Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Making mistakes when predicting shifts in species range in response to global warming

Abstract

Many attempts to predict the biotic responses to climate change rely on the ‘climate envelope’ approach1,2,3, in which the current distribution of a species is mapped in climate-space and then, if the position of that climate-space changes, the distribution of the species is predicted to shift accordingly4,5,6. The flaw in this approach is that distributions of species also reflect the influence of interactions with other species7,8,9,10, so predictions based on climate envelopes may be very misleading if the interactions between species are altered by climate change11. An additional problem is that current distributions may be the result of sources and sinks12, in which species appear to thrive in places where they really persist only because individuals disperse into them from elsewhere13,14. Here we use microcosm experiments on simple but realistic assemblages to show how misleading the climate envelope approach can be. We show that dispersal and interactions, which are important elements of population dynamics15, must be included in predictions of biotic responses to climate change.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Experimental arrangement.
Figure 2: Comparison of Drosophila populations in single-species clines, two-species clines, and three-species clines.
Figure 3: Comparison of Drosophila populations in cold three-species clines with or without L.boulardi parasitoids.
Figure 4: Comparison of Drosophila populations on their own, with and without dispersal.
Figure 5: Comparison of Drosophila subobscura populations in cold and hot clines, either in two-species clines or three-species clines.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jeffree, E. P. & Jeffree, C. E. Redistribution of the potential geographic ranges of Mistletoe and Colorado Beetle in Europe in response to the temperature component of climate change. Funct. Ecol. 10, 562–577 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Porter, J. in Insects in a Changing Environment (eds Harrington, R. & Stork, N. E.) 93–123 (Academic, London, (1995)).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Sutherst, R. W., Maywald, G. F. & Skarrat, D. B. in Insects in a Changing Environment (eds Harrington, R. & Stork, N. E.) 59–91 (Academic, London, (1995)).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Beerling, D. J. The impact of temperature on the northern distribution limits of the introduced species Fallopia japonica and Impatiens glandulifera in north-west Europe. J. Biogeog. 20, 45–53 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Rogers, D. J. & Randolph, S. E. Distribution of tsetse and ticks in Africa: past, present and future. Parasitol. Today 9, 266–271 (1993).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Scott, D. & Poynter, M. Upper temperature limits for trout in New Zealand and climate change. Hydrobiology 222, 147–151 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Connell, J. H. The influence of competition and other factors on the distribution of the barnacle Chthamalus stellatus. Ecology 40, 49–78 (1961).

    Google Scholar 

  8. LaSalle, J. in Hymenoptera and Biodiversity (eds LaSalle, J. & Gauld, I. D.) 197–215 (CAB International, Wallingford, (1993)).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Lawton, J. H. & Hassell, M. P. in Ecological Entomology (eds Huffaker, C. B. & Rabb, R. L.) 451–420 (John Wiley, Chichester, (1984)).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Paine, R. T. Food web complexity and species diversity. Am. Nat. 100, 65–75 (1966).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Graham, R. W. in Global Warming and Biological Diversity (eds Peters, R. L. & Lovejoy, T. E.) 76–87 (Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, CT, (1992)).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Pulliam, H. R. Sources, sinks and population regulation. Am. Nat. 132, 652–661 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Rodriguez, J., Jordano, D. & Fernandez Haegar, J. Spatial heterogeneity in a butterfly-host plant interaction. J. Anim. Ecol. 63, 31–38 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Watkinson, A. R. On the abundance of plants along an environmental gradient. J. Ecol. 73, 569–578 (1985).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Pacala, S. W. & Hurtt, G. C. in Biotic Interactions and Global Change (eds Kareiva, P. M., Kingsolver, J. G. & Huey, R. B.) 57–74 (Sinauer, Boston, MA, (1993)).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Nordlander, G. Revision of the genus Leptopilina Forster, 1869, with notes on the status of some other genera (Hymenoptera, Cynipoidea: Eucoilidae). Entomol. Scand. 11, 428–453 (1980).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Wheeler, M. R. in The Genetics and Biology of Drosophila Vol. 3a (eds Ashburner, M., Carson, H. & Thompson, J. N.) 1–98 (Academic, London, (1986)).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kraaijeveld, A. R. & van Alphen, J. J. M. Geographical variation in encapsulation ability of Drosophila melanogaster larvae and evidence for parasitoid-specific components. Evol. Ecol. 9, 10–17 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bennetts, D. A. in Insects in a Changing Environment (eds Harrington, R. & Stork, N. E.) 49–58 (Academic, London, (1995)).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Coope, G. R. in Insects in a Changing environment (eds Harrington, R. & Stork, N. E.) 30–48 (Academic, London, (1995)).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Davis, M. B. in Community Ecology (eds Diamond, J. & Case, T. J.) 269–284 (Harper & Row, New York, (1986)).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Graham, R. W. et al. Spatial responses of mammals to late quaternary environmental fluctuations. Science 272, 1601–1606 (1996).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Valentine, J. W. & Jablonski, D. in Species Diversity in Ecological Communities (eds Ricklefs, R. E. & Schluter, D.) 341–349 (Univ. Chicago Press, (1993)).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Holt, R. D. & Lawton, J. H. The ecological consequences of shared natural enemies. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 25, 495–520 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hanski, I. A. & Gilpin, M. E. (eds) Metapopulation Biology: Ecology, Genetics and Evolution (Academic, San Diego, (1997)).

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Brussard, P. Geographic patterns and environmental gradients: the central-marginal model in Drosophila revisited. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 15, 25–64 (1984).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Parmesan, C. Climate and species' range. Nature 382, 765–766 (1996).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by BBSRC under the Biological Adaptation to Global Environmental Change programme.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew J. Davis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Davis, A., Jenkinson, L., Lawton, J. et al. Making mistakes when predicting shifts in species range in response to global warming. Nature 391, 783–786 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1038/35842

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/35842

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing