Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Is the lady's-slipper orchid (Cypripedium calceolus) likely to shortly become extinct in Europe?—Insights based on ecological niche modelling

  • Marta Kolanowska ,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    martakolanowska@wp.pl

    Affiliations Department of Geobotany and Plant Ecology, Faculty of Biology and Environmental Protection, University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland, Department of Biodiversity Research, Global Change Research Institute AS CR, Brno, Czech Republic

  • Anna Jakubska-Busse

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Botany, Institute of Environmental Biology, University of Wrocław, Wrocław, Poland

Is the lady's-slipper orchid (Cypripedium calceolus) likely to shortly become extinct in Europe?—Insights based on ecological niche modelling

  • Marta Kolanowska, 
  • Anna Jakubska-Busse
PLOS
x

Abstract

Lady's-slipper orchid (Cypripedium calceolus) is considered an endangered species in most countries within its geographical range. The main reason for the decline in the number of populations of this species in Europe is habitat destruction. In this paper the ecological niche modelling approach was used to estimate the effect of future climate change on the area of niches suitable for C. calceolus. Predictions of the extent of the potential range of this species in 2070 were made using climate projections obtained from the Community Climate System Model for four representative concentration pathways: rcp2.6, rcp4.5, rcp6.0 and rcp8.5. According to these analyses all the scenarios of future climate change will result in the total area of niches suitable for C. calceolus decreasing. Considering areas characterized by a suitability of at least 0.4 the loss of habitat will vary between ca. 30% and 63%. The highest habitat loss of ca. 63% is predicted to occur in scenario rcp 8.5. Surprisingly, in the most damaging rcp 8.5 prediction the highest overlap between potential range of C. calceolus and its pollinators will be observed and in all other scenarios some pollinators will be available for this species in various geographical regions. Based on these results at least two approaches should be implemented to improve the chances of survival of C. calceolus. In view of the unavoidable loss of suitable habitats in numerous European regions, conservation activities should be intensified in areas where this species will still have suitable niches in the next 50 years. In addition, for C. calceolus ex-situ activities should be greatly increased so that it can be re-introduced in the remaining suitable areas.

Introduction

Various statistical models are used to predict the spatial distribution of plant and animal species based on presence-only data [14]. This approach is also used in many conservation studies [56] such as evaluating the distributions or areas suitable for conservation [67] and identifying priority areas for conservation [8]. Unfortunately, species distribution models are rarely used for research on the largest angiosperm plant family, the Orchidaceae. Orchids are one of the most threatened groups as their complex life history make them particularly vulnerable to the effects of global environmental change [910].

Cypripedium calceolus is one of the most intensively studied European plants [1120]. It is the only slipper orchid in Europe—just one additional species, Cypripedium macranthos, is found in Belarus. The geographical range of C. calceolus is relatively broad and includes Europe (except the extreme north and south), the Crimea, Mediterranean, Asia Minor, western and eastern Siberia, Far East of Russia and south of Sakhalin Island [2123]. Lady's-slipper orchid used to be more widespread in Europe, but the number of its populations declined in the 19th century due to the over-collection for horticulture and habitat degradation [24].

Nowadays C. calceolus is considered as endangered in most countries within its range [21] is listed in Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and also in Annex II of the Habitats Directive and under Appendix I of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention) [18] [23] [25].

Natural populations of this slipper orchid are included in Natura 2000 sites and other types of protected areas. This plant is also included on several national red lists and red data books as threatened [23]. In many countries this taxon is extremely rare, critically endangered and/or regionally extinct [19] [21] [23] and in others it is classified as Endangered (e.g. Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Russia and Spain) or Vulnerable (e.g. Austria, Belarus, Denmark, France, Germany, Lithuania, Slovakia and Switzerland [23] [26]. Noteworthy, C. calceolus is a differential species for the unique Polish Kashubian region plant community—Fagus sylvatica-Cypripedium calceolus [27].

In the last century a significant decline in the number of populations of this species was recorded in almost all of Europe. This is due to many reasons, above all habitat destruction, especially expansion of agriculture, inappropriate forest management such as clearcutting, widespread use of herbicides and pesticides, equipment that can severely compact the soil, road and trail construction and collecting [23]. In addition, according to Rankou, & Bilz [23] browsing and grazing can pose a threat in two different ways: overgrazing affects individuals whereas the abandonment of traditional grazing leads to natural succession and therefore an increase in competition for this orchid. The replacement of natural forest with spruce plantations has caused habitat degradation as the soil is de-calcified and this species is linked to calcareous soils [23].

Climate change, especially the lack of rainfall and dry seasons, as well as the fires recorded in recent years in almost all regions of Europe may be responsible for the decline in the number of specimens in natural populations of C. calceolus. Currently, numerous (sub)populations of this species in various regions of Europe are fragmented remnants and genetically isolated. This raises the question—what is the future of this orchid? Is this species becoming extinct before our eyes? For instance, the dramatic decline of C. calceolus populations in Lower Silesia (SW Poland) was recorded and documented for over 100 years [2830]. Among the 30 localities of this species, 12 were listed after 1945, in 2012 only 9 of them were confirmed [31], however, in 2019 only 7 were confirmed.

Furthermore, the occurrence of C. calceolus may be limited in the future by extinction or modification of the geographical ranges or ecology of its pollinators. While the lady's-slipper orchid is self-compatible, insects are required to transfer pollen to the stigma [32] as the position of the stigma and anthers prevent self-pollination [33]. Recent studies indicated that global warming can disturb the pollination of other European orchid, Ophrys sphegodes, which is pollinated by Andrena nigroaenea [34]. Noteworthy, Andrena bees are also one of the most important pollinators of C. calceolus. Undoubtedly, reproduction success is crucial for the long-term existence of the surviving populations [35].

The aim of this study was to evaluate the predicted effect of global warming on the distribution and coverage of the ecological niches that are currently suitable for C. calceolus in Europe as well as to estimate the impact of the climate changes on the availability of its pollinators.

