January, 

February) and JJA (June, July, August) temperature change between 1980 to 1999 and 2080 to 2099, averaged over 21 models. Figure 

and caption from IPCC (2007a).

Figure 2. Time series of area-averaged and annually averaged surface air temperature in the United States for for 1895–2006 (CCSP 

2008a p. 62). Curves are Gaussian smoothed annual values. Reprinted with permission.
Potential Ecological Consequences of Climate Change in South Florida and the Everglades: 2008 Literature Synthesis 5

Precipitation and Drought

Simulation of annual and seasonal precipitation changes using the mid-range A1B scenario is shown in Figure 5. The selected months for seasonal variation—June, July, and August 

(JJA) and December, January, and February (DJF)—correspond respectively to the height of the rainy season and the 

dry winter months in south Florida as illustrated in Figure 6 

by a 58-year record of measured precipitation in Everglades 

National Park. IPCC models using the mid-range A1B scenario for CO2

 loading until the end of this century predict a 

slight decrease (less than 5 percent) in precipitation for DJF, 

but a 10- to 15-percent decrease during the wet season starting in June (Fig. 5). Most simulations indicate shifts to a more 

positive phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and an 

El Niño-like pattern with higher temperatures in the Pacific. 

These conditions are associated with drying in the Caribbean. 

The combined effect of even modest increases in temperatures along with modest reductions in rainfall during the historic wet season would be extended droughts with increased 

evaporation and uncertain recharge of Everglades’ wetland 

ecosystems and surface aquifers during the wet season. These 

effects may produce dramatic changes to fire patterns and the 

composition of vegetation communities and utilization of the 

Everglades for wildlife habitat and forage. However, there is 

no consistent indication among climate models of future El 

Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO)-related amplitude and 

interannual variability. To develop a more accurate prediction 

of response would require continued downscaling of climate 

models to the level of south Florida landscapes and studies of 

faunal and floral response in the local environment. In addition to the IPCC model outputs for changes in precipitation, 

Allan and Soden (2008) used satellite observations of precipitation associated with warm El Niño events and cold La Niña 

events to suggest that precipitation extremes in the tropics are 

likely to be stronger than predicted in the current models. 

trends and patterns but are inappropriate for analyses much 

below the scale of continents. More-accurate forecasting of 

smaller regions is attempted by downscaling global models 

to obtain temperature trends in the southeastern United 

States (Fig. 4). A variety of empirical and statistical methods 

of downscaling are being evaluated by researchers including 

statistical approaches that develop relations between largescale climate variables resulting from GCMs and observed 

local climate variables.

Simulated average temperatures for Florida under the midrange IPCC A1B scenario are estimated to increase 2 to 2.5 

oC (3.5 to 4.5 oF) by the end of this century (Fig. 3). Stanton 

and Ackerman (2007) estimated Florida temperatures using 

the higher emissions scenario, A2, and averaging the IPCC 

A2 scenario results for the Eastern United States (Fig. 4) and 

the Caribbean. The higher emissions scenario, A2, results in 

increases in Florida’s average annual temperatures of 3 oC (5 

oF) in 2050 and 5.5 oC (10 oF) in 2100 relative to the 2000 annual average. 

Simulations from multiple models of annual temperature 

increases for the A1B scenario in the Caribbean at the end of 

the 21st century range from 1.4 to 3.2 °C (2.5 to 5.8 oF), somewhat below the global average (IPCC 2007a). Fifty percent of 

the simulations give values differing from the median by only 

±0.4 °C (0.7 oF). Statistical downscaling of several models for 

the Caribbean region gives approximately a 2.0 °C (3.6 °F) rise 

in temperature by the 2080s. The agreement between global 

circulation models and the statistical downscaling analysis 

(developed by Wilby et al. 2002) provides confidence in the 

temperature simulations.

Eastern North America

Temperature, oC

Figure 4. Temperature (oC ) anomalies with respect to 1901 to 

1950 for the Eastern North America region for 1906 to 2005 

(black line) and as simulated (red envelope) by multi-model data 

set models incorporating known forcings; and as projected for 

2001 to 2100 by MMD models for the A1B scenario (orange envelope). The bars at the end of the orange envelope represent the 

range of projected changes for 2091 to 2100 for the B1 scenario 

(blue), the A1B scenario (orange) and the A2 scenario (red). Figure and caption from IPCC (2007a).

Natural fire ignited by a lightning strike just north of Pa-hayokee in southern Shark Slough. Photo by Lori Oberhofer, ENP.
6 South Florida Natural Resources Center Technical Series (2009:1)

Sea Level

Sea level is principally a function of ocean temperature and 

salinity. Seawater expands as it heats up, producing thermosteric sea level rise. Simulated changes in ocean temperature 

and salinity can be used over much of the ocean to forecast 

global average thermal expansion and sea level changes (Gregory et al. 2001, Lowe and Gregory 2006). However, amounts 

and timing of sea level rise are more uncertain than the projections for temperature and precipitation. Reasons for this 

greater uncertainty include (1) shorter and less exact observational records, (2) uncertainties in land ice projections, and 

(3) uncertainties in carbon cycle feedbacks and their relation 

to thermal expansion (IPCC 2007a). 

Global variability in sea level trends as reconstructed 

from tide gages and altimetry data (IPCC 2007a updated 

from Church et al. 2004) for 1955 to 2003 is shown in Figure 

7. Other methodologies and different time periods result in 

substantially different results. However, data from different 

sources emphasize the spatial variability common to results 

from all the reconstruction approaches (Fig. 7). The observed 

spatial variability in rates of sea level change is attributed 

primarily to El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO)-related 

ocean variability and other ocean circulation patterns but also 

is influenced by regional gravitation and deformation of the 

Earth’s surface in response to the ongoing change in loading 

by glaciers and ice sheets, atmospheric pressure changes, and 

regional and global salinity changes (IPCC 2007a). Higherthan-average historic sea level rise is modeled adjacent to 

Florida. Church et al. (2004) estimates observed sea level rise 

in the Caribbean to be near the global mean based on 1950 

to 2000 observations (Fig. 7). Multi-model mean projections 

of sea level rise indicate that both Florida and the Caribbean 

appear to be near the global average during the 21st century 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Average Total Precipitation (in.)

Royal Palm Ranger Station, Florida (087760)

Figure 6. Average monthly precipitation for Royal Palm Ranger 

Station, Everglades National Park. Data from SERCC 2008.

Annual DJF JJA

Figure 5. Precipitation changes over North America (top) and the Caribbean (bottom) from the MMD-A1B simulations. Annual mean, DJF 

(December, January, February), and JJA (June, July, August) precipitation change from 1980 to 1999 and 2080 to 2099 averaged over 21 

models. Figure and caption from IPCC (2007a).
Potential Ecological Consequences of Climate Change in South Florida and the Everglades: 2008 Literature Synthesis 7

More-recent observations and new knowledge have led 

many scientists to believe the IPCC projection is conservative. For example, Rahmstorf (2007) proposed an improved 

model that projected a sea level rise in 2100 of 0.5 to 1.4 meters (1.6 to 4.6 feet) above the 1990 level. However, Rahmstorf 

(2007) stated that even these projections may be conservative 

because of the uncertainties associated with Antarctic and 

Greenland ice shelf modeling (for example, meltwater lubrication of the ice sheet bed, increased ice stream flow after the 

removal of buttressing ice shelves, and ocean warming at the 

(IPCC 2007a); however, large deviations among models make 

estimates of distribution uncertain, particularly across the 

Caribbean, Indian, and Pacific Oceans (IPCC 2007a) (Fig. 8).

The IPCC AR4 (IPCC 2007a) projects average global sea 

level rise to be from 0.18 to 0.59 meter (0.6 to 1.9 feet) by 

2100. Walton (2007) estimated the same scale of sea level 

rise at Key West and St. Petersburg, Florida, by projecting a 

trend line over the historic data set of National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) gages as shown in 

Figure 9. Walton adds, however, that if climate factors change, 

extrapolation of past trends can be misleading. 

Figure 8. Local sea level change (m) due to ocean density and 

circulation change relative to the global average (i.e., positive 

values indicate greater local sea level change than global) during 

the 21st century, calculated as the difference between averages 

for 2080 to 2099 and 1980 to 1999, as an ensemble mean over 16 

Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models forced with the 

A1B scenario. Stippling denotes regions where the magnitude 

of the multi-model ensemble mean divided by the multi-model 

standard deviation exceeds 1.0. Figure and caption from IPCC 

(2007a).

Figure 9. Forecast filtered sea level rise from two tide gages with sufficient historic record for sea level trend analysis: Key West, Florida 

(left) and St. Petersburg, FL (right) from the NOAA primary tide gage network. Seasonally filtered monthly MSL is the mean sea level 

with the seasonal (monthly) portion of the signal removed by subtraction of the monthly means. Walton (2007) used second order 

trend analysis (red line) to find a 0.31m relative sea level rise from 2006 to 2080 for Key West and 0.35m rise for St Petersburg. Figure 

from Walton (2007), used with permission.

Figure 7. Geographic distribution of long-term linear trends in 

mean sea level (mm yr–1) for 1955 to 2003 based on the past sea 

level reconstruction with tide gauges and altimetry data (updated from Church et al. 2004). Figure and caption from IPCC (2007a).
8 South Florida Natural Resources Center Technical Series (2009:1)

than in other basins are predicted to prevail over tropospheric 

stabilization and result in more storms as well as more intense 

storms (IPCC 2007a). Observational evidence supports increased tropical cyclone activity correlated with increases in 

sea surface temperature in the North Atlantic since about 1970 

(IPCC 2007a). Oouchi et al. (2006) used a model that simulates tropical cyclone characteristics well against present day 

observations and determined that tropical cyclone frequency 

decreased about 30 percent globally but increased about 34 

percent in the North Atlantic under the A1B scenario.

Ocean Circulation

The ENSO is the most important source of interannual variability in the tropics; however, there is no modeled indication 

of discernible changes in ENSO amplitude or frequency for 

the next 100 years. Changes in ENSO interannual variability 

differ from model to model. 

All climate model projections show an increase in highlatitude temperature and precipitation. Both of these effects 

tend to make the high-latitude surface waters less dense. The 

increase in ocean surface buoyancy inhibits convective processes and weakens the Meridional Overturning Circulation 

(MOC). A weakening of the MOC causes reduced ocean 

surface temperature and salinity in the region of the Gulf 

Stream and North Atlantic Current (Dai et al. 2005). This effect may increase northward heat transport north of 60° N, 

but decrease northward heat transport south of 60° N, (Hu et 

al. 2004). South Florida is between 25.5 and 26.5° N. Models 

of the MOC response vary considerably, but none show an increase in the MOC. One model indicates that the changes are 

not distinguishable from natural variability, and others show 

as much as a 50-percent weakening by the end of the century 

(IPCC 2007a). No model simulates an abrupt shutdown of the 

MOC within the 21st century.

grounding line of ice streams). Rapidly changing ice dynamics 

over land masses in Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets 

(WAIS) are contributing to sea level rise and could result in 

substantial and abrupt rise in the future (Oppenheimer et 

al. 2007, Bell 2008). Because of the inadequacy of ice sheet 

models to predict events such as the Antarctica Larsen B ice 

shelf breakup by March of 2002 and the March 2008 breakup 

of the Wilkins ice shelf, WAIS dynamics were not considered 

in the AR4 projections (Oppenheimer et al. 2007). Pfeffer et 

al. (2008) modeled physical constraints on glacier and ice cap 

contributions to sea level rise from surface mass-balance losses and discharge of ice into oceans from marine-terminating 

glaciers. They predict a range in sea level rise of 0.8 to 2.0 meters (2.6 to 6.6 feet) by the end of the century, but the higher 

end of that range would require ice sheet velocities and other 

variables to accelerate to extremely high limits quickly and 

to maintain those high rates. Pfeffer et al. (2008) consider the 

lower end of the range to be more plausible. Another critical 

unknown is the amount of warming before the Arctic permafrost melts. Permafrost melting may release trapped methane 

gas that may have additional and substantial impacts on global 

climate (Brown 2008). 

Detailed digital elevation models (DEMs) (Jones and Price 

2007) can be used to map the potential extent of sea level 

intrusion into the Everglades (Fig. 10). DEM elevations are 

North American Vertical Datum 88 (NAVD88). The buttonwood embankment (not shown) is a berm south of the DEM 

area that may attenuate saltwater intrusion until the berm is 

transgressed. The Vegetation Communities and Landscapes 

section later in this report provides more details on the potential role of mangrove and buttonwood embankments.

Brown (2006) suggests a GIS rules-based approach for 

improved mapping of future sea level rise that can be implemented as better-resolution topographic surveys are extended south through the coastal areas. Titus and Richman 

(2001) caution that potential mapping of landward sea level 

rise based solely on current elevations is only a first approximation because it ignores processes such as future erosion, 

wetland accretion, and land use decisions. 

Storms

Much uncertainty exists about predicted changes in the frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones (hurricanes) on a 

regional basis because the high resolution necessary to capture characteristics of tropical cyclones is rarely modeled in 

the context of global climate change. High-resolution models 

generally project increases in peak wind intensities with increased near-storm precipitation (IPCC 2007a). The IPCC 

(2007a) projected a decrease in the number of relatively weak 

tropical cyclones because of vertical stabilization of the troposphere, increased numbers of intense tropical cyclones 

because of increased sea surface temperatures, and a global 

decrease in total numbers of tropical cyclones. Larger sea 

surface temperature increases in the tropical North Atlantic 

NASA image of Huricane Wilma on October 20, 2005. Yellow to 

red colors correspond to sea surface temperatures of 82–90  ̊F.
Potential Ecological Consequences of Climate Change in South Florida and the Everglades: 2008 Literature Synthesis 9

Figure 10. Contours (blue lines) of approximate mean high water shoreline in the Everglades with sea level rise of 0 to 6 feet relative 

to Florida Bay. Contours are based only on current elevations in the Everglades. The dashed line is the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) 

boundary. To find elevations above mean high water (MHW) the difference in NAVD88 and MHW at 5 National Geodetic Survey tidal 

benchmarks along the Florida Keys (PID# AC1028, AA0934, AA0383, AA0815, and AA0352) was calculated and the average difference 

(0.568 ft) was added to the DEM elevation. The background is the Florida GAP vegetation classification (Pearlstine et al. 2002). The 

major communities in the classification are: marsh (green), marl prairie (yellow), mangrove and buttonwood (pink), swamp forest and 

cypress (purple), hammock and tree island (brown), and urban and agriculture (shades of grey). DEM from Jones and Price (2007).

Road sign in Everglades National Park. Photo by Joy Brunk, ENP.

“The Everglades are unique: they have no 

counterpart anywhere on earth. Although the 

region is almost perfectly flat, few landscapes 

anywhere have a more intricate interplay of 

physical and biological factors.”

Archie Carr, The Everglades, Time Life Books, 1973 
10 South Florida Natural Resources Center Technical Series (2009:1)

POTENTIAL EVERGLADES ECOLOGICAL 

EFFECTS

Studies of species responses to potential climate change impacts in the unique environments of the south Florida Everglades are limited. Potential effects resulting from climate 

change include: 

1. Direct responses to the changing climate envelope. 

Species may have linear and nonlinear responses to 

the interaction of changing environmental conditions 

including changes in CO2

, temperature, precipitation, 

storms, run-off, waves, and sea level in coastal communities (IPCC 2007a, IPCC 2007b). Tolerances to, 

for example, temperature increases or droughts may 

be exceeded for some species, particularly those on 

the edge of their physiological range. Many species 

are resilient and may adapt to changes; however; 

rapid climatic change may limit adaptation for some 

species.

2. Loss of species synchronization. Species depend on 

timing of physical events such as wading bird nesting 

during periods of water recession, or trophic interactions such as pollinator emergence during flowering 

(Memmott et al. 2007). These interactions are often 

critical to the maintenance of stable populations and 

likely will be affected by climate change effects. 

3. Habitat change or loss. Climate change-induced 

habitat succession to new vegetation communities 

and promotion of opportunistic invasive species may 

create local population extinctions or force native 

species that can disperse to find replacement habitat. 

