The spin doctors at it again. This is an issue, but hardly a major "global warming" one. Why do we have to now tag every single conservation issue with GW?? Reed-Beds by their very nature exist in a transitional zone, and the E coast of Britain is indeed that, irrelevant of GW.
Eagerly tagging everything with the GW threat is a foolish approach to conservation, as it digresses away from the may other threats which exist also.
Ptarmigan were recently another target, yet actually GW predictions could actually INCREASE their habitat in the mountain ranges in Scotland. (As it is Wind-Chill NOT average Temperatures that influence their habitat, a windier climate, as predicted, will increase their altitude range. That's why they are found at lower levels on the West....where it's windier!)
Basically, the truth is that GW while bad for us, is going to actually BENEFIT many land birds in the Northern Hemisphere for a long time to come. Sure, we will lose habitat, and birds on a regional scale, but birds will move as new habitat opens up, and there is plenty of space for them to go to for a long time ahead. It might be doom and gloom for us, but in my opinion, for many birds at least, the future is actually quite bright in a warmed world!!! The headline "Global Warming, It's Benefit for Species X" though perfectly plausible, rarely seems to appear, funny, I thought science was supposed to present an unbiased approach to the natural world?
J