Materials & methods

List of localities

The database of C. calceolus localities was compiled based on information in public facilities (e.g. GBIF, ukrbin.com, tela-botanica.org, iNaturalist, redbook.minpriroda.gov.by, WildSlovenia, Portale della Flora d'Italia, naturamediterraneo.com), published articles and books [21] [24] [3649], conservation reports (FAO, Berne Convention Resolution 6, Krajowy plan ochrony gatunku obuwik pospolity; [50]) and field observations made by Jakubska-Busse. While identification of numerous orchid species requires taxonomic skills and experience and for such taxa using information derived from public databases is not recommended, C. calceolus is the most spectacular terrestrial orchid in Europe which can be easily recognized even by amateur naturalists.

The list of C. calceolus pollinators was compiled based on available literature data [15] [18] [24] [5155]. Information about distribution of 21 from a total of 24 reported insect species was gathered from GBIF. Due to the lack of sufficient, precise information about distribution of Musca autumnalis, Andrena fulvicrus and Andrena ovina, these species were not included in the analyses. Pollinators of C. calceolus belong mostly to Hymenoptera, but two, Chrysotoxum festivum and Syrphus ribesii, represent Syrphidae, Diptera. Nomada panzeri is classified within Nomadinae, and Colletes cunicularius within Colletidae. Seven species, Halictus tumularum, Lasioglossum albipes, L. calceatum, L. fratellum, L. fulvicorne, L. morio, and L. quadrinotatum belong to Halictidae. The highest number of pollinators represent genus Andena (Andrenidae)–Andrena carantonica, A. cineraria, A. flavipes, A. fucata, A. haemorrhoa, A. helvola, A. nigroaenea, A. praecox, A. scotica, A. tibialis.

Ecological niche modelling

The ecological niche modelling was done using the maximum entropy method in MaxEnt version 3.3.2 [5658] based on presence-only observations of this species. From the total of 932 locations of C. calceolus gathered during the study (Fig 1, S1 Table) the duplicate presence records (records within the same grid cell) were removed using MaxEnt. Considering pollinators input data, due to the various coordinate precision used in public databases only records georeferenced with the precision of at least 2 km were used to guarantee correct location of the observation in the grid cell. For data thinning and to minimize geographical overrepresentation of the samples, the initial catalogue was then reduced to include only records distanced one from another for at least 10 km and again the duplicate presence records (records within the same grid cell) were removed using MaxEnt. The final database included 519 localities of Chrysotoxum festivum, 2040 of Syrphus ribesii, 739 of Nomada panzeri, 621 of Colletes cunicularius, 1004 of Halictus tumularum, 1151 of Lasioglossum albipes, 1122 of L. calceatum, 940 of L. fratellum, 469 of L. fulvicorne, 699 of L. morio, 123 of L. quadrinotatum, 273 of Andrena carantonica, 1201 of A. cineraria, 325 of A. flavipes, 731 of A. fucata, 1477 of A. haemorrhoa, 1258 of A. helvola, 694 of A. nigroaenea, 486 of A. praecox, 421 of A. scotica, and 189 of A. tibialis (Figs 24; S2 Table).

thumbnail
Fig 1. Localities of C. calceolus georeferenced in this study.

Map was generated in ArcGis 9.3 (ESRI, 2006).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228420.g001

thumbnail
Fig 2. Localities of pollinators georeferenced in this study.

Andrena carantonica (A), Andrena cineraria (B), Andrena flavipes (C), Andrena fucata (D), Andrena haemorrhoa (E), Andrena helvola (F), Andrena nigroaenea (G), Andrena praecox (H), Andrena scotica (I), and Andrena tibialis (J) georeferenced in this study. Map was generated in ArcGis 9.3 (ESRI, 2006).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228420.g002

thumbnail
Fig 3. Localities of pollinators georeferenced in this study.

Lasioglossum albipes (A), Lasioglossum calceatum (B), Lasioglossum fratellum (C), Lasioglossum fulvicorne (D), Lasioglossum morio (E), Lasioglossum quadrinotatum (F) georeferenced in this study. Map was generated in ArcGis 9.3 (ESRI, 2006).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228420.g003

thumbnail
Fig 4. Localities of pollinators georeferenced in this study.

Chrysotoxum festivum (A), Colletes cunicularius (B), Halictus tumulorum (C), Nomada panzeri (D), Syrphus ribesii (E) georeferenced in this study. Map was generated in ArcGis 9.3 (ESRI, 2006).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228420.g004

For the modelling bioclimatic variables in 2.5 arc-minutes (± 21.62 km2 at the equator) of interpolated climate surface were used. This approach was justified considering the precision of georeferenced records of both, orchid and its pollinators–the information available in public databases was not sufficient to conduct further analyses using more detailed maps (in 30 arc-seconds). Because some previous studies [59] indicated that usage of a restricted area in ENM analysis is more reliable than calculating habitat suitability on the global scale, the area of the analysis was restricted to 78.83˚N-34.08˚N– 13.12˚W-77.29˚E.

In this study the most widespread source of data for ecological studies was used. WorldClim [60] is commonly applied to produce species distribution models (> 15000 citations). Of 19 climatic variables (“bioclims”, Table 1) available in WorldClim (version 1.4, www.worldclim.org) seven were removed as they were significantly correlated with one another (above 0.9) as evaluated by Pearsons’ correlation coefficient computed using ENMTools v1.3 [61]. As a result of the reduction of multi-collinearity the following variables were excluded from further analyses: bio6, bio7, bio9, bio10, bio11, bio16 and bio17. Because MaxEnt is relatively robust against collinear variables [62] we decided not to remove other data from the analyses. The most recent research results suggested that the strategy of excluding highly correlated variables has little influence on models derived from MaxEnt [63].

thumbnail
Table 1. Codes of climatic variables developed by Hijmans et al. [60].