Dispersal is likely to be restricted or blocked in many 

cases by habitat fragmentation and development 

(Alley et al. 2003, Hughes et al. 2007). If large-scale 

disturbances such as fire, hurricanes, and storm 

surge become more intense, abrupt habitat loss may 

increase in extent.

In a meta-analysis of 203 species from the northern hemisphere, Parmesan (2007) catalogued differing phenological 

responses to climate change over the last decade in 9 taxonomic groups (Fig. 11). Shifts in timing of breeding responses 

by amphibians were more than twice those of trees, birds, 

and butterflies. Butterfly emergence or migratory arrival has 

advanced three times faster than the first flowering of herbs 

and may forecast an increasing decoupling of insect-plant 

interactions. Many individual species within a taxonomic 

group (20 to 70 percent) showed no phenological response to 

climate warming to date (Parmesan and Yohe 2003). Latitude 

explained less than 4 percent of the response, but as warming 

trends continue to affect northern latitudes the most, it can 

be expected that phenological responses will be more pronounced at higher latitudes. 

The implications of Parmesan’s meta-analysis for south 

Florida are not clear. Information about the phenology of 

south Florida plant-dependent species is scarce. An increasing 

number of Everglades’ butterflies are rare or extirpated, such 

as the candidate species Bartram’s scrub hairstreak (Strymon 

acis bartrami) and the Florida leafwing (Anaea troglodyte floridalis), in part because of their dependence on specific host 

Figure 11. Changes in timing of spring events in days decade-1 for individual species grouped by taxonomy or functional type for the 

combined dataset. Each bar represents a separate, independent species. Negative values indicate advancement (earlier phenology 

through time) while positive values indicate delay (later phenology through time). Figure and caption from Parmesan (2007), used with 

permission.

Individual species

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

shrub tree

mammal

fly

fish

amphibian bird butterfly herbs & grass

Change in spring timing in days/decade
Potential Ecological Consequences of Climate Change in South Florida and the Everglades: 2008 Literature Synthesis 11

species and habitats such as pine rocklands that are becoming 

increasingly isolated (Susan Perry, Everglades National Park, 

pers. comm., 2008). Phenological disconnects of species local 

to the Everglades may or may not be less common; however, 

south Florida is contained within the Atlantic flyway and also 

is important wintering habitat for migratory and neotropical 

birds that may be responding to more northern environmental clues. Migratory butterflies may follow the same pattern.

In spite of limited specific information about effects on 

south Florida, some general concerns have been recognized 

in the literature that may be critical to understanding the responses of south Florida species to climate change. It is important to understand these patterns in order to inform future 

management decisions. Distributional responses of species 

likely will be most pronounced in northern latitudes with 

shifts in species ranges farther northward and contracting or 

remaining unchanged on the southern extremes. These patterns already are being observed in European studies (birds – 

Sparks 1999, trees and shrubs – Menzel 2000, butterflies – Roy 

and Sparks 2000, Franco et al. 2006) and in modeling results 

(mammals – Levinsky et al. 2007) and North American studies 

of birds (Peterson et al. 2002, Hitch and Leberg 2007), trees 

and shrubs (Crumpacker et al. 2001), and butterflies (Crozier 

2004). The number of frost days for plants and animals has 

been identified as a primary determinant in producing these 

shifts (Inouye 2008). 

Many species are likely to mitigate impacts of climate 

change with genetic variation in critical traits and localized 

evolutionary responses (Conover and Schultz 1995, Stockwell 

et al. 2003, Pelletier et al. 2007) that allow them to adapt to 

new conditions. For some species, however, time lags and limits on genetic variation are potential constraints to evolutionary response (Schiedek et al. 2007). Some species will not be 

able to respond quickly enough to changing conditions (Davis 

et al. 2005), and although others may initially produce a rapid 

response to changes, the rate of evolution can decay over time 

(Kinnison and Hendry 2001) as habitat continues to change in 

response to climate. Schiedek et al. (2007) also emphasize the 

effect of climate change on small populations, suggesting the 

potential for low initial genetic variation and large influences 

from genetic drift, which may limit natural selection (Burger 

and Lynch 1995, Willi et al. 2006). 

Little is currently known about the genetic makeup of 

species that may or may not provide them with the ability to 

respond to climate change (Holt 1999), south Florida species 

included. However, it can be supposed that lack of genetic 

variation in some species may limit their ability to respond to 

climate change (Holt 1999). The endangered Florida panther 

(Puma concolor coryi) is an example of a species that despite 

generalist habitat requirements may have limited ability to 

adapt if climate change further restricts its environment. The 

panther has contemporary (1980s) microsatellite heterozygosity that is only 0.3 of that measured in museum samples 

from the 1890s and only has 0.4 the heterozygosity of Idaho 

pumas (Hedrick et al. 2008). Hedrick et al. (2008) determined 

that the estimated diversities in mitochondrial DNA in the 

museum and contemporary Florida panther samples were 

0.600 and 0.000, respectively. Species best adapted to dealing 

genetically with climate change are those very species least at 

risk of extinction in any scenario; they generally have large 

geographical distributions, short generation times, and high 

dispersal rates thus leading to a larger genetic pool from which 

to draw (Holt 1999). Even in those species that exhibit genetic 

or phenotypic change in response to seasonal change, some 

populations are declining in response to their inability to keep 

pace with environmental change (Bradshaw and Holzapfel 

2006). Genetic traits on the same chromosome vary together 

such that favorable changes in one trait may have more than 

one outcome. Correlation among genetic traits that would 

respond to environmental variation may not match the direction of environmental change or may not be present (Hellman 

and Pineda-Krch 2007). 

Ecosystem response will also vary depending on interactions among species within the physical and chemical characteristics of the environment (Davis et al. 1998, Shaver et al. 

2000, Wilmers et al. 2007), making significant errors in predictions likely where ecosystem processes are not specifically 

considered. The effects of increased CO2

 concentration and 

temperature on ecosystems depend, to a large extent, on a 

web of indirect effects on process interactions and feedbacks. 

Shaver et al. (2000) use the example of net primary production 

(NPP) and heterotrophic respiration (Rh), which are both 

directly affected by temperature. Temperature also impacts 

factors such as nitrogen mineralization, species composition, 

moisture, litter quantity and quality, and soil organic matter 

quality, which in turn feed back to NPP and Rh (Shaver et al. 

2000).

Ferriter et al. (2008) identify 80 nonindigenous terrestrial 

vertebrates (amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals), 32 

nonindigenous fishes, 81 nonindigenous invertebrates (including ants, bees, ticks, mussels, and others), and 25 nonindigenous priority plant species present in southern Florida 

south of Lake Okeechobee. Invasive plant and animal species 

are typically opportunistic over a range of environmental 

conditions (Qian and Ricklefs 2006). Changing climates are 

unlikely to negatively impact current invasive species and 

Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi). Photo by Connie Toops, 

NPS.
12 South Florida Natural Resources Center Technical Series (2009:1)

may increase the successful colonization and competitiveness of new species (Hellmann et al. 2008). For example, of 

the 23 exotic freshwater fishes considered to be permanently 

established in Florida waters, many, including the banded 

cichlid (Heros severus) and spotfin spiny eel (Macrognathus 

siamensis), have been temperature-restricted to south Florida 

(Shafland et al. 2008). Invasive species typically are first found 

in canal networks, but they are increasingly spreading to 

more natural ecosystems, including Everglades National Park 

and Big Cypress National Preserve (Shafland et al. 2008). 

Increasing minimum temperatures associated with climate 

change may facilitate their spread north. A stratified random 

sample of 10 percent of harmful invasive species in the United 

States, both plant and animal, determined that almost half 

are likely to benefit from a warming trend. A small percentage was likely to contract their range, and effects were difficult 

to predict for the remaining species (Zavaleta and Royval 

2002). Five potential consequences have been identified relative to changes in invasive species characteristics as a result 

of climate change: (1) altered mechanisms for introduction, 

(2) potential for new species to establish, (3) altered impacts 

from existing invasive species, (4) altered distribution of existing invasive species, and (5) altered effectiveness of control 

strategies (Hellmann et al. 2008). It is necessary to consider 

the consequences of expansion of exotic invasive and native 

species into new areas when developing informed adaptive 

management and monitoring programs. 

Landscapes and Vegetation Communities

The Everglades is a depression filled with freshwater peat and, 

in some locations, calcitic mud deposits. The depression is 

bounded east and west by limestone ridges — the limestone 

and quartz sand Atlantic Coastal Ridge to the east and Big 

Cypress limestone ridge to the west. On the south and southwestern sides of the Everglades, extensive natural berms protect the Everglades depression from saline intrusion. Because 

of slow sea level rise and a low-energy coast for the past 3,000 

years, the mangrove and marl berm has been able to establish and continue upward accretion (Wanless et al. 1997). 

Although natural drainages cut through the mangrove berm, 

freshwater head generally is sufficient to inhibit saline intrusion to the transitional and freshwater marshes of the Everglades depression. 

Seawater moves inland a great distance where multiple 

tidal riverine fingers lower the hydrologic head on the west 

coast (Fitterman and Deszcz-Pan 2001). Under natural conditions along the east coast, saltwater was present only close to 

the shoreline and freshwater was discharged from springs on 

the floor of Biscayne Bay, where the aquifer is hydrologically 

connected to the Atlantic Ocean (Renken et al. 2005, Parker et 

al. 1955). Construction in the 1880s and continuing into the 

1990s has created an extensive network of Everglades drainage and flood-protection canals. Uncontrolled Everglades 

drainage resulted in oxidation-compaction loss of peat and 

muck soils and associated lowering of the water table. Along 

the coast, lower water tables along with well-field withdrawals 

and droughts created saltwater intrusion several miles inland 

by the 1930s and 1940s, particularly along the Miami Canal 

(Renken et al. 2005). Saltwater intrusion has been substantially reduced since the 1950s and 1960s by surface-water 

control structures in the canals and improved water management practices. The issue has not been completely mitigated, 

however, particularly along the southern Biscayne Bay coast 

and continuing south (Renken et al. 2005), and sea level rise 

exacerbates saltwater intrusion. Within Biscayne Bay, most 

present-day ground-water discharge is recirculated saltwater. 

Only a limited portion of ground-water discharge to the bay is 

fresh (Langevin 2001). 

As discussed previously, rates of sea level rise are continuing to increase and are projected to be anywhere from 20 to 

more than 150 centimeters per 100 years. From geological records of past events, Wanless (1989) and Wanless et al. (1997) 

show that since about 1930, sea level rise has increased from 

4 centimeters per 100 years over the last 3,000 years to 20–40 

centimeters per 100 years, and they believe that mangroves 

will continue maintaining a dam to saltwater intrusion at 30 

centimeters per 100 years or less, but with an erosional coastline and the mangrove migrating landward. At higher rates of 

sea level rise, they predict the mangrove berm will increasingly be overstepped in numerous places with saline water. 

Freshwater wetlands are predicted to be rapidly lost and bay 

and estuaries are projected to deepen, eventually to the point 

of catastrophic inundation of south Florida and loss of freshwater resources. 

Intense storm impacts on soil subsidence and accretion affect local calculations of relative sea level rise (Cahoon 2006). 

Storm disruption of coastal wetlands may result from the 

creation of breaks that allow abrupt changes from saltwater 

intrusion into freshwater wetland or freshwater flushing of 

estuaries. For mangrove forests, both Whelan et al. (2005) in 

southwestern Florida and McKee et al. (2007) in the Caribbean 

determined that subsurface processes are the primary source 

of elevation change in mangrove communities with minimal 

influence from above-ground organic inputs. Changes in 

ground-water movement are related to mangrove elevations 

through shrinking and swelling of peat deposits in the Florida 

study (Whelan et al. 2005). In the Caribbean, McKee et al. 

(2007) determined that the accumulation of subsurface mangrove roots is primarily responsible for maintaining mangrove 

elevations and determined that fringe mangrove sites in Belize 

can accommodate sea level rise of as much as 4 millimeters per 

year, a similar range to that predicted by Wanless et al. (1997). 

Because of low root production in interior sites, however, interior mangrove accretion could not keep up with subsidence 

at this rate. At southwestern Florida mangrove sites, mostly 

within Everglades National Park, Smith et al. (2009) also 

determined that basin mangroves were more likely to suffer 

storm surge damage than either riverine or island mangroves. 

Tom Smith (U.S. Geological Survey., pers. comm., 2008) has 

not observed any increase in mangrove site elevation in re-
Potential Ecological Consequences of Climate Change in South Florida and the Everglades: 2008 Literature Synthesis 13

sponse to below-ground root production. Elevation increases 

were observed at several sites entirely in response to sediment 

deposition from Hurricane Wilma. Some sites, including 

one with accretion from the storm, have since decreased in 

elevation in response to continued mortality of mangrove 

trees (Smith et al. 2009). The impacts of several storms on one 

site have reduced it to intertidal mudflat. Because of rapid sea 

level rise and previous simulation modeling of recovery rates 

(Teh et al. 2008), Smith et al. (2009) expect that recovery of 

the site to a mangrove ecosystem is unlikely and that other 

mangroves impacted by the storm may continue to decline. 

In Louisiana marshes, Nyman et al. (2006) determined that 

accretion was primarily the result of organic accumulation 

rather than mineral sedimentation. Flooding stimulated fibrous root networks to grow just above the marsh surface, 

becoming the new surface. 

Increases in temperature and direct effects of increased 

CO2

 concentrations are expected to increase mangrove net 

primary productivity and change the timing of flowering and 

fruiting. However, decreased precipitation and rising sea level 

can lead to increased salinities resulting in decreased productivity and seedling survival (Snedaker 1995). Salinity increases 

also may cause a net loss of peat as anaerobic decomposition 

increases (Snedaker 1995). 

Mangroves provide habitat along a gradient of salinity 

from riverine mangroves growing alongside coastal rivers that 

may contain freshwater for part of the year to ocean fringe 

communities that are completely saline. Two aspects of these 

mangrove forests are important for wildlife: the structure of 

the trees and roots and the leaf detritus. The intricate tangles 

of mangrove roots provide nursery habitat for many Florida 

fishes as well as habitat for other vertebrate groups. Leaves 

that fall into the ocean and rivers form the base of the detritivore food web in these habitats. Odum (1982) and Meshaka 

et al. (2000) document 217 species of fish, 18 to 24 species of 

amphibians and reptiles, 180 species of birds, and 21 species 

of mammals living in the various mangrove communities of 

Florida, including native as well as non-native species. 

Although mangroves are the first responders to sea level 

rise and intense storms, Everglades graminoid communities may be among the first to change broadly in response to 

changing temperature, precipitation, drought, and floods. 

The photosynthetic pathway used by a plant species may contribute substantially to community successional responses. 

Graminoid communities in Everglades’ marshes and prairies 

include C3 plants (such as Typha spp., Scirpus spp., Cladium 

jamaicense, Carex spp., and Phragmites australis) as well as C4 

species (such as Schizachyrium rhizomatum and Paspalum 

monostachium). Some genera can be either C3 or C4 depending on the species (for example Eleocharis and Rhynchospora) 

(Soros and Bruhl 2000, Vorster 1996, Bruhl 1995, Bruhl 

1993). Graminoids using the C3 pathway have been shown 

to assimilate CO2

 at a greater rate than those using the C4 

pathway (Kimbell 1983). This may favor a shift in species 

toward those using the C3 pathway. However, species using 

the C4 pathway have a physiological advantage in hot environments (Bjorkman et al. 1974), dry environments, and during droughts (Raven 2001). Long-term response to elevated 

Aerial view of North River looking south toward Whitewater Bay, which is just out of view at the top of the photo. Photo by Lori 

Oberhofer, ENP.
14 South Florida Natural Resources Center Technical Series (2009:1)

atmospheric CO2 concentration also may differ substantially 

from short-term responses (Soussana and Lüscher 2007). 

Interactions among CO2

, water availability, nutrients, and 

temperature can be positive or negative depending on the 

species (Jifon and Wolfe 2005). Experimental elevated CO2

concentrations significantly increased proportions of dicotyledonous species (forbs and legumes) and reduced the proportion of monocotyledons (grasses) in temperate grasslands 

(Teyssonneyre et al. 2002a). Grass responses varied, however, 

with leaf light-capturing efficiency (Teyssonneyre et al. 2002b) 

and nitrogen-use efficiency (legumes) (Soussana et al. 2005). 

