Aim  Biotic interactions – within guilds or across trophic levels – have widely been ignored in species distribution models (SDMs). This synthesis outlines the development of ‘species interaction distribution models’ (SIDMs), which aim to incorporate multispecies interactions at large spatial extents using interaction matrices. Location  Local to global. Methods  We review recent approaches for extending classical SDMs to incorporate biotic interactions, and identify some methodological and conceptual limitations. To illustrate possible directions for conceptual advancement we explore three principal ways of modelling multispecies interactions using interaction matrices: simple qualitative linkages between species, quantitative interaction coefficients reflecting interaction strengths, and interactions mediated by interaction currencies. We explain methodological advancements for static interaction data and multispecies time series, and outline methods to reduce complexity when modelling multispecies interactions. Results  Classical SDMs ignore biotic interactions and recent SDM extensions only include the unidirectional influence of one or a few species. However, novel methods using error matrices in multivariate regression models allow interactions between multiple species to be modelled explicitly with spatial co‐occurrence data. If time series are available, multivariate versions of population dynamic models can be applied that account for the effects and relative importance of species interactions and environmental drivers. These methods need to be extended by incorporating the non‐stationarity in interaction coefficients across space and time, and are challenged by the limited empirical knowledge on spatio‐temporal variation in the existence and strength of species interactions. Model complexity may be reduced by: (1) using prior ecological knowledge to set a subset of interaction coefficients to zero, (2) modelling guilds and functional groups rather than individual species, and (3) modelling interaction currencies and species’ effect and response traits. Main conclusions  There is great potential for developing novel approaches that incorporate multispecies interactions into the projection of species distributions and community structure at large spatial extents. Progress can be made by: (1) developing statistical models with interaction matrices for multispecies co‐occurrence datasets across large‐scale environmental gradients, (2) testing the potential and limitations of methods for complexity reduction, and (3) sampling and monitoring comprehensive spatio‐temporal data on biotic interactions in multispecies communities.

Range dynamics causes mismatches between a species’ geographical distribution and the set of suitable environments in which population growth is positive (the Hutchinsonian niche). This is because source–sink population dynamics cause species to occupy unsuitable environments, and because environmental change creates non‐equilibrium situations in which species may be absent from suitable environments (due to migration limitation) or present in unsuitable environments that were previously suitable (due to time‐delayed extinction). Because correlative species distribution models do not account for these processes, they are likely to produce biased niche estimates and biased forecasts of future range dynamics. Recently developed dynamic range models (DRMs) overcome this problem: they statistically estimate both range dynamics and the underlying environmental response of demographic rates from species distribution data. This process‐based statistical approach qualitatively advances biogeographical analyses. Yet, the application of DRMs to a broad range of species and study systems requires substantial research efforts in statistical modelling, empirical data collection and ecological theory. Here we review current and potential contributions of these fields to a demographic understanding of niches and range dynamics. Our review serves to formulate a demographic research agenda that entails: (1) advances in incorporating process‐based models of demographic responses and range dynamics into a statistical framework, (2) systematic collection of data on temporal changes in distribution and abundance and on the response of demographic rates to environmental variation, and (3) improved theoretical understanding of the scaling of demographic rates and the dynamics of spatially coupled populations. This demographic research agenda is challenging but necessary for improved comprehension and quantification of niches and range dynamics. It also forms the basis for understanding how niches and range dynamics are shaped by evolutionary dynamics and biotic interactions. Ultimately, the demographic research agenda should lead to deeper integration of biogeography with empirical and theoretical ecology.

Please cite this article in press as: Singer, A., et al., Community dynamics under environmental change: How can next generation mechanistic models improve projections of species distributions? Ecol. Model. (2015), http://dx. a b s t r a c tEnvironmental change is expected to shift the geographic range of species and communities. To estimate the consequences of these shifts for the functioning and stability of ecosystems, reliable predictions of alterations in species distributions are needed. Projections with correlative species distribution models, which correlate species' distributions to the abiotic environment, have become a standard approach. Criticism of this approach centres around the omission of relevant biotic feedbacks and triggered the search for alternatives. A new generation of mechanistic process-based species distribution models aims at implementing formulations of relevant biotic processes to cover species' life histories, physiology, dispersal abilities, evolution, and both intra-and interspecific interactions. Although this step towards more structural realism is considered important, it remains unclear whether the resulting projections are more reliable. Structural realism has the advantage that geographic range shifting emerges from the interplay of relevant abiotic and biotic processes. Having implemented the relevant response mechanisms, structural realistic models should better tackle the challenge of generating projections of species responses to (non-analogous) environmental change. However, reliable projections of future species ranges demand ecological information that is currently only available for few species. In this opinion paper, we discuss how the discrepancy between demand for structural realism on the one hand and the related knowledge gaps on the other hand affects the reliability of mechanistic species distribution models. We argue that omission of relevant processes potentially impairs projection accuracy (proximity of the mean outcome to the true value), particularly if species range shifts emerge from species and community dynamics. Yet, insufficient knowledge that limits model specification and parameterization, as well as process complexity, Abbreviations: C-SDM, correlative species distribution model; H-SDM, hybrid species distribution model; M-SDM, mechanistic species distribution model. Please cite this article in press as: Singer, A., et al., Community dynamics under environmental change: How can next generation mechanistic models improve projections of species distributions? Ecol. Model. (2015), http://dx.ECOMOD-7739; No. of Pages 12 2 A. Singer et al. / Ecological Modelling xxx (2015) xxx-xxxincreases projection uncertainty (variance in the outcome of simulated model projections). The accuracy-uncertainty-relation reflects current limits to delivering reliable projections of range shifts. We propose a protocol to improve and communicate projection reliability. The protocol combines modelling and empirical research to efficiently fill critical knowledge gaps that ...