Beyond bioclimatic envelopes: dynamic species' range and abundance modelling in the context of climatic change

Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantitative Climate Reconstructions Based on Late-Quaternary Biological Proxies

“…As many indicator-species approaches, particularly the MCR method, place major emphasis on the range limits of species rather than the probability of occurrence within their range, understanding the dynamics of range limits in relation to climate is critical (Gaston 2009;Pigot et al 2010). Recently, Keith et al (2008), Anderson et al (2009), Buckley et al (2010), and Huntley et al (2010) have shown the importance and feasibility of moving from simple bioclimatic-envelope models to models that incorporate dynamic climate change and metapopulation dynamics (see also Jackson et al 2009 andMidgley et al 2010). Palaeoecologists using bioclimate-envelope approaches to reconstruct past climate from fossil assemblages could profitably test the robustness of their correlative methods by applying appropriate statistical tests to establish if the distribution of the taxa used in climate reconstructions show statistical relationships with climate, along the lines of Beale et al (2008) and Chapman (2010.…”

Climate change threatens giant panda protection in the 21st century

“…Although some process-based models can successfully integrate dispersal and metapopulation dynamics into forecasts of species geographic ranges (Anderson et al, 2009;Fordham et al, 2013), most of the currently available models are too complex in parameterization and validation in model application (Pearson and Dawson, 2003). The bioclimatic envelope models have various limitations (such as the assumption of equilibrium, the assumption of complete sampling of species niche, and insufficient inclusion of adaptation, evolution, and dispersal), they are still used by many researchers (Hannah et al, 2002;Huntley et al, 2010;Araújo and Peterson, 2012). With a good understanding of the modelling techniques, careful choice of explanatory variables, and appropriate model validation and testing, these models can still provide important information on the potential impact of climate change on species range shifts, and help inform conservation decisions in a changing climate (Hijmans and Graham, 2006;Araújo and Peterson, 2012).…”

Transactions

“…Elith et al 2006;Phillips et al 2006;Araujo & New 2007;Ferrier et al 2007;Phillips & Dudik 2008), and approaches that may integrate SDMs with other ecological processes and functions such as population viability (e.g. Keith et al 2008;Huntley et al 2010).…”

“…Gell et al 1993;Lunt 2002), or in response to critical thresholds that maybe yet unforseen (e.g. Scheffer et al 2009;Huntley et al 2010). At present it is impossible to know which of these mechanisms will have the most influence in altering the composition of plant communities, and under what circumstances.…”

“…Recent advances provide scope for more complex modelling of ecological systems with respect to climate change impacts in terms of population viability, dynamics and dispersal (e.g. Keith et al 2008;Huntley et al 2010). However robust computational systems for examining re-organisation of ecological communities are currently not available.…”