Accelerated flowering times in forbs and delayed flowering 

in co-occurring C3 and C4 grasses at 680 parts per million 

CO2

 (Cleland et al. 2006) also may be contributing to differing 

productivity responses. Little is known about photosynthetic 

pathway responses of Everglades species and their competitive interactions; however, elevated CO2

 concentration has 

also been significantly associated with altering germination 

(Thurig et al. 2003, Mohan et al. 2004), leaf development 

(Ainsworth et al. 2006), senescence (Rae et al. 2006), and for 

some wetland species, increased salinity tolerance (Rozema 

et al. 1991), thereby increasing the potential for evolutionary changes in community composition with climate change 

(Springer and Ward 2007).

Iverson et al. (1999) used statistical regression tree analysis 

to model the distribution of 80 common tree species in the 

southeastern United States and project distribution shifts in 

response to climate change. However, none of the modeled 

species had ranges extending through south Florida. A climate 

envelope model of 125 native Florida woody plant species was 

used by Box et al. (1993) to successfully explain broad species 

distribution on the basis of climate variables alone. A climatic 

space for each species is defined in terms of available climatic 

data, mainly temperature and moisture variables, for which 

relatively long-term records are available. Thirty-seven of the 

modeled species were subtropical from south Florida and the 

Keys. To model species presence at local scales would require 

consideration of additional factors such as substrate, topography, fire, and competition (Box et al. 1993). Unlike the Iverson 

et al. (1999) analysis, results under moderate climate change 

for individual species were not published; however, winter 

temperature variables were most often the limiting factor for 

species rejected at a site by only one variable (Box et al. 1993). 

It is possible that many of the indigenous south Florida woody 

species would expand their range under climate warming 

scenarios. Conversely, the projections of increased periods 

of drought may restrict many species. Upland plant communities in the Everglades that may be impacted by such events 

include tree islands, coastal hardwood hammocks, and pine 

rocklands. These unique communities are often critical habitat for a diversity of wildlife species in south Florida ranging 

from mammals seeking shelter to butterflies seeking nectar 

plants. Most emergent wetland plants benefit from droughts 

reducing water levels so that seeds can germinate and the new 

plants can obtain a sufficient height to avoid complete inundation. Severe droughts, however, can drop the water table 

below the roots and cause plant mortality (Duever et al. 1997). 

Coastal plant communities of Everglades National Park are 

likely to experience increased salinity intrusion and flooding 

from sea level rise. Everglades National Park and The Institute 

Hurricane damage to mangroves in Whitewater Bay, Everglades National Park. Photo by Jordan Barr, ENP.
Potential Ecological Consequences of Climate Change in South Florida and the Everglades: 2008 Literature Synthesis 15

for Regional Conservation (IRC) have identified 27 rare plant 

species — in most cases designated as critically imperiled by 

the IRC (Gann et al. 2002) — that they believe will be affected 

by sea level rise on the basis of their primarily or entirely 

coastal distribution. Of these, 22 have tropical distributions, 

4 are endemic, and 1 is temperate.

Fishes

Climate change in south Florida may affect the quality of 

freshwater fish habitat by altering hydrologic regimes and increasing surface water temperatures, resulting in decreased 

dissolved oxygen concentration and increased toxicity of 

pollutants (Loftus et al. 1986, Ficke et al. 2007). The same impacts are expected in estuarine and coastal marine fish habitat, along with acidification and changes in salinity patterns 

associated with changing rainfall and increased evaporation 

rates. In response, species range shifts are likely to change fish 

community composition. Genetic change is also possible for 

many species that are unable to migrate or acclimate (Ficke 

et al. 2007).

Climate change impacts south Florida bays and estuaries 

through the timing and quantity of freshwater delivery, increased water temperature, decreased pH and carbonate saturation, and changes in storm intensity (IPCC 2007a, Scavia 

et al. 2002). Temperature and precipitation changes that result 

in extreme precipitation events becoming more common may 

produce flashier runoff that increases nutrient and sediment 

load delivered to the coast, which, in combination with other 

climate change impacts, can have complex interacting effects 

on salinity patterns, water clarity, phytoplankton abundance, 

and impacts to benthic organisms and aquatic vegetation 

(Scavia et al. 2002). 

Little is known about the physiology and ecology of marine and estuarine fishes inhabiting marine tropical waters 

and how they will react to impacts from global climate change 

(Roessig et al. 2005). In south Florida, many shallow-water 

habitats including coastal tidal flats and mangrove communities may be lost if climate change continues at the predicted 

rates. Most tropical and temperate marine fish species that inhabit shallow water, tidal flats, seagrass banks, and mudflats in 

Florida Bay clearly respond to changes in water level (Sogard 

et al. 1989). Loss of nursery function (fish shelter and sustenance) of tidal flats is likely if increases in sea level continue at 

the projected rate, leading to increased levels of turbidity from 

resuspension of sediment materials over tidal flats and mud 

banks. Loss of this habitat could lead to the displacement or 

population shift of recreationally and ecologically important 

marine fish species including tarpon (Megalops atlanticus), red 

drum (Scianenops ocellatus), snook (Centropomus undecimalis), mullet (Mugil cephalus), and small epibenthic forage species such as silver jenny (Eucinostomus gula), pinfish (Lagodin 

rhomboids), and rainwater killifish (Lucania parva). Saltwater 

intrusion in coastal nursery habitats also may result in changes 

in near-shore fish abundance and diversity as well as changes 

in critical cues for spawning and recruitment. In addition, decreased oxygen concentration in Florida Bay associated with 

increases in water temperatures (thermal stress) are expected 

to exacerbate the occurrence and intensity of anoxia-hypoxia 

conditions leading to more massive fish kills and algal blooms 

(Schmidt and Robblee 1994). Paerl and Huisman (2008) report that cyanobacteria outcompetes other phytoplankton 

species at higher temperatures, particularly in near-coastal 

waters with nutrient runoff. Cyanobacteria blooms increase 

the turbidity of aquatic environments, thereby stressing or 

killing seagrasses, which results in reductions of invertebrates 

and important fish habitat. As blooms die off, oxygen depletion may kill fish. 

Increased water temperature effects on freshwater and 

marine fishes already are being observed, primarily in higher 

latitudes, and are accompanied by invasive species and 

pathogens (Beaugrand et al. 2002, Brander 2007). Increasing 

CO2

 concentrations are producing a decrease in ocean pH 

with unknown impacts to marine species (Feely et al. 2004). 

Temperature increases and pH reductions in the ocean also 

reduce structural complexity of coral reefs, resulting in a loss 

of fish biodiversity (Graham et al. 2006). 

Duarte (2007) used metabolic theory to calculate an average 45-percent reduction in planktonic marine larvae dispersal distances with a 4 °C increase in ocean temperature. 

Reduced dispersal combined with mortality and fecundity 

impacts of climate change may impede connectivity as already 

fragmented populations become more disjointed (Duarte 

2007). Fishing pressures on many fish populations cause 

changes in fish distribution, age, and size structure (fishing 

is size-selective) that are expected to interact with climate 

change and thereby affect the sustainability and resilience of 

fish communities (Berkeley et al. 2004, Ottersen et al. 2006, 

Brander 2007). 

The karst topography of much of the Everglades contains characteristic solution holes where fish concentrate during low 

water. The small fish in this picture are primarily mosquitofish 

(Gambusia holbrooki). Photo by ©Jennifer Brown, used with 

permission.
16 South Florida Natural Resources Center Technical Series (2009:1)

Within freshwater Everglades landscapes, extended and 

more severe droughts are a possible consequence of climate 

change and may have substantial impacts on freshwater fishes. 

Fish competition models (DeAngelis et al. 2005) indicate that 

sites with hydroperiods of less than 6 months accumulate negligible fish biomass and match observations of low fish biomass in short-hydroperiod wetlands and observations of fish 

biomass increasing with lengthening hydroperiod (Trexler et 

al. 2002). During periods of low water levels, shallow karst 

solution holes are critical refugia for small freshwater fishes 

(Kobza et al. 2004). Deeper holes may be dominated by predatory, often non-native, species that make it unlikely for smaller 

native fishes to survive. Kobza et al. (2004) observed very high 

losses of fish biomass when water levels in solution holes declined more than 46 centimeters below the ground surface. 

Coral 

South Florida living coral is the third largest reef tract in the 

world (behind Australia and Belize) and is particularly prolific 

in a 150-mile-long and 4-mile-wide system of approximately 

6,000 coral reefs extending from Key Biscayne, continuing 

along the seaward side of the Florida Keys, and west to the 

Dry Tortugas in the Gulf of Mexico. Biodiversity estimates for 

species using coral reefs as habitat range from 1 to 9 million 

species (Reaka-Kudla 1997). Coral are obligatory dependents 

on zooxanthellae microalgae. Zooxanthellae live in symbiosis with coral and assist the coral in nutrient production 

through its photosynthetic activities. The coloration of coral 

comes from zooxanthellae. Since the 1980s, there has been 

increased frequency of coral bleaching caused by declines of 

60–90 percent in zooxanthellae on the coral surface (Glynn 

1993, Le Tissier and Brown 1996). Multiple causes have been 

suspected for coral bleaching, including increased UV exposure, sedimentation, inorganic nutrients, pathogens, and 

increased temperature with combinations of stressors often 

present (Glynn 1996). However, large-scale, mass bleaching 

events have been exclusively linked to unusually high seasurface temperatures (Glynn and D’Croz 1990, Brown 1997, 

Hoegh-Guldberg 1999). A 1 °C increase in temperature can 

cause severe coral bleaching (Glynn 1993). Global warming 

changes of this magnitude are projected to occur in south 

Florida and the Caribbean within the next 25 to 50 years. If 

stony coral reefs are subjected to a continual temperature increase over this century, they may respond with an increased 

frequency, scale, and severity of coral dysfunction and death 

(Glynn 1996). It is also possible, through physiological acclimatization and species replacements, that the zooxanthellae 

will develop tolerances to higher temperatures given their diverse species composition and genetic diversity (Rowan 1998, 

Knowlton 2001). 

Should sea level rise occur faster than reef formation, 

lower light levels on the reef may result in coral zooxanthellae death, and subsequently, death of the coral polyp (Glynn 

1993). In a circular fashion, global warming may contribute 

to slowing coral growth. Coral also may be susceptible to the 

demographic “Allee Effect” sometimes exhibited in small 

populations. The Allee Effect refers to a decrease in survival and reproductive success of individuals of some species 

when population size decreases. Reef building coral typically 

broadcast their gametes into the water column and depend on 

eggs from one colony reaching sperm from another for reproduction to be successful. Temporal isolation of more than a 

few hours or spatial isolation of more than tens of meters can 

cause reproductive failure (Knowlton 2001). 

In 2005, the National Park Service monitored coral reef 

bleaching in the Caribbean following unusually high water 

temperatures. An average of 90 percent of the sites in the 

U.S. Virgin Islands had bleaching, and depth of bleaching 

was much greater than in past events. Some signs of recovery 

were observed as water temperatures declined, but recovery 

was hampered by disease following the bleaching. Mortality 

of the corals is estimated at 50 percent from the combination 

of bleaching and disease (Patterson et al. 2006). In the Florida 

Keys, 2005 high temperatures appear to have caused coral 

bleaching; however, hurricanes Katrina and Rita lowered water temperatures and may have prevented massive bleaching 

(Manzello et al. 2007), suggesting that increased storm activity predicted with climate change could help slow the impacts 

of temperature increases. As in the Virgin Islands, where 

bleaching did occur, it was followed by disease (Brandt and 

McManus in press).

Corals also are sensitive to acidification of the oceans. The 

availability of calcium carbonate for coral reef building (and 

other calcifying organisms) is pH-dependent. Increased CO2 

concentration in the atmosphere leads to increased acidity of 

oceans as CO2

 is hydrolyzed in the surface waters, leading to 

decreases in biologically available calcium carbonate (Orr et 

al. 2005, Yates and Halley 2006, Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2007). 

Experiments have suggested that CO2

 concentrations of 560 

parts per million (approximately equal to the conservative 

IPCC scenario B1) will reduce coral calcification and growth 

by as much as 40 percent (Kleypas and Langdon 2006). 

Coral bleaching of the species Siderastrea siderea. Photo by 

William Fit, University of Georgia. 
Potential Ecological Consequences of Climate Change in South Florida and the Everglades: 2008 Literature Synthesis 17

Hoegh-Guldberg et al. (2007) suggest several possible coral 

reef responses to decreased carbonate availability: (1) decrease in growth rate and skeletal density as observed on the 

Great Barrier Reef (Cooper et al. 2008), (2) maintenance of 

growth rates by reducing skeletal density further, or (3) maintenance of growth rates and density by investing more energy 

in calcification. Reduced skeletal density results in increasingly brittle coral at greater risk of storm damage. Allocating 

more energy to calcification diverts energy from reproduction 

and other important processes (Cooper et al. 2008). Ongoing 

stress from continuously shifting adaptive pressure leaves coral susceptible to competition and replacement by macroalgaedominated ecosystems (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2007). The 

lower Florida Keys were formed from once-living coral and 

provide a barrier from the open ocean, protecting Florida Bay. 

As sea level continues to rise and new coral growth is increasingly compromised, Florida Bay may be increasingly exposed 

to open ocean waves and currents, impacting the ability of the 

bay to protect estuarine species. 

Following broad regional bleaching of the Great Barrier 

Reef in 1998, coral steadily recovered in areas with large 

herbivorous fishes present. However, the quantity of macroalgae dramatically increased, suppressing coral growth 

and survival where herbivorous fishes were experimentally 

excluded (Hughes et al. 2007). Invertebrate herbivores such 

as sea urchins play a similar role (Edmunds and Carpenter 

2001). Hughes et al. (2007) and Hoegh-Guldberg et al. (2007) 

both stress that local management policies and stewardship 

of fish and invertebrate herbivores, including reductions in 

local stressors such as declining water quality and fishery 

overexploitation, can play an important conservation role in 

the resilience of reefs to larger-scale disturbances that cannot 

be managed directly. 

Amphibians and Reptiles

Amphibians in the Everglades consist of a diverse group that 

includes toads, treefrogs, frogs, sirens, newts, and amphiuma 

(Meshaka et al. 2000). The matrix of upland hammocks and 

freshwater habitats characteristic of the ecosystem are necessary for the life cycle of amphibians and, as in most places, 

can be an indicator of the health of the system. Amphibians 

appear to be among the most sensitive species to changes in 

temperature and precipitation (Corn 2005). Meta-analysis 

studies already have confirmed shifts in breeding for some 

species (Parmesan 2007; Fig. 11). Recent amphibian mortality has been linked to increases in the frequency of El Niño 

events; however, the mechanisms are not understood. The 

impact of reduced soil moisture on prey species and habitat 

has been identified as one possible factor (Corn 2005). Because the amphibian immune system is highly temperature 

dependent (Raffel et al. 2006), changes in temperature can adversely affect resistance to diseases. An example is the differing temperature-dependent interactions between the infectious Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (a chytrid fungus that 

causes the amphibian disease chytridiomycosis) and various 

amphibian hosts (Woodhams et al. 2007). An amphibian species with an immune system that has evolved to cope successfully with pathogens adapted to specific temperature ranges 

may not be able to respond as quickly to new pathogens in a 

changed climate (Fisher 2007). 

More than 50 distinct kinds of reptiles inhabit Everglades 

National Park, including the easily recognizable American 

alligator, the endangered eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon 

corais), and a suite of endangered and threatened sea turtles 

(Meshaka et al. 2000). Although related, the American alligator (Alligator  mississippiensis) and American crocodile 

Alligator hatchling in nest with eggs. Photo by Lori Oberhofer, ENP. 
18 South Florida Natural Resources Center Technical Series (2009:1)

(Crocodylus acutus) are expected to respond differently to climate change. Alligators in the Everglades are at the southern 

end of their tolerance range and grow more slowly, take longer to reach sexual maturity, and have higher metabolic costs 

than alligators in other areas (Mazzotti and Brandt 1997). 

