TY - JOUR
T1 - Do climate envelope models transfer? A manipulative test using dung beetle introductions
AU - DUNCAN, Richard
AU - Cassey, Phillip
AU - Blackburn, Tim
PY - 2009
Y1 - 2009
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 - species distribution models
KW - bioclimatic envelope
KW - dispersal limitation
KW - range limits.
U2 - 10.1098/rspb.2008.1801
DO - 10.1098/rspb.2008.1801
M3 - Article
SN - 0962-8452
VL - 267
SP - 1449
EP - 1457
JO - Royal Society of London. Proceedings B. Biological Sciences
JF - Royal Society of London. Proceedings B. Biological Sciences
ER -