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228420.t001

Predictions of the future extent of the climatic niches of C. calceolus in 2070 were made using climate projections obtained from the Community Climate System Model (CCSM4) which was commonly used in previous studies on orchids (e.g. [6465]). Four representative concentration pathways (RCPs: rcp2.6, rcp4.5, rcp6.0, rcp8.5) were analyzed. These pathways are trajectories adopted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for its fifth Assessment Report in 2014. These four scenarios describe potential future climate of the world assuming various amounts of greenhouse gases will be emitted. The RCPs are named after a possible range of radiative forcing values in 2100, relative to pre-industrial values (+2.6, +4.5, +6.0 and +8.5 W/m2 respectively; [6667]). These climate projections were used in several previous studies on threatened plants (e.g. [6869]) and endangered animals (e.g. [7071]).

In all analyses the maximum number of iterations was set to 10000 and convergence threshold to 0.00001. The neutral (= 1) regularization multipler value and auto features were used. All samples were added to the backgroud. The “random seed" option which provided a random test partition and background subset for each run was applied. 10% of the samples were used as test points. While often larger test samples are used in species distribution models [72], we followed Oraie et al. [73], Ashraf et al. [74], and Tobeña et al. [75] in our analyses. The run was performed as a bootstrap with 100 replicates, and the output was set to logistic. While bootstrap is also recommended for small-sample analyses we followed Slater & Michael [76] in our modelling. All operations on GIS data were carried out on ArcGis 10.6 (Esri, Redlands, CA, USA). The evaluation of the created models was made using the most common metric—the area under the curve (AUC; [7779].

To visualize the climatic preferences of C. calceolus the predicted niche occupancy profiles (PNOs) were created using the Phyloclim package [80]. SDMtoolbox 2.3 for ArcGIS [8182] was used to visualize changes in the distribution of suitable niches of studied orchid and its pollinators caused by the global warming [81]. To compare distribution model created for current climatic conditions with future models all SDMs were converted into binary rasters and projected using Albers EAC (as implemented in SDMtoolbox 2.3) as projection. The presence threshold was estimated individually for each species based on the values of grids in which studied species occur in models created using present-time. For C. calceolus, Chrysotoxum festivum, Syrphus ribesii, Nomada panzeri, Colletes cunicularius, Halictus tumularum, Lasioglossum albipes, L. calceatum, L. fratellum, L. fulvicorne, L. morio, Andrena carantonica, A. cineraria, A. fucata, A. haemorrhoa, A. helvola, A. nigroaenea, A. praecox, and A. scotica the threshold for presence was set as 0.4. The habitat suitability of at least 0.3 was considered as sufficient for the occurrence of Andrena flavipes, A. tibialis, and Lasioglossum quadrinotatum. Furthermore, to estimate the pollinator availability, the binary models of predicted range of C. calceolus were compared with future distribution of its pollinators to calculate the number of grid cells in which both orchid and insect could occur.

Results

Predicted distribution of C. calceolus

The average training AUC for the replicate runs received scores of 0.912–0.914, which indicates that the MaxEnt models are very reliable (Table 2).

thumbnail
Table 2. The average training AUC for the replicate runs for created models of C. calceolus.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228420.t002

Created map of the potential distribution of C. calceolus (Fig 5) is consistent with the known location of populations of this species. However, some additional regions (e.g. Eastern Carpathians and western valley of the Danube river) were indicated by the ENM analysis as potentially suitable for this orchid.

thumbnail
Fig 5. Present distribution of suitable niches of C. calceolus.

Map was generated in ArcGis 9.3 (ESRI, 2006).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228420.g005

The total area of niches suitable for C. calceolus will decrease in 2070 according to three of four scenarios of future climate change analyzed (Fig 6). Considering areas characterized by a suitability of at least 0.4 the loss of habitat will vary between ca. 30% and 63%. Surprisingly scenario rcp 6.0 will be slightly less harmful than rcp 4.5. The highest habitat loss of ca. 63% is predicted in rcp 8.5. In this scenario relatively large suitable areas will still be available in Scandinavia but the niche coverage in the Pyrenees and the Alps will be significantly smaller than currently. C. calceolus will almost disappear from the Carpathians and there will be no suitable niches for this orchid in the Apennines, Balkans, lowlands of Baltic countries and valleys of the major European rivers. The changes in the distribution of the coverage of suitable niches of C. calceolus are presented in Fig 7 and Table 3.

thumbnail
Fig 6. Future distribution of suitable niches of C. calceolus.

Estimations based on rcp2.6 scenario (A), rcp4.5 scenario (B), rcp6.0 scenario (C) and rcp8.5 scenario (D). Maps were generated in ArcGis 9.3 (ESRI 2006).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228420.g006

thumbnail
Fig 7. Changes in the distribution of the coverage of suitable niches of C. calceolus in various climate change scenarios.

Rcp2.6 (A), rcp4.5 (B), rcp6.0 (C) and rcp8.5 (D). -1 = range expansion, 0 = no occupancy (absence in both), 1 = no change (presence in both), 2 = range contraction. Maps were generated in ArcGis 10.6 (ESRI). Albers EAC projection.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228420.g007

thumbnail
Table 3. Changes in the coverage of suitable niches of C. calceolus.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228420.t003

Of the bioclimatic factors analyzed the most important variables influencing the distribution of C. calceolus are temperature seasonality (bio4) and precipitation in the warmest quarter (bio18; Table 4). Somewhat less significant for the occurrence of this species is precipitation in the driest month (bio14). The PNO profiles of C. calceolus for these three vital variables are presented in Fig 8.

thumbnail
Fig 8.

Predicted niche occupancy profiles created for present models (A-C), and future climate change scenarios (D-F). Diagrams generated in RStudio using the Phyloclim package (Heibl & Calenge, 2013). Albers EAC projection.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228420.g008

thumbnail
Table 4. The estimates of relative contributions of the environmental variables to the Maxent models.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228420.t004

Predicted availability of C. calceolus pollinators

The average training AUC for the replicate runs received scores of 0.878–0.989, which indicates that the MaxEnt models are very reliable (Table 5). The predicted potential ranges of all studied insect species are presented as S1S4 Figs.

thumbnail
Table 5. The average training AUC for the replicate runs for created models of C. calceolus pollinators [SD–standard deviation].