Temperature increases may further decrease their physiological well-being, but changes in hydropattern, habitat, and 

prey availability may be just as, or more, important. Alligators 

in Louisiana also are at the southern end of their range, but 

they grow faster and reach sexual maturity sooner. Their diet 

of primarily waterfowl and small mammals is in contrast to 

that of alligators in the Everglades, which consists of fish and 

snails. Diet may be a substantial cause of the differences in 

growth and reproduction rates between the two populations 

(Mazzotti and Brandt 1997). Prolonged droughts resulting 

from global climate change that decrease aquatic faunal densities and biomass (Loftus et al. 1986) may further exaggerate 

the growth and reproductive rates of alligator populations 

that inhabit the Everglades. 

American crocodiles in south Florida are at the northern 

end of their range. Temperature increases are not expected to 

be problematic for this subpopulation (Mazzotti and Cherkiss 

2003). However, indirect adverse effects to this species from 

global climate change may result from the potential for rapid 

to complete loss of existing coastal wetland and shore habitat 

(Wanless et al. 1997), as well as increased salinities (Mazzotti 

and Cherkiss 2003). Habitat loss from salt water transgression 

of the mangrove berms may be alleviated by nesting habitat 

shifting landward into the Everglades as long as elevated 

berms suitable for nesting remain alongside water with relatively low salinity. 

The sex of crocodilians such as the American alligator and 

American crocodile is determined by temperature during 

incubation of the embryo (Ferguson and Joanen 1982, Lang 

and Andrews 1994). This same process may have acted in the 

selective extinction of groups of archosaurs (dinosaurs) during relatively sudden, continuous change in climate (Ferguson 

and Joanen 1982). Other reptiles, including sea turtles and 

mangrove terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin) that use coastal 

southwestern Florida and Florida Bay habitat extensively, also 

exhibit this characteristic. They may be among the groups 

most sensitive to global climate change and likely will act as 

early indicators of change (Janzen 1994).

Loss of sea turtle nesting habitat is likely where beaches 

are inundated by rising seas and enhanced beach erosion occurs from landward shifts in beaches being blocked by hard 

structures and developed land uses (Klein and Nicholls 1999). 

In the Ten Thousand Islands area in southwestern Florida, 

success of loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) hatchlings 

decreased as inundations, sand water content, and sand water 

salinity increased on low-relief mangrove islands (Foley et al. 

2006). Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge and Juno Beach 

and are examples on the east coast of Florida with high densities of sea turtle nesting that are at risk from extensive development in the coastal zone (Engeman et al. 2002, Stewart and 

Wyneken 2004).

Birds

Since the earliest history of the Everglades, birds have been 

an integral, recognizable, and critical part of the ecosystem. 

From the wading birds that were hunted for their plumes to 

those birds designated as critical species for restoration, a 

functioning and healthy ecosystem is necessary for the continued presence of the more than 360 species listed in the Everglades National Park bird checklist. South Florida also provides a variety of habitats for migratory birds on their way to 

Central or South America as well as wintering birds that stay 

in south Florida. According to Maehr and Kale (2005), 143 

bird species migrate through and/or winter in south Florida. 

Of these, 17 are ducks and other water birds and 30 are shorebirds of which 5 migrate through and 25 winter to some extent in south Florida. Sixteen warbler species migrate through 

and an additional 10 spend the winter in south Florida. The 

remaining 70 species include various songbirds, gulls or terns, 

raptors, and pelagic species. Birds, like amphibians, already 

are responding to climate changes with shifts in phenological 

timing (Brown et al. 1999, Parmesan 2007), including migratory phenology (Cotton 2003). 

Many migratory bird species are now leaving for breeding 

grounds earlier and initiating migration earlier (Cotton 2003). 

Because many of these migrants are predatory or may compete for food, it is unclear how this trend will affect resident 

birds that often nest during the late winter and early spring, 

a period that may overlap with early spring migrants heading north. For example, the wintering Rufous Hummingbird 

(Selasphorus rufus), who in the past primarily wintered in 

Mexico, is appearing more frequently in Florida to spend 

the winter (Parmesan 2006). Hitch and Leberg (2007) examined the breeding bird survey data for North American birds 

(U.S. Geological Survey 2001) and determined that of 27 bird 

species selected with a southern distribution, 9 showed a significant shift northward and 2 shifted south (average 2.35 kilometers per year northward). There was no southward expansion of birds with northern distributions. Jiguet et al. (2007) 

identified habitat and life history traits in birds that appear to 

predict recent population trends in France and are likely to 

be relevant to identifying responses of bird species elsewhere. 

The factors most associated with declines in populations were 

(1) specialist considerably more than generalist, (2) birds that 

experience lower temperatures at the southern edge of their 

climate envelope regardless of the thermal range over which 

these species exist, (3) fewer number of brood per year, which 

Jiguet et al. (2007) suggest may reflect more capacity to respond to shifts in food peaks in response to climate change, 

(4) higher annual fecundity, and (5) lower natal dispersal.

Wading birds and shorebirds, resident as well as migratory, are expected to be affected by an increase in the rate of 

sea level rise with an accompanying loss of coastal marshes. 

Marsh areas are predicted to advance landward with modest sea level rise, but the landward response will likely be too 

slow to be successful in establishing new marsh habitat during periods of rapidly rising sea levels. These habitat losses 
Potential Ecological Consequences of Climate Change in South Florida and the Everglades: 2008 Literature Synthesis 19

of the snails and to allow them to remain active and available 

as a food source. If water recedes from under Snail Kite nests, 

however, predation risk is increased and droughts drastically affect apple snail availability. Changes in hydrology may 

cause loss of habitat through conversion to uplands, adverse 

impacts to apple snail populations, reproductive failure, and 

change in habitat structure leading to loss of nesting substrate 

(Sykes et al. 1995, Martin 2007). Although droughts in the 

natural marsh system may be an important organizing force, 

a climate-related increase in drought frequency and extent 

in wetlands occupied by Snail Kites in the spring-summer 

could be a greater threat to Snail Kites than a lack of droughts 

(Martin et al. 2008). The Roseate Spoonbill (Platalea ajaja) 

times its nesting in Florida Bay to closely coincide with lowwater depths that occur during the dry season, thus ensuring 

appropriate quality and quantity of prey. One predicted result 

of climate change is alteration of the flow of nutrients and 

fresh water to the coast, which is predicted to have a strong 

influence on Roseate Spoonbill nest success. 

Of special interest to Everglades restoration issues is a suite 

of birds that includes the Snail Kite, Wood Stork, Roseate 

Spoonbill, and the Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow (Sustainable 

Ecosystems Institute 2007). In workshop settings with south 

Florida biologists, the Sustainable Ecosystems Institute (2007) 

panel concluded that all four avian species require similar 

cycles of rising water and dry down to produce hydrologic 

conditions favorable to the four species. The Comprehensive 

Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) must result in freshwater 

levels that peak in the water conservation areas during the 

wet season (June–September) followed by dry down beginning as early as October and release of water through Shark 

River Slough. With the impacts of present and projected sea 

level rise, the importance of freshwater flows to the southcould be especially important in areas where seawalls or construction impede the development of new marshes farther 

inland (Butler and Vennesland 2000, Galbraith et al. 2002). 

The southeastern United States is an area of special concern 

(Butler and Vennesland 2000). Although wading birds have 

evolved in conditions of environmental variability, loss of 

habitat and connectivity increases the difficulties of responding to decreases in prey or suitable nesting habitat (Butler and 

Vennesland 2000). 

Birds that breed in the Everglades time their breeding cycle 

with hydrologic events and depend on finding suitable water 

conditions for foraging and nesting. The nests of the federally endangered Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow (Ammodramus 

maritimus mirabilis) are flooded when water depths are too 

high (Nott et al. 1998), but the driest nesting sites tend to have 

lower nest success, possibly because food availability depends 

on the presence of water (Baiser et al. 2008). As water depths 

increase, however, nest predation increases (Lockwood et 

al. 1997). Hence, because this species is so sensitive to water 

levels, it is likely to be dramatically affected by sea level rise, 

increased drought, and increased storm intensities predicted 

with climate change. Changes may include loss of habitat, loss 

of breeding windows, species movement, or extinction. 

Wading birds such as the White Ibis (Eudocimus albus) 

and Wood Stork (Mycteria americana) initiate nesting as 

water recedes in the dry season. Sudden reversals in water 

levels can cause widespread nest abandonment (Frederick 

and Collopy 1989). Snail Kites (Rostrhamus sociabilis) require 

wetland habitat that experiences drying and flooding events 

that are not too frequent or severe. Apple snails (Pomacea 

paludosa), their primary food, are maintained by nearly continuous, but shallow, flooding of wetlands. Generally one year 

of flooded conditions is required to sustain large populations 

Roseate Spoonbill (Platalea ajaja), Wood Stork (Mycteria americana), White Ibis (Eudocimus albus ), and Great Egret (Ardea alba) foraging together in shallow water. Photo by Elise Pearlstine, University of Florida. 
20 South Florida Natural Resources Center Technical Series (2009:1)

ern Everglades for the gradual adaptation and sustainability of coastal brackish and freshwater habitats will increase 

(Sustainable Ecosystems Institute 2007). The Sustainable 

Ecosystems Institute (2007) also reported that climate change 

is likely to affect these four species, in common with other 

south Florida avian species such as wading birds in general, 

by increased frequency and severity of fires and storms (both 

tropical and hurricane), loss of freshwater marsh habitat in 

response to saltwater intrusion, thermal stress, and changes in 

phenology that decouple life cycles of avian species and their 

prey. Birds that require woody vegetation for nesting are likely 

to experience reduced amounts of suitable nesting substrate. 

Many birds rely on aquatic fauna as prey items and these communities will be altered through reduced oxygen concentrations and higher water temperature. Although the direction of 

change can be predicted for some variables related to climate 

change, predictions involving biological systems are very difficult to make because of the potential for interactions and the 

uncertainty of thresholds in physical processes. 

Mammals

According to current (2008) mammal checklists available at 

Everglades National Park, Everglades ecosystems support a 

variety of mammals including bats, rabbits, river otters (Lontra canadensis), Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi), and a 

sea mammal — the West Indian (Florida) manatee (Trichechus 

manatus latirostris). Mammals are less likely than other 

groups to have direct phenological or distributional responses 

to climate change but will respond to changes in habitat and 

prey availability. The low-lying islands of the Florida Keys and 

Ten Thousand Islands region are particularly vulnerable to sea 

level rise. Expected sea level rise in conjunction with storm 

surges would inundate large proportions of habitat, either 

permanently or episodically (Backland et al. 2008) occupied 

by endemic Florida Keys federally endangered species such 

as the Key deer (Odocoileus virginianus clavium), Key Largo 

woodrat (Neotoma floridana smalli), Key Largo cotton mouse 

(Peromyscus gossypinus allapaticola), silver rice rat (Oryzomys 

palustris natator), and Lower Keys marsh rabbit (Sylvilagus 

palustris hefneri) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999). 

West Indian manatee swimming among mangrove islands in the Taylor River, Everglades National Park. Photo by William Perry, ENP.
Potential Ecological Consequences of Climate Change in South Florida and the Everglades: 2008 Literature Synthesis 21

Lower regional survival probabilities for West Indian manatee coincide with years having strong hurricanes (Langtimm 

and Beck 2003). Increased and more-intense storms predicted to accompany climate change, along with potential coastal 

impacts to seagrass habitats, could increase survival pressures 

on this endangered species.

Insects

Insects provide waste management (decomposition), food 

for wildlife, pest control (Losey and Vaughan 2006) and pollination services for three-quarters of the world’s flowering 

plants (Inouye 2007). Shifts in distribution and phenology 

of many insects are already being observed in apparent response to climate change (Parmesan 2006). Bale et al. (2002) 

cite research that suggests some insects may rapidly evolve 

physiological adaptation (Masaki 1967, Tauber et al. 1986, 

Pullin 1986), but many will migrate to avoid the effects of climate change (Coope 1978, Butterfield 1996, Hill et al. 1998). 

Synchrony with host-plant availability may be critical (Hodkinson 1997, MacLean 1983). On the basis of current experimental evidence, the direct effect of temperature — more so 

than increased CO2

 concentration, UVA, or precipitation — is 

likely to be the largest factor impacting insect species (Bale et 

al. 2002). Although warming trends are predicted to be less 

severe for south Florida as compared to northern latitudes, 

Tewksbury et al. (2008) summarize literature that suggests that 

insects and other ectothermal animals (such as fish, reptiles, 

and amphibians) living in tropical climates are likely to be less 

tolerant of climate warming. Many tropical ectotherms are 

already living in environments near the upper limits of their 

optimal temperature range (Deutsch et al. 2008), and relatively small increases in temperature throughout the year may be 

beyond their ability to acclimate. 

The migration of butterflies is correlated with spring 

temperatures. Researchers have documented northward 

and higher-altitude distributional shifts as well as southern contractions of their historic range (Pollard et al. 1995, 

Parmesan et al. 1999, Crozier 2004). Increasing variability in 

precipitation associated with climate change was modeled to 

be the cause of population decline in one species of butterfly 

in California, the checkerspot butterfly, where distribution 

shifts were not possible because of habitat fragmentation 

(McLaughlin et al. 2002).

Five new species of tropical dragonfly were observed 

to have established themselves in Florida in 2000. This appeared to be a natural invasion from the Bahamas and Cuba 

(Parmesan 2006). Two species of butterfly, Florida leafwing (Anaea troglodyte floridalis) and Bartram’s hairstreak 

(Strymon acis bartrami), were listed as federal candidate 

species in 2005 and are listed as threatened by the Florida 

Committee on Rare and Endangered Plants and Animals 

(Dreyrup and Franz 1994). The Florida leafwing occurs 

only on Long Pine Key in Everglades National Park and the 

population is rapidly declining (Cech and Tudor 2005). The 

population of Bartram’s hairstreak is very small and is limited 

to south Florida and the Florida Keys; the species is one of 

the most imperiled butterflies in the Eastern United States 

(Susan Perry, Everglades National Park, pers. comm., 2008). 

Additionally, seven or more butterfly species that inhabit the 

park are imperiled. Butterflies are highly sensitive to a critical range of temperature, humidity, and light levels (Murphy 

et al. 1990) and their dependence on specific host plants ties 

them to specific habitats (Ehrlich and Raven 1965). Adequate 

rainfall is necessary for the health of butterflies and the plants 

they depend on; however, heavy storms or extended rainfall 

and temperature-rainfall interactions can cause direct or 

indirect mortality (Susan Perry, Everglades National Park, 

pers. comm., 2008). The Florida leafwing occurs only within 

pine rocklands in which grow its host plant, pineland croton. 

Bartram’s hairstreak is a similar specialist in the larval stage, 

but because it has a wider range of plant nectar sources, its 

chances of survival are greater should the plant community 

shift (Susan Perry, Everglades National Park, pers. comm., 

2008). Global climate change is expected to bring hotter and 

drier conditions, more frequent storms, and sea level rise. The 

hydrologic and ecologic effects on low-elevation habitats and 

on insect-plant phenology could cause major physiological 

disruptions for these insect species. 

Dragonfly (Brachymesia gravida). Photo by Leonard Pearlstine, 

ENP.

Bartram’s hairstreak (Strymon acis bartrami). Photo by William 

Perry, ENP.
22 South Florida Natural Resources Center Technical Series (2009:1)

NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

IMPLICATIONS

Observed and anticipated climate change effects on southern 

Florida provide strong motivation for examining the goals 

and objectives of greater Everglades restoration. The Everglades is a dynamic landscape of ecosystems. Change occurs 

in response to drivers at temporal and spatial scales ranging 

from seasonal variation to abrupt, regional disturbances such 

as hurricanes and fire, and to long-term climate trends (which 

may include both gradual and abrupt events).

Present and future climate change scenarios in conjunction with irreversible human alteration of the landscape lead 

to the conclusion that restoration efforts can no longer be 

considered a program to return the Everglades to the past. 

