Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-jhrpq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-14T18:53:09.862Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Antarctic terrestrial and freshwater biological responses to climate change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 June 2026

Stef Bokhorst*
Affiliation:
Systems Ecology, Amsterdam Institute for Life and Environment, The Netherlands
Peter Convey
Affiliation:
Biological Sciences, British Antarctic Survey, United Kingdom
Kevin Kerr Newsham
Affiliation:
Biological Sciences, British Antarctic Survey, United Kingdom
Uffe Nielsen
Affiliation:
Western Sydney University Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment, Australia
*
Corresponding author: Stef Bokhorst; s.f.bokhorst@vu.nl
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This review considers the current status, and highlights existing knowledge gaps, on Antarctic terrestrial and freshwater biological responses to climate change. Climate change is considered to be one of the major drivers of future ecosystem change in Antarctica. Understanding the biological responses, and associated shifts in biodiversity patterns, biotic interactions and processes, that are likely to occur under continued climate change is fundamental for predicting its consequences for the functioning of Antarctic ecosystems. However, quantifying changes in species abundance, biodiversity, community composition and biotic interactions, and how these are influenced by variations in a multitude of environmental variables, is challenging. All biological groups in the Antarctic terrestrial and freshwater domains currently show low species richness at higher latitudes, indicating that there should be scope for lower-latitude species to expand their distributions southwards under warming conditions. The northern, ‘trailing edge’ or lower altitudinal limits may also shift southwards or upwards, respectively. However, to date, only one report exists of increased diversity within field experimental warming studies, and none exist from the few available long-term monitoring sites. Similarly, while notable plant-cover expansions have been recorded at some localized sites, no clear large-scale vegetation response has been documented within recognized Antarctic biological regions, while organisms living within the vegetation show highly variable responses. There are still many knowledge gaps on this matter for various biological groups across and within Antarctic regions. While it is frequently posited that the potential for climate change-driven range expansion and biodiversity shifts is substantial, the biological responses reported to date indicate that current levels of climate change have not (yet) resulted in large-scale changes in abundance and biodiversity patterns across Antarctica.

Information

Type
Synthesis Paper
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antarctic Science Ltd
Figure 0

Figure 1. Examples of passive open-top chamber warming methodologies employed in the Antarctic: (a) Mars Oasis, Alexander Island (Newsham et al. 2019), (b) Signy Island (Bokhorst et al. 2007b), (c) the McMurdo Dry Valleys and (d) a warming experiment that flooded due to an extreme melt event in the McMurdo Dry Valleys (Nielsen et al.2012).Figure 1 long description.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Summary of climate change studies performed in the Antarctic, indicating the numbers of studies focused on terrestrial species, communities or ecosystem processes. Coloured regions within the continent delimit the current Antarctic Conservation Biogeographic Regions (ACBRs; Terauds & Lee 2016). Note that multiple publications relating to the same study site were not incorporated within the numbers given here unless they were reporting responses from different biological groups. Physiological work based on laboratory studies was not included in the figure. Data obtained from Web of Science, including backward and forward searches of temperature, water (including snow), ultraviolet radiation, nutrients and relevant taxonomic groups.Figure 2 long description.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Heatmap of biological responses to altered levels of temperature, water, ultraviolet (UV) radiation exposure and nutrients in Antarctica. Biological responses across taxonomic groups (microbial, invertebrate and primary producers) are reported from field observational studies (obs), experimental studies (Exp.) in both field and laboratory settings, historical evidence for change (Hist.) and indications of sufficient physiological flexibility (Physiol.). Grey indicates negative impacts and white represents a lack of data. Dark colours indicate increased growth/population size or sufficient physiological flexibility and light colours indicate a mixed response (both positive and negative).Figure 3 long description.

Figure 3

Figure 4. Snow-filled open-top chambers on Signy Island (left, summer 2004) and Anchorage Island (right, winter 2005), where the thicker winter snowpack insulates the contained vegetation against freezing temperatures, with detrimental consequences for lichens such as U. antarctica (Bokhorst et al. 2016).

Figure 4

Figure 5. Ultraviolet radiation enhancement of Antarctic moss vegetation on Signy Island, South Orkney Islands (Boelen et al.2006).

Figure 5

Figure 6. Summary of climate change studies performed in the Antarctic, indicating the numbers of studies focused on freshwater species, communities or ecosystem processes. Coloured regions within the continent delimit the current Antarctic Conservation Biogeographic Regions (ACBRs; Terauds & Lee 2016). Note that multiple publications relating to the same study site were not incorporated within the numbers given in this figure unless reporting responses from different biological groups.Figure 6 long description.

Figure 6

Figure 7. Heatmap of biological responses in freshwater ecosystems to enhanced levels of temperature, water, ultraviolet (UV) radiation exposure and nutrients in Antarctica. Biological responses across taxonomic groups including unicellular organisms, invertebrates and chlorophyll as a measure of productivity are reported from field observational studies (obs.), experimental studies (Exp.) in both field and laboratory settings, historical evidence for change (Hist.) and indications of sufficient physiological flexibility (Physiol.). White represents a lack of data, while dark colours indicate increased growth/population size or sufficient physiological flexibility, and light colours indicate a mixed response (positive and negative).Figure 7 long description.

Supplementary material: File

Bokhorst et al. supplementary material

Bokhorst et al. supplementary material
Download Bokhorst et al. supplementary material(File)
File 732.5 KB