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228420.t005

Except of a single case of Andrena helvola (only rcp4.5 scenario) all pollinators of C. calceolus will face habitat loss caused by the climate changes (Table 6). The highest decrease of 410327–786796 km2 in the coverage of the suitable niches will be observed in Syrphus ribesii. Generally, the rcp8.5 scenario will cause the most significant damages in the available habitats of studied species. In this scenario Diptera representatives, Chrysotoxum festivum Syrphus ribesii will lose respectively 78995 km2 and 786796 km2 of their current niche coverage. The potential range of the only Nomadinae species, Nomada panzeri, will be smaller for 479387 km2. The decrease of 387973 km2 will be observed in Colletes cunicularius. Within Halictidae the most significant habitat loss is predicted for Lasioglossum calceatum (474419 km2) and within Andrena representatives the highest range contraction will be observed in Andrena cineraria (624529 km2).

thumbnail
Table 6. Loss of suitable niches [km2] of studied pollinators of C. calceolus in various climate change scenarios.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228420.t006

Considering the predicted range overlap of C. calceolus and studied insects (Fig 9, Table 7), the highest pollination potential in the future will be attributed to Syrphus ribesii which will occur in 45.85–66.81% of C. calceolus range. The global warming will almost exclude the possibility of pollen transfer by Lasioglossum quadrinotatum which will overlap with the lady's-slipper orchid in just 0.27–2.59% of the orchid niches coverage. Similar situation will be observed in Andrena carantonica (0.42–7.31%) and A. scotica (2.06–7.86%). Surprisingly, the highest overlap between C. calcolus and its pollinators is expected in rcp8.5 scenario. In this generally unsuitable climatic conditions seven of the studied insects will be available for the lady's-slipper orchid in more than 40% of its range—Andrena cineraria, A. fucata, A. haemorrhoa, Lasioglossum albipes, L. fratellum, Nomada panzeri, and Syrphus ribesii. Nomada panzeri, the only representative of Nomadinae, will occur in 25.30–52.96% of the predicted range of C. calceolus, while Colletes cunicularius (Colletidae) will be able to pollinate orchid populations in 10.10–21.46% of the range. Lasioglossum fratellum will be the most important pollinator of C. calceolus within Halictidae–this species will be available in 22.74–51.64% of the orchid range. Considering Andrena species, the most significant contribution to the orchid propagation will be attributed to Andrena fucata which can occur in 18.36–44.60% of the lady's-slipper orchid range.

thumbnail
Fig 9. Predicted niche overlap between C. calceolus (red diagonal shade) and its pollinators (green shade) in various climate change scenarios.

Present time (A), rcp2.6 scenario (B), rcp4.5 scenario (C), rcp6.0 scenario (D) and rcp8.5 scenario (E). Maps were generated in ArcGis 10.6 (ESRI).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228420.g009

thumbnail
Table 7. The number of grid cells where both C. calceolus and specific pollinator can occur in various climate change scenarios.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228420.t007

Discussion

Based on the results of this research the area of niches suitable for C. calceolus will significantly decrease under all the currently available scenarios of climate change. The ENM was used previously in a very few studies on the effect of climate change on orchids. While global warming is predicted to negatively affect European species of Dactylorhiza [64] suitable niches for holomycoheterotrophic Neottia nidus-avis and Epipogium aphyllum are predicted to become more widespread [83]. In the recent regional study Kaye et al. [84] evaluated the probability of extinction of American Cypripedium fasciculatum based on population size, time between surveys, and elevation. This research revealed that 39–52% of C. fasciculatum populations are likely extinct. In our study we investigated exclusively the impact of climate changes on European C. calceolus but the similar loss of habitats was predicted (30–63%).

As evaluated in this study temperature seasonality and precipitation in the warmest quarter are crucial climatic factors limiting the distribution of C. calceolus. Therefore, it is not surprising that global warming will cause a decrease in the availability of suitable niches for this species in Europe. According to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) rising temperatures will intensify the world’s water cycle and increase evaporation. As a result, storm-affected regions will experience increases in precipitation, while the increased risk of drought is predicted for areas located far away from storm tracks. As a result of global warming the heat capacity of the surface layer will increase due to loss of sea ice. Dwyer, Biasutti & Sobel [85] reported that when seasonality of surface temperature is considered, the phase delay and amplitude decrease are strongest at high latitudes and will drive the global response.

Noteworthy, while our analyses included the evaluation of possible effects of the global warming on the distribution of suitable niches of both, studied orchid and its pollinators, there are other factors that can increase the extinction rate of the lady's-slipper orchid. Like all other Orchidaceae representatives, C. calceolus requires mycorrhizal fungi for germination and seedling nutrition. Distribution of Cypripedium can be hereby limited by mycorrhizal specificity [86] and while this relationship is not primarily limited by fungal distribution but by genetically controlled specialization [87], the further studies could be improved and include also analysis of the possible changes of European mycobiota.

Based on our results at least two approaches should be implemented to improve the chances of survival of C. calceolus. In view of the unavoidable loss of suitable habitats in numerous European regions, conservation activities over the next 50 years should be concentrated in areas where there are still suitable niches for this species. The prioritization of preservation zones is suggested by Seaton et al. [88] but their proposal is mainly for the most biodiverse, tropical regions of the world.

In addition, for C. calceolus ex-situ activities should be carried out at a large scale. Seed storage will enable the cultivation of this rare orchid in the future and successful reintroduction into the wild. This method is already effectively being used to re-establish the lady's slipper orchid in Britain [89] and could be used in the future to introduce C. calceolus in the remaining suitable areas.