The Department of Interior Task Force on Climate Change 

(DOI 2009a) and The National Research Council (NRC 2008) 

agree that historic conditions are no longer adequate as the 

sole basis for future resource management decisions. Multiple 

impacts from climate change, sea level rise, and the effects of 

human adaptations to climate change that compete with natural systems for resources and further fragment the landscape 

interact to produce ecological effects that cannot be fully 

predicted. Even if human interventions are successful in stabilizing climate regimes, they will be different from recent historic climate regimes and many species will not survive (Ruhl 

2008). South Florida species most at risk are likely to be those 

dependent on isolated or fragmented habitats or species on 

the edge of their climatic tolerance ranges that are unable to 

respond quickly enough to changing climate trends by migration or adaptation. As a next step, recommendations for addressing climate change should consider species and habitats 

most at risk along with locally specific management options 

for their conservation. Some species are likely to thrive under 

climate change conditions and others can survive with assistance through a focused application of ecosystem-level management of habitat and other resources vital to sustainability 

(Ruhl 2008). Natural resource managers also must be open 

to the potential for a rich, biodiverse, functioning Everglades 

ecosystem that may include a new mix of habitat and species. 

The Everglades can be characterized as a complex of systems 

that are self-organizing, adaptive, and heterogeneous (Casti 

1997)—not closed and predictable, but open, evolving, and 

in constant change (Pahl-Wostl 2007). Restoration under 

climate change may be most properly defined in terms of 

reducing ecosystem vulnerability and promoting adaptation 

and resilience. 

This management section addresses broad topics of 

science-based understanding and management response to 

climate change impacts in the Everglades. Most of the focal topics echo natural resources policy and management 

guidance published in reports by the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2007b), the U.S. Climate 

Change Science Program (CCSP 2008b), the Department of 

Interior Task Force on Climate Change (DOI 2009a, 2009b), 

the National Research Council’s second biennial review of 

Everglades restoration progress (NRC 2008), the Miami-Dade 

Climate Change Task Force (MDCCATF 2008), and others. 

In addition, Heller and Zavaleta (2009) provide a systematic 

review of published journal articles recommending measures 

to adapt conservation to climate change. Issues of climatic 

variability and extreme events, species and habitat migrations, 

and adaptability are common to most of the reports, as are 

management issues of monitoring, integrated database management, and modeling. NRC (2008) observes that dynamic 

aquatic and terrestrial habitats likely will continue to be a part 

of south Florida and impending climate change should be a 

motivation to avoid irreversible losses and to restore resilience of the ecosystem.

The current broad level of published recommendations 

for natural resource climate change policy and management 

must now be directed to specific goals, needs, and actions 

in south Florida and the Everglades. Focus groups within a 

structured risk-analysis and decision-support approach (van 

der Heijden 1996, Goodwin and Wright 1998, Mowrer 2000, 

Pyke et al. 2007) may be used to develop specific short- and 

long-term strategies along with climate change research and 

monitoring needs for Everglades natural resource management. These set clear, achievable goals that include auditing of 

their achievements (Rogers 1998).

Bridging the gap between science and policy is not typically as straightforward as a linear and one-way transfer of 

scientific knowledge to policy implementation. Moss (2007) 

identifies global scale, systems complexity, long time lags, 

lack of experimental controls, and the multiple disciplines 

involved as particularly challenging in the assessments of 

climate change uncertainties. Communication among many 

intermediaries, policy-brokers, lay shareholders, and multiple 

levels of governance and knowledge production is the key 

to successful integration of science into policy (Vogel et al. 

2007). Climate change imposes long-term variably continuous change on systems, making management goals a moving 

target and observable systems response to actions under current conditions only a partial indicator of success. An adaptive management strategy must commit to long-term, often 

gradual, changes with potential for large abrupt changes, and 

requires ecological and physical modeling in the development 

of hypotheses and goals (Fussel and Klein 2006).

Goals for Resilience in Everglades 

Restoration

1. Maintain or restore multiple areas of habitat to facilitate population stability and recovery following 

disturbances. 

2. Maintain or restore large-scale connectivity (ecological network of core areas, corridors, buffer zones, 

and restoration areas) to facilitate habitat potential, 
Potential Ecological Consequences of Climate Change in South Florida and the Everglades: 2008 Literature Synthesis 23

maintain viable populations, and respond to habitat 

shifts resulting from climate changes and sea level 

rise. Jones-Walters (2007) reports that in Europe, 

the science of ecological connectivity has been successfully linked with policy considerations in natural 

resource protection. 

3. Minimize diversity and abundance of habitat-homogenizing exotic species.

4. Maintain coral reef and coastal mangrove ecotones as 

natural barriers to storm surge and critical habitat for 

maintaining coastal biodiversity. 

5. Consider assisted colonization (Hunter 2007, 

McLachlan et al. 2007) (migration or relocation of 

species) where present habitat is no longer sustainable and species are not able to adapt or migrate 

unassisted. 

6. Engage in social, group decision, support building 

techniques that promote stakeholder and political 

understanding of Everglades complex adaptive systems and increase support for adaptive learning and 

management.

Broad Monitoring and Research Needs

Existing Everglades monitoring systems range from Earth 

observing satellites to hydrologic gage networks. Existing systems, however, are not optimized for detecting key biological 

and physical indicators of the consequences of climate change 

and may be monitored haphazardly or with incomplete spatial information (Backland et al. 2008). The CERP Monitoring and Assessment Plan (MAP) for Everglades restoration 

proposes a hypothesis-based ecological monitoring plan that 

links acquisition of monitoring and research data to systemwide assessments of ecological indicators that are essential to 

reducing uncertainty in decisions and evaluating CERP success (RECOVER 2008). 

Baseline biotic and environmental monitoring should use 

standardized methods and common formats and may link 

to regional and national biological and physical databases 

to draw information from multiple sources (Lee et al. 2008). 

Information from disparate sources often is not well integrated. Recently, the Everglades Depth Estimation Network provided a successful example of agencies cooperating to bring 

water-stage gage data and analyses together into a common 

datum, format, and distribution network (http://www.sofia.

usgs.gov/eden/). The USA National Phenological Network 

(http://www.usanpn.org/) provides another important example. A continued, long-term commitment of support is required for these and other monitoring networks to assist early 

warning and more accurate forecasts of potential ecosystem 

changes. 

Region-wide spatial databases of the greater Everglades 

and adjacent landscape for existing and potential faunal 

communities, key indicator species, vegetation communities, 

land use, elevation, hydrology, and water quality are fundamental components that provide the baseline spatial data for 

forecasting potential future conditions. The South Florida 

Water Management District is developing detailed vegetation 

classifications for the Everglades with an unknown completion date (Ken Rutchey, South Florida Water Management 

District, pers. comm., 2008). To bring this critical spatial data 

layer more quickly to researchers and to the decision process 

will require increased interagency involvement. A completed 

base map could be updated relatively frequently by identifying and mapping only areas of change and by integrating the 

mapping effort with permanent field monitoring sites. Highaccuracy topographic surveys (Desmond 2003) and continuous mapped surfaces from the observations (Jones and 

Price 2007) have been completed for the freshwater marsh 

systems of the Everglades but need to be extended to include 

Everglades coastal areas, the Big Cypress landscapes, and the 

Florida Keys (not just the populated, higher-elevation outer 

keys). Hansen and Dewitt’s (2000) bathymetry of Florida 

Bay also should be extended to include observations in the 

shallows of the bay. Combined, the elevation products will 

provide information needed for adequate forecasting of the 

spatial dimensions of sea level rise and potential for saltwater 

intrusion under scenarios of Everglades hydrologic restoration. The South Florida Water Management District is developing Everglades hydrologic model scenarios incorporating 

climate change and the University of Florida is preparing 

a downscaled climate model for Florida (Danny Coenen, 

University of Florida, pers. comm., 2008).

The ability of Everglades native and non-native species to 

adapt to climate change within their geographic range and to 

compete with invasive species depends in part on their ability to move into new locations and niches. Discrimination 

of these movements can be aided by monitoring and research that partitions four stages of invasion as presented by 

Theoharides and Dukes (2007) because of the different factors affecting each stage: 1) Movement into new geographic 

areas is facilitated by multiple introductions and high genetic 

variation, 2) colonization depends on environmental conditions (such as soil, temperature, and hydrologic factors), 

phenologic plasticity, and reproductive rates, 3) establishment 

depends on competitiveness, niche overlap, and interactions 

with enemies and disease, and 4) connections with other populations may increase genetic variability and reduce lag times 

from establishment to spread. Dispersal and linking of metacommunities across the heterogeneous landscape depends on 

the species’ dispersal mechanisms, as well as the factors from 

all three previous stages. An understanding of species and 

community differential response to climate change in each of 

the four stages aids policy decisions in targeting management 

goals and actions (Theoharides and Dukes 2007). 
24 South Florida Natural Resources Center Technical Series (2009:1)

Current Everglades restoration efforts to increase water 

flow to Shark River Slough, Taylor Slough, and Florida Bay 

may be particularly important in the coming decade for the 

freshwater head provided to offset saline transgressions with 

increasing sea level. 

Comparative studies, physiological studies, and modeling 

could help to address climate change and restoration interactions on:

1. Area and distributional shifts in estuarine and freshwater wetland habitats,

2. Changing habitat and trophic linkages,

3. South Florida species phenology and distribution 

shifts and disruptions in interactions and synchronization among species, 

4. Short and long-term adaptive capacity of south 

Florida species, and

5. Vegetation (and thus, habitat) responses specific to 

south Florida.

Managers should be aware that climate extremes and variability are likely to be more important to species responses 

than the expected mean climate changes. Further, species 

responses are frequently not linear relations with a single 

environmental trend (such as temperature and CO2

), but a 

complex, nonlinear relation to multiple environmental factors 

including geographic and hydrologic patterns, interactions 

with other species, and restriction to migration (natural and 

anthropomorphic) (Burkett et al. 2005). 

Management decisions also need to incorporate evolutionary assessment into restoration and conservation practices keeping in mind that intraspecific genetic variation is 

critical to microevolution in response to rapid climate change 

(Rice and Emery 2004). Simulations of nonlinear ecosystem 

dynamics and adaptive variation are needed to support adaptive climate change management strategies, but predictive 

models will never be as advanced as management desires. 

Application of the precautionary principle (see sidebar) will 

remain a critical safety net for maintaining ecosystem structure and function (Burkett et al. 2005).

Carbon sequestration or “carbon farming” is gaining attention as a method of offsetting carbon emissions. The U.S. 

Department of the Interior has recognized its potential to 

play a key national role in reducing atmospheric CO2

 concentration through carbon sequestration (DOI 2009a). To this 

end, carbon is stored in plant material such as in forests, or 

in the soil. There has been recent interest in whether farming 

Everglades marsh in a flow-way being proposed for Everglades 

restoration would be effective to build peat and, subsequently, 

sequester carbon. Coastal wetlands contain about 10 percent of the total soil carbon in the world (Choi et al. 2001). 

Wetlands in general represent the largest portion of the terrestrial biological carbon pool (Chmura et al. 2003) and are thus 

important in global carbon cycles. In addition, much of the 

biomass in these systems is below ground and contributes to 

vertically extensive deposits (Chmura et al. 2003). However, 

these same systems are known to produce methane, an important greenhouse gas that derives from the decomposition 

of peat soils. Methane concentration may increase in wetlands 

at higher temperatures (Bartlett and Harris 1993), leading to 

a net production of greenhouse gases. It is also true, however, 

that southern latitude wetlands continue to be productive for 

longer periods of time and thus continue their uptake of CO2

, 

thereby reducing their overall CH4

/CO2 ratio (Whiting and 

Chanton 2001). When considered over time periods of 100 

years or greater, tropical wetlands may have potential to act 

as a carbon sink because of the shorter persistence of CH4

 in 

the atmosphere than CO2

 (Whiting and Chanton 2001). Tidal 

saline wetlands may be negligible sources of CH4

 because of 

likely effects of higher sulfate reduction in these soils (Chmura 

et al. 2003). The relation between soil carbon, greenhouse gas 

production, and other considerations such as in wetlands is 

complex, and currently there is no clear formula to determine 

whether natural wetlands in south Florida have the potential 

to act as a carbon sink.

A central idea within the U.S. 

Endangered Species Act, the United Nations 

Framework Convention on Climate 

Change, Kyoto Protocol, and the U.S. 

National Environmental Policy Act is the 

Precautionary Principle (Prato 2008). The 

precautionary principle states that if a 

condition creates the potential for a serious 

threat to human or environmental health, 

then precautionary measures should be 

taken to alleviate the condition. Scientific 

uncertainty is not to be used as a reason 

for postponing cost-effective measures to 

prevent environmental degradation (United 

Nations 1992). However, Prato (2008) 

(using fuzzy set operators with minimax 

regret criterion), and Nicholson and 

Possingham (2007) (using information-gap 

decision theory) provide two examples of 

quantitative evaluation methods that a 

decision-maker may use to help select a 

preferred adaptive strategy that represents 

minimum loss in adapting an ecosystem to 

future climate change under conditions of 

uncertainty and risk.
Potential Ecological Consequences of Climate Change in South Florida and the Everglades: 2008 Literature Synthesis 25

Although not reviewed by this report, ecosystem services 

link conservation to human benefits by relating environmental health to human health, security, and material goods 

(Brauman et al. 2007). Ecosystem services and resources such 

as storm and flood protection, freshwater quality, seafood, 

recreation, and tourism that are provided by the Everglades 

and adjacent natural areas will be important to identify as discussions with shareholders and local communities progress 

on managing the future of the Everglades.

The effects of global climate change are likely to have profound and widespread consequences on Earth’s ecosystems. 

In south Florida, anticipated sea level rise (0.8 to 2 meters 

predicted) is predicted to overstep natural protective berms, 

allowing saline water intrusion into fresh marshes as well as 

flooding beaches, mangrove forests, and salt marshes. These 

habitats are critical for south Florida’s native wildlife, especially those that serve as fish breeding and nursery grounds 

and wading bird and shorebird foraging and breeding areas. 

Increased weather uncertainty and lower rainfall levels in 

both dry and wet seasons are predicted to lead to droughts, 

hydrologic changes, increased fire, and other disturbances. 

Nearly all of south Florida’s native wildlife species and plant 

communities are highly adapted to the cycles of wet and dry 

season and to particular hydrologic patterns. Loss of breeding and dispersal habitat for wildlife species are two likely effects in addition to direct mortality as a result of more intense 

tropical storms. Predicted temperature rise in the range of 2 

to 5.5 °C by the end of the century is likely to directly impact 

species at the edges of their range like the American alligator, 

or thermal-dependent species like amphibians, and will likely 

lead to a turnover and alteration of many vegetation communities. To the detriment of native plant and animal species, 

invasive species are more likely to benefit from alterations to 

the environment that result from climate change. Endangered 

and threatened species as well as south Florida endemic species are predicted to suffer as all scenarios potentially result in 

habitat loss, phenological disturbance, increased hydrologic 

and weather uncertainty, range shifts, and other widespread 

habitat and life-cycle disruptions. Identification of those 

species and habitats most at risk and potentials for increasing habitat and landscape resilience to changes in climate will 

be critical next steps in a heightened focus within Everglades 

restoration.

Endangered Wood Stork (Mycteria americana) fishing at dawn. Photo by Elise Pearlstine, University of Florida.
26 South Florida Natural Resources Center Technical Series (2009:1)

LITERATURE CITED

Ainsworth E.A., A. Rogers, L.O. Vodkin, A. Walter, and U. Schurr. 

2006. The effects of elevated CO2 concentration on soybean 

gene expression. An analysis of growing and mature leaves. Plant 

Physiology. 142:135-147.

Allan R.P., and B.J. Soden. 2008. Atmospheric warming and the 

amplification of precipitation extremes. Science. 321:1481-1484.

Alley R., J. Marotzke, W. Nordhaus, J. Overpeck, D. Peteet, R. Pielke, 

R. Pierrehumbert, P. Rhines, T. Stocker, L. Talley, and J. Wallace. 

2003. Abrupt climate change. Science. 299:2005-2010.

Backland P., A. Janetos, and D. Schimel. 2008. The effects of climate 

change on agriculture, land resources, water resources, and 

biodiversity in the United States. In: Walsh, M. (ed.). A Report by 

the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee 

on Global Change Research. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. Washington, D.C.

Baiser B., R.L. Boulton, and J.L. Lockwood. 2008. Influence of water 

depth on nest success of the endangered Cape Sable Seaside 

Sparrow in the Florida Everglades. Animal Conservation. 

11:190-197.

Bale J.S., G.J. Masters, I.D. Hodkinson, C. Awmack, T.M. Bezemer, 

V.K. Brown, J. Butterfield, A. Buse, J.C. Coulson, J. Farrar, J.E.G. 

