Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorFordham, DA
dc.contributor.authorBertelsmeir, C
dc.contributor.authorBrook, BW
dc.contributor.authorEarly, R
dc.contributor.authorNeto, D
dc.contributor.authorBrown, SC
dc.contributor.authorOllier, S
dc.contributor.authorAraujo, MB
dc.date.accessioned2017-10-09T09:36:03Z
dc.date.issued2017-11-20
dc.description.abstractCriticism has been levelled at climate-change induced forecasts of species range shifts that do not account explicitly for complex population dynamics. The relative importance of such dynamics under climate change is, however, undetermined because direct tests comparing the performance of demographic models versus simpler ecological niche models are still lacking owing to difficulties in evaluating forecasts using real-world data. We provide the first comparison of the skill of coupled ecological-niche-population models and ecological niche models in predicting documented shifts in the ranges of 20 British breeding bird species across a 40-year period. Forecasts from models calibrated with data centred on 1970 were evaluated using data centred on 2010. We found that more complex coupled ecological-niche-population models (that account for dispersal and metapopulation dynamics) tend to have higher predictive accuracy in forecasting species range shifts than structurally simpler models that only account for variation in climate. However, these better forecasts are achieved only if ecological responses to climate change are simulated without static snapshots of historic land use, taken at a single point in time. In contrast, including both static land use and dynamic climate variables in simpler ecological niche models improves forecasts of observed range shifts. Despite being less skilful at predicting range changes at the grid cell level, ecological niche models do as well, or better, than more complex models at predicting the magnitude of relative change in range size. Therefore, ecological niche models can provide a reasonable first approximation of the magnitude of species’ potential range shifts, especially when more detailed data are lacking on dispersal dynamics, demographic processes underpinning population performance, and change in land cover.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipThe Australian Research Council supported D.A.F, C.B. and B.W.B (FT140101192, DP1096427, FT100100200, respectively). M.B.A and D.N. acknowledge support from the Foundation for Science and Technology (PTDC/AAG-GLO/0463/2014 and CIBIO - UID/BIA/50027/2013 (POCI-01-0145-FEDER-006821) and the Danish NSF.en_GB
dc.identifier.citationPublished online 20 November 2017en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/gcb.13935
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/29736
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherWileyen_GB
dc.rights.embargoreasonPublisher policyen_GB
dc.rights© 2017 Commonwealth of Australia. Global Change Biology © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
dc.subjectclimate changeen_GB
dc.subjecthybrid ecological niche modelen_GB
dc.subjectindependent model validationen_GB
dc.subjectland useen_GB
dc.subjectmechanistic modelen_GB
dc.subjectmetapopulation and dispersal dynamicsen_GB
dc.subjectspecies distribution modelen_GB
dc.subjecttransferabilityen_GB
dc.titleHow complex should models be? Comparing correlative and mechanistic range dynamics modelsen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.identifier.issn1354-1013
dc.descriptionThis is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Wiley via the DOI in this record.en_GB
dc.identifier.journalGlobal Change Biologyen_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record