Conclusions

Our research results indicated significant loss (30%-63%) of suitable habitat of C. calceolus in 2070, but the pollinator availability should not further limit the chance of survival of this species. The highest decrease of niches coverage was predicted in rcp 8.5 scenario of future climate change. Temperature seasonality and precipitation in the warmest quarter are crucial climatic factors limiting the distribution of C. calceolus, therefore, it is not surprising that global warming will cause a decrease in the availability of suitable niches for the studied species in Europe. Based on our results at least two approaches should be implemented to improve the chances of survival of the lady's-slipper orchid in Europe. In view of the unavoidable loss of suitable habitats in numerous European regions, conservation activities over the next 50 years should be concentrated in areas where there are still suitable niches for this species. Furthermore, for C. calceolus ex-situ activities, e.g. steed storage, should be carried out at a large scale. Noteworthy, while both orchid and its pollinators were included in our analyses, the extinction of the lady's-slipper orchid may be further driven by the modification of local mycobiota.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Localities of C. calceolus gathered in this study.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228420.s001

(XLS)

S2 Table. Localities of pollinators of C. calceolus gathered in this study.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228420.s002

(XLSX)

S1 Fig. Changes in the distribution of the coverage of suitable niches of C. calceolus pollinators in 2070 based on rcp2.6 climate change scenario.

Andrena carantonica (A), Andrena cineraria (B), Andrena flavipes (C), Andrena fucata (D), Andrena haemorrhoa (E), Andrena helvola (F), Andrena nigroaenea (G), Andrena praecox (H), Andrena scotica (I), Andrena tibialis (J), Chrysotoxum festivum (K), Colletes cunicularius (L), Halictus tumulorum (M), Lasioglossum albipes (N), Lasioglossum calceatum (O), Lasioglossum fratellum (Q), Lasioglossum fulvicorne (P), Lasioglossum morio (R), Lasioglossum quadrinotatum (S), Nomada panzeri (T), Syrphus ribesii (U). -1 = range expansion, 0 = no occupancy (absence in both), 1 = no change (presence in both), 2 = range contraction.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228420.s003

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Changes in the distribution of the coverage of suitable niches of C. calceolus pollinators in 2070 based on rcp4.5 climate change scenario.

Andrena carantonica (A), Andrena cineraria (B), Andrena flavipes (C), Andrena fucata (D), Andrena haemorrhoa (E), Andrena helvola (F), Andrena nigroaenea (G), Andrena praecox (H), Andrena scotica (I), Andrena tibialis (J), Chrysotoxum festivum (K), Colletes cunicularius (L), Halictus tumulorum (M), Lasioglossum albipes (N), Lasioglossum calceatum (O), Lasioglossum fratellum (Q), Lasioglossum fulvicorne (P), Lasioglossum morio (R), Lasioglossum quadrinotatum (S), Nomada panzeri (T), Syrphus ribesii (U). -1 = range expansion, 0 = no occupancy (absence in both), 1 = no change (presence in both), 2 = range contraction.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228420.s004

(TIF)

S3 Fig. Changes in the distribution of the coverage of suitable niches of C. calceolus pollinators in 2070 based on rcp6.0 climate change scenario.

Andrena carantonica (A), Andrena cineraria (B), Andrena flavipes (C), Andrena fucata (D), Andrena haemorrhoa (E), Andrena helvola (F), Andrena nigroaenea (G), Andrena praecox (H), Andrena scotica (I), Andrena tibialis (J), Chrysotoxum festivum (K), Colletes cunicularius (L), Halictus tumulorum (M), Lasioglossum albipes (N), Lasioglossum calceatum (O), Lasioglossum fratellum (Q), Lasioglossum fulvicorne (P), Lasioglossum morio (R), Lasioglossum quadrinotatum (S), Nomada panzeri (T), Syrphus ribesii (U). -1 = range expansion, 0 = no occupancy (absence in both), 1 = no change (presence in both), 2 = range contraction.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228420.s005

(TIF)

S4 Fig. Changes in the distribution of the coverage of suitable niches of C. calceolus pollinators in 2070 based on rcp8.5 climate change scenario.

Andrena carantonica (A), Andrena cineraria (B), Andrena flavipes (C), Andrena fucata (D), Andrena haemorrhoa (E), Andrena helvola (F), Andrena nigroaenea (G), Andrena praecox (H), Andrena scotica (I), Andrena tibialis (J), Chrysotoxum festivum (K), Colletes cunicularius (L), Halictus tumulorum (M), Lasioglossum albipes (N), Lasioglossum calceatum (O), Lasioglossum fratellum (Q), Lasioglossum fulvicorne (P), Lasioglossum morio (R), Lasioglossum quadrinotatum (S), Nomada panzeri (T), Syrphus ribesii (U). -1 = range expansion, 0 = no occupancy (absence in both), 1 = no change (presence in both), 2 = range contraction.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228420.s006

(TIF)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank prof. Maxim A. Dzhus (Belarusian State University), Peter Efimov, PhD (Komarov Botanical Institute of the Russia Academy of Sciences), Myroslav Shevera, PhD (National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine), Mindaugas Lapele, PhD (Dzukija National Park, Lithuania) and Spyros Tsiftsis, PhD (Eastern Macedonia and Thrace Institute of Technology) for providing data on the distribution of C. calceolus. We are grateful to Prof. Anthony F.G. Dixon (University of East Anglia) for the valuable comments on the manuscript. Thanks are also due to Mr Jacek Stefaniak, MSc (University of Wrocław) for helpful discussions and to Giuseppe Brundu for valuable comments on the manuscript.

