Plant extinction risk under climate change: are forecast range shifts alone a good indicator of species vulnerability to global warming?

dc.contributor.authorFordham, D.
dc.contributor.authorAkcakaya, H.
dc.contributor.authorAraujo, M.
dc.contributor.authorElith, J.
dc.contributor.authorKeith, D.
dc.contributor.authorPearson, R.
dc.contributor.authorAuld, T.
dc.contributor.authorMellin, C.
dc.contributor.authorMorgan, J.
dc.contributor.authorRegan, T.
dc.contributor.authorTozer, M.
dc.contributor.authorWatts, M.
dc.contributor.authorWhite, M.
dc.contributor.authorWintle, B.
dc.contributor.authorYates, C.
dc.contributor.authorBrook, B.
dc.date.issued2012
dc.description.abstract<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>Models that couple habitat suitability with demographic processes offer a potentially improved approach for estimating spatial distributional shifts and extinction risk under climate change. Applying such an approach to five species of Australian plants with contrasting demographic traits, we show that: (i) predicted climate‐driven changes in range area are sensitive to the underlying habitat model, regardless of whether demographic traits and their interaction with habitat patch configuration are modeled explicitly; and (ii) caution should be exercised when using predicted changes in total habitat suitability or geographic extent to infer extinction risk, because the relationship between these metrics is often weak. Measures of extinction risk, which quantify threats to population persistence, are particularly sensitive to life‐history traits, such as recruitment response to fire, which explained approximately 60% of the deviance in expected minimum abundance. Dispersal dynamics and habitat patch structure have the strongest influence on the amount of movement of the trailing and leading edge of the range margin, explaining roughly 40% of modeled structural deviance. These results underscore the need to consider direct measures of extinction risk (population declines and other measures of stochastic viability), as well as measures of change in habitat area, when assessing climate change impacts on biodiversity. Furthermore, direct estimation of extinction risk incorporates important demographic and ecosystem processes, which potentially influence species’ vulnerability to extinction due to climate change.</jats:p>
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityDamien A. Fordham, H. Resit Akçakaya, Miguel B. Araújo, Jane Elith, David A. Keith, Richard Pearson, Tony D. Auld, Camille Mellin, John W. Morgan, Tracey J. Regan, Mark Tozer, Michael J. Watts, Matthew White, Brendan A. Wintle, Colin Yates and Barry W. Brook
dc.identifier.citationGlobal Change Biology, 2012; 18(0004):1357-1371
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02614.x
dc.identifier.issn1354-1013
dc.identifier.issn1365-2486
dc.identifier.orcidFordham, D. [0000-0003-2137-5592]
dc.identifier.orcidMellin, C. [0000-0002-7369-2349]
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2440/74310
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherBlackwell Science Ltd
dc.relation.grantLP0989537
dc.relation.granthttp://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/LP0989420
dc.relation.granthttp://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/FT0991640
dc.relation.granthttp://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/FT100100819
dc.rights© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
dc.source.urihttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02614.x
dc.subjectabundance
dc.subjectbioclimate envelope
dc.subjectconnectivity
dc.subjectcoupled niche-population model
dc.subjectdispersal
dc.subjecthabitat suitability
dc.subjectmechanistic model
dc.subjectmetapopulation
dc.subjectpopulation viability analysis
dc.subjectspecies distribution model
dc.titlePlant extinction risk under climate change: are forecast range shifts alone a good indicator of species vulnerability to global warming?
dc.typeJournal article
pubs.publication-statusPublished

Files