Do climate envelope models transfer? A manipulative test using dung beetle introductions

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Standard

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{5fc09defe5cd4e15ba84c26f36e28ba7,
title = "Do climate envelope models transfer? A manipulative test using dung beetle introductions",
abstract = "Climate envelope models (CEMs) are widely used to forecast future shifts in species ranges under climate change, but these models are rarely validated against independent data, and their fundamental assumption that climate limits species distributions is rarely tested. Here, we use the data on the introduction of five South African dung beetle species to Australia to test whether CEMs developed in the native range can predict distribution in the introduced range, where the confounding effects of dispersal limitation, resource limitation and the impact of natural enemies have been removed, leaving climate as the dominant constraint. For two of the five species, models developed in the native range predict distribution in the introduced range about as well as models developed in the introduced range where we know climate limits distribution. For the remaining three species, models developed in the native range perform poorly, implying that non-climatic factors limit the native distribution of these species and need to be accounted for in species distribution models. Quantifying relevant non-climatic factors and their likely interactions with climatic variables for forecasting range shifts under climate change remains a challenging task.",
keywords = "bioclimatic envelope, dispersal limitation, range limits, species distribution models",
author = "RP Duncan and Phillip Cassey and Timothy Blackburn",
year = "2009",
month = feb,
day = "25",
doi = "10.1098/rspb.2008.1801",
language = "English",
volume = "276",
pages = "1449--1457",
journal = "Royal Society of London. Proceedings B. Biological Sciences",
issn = "0962-8452",
publisher = "The Royal Society",
number = "1661",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Do climate envelope models transfer? A manipulative test using dung beetle introductions

AU - Duncan, RP

AU - Cassey, Phillip

AU - Blackburn, Timothy

PY - 2009/2/25

Y1 - 2009/2/25

N2 - Climate envelope models (CEMs) are widely used to forecast future shifts in species ranges under climate change, but these models are rarely validated against independent data, and their fundamental assumption that climate limits species distributions is rarely tested. Here, we use the data on the introduction of five South African dung beetle species to Australia to test whether CEMs developed in the native range can predict distribution in the introduced range, where the confounding effects of dispersal limitation, resource limitation and the impact of natural enemies have been removed, leaving climate as the dominant constraint. For two of the five species, models developed in the native range predict distribution in the introduced range about as well as models developed in the introduced range where we know climate limits distribution. For the remaining three species, models developed in the native range perform poorly, implying that non-climatic factors limit the native distribution of these species and need to be accounted for in species distribution models. Quantifying relevant non-climatic factors and their likely interactions with climatic variables for forecasting range shifts under climate change remains a challenging task.

AB - Climate envelope models (CEMs) are widely used to forecast future shifts in species ranges under climate change, but these models are rarely validated against independent data, and their fundamental assumption that climate limits species distributions is rarely tested. Here, we use the data on the introduction of five South African dung beetle species to Australia to test whether CEMs developed in the native range can predict distribution in the introduced range, where the confounding effects of dispersal limitation, resource limitation and the impact of natural enemies have been removed, leaving climate as the dominant constraint. For two of the five species, models developed in the native range predict distribution in the introduced range about as well as models developed in the introduced range where we know climate limits distribution. For the remaining three species, models developed in the native range perform poorly, implying that non-climatic factors limit the native distribution of these species and need to be accounted for in species distribution models. Quantifying relevant non-climatic factors and their likely interactions with climatic variables for forecasting range shifts under climate change remains a challenging task.

KW - bioclimatic envelope

KW - dispersal limitation

KW - range limits

KW - species distribution models

U2 - 10.1098/rspb.2008.1801

DO - 10.1098/rspb.2008.1801

M3 - Article

C2 - 19324816

VL - 276

SP - 1449

EP - 1457

JO - Royal Society of London. Proceedings B. Biological Sciences

JF - Royal Society of London. Proceedings B. Biological Sciences

SN - 0962-8452

IS - 1661

ER -