References

  1. 1. Guisan A, Zimmermann NE. Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecol Modell. 2000; 135: 147–186.
  2. 2. Peterson AT, Soberón J, Pearson RG, Anderson RP, Martínez-Meyer E, Nakamura M, et al. Ecological Niches and Geographic Distributions. Princenton: Princenton University Press; 2011.
  3. 3. Brambilla M, Saporetti F. Modelling distribution of habitats required for different uses by the same species: Implications for conservation at the regional scale. Biol Conserv. 2014; 174: 39–46.
  4. 4. Yañez-Arenas C, Martínez-Meyer E, Mandujano S, Rojas-Soto O. Modelling geographic patterns of population density of the white-tailed deer in central Mexico by implementing ecological niche theory. Oikos. 2012; 121: 2081–2089.
  5. 5. Micchi de Barros Ferraz KMP, Frosini de Barros Ferraz S, de Paula RC, Beisiegel B, Breitenmoser C. Species Distribution Modelling for Conservation Purposes. Nat Conserv. 2012; 10(2): 214–220.
  6. 6. Micchi de Barros Ferraz PMB, Beisiegel BM, de Paula RC, Sana DA, de Campos CB, de Oliveira TG, et al. How species distribution models can improve cat conservation—jaguars in Brazil. CatNews. 2012; 7: 38–42.
  7. 7. Chefaoui RM, Hortal J, Lobo JM. Potential distribution modelling, niche characterization and conservation status assessment using GIS tools: a case study of Iberian Copris species. Biol Conserv. 2005; 122(2): 327–338.
  8. 8. Thorn JS, Nijman V, Smith D, Nekaris KAI. Ecological niche modelling as a technique for assessing threats and setting conservation priorities for Asian slow lorises (Primates: Nycticebus). Diver Distr. 2009; 15(2): 289–298.
  9. 9. Swarts ND, Dixon KW. Terrestrial orchid conservation in the age of extinction. Ann. Bot. 2009; 104(3): 543–556. pmid:19218582
  10. 10. Gale SW, Fischer GA, Cribb PJ, Fay MF. Orchid conservation: bridging the gap between science and practice. Bot J Linn Soc. 2018; 186: 425–434.
  11. 11. Kull T. Identification of clones in Cypripedium calceolus (Orchidaceae). P Est Acad Sci. 1988; 37: 195–199.
  12. 12. Kull T. Fruit-set and recruitment in populations of Cypripedium calceolus L. in Estonia. Bot J Linn Soc. 1998; 126: 27–38.
  13. 13. Bergström G, Birgersson G, Groth I, Nilsson LA. Floral fragrance disparity between three taxa of Lady’s slipper Cypripedium calceolus (Orchidaceae). Phytochemistry. 1992; 31: 2315–2319.
  14. 14. Case MA. High levels of allozyme variation within Cypripedium calceolus (Orchidaceae) and low levels of divergence among its varieties. Syst Bot. 1993; 18(4): 663–677.
  15. 15. Erneberg M, Holm B. Bee size and pollen transfer in Cypripedium calceolus (Orchidaceae). Nord J Bot. 1999; 19: 363–367.
  16. 16. Brzosko E. Dynamics of island populations of Cypripedium calceolus in the Biebrza river valley (northeast Poland). Bot J Linn Soc. 2002; 139: 67–77.
  17. 17. Blinova IV. A northernmost population of Cypripedium calceolus L. (Orchidaceae): demography, flowering, pollination. Selbyana 2002; 23: 111–120.
  18. 18. Antonelli A, Dahlberg CJ, Carlgren KHI, Appelqvis T. Pollination of the Lady’s slipper orchid (Cypripedium calceolus) in Scandinavia. Nord. J. Bot. 2009; 27: 1–8.
  19. 19. Fay MF, Bone R, Cook P, Kahandawala I, Greensmith J, Harris S, et al. Genetic diversity in Cypripedium calceolus (Orchidaceae) with a focus on northwestern Europe, as revealed by plastid DNA length polymorphisms. Ann Bot 2009; 104: 517–525. pmid:19454594
  20. 20. Rasmussen HN, Pedersen HÆ. Cypripedium calceolus germination in situ: seed longevity, and dormancy breakage by long incubation and cold winters Eur J Environ Sci. 2011; 1(2): 69–70.
  21. 21. Devilliers-Terschuren J. Action Plan for Cypripedium calceolus in Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Pub; 1999.
  22. 22. Delforge P. Orchids of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. Portland: Timber Press; 2006.
  23. 23. Rankou H, Bilz M. Cypripedium calceolus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2014, e.T162021A43316125; 2014. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2014-1.RLTS.T162021A43316125.en
  24. 24. Kull T. Biological flora of the British Isles. Cypripedium calceolus L. J Ecol. 1999; 87: 913–924.
  25. 25. Govaerts R, Dransfield J, Zona SF, Hodel DR, Henderson A. World checklist of selected plant families. Kew: The Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens; 2009.
  26. 26. eřovský J. Endangered plants. London: Sunburst Books; 1995
  27. 27. Matuszkiewicz W. Przewodnik do oznaczania zbiorowisk roślinnych Polski. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN; 2006.
  28. 28. Limpricht W. Kalkpflanzen der östlichen Grafschaft Glatz. Feddes Repert Spec Nov Regni Veg. 1942; 131: 126–141.
  29. 29. Limpricht W. Kalkpflanzen der westlichen Grafschaft Glatz. Englers Bot Jahr. 1943; 3: 151–174.
  30. 30. Jakubska-Busse A, Szczęśniak E, Śliwiński M, Narkiewicz C. Zanikanie stanowisk obuwika pospolitego Cypripedium calceolus L., 1753 (Orchidaceae) w Sudetach. Przyroda Sudetów. 2010; 13: 43–52.
  31. 31. Szczęśniak E, Jakubska-Busse A, Śliwiński M. Zróżnicowanie i rozmieszczenie zbiorowisk z udziałem Cypripedium calceolus L. (Orchidaceae) na Dolnym Śląsku. Acta Bot Siles. 2012; 8: 97–128.
  32. 32. Edens-Meier R, Arduser ME, Westhus E, Bernhardt P. Pollination ecology of Cypripedium reginae Walter (Orchidaceae): size matters. Telopia. 2011; 13: 327–340.