Good, R. Harrington, S. Hartley, T.H. Jones, R.L. Lindroth, 

M.C. Press, I. Symrnooudis, A.D. Watt, and J.B. Whittaker. 2002. 

Herbivory in global climate change research: Direct effects of 

rising temperature on insect herbivores. Global Change Biology. 

8:1-16.

Bartlett K.B., and R.C. Harris. 1993. Review and assessment of 

methane emissions form wetlands. Chemosphere. 26:261-320.

Beaugrand G., P.C. Reid, F. Ibanez, J.A. Lindley, and M. Edwards. 

2002. Reorganization of North Atlantic marine copepod 

biodiversity and climate. Science. 296:1692-1694.

Bell R.E. 2008. The unquiet ice. Scientific American. 298[2], 60-67. 

Berkeley S.A., M.A. Hixon, R.J. Larson, and M.S. Love. 2004. 

Fisheries sustainability via protection of age structure and spatial 

distribution of fish populations. Fisheries. 29:23-32.

Bjorkman, O., B. Mahall, M. Nobs, W. Ward, F. Nicholson, and H. 

Mooney. 1974. An analysis of the temperature dependence of 

growth under controlled conditions. In: S.A. McGough (ed.) 

Carnegie Institution of Washington, Yearbook 73. J.D. Lucas 

Printing Co., Baltimore, MD, p. 757–767.

Box E.O., W. Crumpacker, and E.D. Hardin. 1993. A climatic 

model for location of plant species in Florida, U.S.A. Journal of 

Biogeography. 20:629-644.

Bradshaw W.E., and C.M. Holzapfel. 2006. Evolutionary response to 

rapid climate change. Science. 312:1477-1478.

Brander K.M. 2007. Global fish production and climate change. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences., USA. 

104:19709-19714.

Brandt, M.E., and J.W. McManus. In press. Disease incidence is 

related to bleaching extent in reef-building corals. Ecology.

Brauman K.A., G.C. Daily, T.K. Duarte, and H.A. Mooney. 2007. The 

nature and value of ecosystem services: An overview highlighting 

hydrologic services. Annual Review of Environment and 

Resources. 32:67-98.

Brown B.E. 1997. Coral bleaching: Causes and consequences. Coral 

Reefs. 16:S129-S138.

Brown I. 2006. Modelling future landscape change on coastal 

floodplains using a rule-based GIS. Environmental Modelling & 

Software. 21:1479-1490.

Brown P. 2008. Polar express: Ice is melting at the poles much faster 

than climate models predict. Scientific American. 299[1], 18-20.

Brown J.L., S. Li, and N. Bhagabati. 1999. Long-term trend toward 

earlier breeding in an American bird: A response to global 

warming? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 

96:5565-5569.

Bruhl J. 1993. Sedge genera of the world (Version 2.01), Intkey, 

Interactive Dataset. N.C.W. Beadle Herbarium, University of 

New England, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia. 

Bruhl J. 1995. Sedge genera of the world: Relationships and a new 

classification of the Cyperaceae. Australian Systematic Botany. 

8:125-305.

Burger S.A., and M. Lynch. 1995. Evolution and extinction in a 

changing environment: A quantitative genetic analysis. Evolution. 

49:151-163.

Burkett V.A., D.A. Wilcox, R. Stottlemyer, W. Barrow, D. Fagre, 

J. Baron, J. Price, J.L. Nielsen, C.D. Allen, D.L. Peterson, G. 

Ruggerone, and T. Doyle. 2005. Nonlinear dynamics in ecosystem 

response to climatic change: Case studies and policy implications. 

Ecological Complexity. 2:357–394.

Butler R.W., and R.G. Vennesland. 2000. Integrating climate change 

and predation risk with wading bird conservation research in 

North America. Waterbirds. 23:535-540.

Butterfield J. 1996. Carabid life-cycle strategies and climate change: 

A study on an altitude transect. Ecological Entomology. 21:9-16.

Cahoon D.R. 2006. A review of major storm impacts on coastal 

wetland elevations. Estuaries and Coasts. 29(6A):889-898.

Casti J. 1997. Reality rules I & II. Picturing the world in mathematics: 

The fundamentals, the frontier. Wiley, Chichester.

CCSP 2008a. Reanalysis of historical climate data for key atmospheric 

features: Implications for attribution of causes of observed 

change. A report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program 

and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic 

Data Center, Asheville, NC, 156 pp.

CCSP 2008b. The effects of climate change on agriculture, land 

resources, water resources, and biodiversity. A report by the 

U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on 

Global Change Research. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, DC., 362 pp.

Cech R., and G. Tudor. 2005. Butterflies of the East Coast, An 

observer’s guide. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New 

Jersey. 345 pp.

Chmura G.L., S.C. Anisfeld, D.R. Cahoon, and J.C. Lynch. 2003. 

Global carbon sequestration in tidal, saline wetland soils. Global 

Biogeochemical Cycles. 17(4):1111-1133. 

Choi Y., and Y. Wang. 2001. Vegetation succession and carbon 

sequestration in a coastal wetland in northwest Florida: Evidence 

from carbon isotopes. Global Biogeochemical Cycles. 15:311-319. 
Potential Ecological Consequences of Climate Change in South Florida and the Everglades: 2008 Literature Synthesis 27

Church J.A., N.J. White, R. Coleman, K. Lambeck, and J.X. Mitrovica. 

2004. Estimates of the regional distribution of sea level rise over 

the 1950 to 2000 period. Journal of Climate. 17(13):2609–2625.

Cleland E.E., N.R. Chiariello, S.R. Loarie, H.A. Mooney, and C.B. 

Field. 2006. Diverse responses of phenology to global changes in 

a grassland ecosystem. Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences. 103:13740-13744.

Conover D.O., and E.T. Schultz. 1995. Phenotypic similarity and the 

evolutionary significance of countergradient variation. Trends in 

Ecology & Evolution. 10:248-252.

Coope G.R. 1978. Constancy of insect species versus inconstancy of 

Quaternary environments. In: Diversity of Insect Faunas. Mound, 

L.A. and N. Waloff (eds.). Blackwell Scientific Publications, 

Oxford, pp. 176-187.

Cooper T.F., G. De’ath, K.E. Fabricius, and J.M. Lough, 2008. 

Declining coral calcification in massive Porites in two nearshore 

regions of the northern Great Barrier Reef. Global Change 

Biology. 14(3):529-538.

Corn P.S. 2005. Climate change and amphibians. Animal Biodiversity 

and Conservation. 28:59-67.

Cotton P.A. 2003. Avian migration phenology and global climate 

change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 

100:13595-13599.

Crozier L. 2004. Warmer winters drive butterfly range expansion by 

increasing survivorship. Ecology, 85:231-241.

Crumpacker D.W., E.O. Box, and E.D. Hardin. 2001. Implications of 

climatic warming for conservation of native trees and shrubs in 

Florida. Conservation Biology. 15:1008-1020.

Dai A., A. Hu, G. Meehl, W. Washington, and W. Strand. 2005. Atlantic 

thermohaline circulation in a coupled general circulation model: 

Unforced variations versus forced changes. Journal of Climate. 

18:3270-3293.

Davis A.J., J.H. Lawton, B. Shorrocks, and L.S. Jenkinson. 1998. 

Individualistic species responses invalidate simple physiological 

models of community dynamics under global environmental 

change. Journal of Animal Ecology. 67:600-612.

Davis M.B., R.G. Shaw, and J.R. Etterson. 2005. Evolutionary 

responses to changing climate. Ecology. 86:1704-1714.

DeAngelis D.L., J.C. Trexler, and Loftus, W.F. 2005. Life history tradeoffs and community dynamics of small fishes in a seasonally 

pulsed wetland. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences. 62:781-790.

Desmond G.D., 2003. Initial Everglades Depth Estimation Network 

(EDEN) digital elevation model research and development. U.S. 

Geological Survey Fact Sheet 021-03. 

Deutsch C.A., J.J. Tewksbury, R.B. Huey, K.S. Sheldon, C.K. 

Ghalambor, D.C. Haak, and P.R. Martin. 2008. Impacts of climate 

warming on terrestrial ectotherms across latitude. Proceedings of 

the National Academy of Sciences. 105:6668-6682.

DOI 2009a. An analysis of climate change impacts and options 

relevant to the Department of Interior’s managed lands and 

waters. Department of the Interior Task Force on Climate Change. 

Report of the Subcommittee on Land and Water Management.

DOI 2009b. An integrated DOI science plan for addressing the effects 

of climate change on natural systems. Department of the Interior 

Task Force on Climate Change. Report of the Subcommittee on 

Science.

Dreyrup M., and R. Franz. 1994. Rare and endangered biota of 

Florida. Volume IV. Invertebrates. University of Florida Press, 

Gainesville, FL. 798 pp.

Duarte C.M. 2007. Marine ecology warms up to theory. Trends in 

Ecology & Evolution. 22:331-333.

Duever M.J., J.F. Meeder, L.C. Meeder, and J.M. McCollom. 1997. 

The climate of south Florida and its role in shaping the Everglades 

ecosystem. In: Davis, S.M., and J.C. Ogden (eds.). Everglades: The 

Ecosystem and Its Restoration. St. Lucie Press, Boca Raton, FL, 

pp. 225-248.

Edmunds P.J., and R.C. Carpenter. 2001. Recovery of Diadema 

antillarum reduces macroalgal cover and increases abundance of 

juvenile corals on a Caribbean reef. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences. 98:5067-5071.

Ehrlich P.R., and P.H. Raven. 1965. Butterflies and plants: A study in 

co-evolution. Evolution. 18: 586-608.

Engeman R.M., S.A. Shwiff, B. Constantin, M. Stahl, and H.T. Smith. 

2002. An economic analysis of predator removal approaches for 

protecting marine turtle nests at Hobe Sound National Wildlife 

Refuge. Ecological Economics. 42(3):469-478.

Feely R.A., C.L. Sabine, K. Lee, W. Berelson, J. Kleypas, V.J. Fabry, and 

F.J. Millero. 2004. Impact of anthropogenic CO2

 on the CaCO3 

system in the oceans. Science. 305:362-366.

Ferguson M.W.J., and T. Joanen. 1982. Temperature of egg incubation 

determines sex in Alligator mississippiensis. Nature. 296: 850-853.

Ferriter A., B. Doren, R. Winston, D. Thayer, B. Miller, B. Thomas, M. 

Barrett, T. Pernas, S. Hardin, J. Lane, M. Kobza, D. Schmitz, M. 

Bodle, L. Toth, L. Rodgers, P. Pratt, S. Snow, and C. Goodyear. 

2008. The status of nonindigenous species in the south Florida 

environment. In: South Florida Water Management District. 

South Florida Environmental Report, West Palm Beach, FL. 

Available at http://www.sfwmd.gov/sfer

Ficke A.D., C.A. Myrick, and L.J. Hansen. 2007. Potential impacts of 

global climate change on freshwater fisheries. Reviews in Fish 

Biology and Fisheries. 17:581-613.

Fisher M.C. 2007. Potential interactions between amphibian 

immunity, infectious disease and climate change. Animal 

Conservation. 10:420-421.

Fitterman D.V., and M. Deszcz-Pan. 2001. Saltwater intrusion in 

Everglades National Park, Florida measured by airbourne 

electromagnetic surveys. First International Conference on 

Saltwater Intrusion and Coastal Aquifers Monitoring, Modeling, 

and Management. Essaouira, Morocco, April 23-25, 2001. 

Available at http://www.olemiss.edu/sciencenet/saltnet/swica1/

Fitterman-Deszcz-Pan-paper.pdf

Foley A.M., S.A. Peck, and G.R. Harman. 2006. Effects of sand 

characteristics and inundation on the hatching success of 

loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) clutches on low-relief 

mangrove islands in southwest Florida. Conservation and 

Biology. 5(1):32-41.

Franco A.M.A., J.K. Hill, C. Kitschke, Y.C. Collingham, D.B. Roy, 

R. Fox, B. Huntley, and C.D. Thomas. 2006. Impacts of climate 

warming and habitat loss on extinctions at species’ low-altitude 

range boundaries. Global Change Biology. 12:1553.
28 South Florida Natural Resources Center Technical Series (2009:1)

Frederick P.C., and M.W. Collopy. 1989. Nesting success of five 

ciconiiform species in relation to water conditions in the Florida 

Everglades. The Auk. 106:6325-634. 

Fussel H.M., and R.J.T. Klein. 2006. Climate change vulnerability 

assessments: An evolution of conceptual thinking. Climatic 

Change. 75:301-329.

Galbraith H., R. Jones, R. Park, J. Clough, S. Herrod-Julius, B. 

Harrington, and G. Page. 2002. Global climate change and sea 

level rise: Potential losses of intertidal habitat for shorebirds. 

Waterbirds. 25:173-183.

Gann, G.D., K.A. Bradley, and S.W. Woodmansee. 2002. Rare plants 

of south Florida: Their history, conservation, and restoration. A 

publication of the Institute for Regional Conservation’s Restoring 

South Florida’s Native Plant Heritage program. Miami, FL, chap. 

1, p. 9.

Glynn P.W. 1993. Coral reef bleaching: Ecological perspectives. Coral 

Reefs. 12:1-17.

Glynn P.W. 1996. Coral reef bleaching: Facts, hypotheses and 

implications. Global Change Biology. 2:495-509.

Glynn P.W., and L. D’Croz. 1990. Experimental evidence for high 

temperature stress as the cause of El Niño-coincident coral 

mortality. Coral Reefs. 8:181-191.

Goodwin P., and G. Wright. 1998. Decision analysis for management 

judgment. John Wiley and Sons, West Sussex, England.

Greenland D. 2001. Multiyear variation of temperature and 

precipitation in the coastal states of the southeastern United 

States. Southeastern Geographer. 41:36-52.

Graham N.A.J., S.K. Wilson, S. Jennings, N.V.C. Polunin, J.P. Bijoux, 

and J. Robinson. 2006. Dynamic fragility of oceanic coral reef 

ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 

103:8425-8429.

Gregory J.M., J. Church, G. Boer, K. Dixon, G.M. Flato, D. Jackett, 

J. Lowe, S. O’Farrell, E. Roeckner, G. Russell, R. Stouffer, and 

M. Winton. 2001. Comparison of results from several AOGCMs 

for global and regional sea-level change 1900-2100. Climate 

Dynamics. 18:225-240.

Hansen M., and N.T. DeWitt. 2000. 1890 and 1990 bathymetry of 

Florida Bay. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-347. 

Hedrick C.M., K. Murphy, S. O’Brien, M.G. Hornocker. 2008. 

Estimation of the bottleneck size in Florida panthers. Animal 

Conservation. 11(2):104-110.

Heller N.E., and E.S. Zavaleta. 2009. Biodiversity management in the 

face of climate change: A review of 22 years of recommendations. 

Biological Conservation. 142:14-32.

Hellmann J.J., and M. Pineda-Krch. 2007. Constraints and 

reinforcement on adaptation under climate change: Selection 

of genetically correlated traits. Biological Conservation. 

137:599-609.

Hellmann J.J., J.E. Byers, B.G. Bierwagen, and J.S. Dukes. 2008. Five 

potential consequences of climate change for invasive species. 

Conservation Biology. 22:534-543.

Hill J.K., K.C. Hamer, and I.D. Hodkinson. 1998. Variation in resource 

exploitation along an altitudinal gradient: The willow psyllids 

(Cacopsylla spp.) on Salix lapponum. Ecography. 21:289-296.

Hitch A.T., and P.L. Leberg. 2007. Breeding distributions of North 

American bird species moving north as a result of climate change. 

Conservation Biology. 21:534-539.

Hodkinson I.D. 1997. Progressive restriction of host plant exploitation 

along a climatic gradient: The willow psyllid Cacopsylla 

groenlandica in Greenland. Ecological Entomology. 21:47-54.

Hoegh-Guldberg O. 1999. Climate change, coral bleaching and 

the future of the world’s coral reefs. Marine and Freshwater 

Research. 50:839-866.

Hoegh-Guldberg O., P.J. Mumby, A.J. Hooten, R.S. Steneck, P. 

