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.

Global mountain topography and the fate of montane species under climate change

Abstract

Increasing evidence indicates that species throughout the world are responding to climate change by shifting their geographic distributions1,2,3. Although shifts can be directionally heterogeneous4,5, they often follow warming temperatures polewards and upslope1,2,6. Montane species are of particular concern in this regard, as they are expected to face reduced available area of occupancy and increased risk of extinction with upslope movements6,7,8,9. However, this expectation hinges on the assumption that surface area decreases monotonically as species move up mountainsides. We analysed the elevational availability of surface area for a global data set containing 182 of the world’s mountain ranges. Sixty-eight per cent of these mountain ranges had topographies in which area did not decrease monotonically with elevation. Rather, mountain range topographies exhibited four distinct area–elevation patterns: decreasing (32% of ranges), increasing (6%), a mid-elevation peak in area (39%), and a mid-elevation trough in area (23%). These findings suggest that many species, particularly those of foothills and lower montane zones, may encounter increases in available area as a result of shifting upslope. A deeper understanding of underlying mountain topography can inform conservation priorities by revealing where shifting species stand to undergo area increases, decreases and bottlenecks as they respond to climate change.

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

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Examples of each of four mountain hypsographic classifications.
Figure 2: Global distribution of mountain range hypsographic classes.
Figure 3: Percentage of change in available area following a 2 °C upslope range shift for a hypothetical montane vertebrate species in mountain ranges around the world.

References

  1. Parmesan, C. & Yohe, G. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421, 37–42 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Chen, I-C., Hill, J. K., Ohlemuller, R., Roy, D. B. & Thomas, C. D. Rapid range shifts of species associated with high levels of climate warming. Science 333, 1024–1026 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Root, T. L. et al. Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants. Nature 421, 57–60 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Moritz, C. et al. Impact of a climate change on small-mammal communities in Yosemite National Park, USA. Science 322, 261–264 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Tingley, M. W., Koo, M. S., Moritz, C., Rush, A. C. & Beissinger, S. R. The push and pull of climate change causes heterogeneous shifts in avian elevational ranges. Glob. Change Biol. 18, 3279–3290 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. La Sorte, F. A. & Jetz, W. Projected range contractions of montane biodiversity under global warming. Proc. R. Soc. B 277, 3401–3410 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Sekercioglu, C. H., Primack, R. B. & Wormworth, J. The effects of climate change on tropical birds. Biol. Conserv. 148, 1–18 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Sekercioglu, C. H., Schneider, S. H., Fay, J. P. & Loarie, S. R. Climate change, elevational range shifts, and bird extinctions. Conserv. Biol. 22, 140–150 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Colwell, R. K., Brehm, G., Cardelus, C. L., Gilman, A. C. & Longino, J. T. Global warming, elevational range shifts, and lowland biotic attrition in the wet tropics. Science 322, 258–261 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Chen, I-C. et al. Elevation increases in moth assemblages over 42 years on a tropical mountain. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 1479–1483 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Crimmins, S. M., Dobrowski, S. Z., Greenberg, J. A., Abatzoglou, J. T. & Mynsberge, A. R. Changes in climatic water balance drive downhill shifts in plant species’ optimum elevations. Science 331, 324–327 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. McCain, C. M. & Colwell, R. K. Assessing the threat to montane biodiversity from discordant shifts in temperature and precipitation in a changing climate. Ecol. Lett. 14, 1236–1245 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Brooks, T. M. et al. Global biodiversity conservation priorities. Science 313, 58–61 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. McCain, C. M. Vertebrate range sizes indicate that mountains may be ‘higher’ in the tropics. Ecol. Lett. 12, 550–560 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Laurance, W. F. et al. Global warming, elevational ranges and the vulnerability of tropical biota. Biol. Conserv. 144, 548–557 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Shoo, L. P., Williams, S. E. & Hero, J-M. Potential decoupling of trends in distribution area and population size of species with climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 11, 1469–1476 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lande, R. Risks of population extinction from demographic and environmental stochasticity and random catastrophes. Am. Nat. 142, 911–927 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kapos, V., Rhind, J., Edwards, M., Price, M. F. & Ravilious, C. in Forests in Sustainable Mountain Development: A State of Knowledge Report for 2000 (eds Price, M. F. & Butt, N.) 4–9 (IUFRO Research Series 5, Ch. 1, CABI Publishing, 2000).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  19. Boyd, C. et al. Spatial scale and the conservation of threatened species. Conserv. Lett. 1, 37–43 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Farr, T. G. et al. The shuttle radar topography mission. Rev. Geophys. 45, RG2004 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Peterson, A. T. Projected climate change effects on Rocky Mountain and Great Plains birds: Generalities of biodiversity consequences. Glob. Change Biol. 9, 647–655 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Tingley, M. W., Darling, E. S. & Wilcove, D. S. Fine- and coarse-filter conservation strategies in a time of climate change. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 1322, 92–109 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bell, D. M., Bradford, J. B. & Lauenroth, W. K. Mountain landscapes offer few opportunities for high-elevation tree species migration. Glob. Change Biol. 20, 1441–1451 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Williams, J. W. & Jackson, S. T. Novel climates, no-analog communities, and ecological surprises. Front. Ecol. Environ. 5, 475–482 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Macias-Fauria, M. & Johnson, E. A. Warming-induced upslope advance of subalpine forest is severely limited by geomorphic processes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 8117–8122 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Anderson, M. G. & Ferree, C. E. Conserving the stage: Climate change and the geophysical underpinnings of species diversity. PLoS ONE 5, e11554 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Jarvis, A., Rubiano, J., Nelson, A., Farrow, A. & Mulligan, M. Practical Use of SRTM Data in the Tropics: Comparisons with Digital Elevation Models Generated from Cartographic Data Working document no. 198 (Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical, 2004)

  28. Hartigan, J. A. & Hartigan, P. M. The dip test of unimodality. Ann. Stat. 13, 70–84 (1985).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Joanes, D. N. & Gill, C. A. Comparing measures of sample skewness and kurtosis. J. R. Stat. Soc. D 47, 183–189 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. IPCC, in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

P.R.E. was supported by Princeton University and the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program under Grant No. DGE-1148900. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. M.W.T. was supported by the D. H. Smith Conservation Research Fellowship administered by the Society for Conservation Biology and financially supported by the Cedar Tree Foundation. We thank D. Wilcove for valuable discussions throughout the preparation of the manuscript. We are grateful to M. Costelloe for graphical assistance. We thank C. Chang, J. B. Harris, F. Hua, J. Lee, T. M. Lee, T. Mu, A. F. A. Pellegrini, S. J. Socolar and T. Truer for providing insightful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Both authors contributed equally to all aspects of the research, including project conception, data analysis and manuscript preparation.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Paul R. Elsen or Morgan W. Tingley.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Elsen, P., Tingley, M. Global mountain topography and the fate of montane species under climate change. Nature Clim Change 5, 772–776 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2656

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2656

This article is cited by

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