  33. 33. Pemberton RW. Pollination of slipper orchids (Cypripedioideae): a review. Lankesteriana. 2013; 13(1–2): 65–73.
  34. 34. Robbirt KM, Roberts DL, Hutchings MJ, Davy AJ. Potential Disruption of Pollination in a Sexually Deceptive Orchid by Climatic Change. Curr Biol. 2014; 24(23): 2845–2849. pmid:25454786
  35. 35. Roberts DL. Pollination biology: the role of sexual reproduction in orchid conservation. In: Dixon KW, Kell SP, Barrett RL, Cribb PJ, editors. Orchid Conservation. London: Natural History Publications; 2003. pp. 113–136.
  36. 36. Lazare J-J, Miralles J, Villar L. Cypripedium calceolus L. (Orchidaceae) en el Pirineo. Anales Jard Bot. Madrid. 1986; 43: 375–382.
  37. 37. Perazza G. Cartografia della orchidee (Orchidaceae) spontanee in Trentino-Alto Adige (Italia). Ricerca Sull'erbario dell'Universita di firence (FI). Ann Mus Civ Rovereto. 1995; 11: 231–256.
  38. 38. Perezza G, Decarli Perezza M. Cartogrfia orchidee trdentine (COT): Cypripedium calceolus L. e Liparis loeselii (L.) Rich., specie citate nella directiva habitat della CEE. Atti Acc Rov Agiati. 2002; 252: 129–210.
  39. 39. Isaja A, Dotti L. Le orchidee spontanee della Val di Susa (Piemonte-Italia) primi dati sulla distribuzione di tre orchidee rare: Cypripedium calceolus L. (1735), Corallorhiza trifida Chatelain (1760) e Aceras anthropophorum R.Br ex Aiton fil. (1814). Riv Piem St Nat. 2003; 24: 205–215.
  40. 40. Gudžinskas Z, Ryla M. Lietuvos gegužraibiniai (Orchidaceae). Orchids (Orchidaceae) of Lithuania. Vilnius: Botanikos instituto leidykla; 2006.
  41. 41. Raðomavièius V. Lietuvos Raudonoji Knyga. Red Data Book of Lithuania. Vilnius: Publishing Company; 2007.
  42. 42. Petrović D, Stešević D, Vuksanović S. Materials for the Red Book of Montenegro. Natura Montenegrina. Podgorica. 2008; 7(2): 605–631.
  43. 43. Didukh YP. Red data book of Ukraine. Vegetable kingdom. Kyiv: Globalconsalting; 2009.
  44. 44. Teteryuk LV, Kirillova IA. Rare and protected Orchids of the Komi Republic. Arbeitskreis Heimische Orchideen. 2011; 28(1): 133–179.
  45. 45. Balázs ZR, Roman A, Balázs HE, Căpraş D, Podar D. Rediscovery of Cypripedium calceolus L. In the vicinity of Cluj-Napoca (Romania) after 80 years. Contrib. Bot. 2016; 51: 43–53.
  46. 46. Tsiftsis S, Tsiripidis I. Threat categories of the Greek orchids (Orchidaceae). Chronia Botanica. 2016; 21: 43–74.
  47. 47. Khapugin AA, Chugunov G, Vargot EV. Cypripedium calceolus (Orchidaceae) in central Russia: A case study for its populations in two protected areas in the Republic of Mordovia (Russia). Lankesteriana. 2017; 17(3): 417–431.
  48. 48. Melnyk V, Shynder OI, Nesyn Y. Distribution of Cypripedium calceolus (Orchidaceae) in Ukraine. Ukr Bot J. 2018; 75(1), 20–32 (2018).
  49. 49. Melnyk V, Shynder OI, Nesyn Y. Habitats and the current state of populations of Cypripedium calceolus (Orchidaceae) in Ukraine. Ukr Bot J. 2018; 75(2): 160–168.
  50. 50. Pedrini P, Brambilla M, Bertolli A, Prosse F. Definizione di "linee guida provinciali" per l’attuazione dei monitoraggi nei siti trentinidella rete Natura 2000. LIFE+T.E.N—Azione A5; 2014.
  51. 51. Müller H. Beobachtungen an westphälischen Orchideen. Verh Naturh Ver Rheinl. 1868; 25: 1–62.
  52. 52. Müller H. Die Befruchtung der Blumen durch Insekten und die gegenseitigen Anpassungen beider. Leipzig: Kessinger Publishingl 1873.
  53. 53. Daumann E. Zur Bestäubungsbiologie von Cypripedium calceolus L. Österreichische Botanische Zeitung. 1969; 115: 434–446.
  54. 54. Ishmuratova MM, Zhimova TV, Ishbirdin AR, Sujundukov IV, Magafurov AM. Ant ecology, phenology and consorts of Cypripedium calceolus L. and Cypripedium guttatum Sw. in the southern Ural. Bull Moscow Soc Nat. 2006; 110: 40–46.
  55. 55. Claessens J, Kleynen J. The flower of the European orchid. Form and function. Voerendaal, Netherlands: Jean Claessens & Jacques Kleynen; 2011.
  56. 56. Phillips SJ, Dudík M, Schapire RE. A maximum entropy approach to species distribution modeling. ICML '04. Proceedings of the twenty-first international conference on Machine learning 655–662. New York: ACM; 2004.
  57. 57. Phillips SJ, Anderson R, Schapire RE. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol Modell. 2006; 190: 231–259.
  58. 58. Elith J, Phillips SJ, Hastie T, Dudík M, Chee YE, Yates CJ. A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists. Divers Distrib. 2011; 17: 43–57.
  59. 59. Barve N, Barve V, Jimenez-Valverde A, Lira-Noriega A, Maher SP, Peterson AT, et al. The crucial role of the accessible area in ecological niche modeling and species distribution modeling. Ecol Mod. 2011; 222: 1810–1819.
  60. 60. Hijmans RJ, Cameron SE, Parra JL, Jones PG, Jarvis A. Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int J Climatol. 2005; 25: 1965–1978.
  61. 61. Warren DL, Glor RE, Turelli M. ENMTools: a toolbox for comparative studies of environmental niche models. Ecography. 2010; 33: 607–611.
  62. 62. Braunisch V, Coppes J, Arlettaz R, Suchant R, Schmid H, Bollmann K. Selecting from correlated climate variables: a major source of uncertainty for predicting species distributions under climate change. Ecography. 2013; 36: 971–983.
  63. 63. Feng X, Park DS, Liang Y, Pandey R, Papeş M. Collinearity in ecological niche modeling: Confusions and challenges. Ecol Evol. 2019; 9: pmid:31624555