Greenfield, E. Gomez, C.D. Harvell, P.F. Sale, A.J. Edwards, 

K. Caldeira, N. Knowlton, C.M. Eakin, R. Iglesias-Prieto, N. 

Muthiga, R.H. Bradbury, A. Dubi, and M.E. Hatziolos. 2007. 

Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification. 

Science. 318:1737-1742.

Holt R.D. 1999. The microevolutionary consequences of climate 

change. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 5:311-315.

Hu A., G. Meehl, W. Washington, and A. Dai. 2004. Response of the 

Atlantic thermohaline circulation to increased atmospheric CO2

in a coupled model. Journal of Climate. 17:4267-4279.

Hughes C.L., C. Dytham, and J.K. Hill. 2007. Modelling and analysing 

evolution of dispersal in populations at expanding range 

boundaries. Ecological Entomology. 32(5):437-445.

Hunter M.L. 2007. Climate change and moving species: Furthering 

the debate on assisted colonization. Conservation Biology. 

21:1356-1358.

Inouye D.W. 2007. Impacts of global warming on pollinators. Wings. 

30(2):24-27.

Inouye D.W. 2008. Consequences of climate change for phenology, 

frost damage, and floral abundance of sub-alpine wildflowers. 

Ecology. 89:353-362.

IPCC 2000. Emission scenarios. A special report of working 

group III to the intergovernmental panel on climate change. 

[N.Nakic ́enovic ́, O. Davidson, G. Davis, A. Grübler, T. Kram, 

E.L. La Rovere, B. Metz, T. Morita,W. Pepper, H. Pitcher, A. 

Sankovski, P. Shukla, R. Swart, R. Watson, Z. Dadi (eds.)]. 27 pp. 

Available at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/spm/sres-en.

pdf

IPCC 2007a. Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. 

Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report 

of the intergovernmental panel on climate change [S. Solomon, D. 

Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor 

and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 

UK, and New York, USA, 996 pp. 

IPCC 2007b. Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and 

vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fourth 

assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate 

change [M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der 

Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge, UK, 976 pp.

IUCN 1979. IUCN review: World Heritage nomination, Everglades 

National Park. International Union for Conservation of Nature 

and Natural Resources. Available at http://whc.unesco.org/

archive/advisory_body_evaluation/076.pdf
Potential Ecological Consequences of Climate Change in South Florida and the Everglades: 2008 Literature Synthesis 29

patterns of European mammals. Biodiversity and Conservation. 

16(13):3803-3816.

Lockwood J.L., K.H. Fenn, J.L. Curnutt, D. Rosenthal, K.L. Balent, 

and A.L. Mayer. 1997. Life history of the endangered Cape Sable 

Seaside Sparrow. Wilson Bulletin. 109:720-731. 

Loftus W.F., J.D. Chapman, and R. Conrow. 1986. Hydroperiod 

effects on Everglades marsh food webs, with relation to marsh 

restoration efforts. Ft Collins, CO, pp. 1-22.

Losey J.E., and M. Vaughan. 2006. The economic value of ecological 

services provided by insects. BioScience. 56:311-323.

Lowe J., and J.M. Gregory. 2006. Understanding projections of sea 

level rise in a Hadley Centre coupled climate model. Journal of 

Geophysical Research. 111. C11014.

MacLean S.F. 1983. Life cycles and distribution of psyllids 

(Homoptera) in artic and subartic Alaska. Oikos. 40:445-451.

Maehr D.S. and H.W. Kale II. 2005. Florida’s birds: A field guide and 

reference (2nd ed.). Pineapple Press, Sarasota, FL.

Manzello D.P., Brandt, M., Smith, T.B., Lirman, D., Hendee, 

J.C., Nemeth, R.S., 2007. Hurricanes benefit bleached 

corals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 

104(29):12035-12039.

Martin J. 2007. Population ecology and conservation of the Snail 

Kite. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, 

FL. Available at http://purl.fcla.edu.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/fcla/etd/

UFE0019653 

Martin J., W.M. Kitchens, C.E. Cattau and M.K. Oli. 2008. Relative 

importance of natural disturbances and habitat degradation on 

snail kite population dynamics. Endangered Species Research. 

6:25-39.

Masaki S. 1967. Geographic variation and climatic adaptation in a 

field cricket (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). Evolution. 21:725-741.

Mazzotti F.J., and L.A. Brandt. 1997. Ecology of the American alligator 

in a seasonally fluctuating environment. In: S.M. Davis and J.C. 

Ogden (eds.). Everglades: The ecosystem and its restoration. St 

Luice Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 485-505.

Mazzotti F.J., and M.S. Cherkiss. 2003. Status and conservation of 

the American crocodile in Florida: Recovering an endangered 

species while restoring an endangered ecosystem. Davie, FL, 

University of Florida, Fort Lauderdale Research and Education 

Center. Technical Report 2003-41.

McKee K.L., D.R. Cahoon, and I.C. Feller. 2007. Caribbean mangroves 

adjust to rising sea level through biotic controls on change in soil 

elevation. Global Ecology and Biogeography. 16:545-556.

McLachlan J.S., J.J. Hellmann, and M.W. Schwartz. 2007. A 

framework for debate of assisted migration in an era of climate 

change. Conservation Biology. 21:297-302.

McLaughlin J.F., J.J. Hellmann, C.L. Boggs, and P.R. Ehrlich. 2002. 

Climate change hastens population extinction. Proceedings of 

the National Academy of Sciences. 99:6070-6074.

MDCCATF. 2008. Second report and initial recommendations. 

Miami-Dade County Climate Change Advisory Task Force: 

Presented to the Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners 

April 2008. Miami, FL.

Memmott J., P.G. Craze, N.M. Waser, and M.V. Price. 2007. Global 

warming and the disruption of plant-pollinator interactions. 

Ecological Letters. 10:710-718.

Iverson L.R., A.M. Prasad, B.J. Hale, and E.K. Sutherland. 1999. Atlas 

of current and potential future distributions of common trees 

of the Eastern United States. U.S. Forest Service. GTR-NE-265, 

-245. Radnor, PA.

Janzen F.J. 1994. Climate change and temperature-dependent sex 

determination in reptiles. Proceedings of the National Academy 

of Sciences, 91:7487-7490.

Jifon J., and D.W. Wolfe. 2005. High temperature-induced sink 

limitation alters growth and photosynthetic acclimation response 

to elevated CO2

 in beans. Journal of the American Society of 

Horticultural Science. 130:515-520.

Jiguet F., A. Gadot, R. Julliard, S. Newson, and D. Couvet. 2007. 

Climate envelope, life history traits and the resilience of birds 

facing global change. Global Change Biology. 13:1672-1684.

Jones J.W., and S.D. Price. 2007. Initial Everglades Depth Estimation 

Network (EDEN) digital elevation model research and 

development. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-

1034, 18 pp.

Jones-Walters L. 2007. Pan-European ecological networks. Journal 

for Nature Conservation. 15:262-264.

Kimbell B.A. 1983. Carbon dioxide and agricultural yield. An 

assemblage of 430 prior observations. Agronomy Journal. 

75:779-788.

Kinnison M.T., and A.P. Hendry. 2001. The pace of modern life II: 

From rates of contemporary microevolution to pattern and 

process. Genetica. 112-113:145–164.

Klein R.J.T., and R.J. Nicholls. 1999. Assessment of coastal 

vulnerability to climate change. Ambio. 28:182–187.

Kleypas J.A., and C. Langdon. 2006. Coral reefs and changing seawater 

carbonate chemistry. Coastal and Estuarine Studies. 61: 73-110.

Knowlton N. 2001. The future of coral reefs. Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences. 98:5419-5425.

Kobza R.M., J.C. Trexler, W.F. Loftus, and S.A. Perry. 2004. 

Community structure of fishes inhabiting aquatic refuges in a 

threatened karstic wetland and its implication for ecosystem 

management. Biological Conservation. 116:153-165.

Lang J.W. and H.W. Andrews. 1994. Temperature-dependent sex 

determination in crocodilians. Journal of Experimental Zoology. 

270: 28-44.

Langevin C.D. 2001. Simulation of ground-water discharge to 

Biscayne Bay, southeastern Florida. U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 00-4251, 127 pp. Available at 

http://sofia.usgs.gov/publications/wri/00-4251/index.html

Langtimm C.A., and C.A. Beck. 2003. Lower survival probabilities 

for adult Florida manatees in years with intense coastal storms. 

Ecological Applications. 13(1):257-268.

Lee H., D.A. Reusser, J.D. Olden, S.S. Smith, J. Graham, V. Burkett, 

J.S. Dukes, R.J. Piorkowski, and J. McPhedran. 2008. Integrated 

monitoring and information systems for managing aquatic 

invasive species in a changing climate. Conservation Biology. 

22:575-584.

Le Tissier M., and B.E. Brown. 1996. Dynamics of solar bleaching in 

the intertidal reef coral Goniastrea aspera at KO Phuket, Thailand. 

Marine Ecology Progress Series. 136:235-244.

Levinsky I., F. Skov, J. Svenning, and C. Rakbek. 2007. Potential 

impacts of climate change on the distributions and diversity 
30 South Florida Natural Resources Center Technical Series (2009:1)

Menzel A. 2000. Trends in phenological phases in Europe between 

1951 and 1996. International Journal of Biometeorology. 44:76-81.

Meshaka W.E., W.F. Loftus, and T. Steiner. 2000. The herpetofauna of 

Everglades National Park. Florida Scientist. 63:84-103.

Mohan J.E., J.S. Clark, and W.H. Schlesinger. 2004. Genetic variation 

in germination, growth, and survivorship of red maple in 

response to subambient through elevated atmospheric CO2. 

Global Change Biology. 10:233-243.

Moss R.H. 2007. Improving information for managing an uncertain 

future climate. Global Environmental Change. 17:4-7.

Mowrer H.T. 2000. Uncertainty in natural resource decision support 

systems: Sources, interpretation, and importance. Computers, 

Electronics and Agriculture. 27:139-154.

Murphy D.D., K.E. Freas, and S.B. Weiss. 1990. An environmentmetapopulation approach to population viability analysis for a 

threatened invertebrate. Conservation Biology. 4: 41-51.

Nicholson E., and H.P. Possingham. 2007. Making conservation 

decisions under uncertainty for the persistence of multiple 

species. Ecological Applications. 17:251-265.

Nott M.P., O.L. Bass, Jr., D.M. Fleming, S.E. Killeffer, N. Fraley, L. 

Manne, J.L. Cornutt, T.M. Brooks, R. Powell, and S.L. Pimm. 1998. 

Water levels, rapid vegetational changes, and the endangered 

Cape Sable Seaside-Sparrow. Animal Conservation. 1:23-32. 

NRC 2008. Progress toward restoring the Everglades: The second 

biennial review — 2008. The National Research Council of the 

National Academies. The National Academies Press, Washington, 

DC. 

Nyman J.A., R.J. Walters, R.D. Delaune, and W.H. Patrick. 2006. 

Marsh vertical accretion via vegetative growth. Estuarine, Coastal 

and Shelf Science. 69:370-380.

Odum W.E., C.C. McIvor, and T.J. Smith III. 1982. The ecology of the 

mangroves of south Florida: A community profile. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, DC. 

FWS/OBS-81/24. 144 pp.

Oouchi K., J. Yoshimura, H. Yoshimura, R. Mizuta, S. Kusunoki, and 

A. Noda. 2006. Tropical cyclone climatology in a global-warming 

climate as simulated in a 20km-mesh global atmospheric 

model: Frequency and wind intensity analyses. Journal of the 

Meteorological Society of Japan. 84:259–276.

Oppenheimer M., B.C. O’Neill, M. Webster, and S. Agrawala. 2007. 

Climate change. The limits of consensus. Science. 317:1505-1506.

Orr J., V. Fabry, O. Aumont, L. Bopp., S. Doney, R. Feely, A. 

Gnanadesikan, N. Fruber, A. Ishida, F. Joos, R. Key, K. Lindsay, 

E. Maier-Reimer, R. Matear, P. Monfray, A. Mouchet, R. Najjar, 

G. Pattner, K. Rodgers, C. Sabine, J. Sarmiento, R. Schlitzer, R. 

Slater, I. Totterdel, M. Weirig, Y. Yamanaka, and A. Yool. 2005. 

Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century 

and its impact on calcifying organisms. Nature. 437:681-868.

Ottersen G., D.O. Hiermann, and N.C. Stenset. 2006. Changes in 

spawning stock structure strengthen the link between climate 

and recruitment in a heavily fished cod (Gadus morhua) stock. 

Oceanography. 15:230-243.

Paerl H.W., and J. Huisman. 2008. Blooms like it hot. Science. 

320:57-58.

Pahl-Wostl C. 2007. The implications of complexity for integrated 

resources management. Environmental Modelling & Software. 

22:561-569.

Parker G.G., G.E. Ferguson, and S.K. Love. 1955. Water resources 

of southeastern Florida, with special reference to geology and 

ground water of the Miami area. U.S. Geological Survey WaterSupply Paper 1255, 965 pp. Available at http://sofia.usgs.gov/

publications/papers/wsp1255/index.html

Parmesan C. 2006. Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent 

climate change. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and 

Systematics. 37:637-669.

Parmesan C. 2007. Influences of species, latitudes and methodologies 

on estimates of phenological response to global warming. Global 

Change Biology. 13:1860-1872.

Parmesan C., N. Ryrholm, C. Stefanescu, J.K. Hill, C.D. Thomas, J. 

Descimon, B. Huntley, L. Kaila, J. Kullberg, T. Tammaru, W.J. 

Tennent, J.A. Thomas, and M. Warren. 1999. Poleward shifts in 

geographical ranges of butterfly species associated with regional 

warming. Nature. 399:579-583.

Parmesan C., and G. Yohe. 2003. A globally coherent fingerprint of 

climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature. 421:37-42.

Patterson M., C. Rogers, B. Schill, and J. Miller. 2006. Coral bleaching 

and disease deliver “one – two punch” to coral reefs in the U.S. 

Virgin Islands. Palmetto Bay, FL, National Park Service and 

U.S. Geological Survey. Available at http://www.nps.gov/viis/

naturescience/upload/Coral%20Bleaching%201.pdf 

Pearlstine L., S. Smith, L. Brandt, C. Allen, W. Kitchens, and J. 

Stenberg, 2002. Assessing state-wide biodiversity in the Florida 

Gap Analysis Project. Journal of Environmental Management. 

66(2): 127-144.

Pelletier F., T. Clutton-Brock, J. Pemberton, S. Tuljapurkar, and T. 

Coulson. 2007. The evolutionary demography of ecological 

change: Linking trait variation and population growth. Science. 

315:1571-1574.

Peterson A.T., M.A. Ortega-Huerta, J. Bartley, V. Sanchez-Cordero, J. 

Soberon, R.H. Buddemeier, and D.R.B. Stockwell. 2002. Future 

projections for Mexican faunas under global climate change 

scenarios. Nature. 416:626-629.

Pfeffer W.T., J.T. Harper, and S. O’Neel. 2008. Kinematic constraints 

on glacier contributions to 21st century sea-level rise. Science. 

321:1340-1343.

Pollard E., D. Moss, and T.J. Yates. 1995. Population trends of 

common British butterflies at monitoring sites. Journal of Applied 

Ecology. 32:9-16.

Prato T. 2008. Accounting for risk and uncertainty in determining 

preferred strategies for adapting to future climate change. 

Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. 

13:47-60.

Pullin A.S. 1986. Effect of photoperiod and temperature on the life 

cycle of different populations of the peacock butterfly Inachis io. 

Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata. 41:237-242.

Pyke C.R., B.G. Bierwagen, J. Furlow, J. Gamble, T. Johnson, S. Julius, 

and J. West. 2007. A decision inventory approach for improving 

decision support for climate change impact assessment and 

adaptation. Environmental Science & Policy. 10:610-621.
Potential Ecological Consequences of Climate Change in South Florida and the Everglades: 2008 Literature Synthesis 31

Schiedek D., B. Sundelin, J.W. Readman, R.W. Macdonald. 2007. 

Interactions between climate change and contaminants. Marine 

Pollution Bulletin. 54:1845-1856.

Schmidt T.W. and M.B. Robblee. 1994. Causes of fish kills in the 

Flamingo area of Everglades National Park. Bulletin of Marine 

Science. 54(3):1083. 

SERCC. 2008. Royal Palm Ranger Station, Florida – climate summary. 