  64. 64. Naczk A, Kolanowska M. Glacial Refugia and Future Habitat Coverage of Selected Dactylorhiza Representatives (Orchidaceae). PLoS ONE. 2015; 10(11): e0143478. pmid:26599630
  65. 65. Gamisch A, Comes HP. Clade-age-dependent diversification under high species turnover shapes species richness disparities among tropical rainforest lineages of Bulbophyllum (Orchidaceae). BMC Evol Biol. 2019; 19: 93. pmid:31014234
  66. 66. Moss R, Babiker M, Brinkman S, Calvo E, Carter T, Edmonds J, et al. Towards New Scenarios for Analysis of Emissions, Climate Change, Impacts, and Response Strategies. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; 2008.
  67. 67. Weyant J, Azar C, Kainuma M, Kejun J, Nakicenovic N, Shukla PR, et al. Report of 2.6 Versus 2.9 Watts/m2 RCPP Evaluation Panel. Geneva: IPCC Secretariat; 2009.
  68. 68. Sohel SI, Akhter S, Ullah H, Haque E, Rana P. Predicting impacts of climate change on forest tree species of Bangladesh: evidence from threatened Dysoxylum binectariferum (Roxb.) Hook.f. ex Bedd. (Meliaceae). iForest. 2016; 10(1): 154–160.
  69. 69. Xu X, Zhang H, Xie T, Xu Y, Zhao L, Tian W. Effects of Climate Change on the Potentially Suitable Climatic Geographical Range of Liriodendron chinense. Forests. 2017; 8(399): 1–14.
  70. 70. Lamsal P, Kumar L, Aryal A, Atreya K. Future climate and habitat distribution of Himalayan Musk Deer (Moschus chrysogaster). Ecol Inform. 2018; 44: 101–108.
  71. 71. Sony RK, Sen S, Kumar S, Sen M, Jayahari KM. Niche models inform the effects of climate change on the endangered Nilgiri Tahr (Nilgiritragus hylocrius) populations in the southern Western Ghats, India. Ecol Eng. 2018; 120: 355–363.
  72. 72. Briscoe DK, Hiatt S, Lewison R, Hines E. Modeling habitat and bycatch risk for dugongs in Sabah, Malaysia. Endanger Species Res. 2014; 24: 237–247.
  73. 73. Oraie H, Rahimian H, Rastegar-Pouyani N, Rastegar-Pouyani E, Ficetola GF, Hosseinian Yousefkhani SS, et al. Distribution pattern of the Snake-eyed Lizard, Ophisops elegans Ménétriés, 1832 (Squamata: Lacertidae), in Iran. Zool Middle East. 2014; 60: 125–132.
  74. 74. Ashraf U, Ali H, Nawaz Chaudry M, Ashraf I, Batool A, et al. Predicting the Potential Distribution of Olea ferruginea in Pakistan incorporating Climate Change by Using Maxent Model. Sustainability. 2016; 8: 722.
  75. 75. Tobeña M, Prieto R, Machete M, Silva MA. Modeling the Potential Distribution and Richness of Cetaceans in the Azores from Fisheries Observer Program Data. Front Mar Sci. 2016; 3: 202.
  76. 76. Slater H, Michael E. Predicting the current and future potential distributions of lymphatic filariasis in Africa using maximum entropy ecological niche modelling. PLoS One. 2012; 7: e32202. pmid:22359670
  77. 77. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied Logistic Regression. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 2000.
  78. 78. Mason SJ, Graham NE. Areas beneath the relative operating characteristics (ROC) and relative operating levels (ROL) curves statistical significance and interpretation. Q J R Meteorol Soc. 2002; 128: 2145–2166.
  79. 79. Evangelista PH, Kumar S, Stohlgren TJ, Jarnevich CS, Crall AW, Norman III JB, et al. Modelling invasion for a habitat generalist and a specialist plant species. Divers Distrib. 2008; 14: 808–817.
  80. 80. Heibl C, Calenge C. Phyloclim: Integrating Phylogenetics and Climatic Niche Modelling. R package version 0.9–4; 2013. Available from: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=phyloclim
  81. 81. Kremen C, Cameron A, Moilanen A, Phillips SJ, Thomas CD, Beentje H, et al. Aligning conservation priorities across taxa in Madagascar with high-resolution planning tools. Science. 2008; 320: 222–226. pmid:18403708
  82. 82. Brown JL. SDMtoolbox: a python-based GIS toolkit for landscape genetic, biogeographic and species distribution model analyses. Methods Ecol Evol. 2014; 5: 694–700.
  83. 83. Kolanowska M, Kras M, Lipińska M, Mystkowska K, Szlachetko DL, Naczk A. Global warming not so harmful for all plants—response of holomycotrophic orchid species for the future climate change. Sc Rep. 2017; 7: 12704.
  84. 84. Kaye TN, Bahm MA, Thorpe AS, Gray EC, Pfingsten I, Waddell C. Population extinctions driven by climate change, population size, and time since observation may make rare species databases inaccurate. PLoS ONE. 2019; 14(10): e0210378. pmid:31622344
  85. 85. Dwyer JD, Biasutti M, Sobel AH. Projected Changes in the Seasonal Cycle of Surface Temperature. American Meteor Society. 2012; 25: 6359–6374.
  86. 86. Shefferson RP, Weiss M, Kull T, Taylor DL. High specificity generally characterizes mycorrhizal association in rare lady's slipper orchids, genus Cypripedium. Mol Ecol. 2005; 14(2): 613–626. pmid:15660950
  87. 87. Shefferson RP, Taylor DL, Weiß M, Garnica S, McCormick ML, Adams S, et al. The evolutionary history of mycorrhizal specificity among lady’s slipper orchids. Evolution. 2007; 61: 1380–1390. pmid:17542847
  88. 88. Seaton P, Kendon JP, Pritchard HW, Puspitaningtyas DW, Marks TR. Orchid conservation: the next ten years. Lankesteriana. 2013; 13(1–2): 93–101.
  89. 89. Ramsay MR, Stewart J. Re-establishment of the lady's slipper orchid (Cypripedium calceolus L.) in Britain. Bot J Linn Soc. 2008; 126(1–2): 173–181.