Southeast Regional Climate Center, Available at http://www.

sercc.com/cgi-bin/sercc/cliMAIN.pl?fl7760

Shafland P.L., K.B. Gestring, and M.S. Stanford. 2008. Florida’s exotic 

freshwater fishes—2007. Florida Scientist. 3:220-245.

Shaver G., J. Canadell, F. Chapin, J. Gurevitch, J. Harte, G. Henry, 

P. Ineson, S. Jonasson, J. Melillo, L. Pitelka, and L. Rustad. 

2000. Global warming and terrestrial ecosystems: A conceptual 

framework for analysis. Bioscience. 50:871-882.

Smith T.J., III, G.A. Anderson, K. Balentine, G. Tiling, G.A. Ward, 

and K.R.T. Whelan. 2009. Cumulative impacts of hurricanes on 

Florida mangrove ecosystems: Sediment deposition, storm surges 

and vegetation. Wetlands. 29(1):24-34.

Snedaker S.C. 1995. Mangroves and climate change in the Florida 

and Caribbean region: Scenarios and hypotheses. Hydrobiologia. 

295(1-3):43-49.

Sogard S.M., G.V.N. Powell, and J.G. Holmquist. 1989. Spatial 

distribution and trends in abundance of fishes residing in seagrass 

meadows on Florida Bay mudbanks. Bulletin of Marine Science. 

44(1):179-199.

Soros C.L., and J.J. Bruhl. 2000. Multiple evolutionary origins of 

C4 photosynthesis in the Cyperaceae. In: K. Wilson and D.A. 

Morrison (eds.), Monocots: Systematics and Evolution. CSIRO 

Publishing, Kew, Australia, pp. 629-636.

Soule P.T. 2005. A comparison of 30-yr climatic temperature normals 

for the southeastern United States. Southeastern Geographer. 

45:16-24.

Soussana J.F., and A. Lüscher. 2007. Temperate grasslands and 

global atmospheric change: A review. Grass and Forage Science. 

62:127-134.

Soussana J.F., F. Teyssonneyre, C. Picon-Cochard, and L. Dawson. 

2005. A trade-off between nitrogen uptake and use increases 

responsiveness to elevated CO2

 in infrequently cut mixed C3 

grasses. New Phytologist. 166:217-230.

Sparks T.H. 1999. Phenology and the changing pattern of bird 

migration in Britain. International Journal of Biometeorology. 

42:134-138.

Springer C.J. and J.K. Ward. 2007. Flowering time and elevated 

atmospheric CO2. New Phytologist. 176:243-255.

Stanton E.A., and F. Ackerman, 2007. Florida and climate change: 

The costs of inaction. Tufts University Global Development and 

Environment Institute. Available at http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/

Pubs/rp/FloridaClimate.html

Stewart K.R., and J. Wyneken. 2004. Predation risk to loggerhead 

hatchlings at a high-density nesting beach in southeast Florida. 

Bulletin of Marine Science. 74(2):325-335.

Stockwell C.A., A.P. Hendry, and M.T. Kinnison. 2003. Contemporary 

evolution meets conservation biology. Trends in Ecology & 

Evolution. 18:94-101.

Qian H., and R.E. Ricklefs. 2006. The role of exotic species in 

homogenizing the North American flora. Ecology Letters. 

9:1293-1298.

Rae A.M., R. Ferris, M.J. Tallis, and G. Taylor. 2006. Elucidating 

genomic regions determining enhanced leaf growth and 

delayed senescence in elevated CO2. Plant, Cell & Environment. 

29:1730-1741.

Raffel T.R., J.R. Rorh, J.M. Kiesecker, and P.J. Hudson. 2006. Negative 

effects of changing temperature on amphibian immunity under 

field conditions. Functional Ecology. 2006:819-828. 

Rahmstorf S. 2007. A semi-empirical approach to projecting future 

sea-level rise. Science. 315:368-370.

Raven J.A. 2001. Roots: Evolutionary origins and biogeochemical 

significance. Journal of Experimental Botany. 52:381-401.

Reaka-Kudla M.L. 1997. Biodiversity II: Understanding and protecting 

our biological resources. Joseph Henry Press, Washington, DC.

RECOVER. 2008. CERP monitoring and assessment plan: Part 1: 

Monitoring and supporting research (DRAFT). Comprehensive 

Everglades Restoration Plan, Central and Southern Florida 

Project, Restoration Coordination and Verification (RECOVER). 

Available at http://www.evergladesplan.org/pm/recover/recover_

map_2008.aspx#download

Renken R.A., J. Dixon, J. Koehmstedt, A.C. Lietz, S. Ishman, R.L. 

Marella, P. Telis, J. Rogers, and S. Memberg. 2005. Development 

of water-management system and impact on the hydrology of 

southeastern Florida: Assessment of saltwater intrusion. In: 

Impact of anthropogenic development on coastal ground-water 

hydrology in southeastern Florida, 1900-2000. U.S. Geological 

Survey Circular 1275. Available at http://sofia.usgs.gov/

publications/circular/1275/saltintrusion.html

Rice K.J., and N.C. Emery. 2004. Managing microevolution: 

Restoration in the face of global change. Frontiers in Ecology and 

Evolution. 1:469-478.

Roessig J.M., C.M. Woodley, J.J. Cech, and L.J. Hansen. 2004. Effects 

of global climate change on marine and estuarine fishes and 

fisheries. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries. 14:251-275.

Rogers K. 1998. Managing science/management partnerships: A 

challenge of adaptive management. Conservation Ecology. 

2(2):R1. Available at http://www.consecol.org/vol2/iss2/resp1/

Rowan R. 1998. Diversity and ecology of zooxanthellae on coral reefs. 

Journal of Phycology. 34:407-417.

Roy D.B., and T.H. Sparks. 2000. Phenology of British butterflies and 

climate change. Global Change Biology. 6:407-416.

Rozema J., F. Dorel, R. Janissen, G.M. Lessen, R.A. Broek-Man, W.J. 

Arp, and B.G. Drake. 1991. Effect of elevated atmospheric CO2

on growth, photosynthesis and water relations of salt marsh grass 

species. Aquatic Botany. 39:45.

Ruhl J.B. 2008. Climate change and the Endangered Species Act: 

Building bridges to the no-analog future. Boston University Law 

Review. 88(1):1-62.

Scavia D., J.C. Field, D.F. Boesch, R.W. Buddemeier, V. Burkett, D.R. 

Cayan, M. Fogarty, M.A. Harwell, R.W. Howarth, C. Mason, D.J. 

Reed, T.C. Royer, A.H. Sallenger, and J.G. Titus. 2002. Climate 

Change Impacts on U.S. Coastal and Marine Ecosystems. 

Estuaries. 25(2):149-164.
32 South Florida Natural Resources Center Technical Series (2009:1)

Sustainable Ecosystems Institute. 2007. Everglades multi-species 

avian ecology and restoration review: Final report. D. Brosnan, 

S. Courtney, L. Sztukowski, B. Bedford, V. Burkett, M. Collopy, 

S. Derrickson, C. Elphick, R. Hunt, K. Potter, J. Sedinger, and J. 

Walters (panel), Portland, OR, 141 pp. Available at http://www.

sei.org/everglades/Everglades_2007_Final Report.pdf 

Sykes P.W., Jr., Rodgers, J.A., and Bennetts, R.E. 1995. Snail Kite 

(Rostrhamus sociabilis). In: A. Poole (ed.). The birds of North 

America. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Available at 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/ 

Tauber M.J., C.A. Tauber, and S. Masaki. 1986. Seasonal adaptations 

of Insecta. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Teh S.Y., D.L. Deangelis, L.S. Sternberg, F.R. Miralles-Wilhelm, T. J. 

Smith, and H-L. Koh, 2008. A simulation model for projecting 

changes in salinity concentrations and species dominance in the 

coastal margin habitats of the Everglades. Ecological Modeling. 

213:245-265.

Tewksbury, J.J., R.B. Huey, and C.A. Deutsch. 2008. Putting the heat 

on tropical animals. Science. 320(6):1296-1297.

Teyssonneyre F., C. Picon-Cochard, R. Falcimagne, and J.F. Soussana. 

2002a. Effects of elevated CO2 and cutting frequency on plant 

community structure in a temperate grassland. Global Change 

Biology. 8:1034-1046.

Teyssonneyre F., C. Picon-Cochard, and J.F. Soussana. 2002b. How 

can we predict the effects of elevated CO2 on the balance between 

perennial C3 grass species competing for light? New Phytologist. 

154:53-64.

Theoharides K.A., and J.S. Dukes. 2007. Plant invasion across space 

and time: Factors affecting nonindigenous species success during 

four stages of invasion. New Phytologist. 176:256-273.

Thurig B., C. Körner, and J. Stocklin. 2003. Seed production and seed 

quality in a calcareous grassland in elevated CO2. Global Change 

Biology. 9:873-884.

Titus J.G., and C. Richman. 2001. Maps of lands vulnerable to sea 

level rise: Modeled elevations along the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf 

Coasts. Climate Research. 18:205-228.

Trexler J.C., W.F. Loftus, F. Jordan, J.H. Chick, K.L. Kandl, T.C. 

McElroy, and O.L. Bass Jr. 2002. Ecological scale and its 

implications for freshwater fishes in the Florida Everglades. In: 

J.W. Porter and K.G. Porter, (eds.) The Everglades, Florida Bay, 

and Coral Reefs of the Florida Keys: An Ecosystem Sourcebook. 

CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 153-181.

United Nations. 1992. Report of the United Nations Conference on 

Environment and Development, Annex 1, Rio Declaration on 

Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, June 3–14, 

1992.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. South Florida multi-species 

recovery plan. Southeast Region, Vero Beach, FL. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. South Florida Ecological Services 

Office, Vero Beach, FL. Accessed March 9, 2009, at http://www.

fws.gov/verobeach/

U.S. Geological Survey. 2001. North American breeding bird survey 

data set. Version 2001.0. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, 

Laurel, MD.

Van der Heijden K. 1996. Scenarios: The art of strategic conversation. 

John Wiley and Sons, NY.

Vogel C., S.C. Moser, R.E. Kasperson, and G.D. Dabelko. 2007. Linking 

vulnerability, adaptation, and resilience science to practice: 

Pathways, players, and partnerships. Global Environmental 

Change. 17:349-364.

Vorster P. 1996. Justification for the generic status of Courtoisina 

(Cyperaceae). Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society. 

121:271-280.

Walton T.L. 2007. Projected sea level rise in Florida. Ocean 

Engineering. 34:1832-1840.

Wanless H.R. 1989. The inundation of our coastlines. Sea Frontiers. 

35:264-271.

Wanless H.R., R.W. Parkinson, and L.P. Tedesco. 1997. Sea level 

control on stability of Everglades wetlands. In: S.M. Davis and 

J.C. Ogden, (eds.) Everglades: The Ecosystem and Its Restoration. 

St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, FL, pp. 199-223.

Whelan K.R.T., T.J. Smith, D.R. Cahoon, J.C. Lynch, and G.H. 

Anderson. 2005. Groundwater control of mangrove surface 

elevation: Shrink and swell varies with soil depth. Estuaries. 

28:833-843.

Whiting G.J., and J.P. Chanton. 2001. Greenhouse carbon balance of 

wetlands: Methane emission versus carbon sequestration. Tellus. 

53B:521-528.

Wilby R.L., C.W. Dawson, and E.M. Barrow. 2002. SDSM — A 

decision support tool for the assessment of regional climate 

change impacts. Environmental Modeling and Software. 

17:147-159.

Willi Y., J. Van Buskirk, and A.A. Hoffmann. 2006. Limits to the 

adaptive potential of small populations. Annual Review of 

Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. 37:433-458.

Wilmers C., E. Post, and A. Hastings. 2007. The anatomy of predator–

prey dynamics in a changing climate. Journal of Animal Ecology. 

76:1037-1044.

Woodhams D.C., K. Ardipradja, R.A. Alford, G. Marantelli, 

L.K. Reinert, and L.A. Rollins-Smith. 2007. Resistance to 

chytridiomycosis varies among amphibian species and is 

correlated with skin peptide defenses. Animal Conservation. 

10(4):409-417.

Yates K.K., and R.B. Halley. 2006. CO3

2- concentration and pCO2 

thresholds for calcification and dissolution on the Molokai reef 

flat, Hawaii. Biogeosciences. 3:357-369.

Zavaleta E.S., and J.L. Royval. 2002. Climate change and the 

susceptibility of U.S. ecosystems to biological invasions: Two cases 

of expected range expansion. Chapter 7. In: Wildlife Responses 

to Climate Change: North American Case Studies. S.H. Schneider 

and T.L. Root (eds.). Island Press, Washington, DC.
Potential Ecological Consequences of Climate Change in South Florida and the Everglades: 2008 Literature Synthesis 33

APPENDIX: Additi onal RESOURCES

Assessment Reports

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessments-reports.htm

U.S. Climate Change Science Program

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap-summary.php

21 reports at press time of this report

DOI Climate Change Task Force Draft Subcommittee Reports

http://www.usgs.gov/global_change/doi_taskforce.asp

State of Florida Action Team on Energy and Climate Change

http://www.flclimatechange.us/documents.cfm

Wildlife 2060

http://www.myfwc.com/docs/RecreationActivities/FWC2060.pdf

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission report on wildlife trends 

Florida 2060

http://www.1000friendsofflorida.org/PUBS/2060/Florida-2060-Report-Final.pdf

A Population Distribution Scenario for the State of Florida prepared for 1000 Friends of Florida

Miami-Dade Climate Change Advisory Task Force (CCATF)

http://www.miamidade.gov/derm/climate_change.asp

Florida Coastal and Ocean Coalition

http://www.flcoastalandocean.org/PreparingforaSeaChange/

Preparing for a Sea Change in Florida

Tufts University

http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/Florida_lr.pdf

http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/Caribbean-full-Eng.pdf

Climate change in Florida and the Caribbean: The costs of inaction
34 South Florida Natural Resources Center Technical Series (2009:1)

Data

Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN)

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ndp041/ndp041.html

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/index.php

Windows utility that allows users to search and retrieve data for specific areas from the original GHCN files: 

http://fuzzo.com/ghcn/index.htm

Everglades Depth Estimation Network

http://www.sofia.usgs.gov/eden/

Daily water stage, NexRAD rainfall data and ground elevation

National Climatic Data Center

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html

NASA Global Change Master Directory

http://gcmd.nasa.gov/

Southeast Regional Climate Center

http://www.sercc.com/

Climate Data including historic and current precipitation, temperature, drought, and storms 

Modeling

Climate Envelope Modeling Algorithms

http://openmodeller.sourceforge.net

North American Regional Climate Change Assessment Program (NARCCAP)

http://www.narccap.ucar.edu/data/status.html

High resolution climate change simulations

More Resources

USA National Phenology Network

http://www.usanpn.org/
Potential Ecological Consequences of Climate Change in South Florida and the Everglades: 2008 Literature Synthesis 35

Ecosystem Marketplace

http://ecosystemmarketplace.com/

Markets and Payment Schemes for Ecosystem Services

Florida’s Wildlife: On the Frontline of Climate Change

http://www.ces.fau.edu/floc/updates.php

Summaries from October 2008 Workshop

Conference on Ecosystem Services, Naples, Florida 2008

www.conference.ifas.ufl.edu/aces

Includes abstracts, speaker Powerpoint presentations, and plenary session webcasts

U.S. Geological Survey Global Change Science

http://www.usgs.gov/global_change/

USGS Climate Change Activities

South Florida Regional Planning Council Climate Change Community Toolbox

http://www.sfrpc.com/climatechange.htm

Fact sheets, sea level rise maps, and adaptation resources

U.S. Geological Survey National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center

http://nccw.usgs.gov/

Assess, synthesize, and share current information on climate change

The Nature Conservancy Climate Wizard

http://www.climatewizard.org/

View historic and predicted temperature and rainfall maps for anywhere in the world

Wildlife Management Institute

http://www.seasonsend.org/

Global Warming’s Threat to Hunting and Fishing
South Florida Natural Resources Center

Everglades National Park

950 N. Krome Ave, 3rd Floor 

Homestead, FL 33030-4443

www.nps.gov/ever/naturescience/sfnrc.htm