Climatic niche shifts are common in introduced plants


Our understanding of how climate influences species distributions and our ability to assess the risk of introduced species depend on the assumption that species’ climatic niches remain stable across space and time. While niche shifts have been detected in individual invasive species, one assessment of ~50 plants in Europe and North America concluded that niche shifts were rare, while another concluded the opposite. These contradictory findings, limited in species number and geographic scope, leave open a need to understand how often introduced species experience niche shifts and whether niche shifts can be predicted. We found evidence of climatic niche shifts in 65–100% of 815 terrestrial plant species introduced across five continents, depending on how niche shifts were measured. Individual species responses were idiosyncratic, but we generally saw that niche shifts reflected changes in climate availability at the continent scale and were largest in long-lived and cultivated species. Smaller intercontinental niche shifts occurred within species’ native ranges. Overall, the climatic niches of terrestrial plant species were not conserved as they crossed continents. These results have major consequences for applying environmental niche models to assess the risk of invasive species and for predicting species responses to climate change. Our findings challenge the tenet that species’ niches are conserved aspects of their ecology.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Native and introduced niche dynamics.
Fig. 2: SAMP tests of niche overlap.
Fig. 3: Niche dynamics of N–I comparisons in climate space.
Fig. 4: Climatic niche shifts reflect changes in climate availability.
Fig. 5: Effect of species traits on niche dynamics.


  1. 1.

    Silvertown, J. Plant coexistence and the niche. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19, 605–611 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Colwell, R. K. & Rangel, T. F. Hutchinson’s duality: the once and future niche. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 19651–19658 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Guisan, A., Petitpierre, B., Broennimann, O., Daehler, C. & Kueffer, C. Unifying niche shift studies: insights from biological invasions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 29, 260–269 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Pearman, P. B., Guisan, A., Broennimann, O. & Randin, C. F. Niche dynamics in space and time. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23, 149–158 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Koop, A. L., Fowler, L., Newton, L. P. & Caton, B. P. Development and validation of a weed screening tool for the United States. Biol. Invasions 14, 273–294 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Andersen, M. C., Adams, H., Hope, B. & Powell, M. Risk assessment for invasive species. Risk Anal. 24, 787–793 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Veloz, S. D. et al. No-analog climates and shifting realized niches during the late quaternary: implications for 21st-century predictions by species distribution models. Glob. Change Biol. 18, 1698–1713 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Broennimann, O. et al. Evidence of climatic niche shift during biological invasion. Ecol. Lett. 10, 701–709 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Rodder, D. & Lotters, S. Niche shift versus niche conservatism? Climatic characteristics of the native and invasive ranges of the Mediterranean house gecko (Hemidactylus turcicus). Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 18, 674–687 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Fitzpatrick, M. C., Weltzin, J. F., Sanders, N. J. & Dunn, R. R. The biogeography of prediction error: why does the introduced range of the fire ant over-predict its native range? Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 16, 24–33 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Medley, K. A. Niche shifts during the global invasion of the Asian tiger mosquito, Aedes albopictus Skuse (Culicidae), revealed by reciprocal distribution models. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 19, 122–133 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Gallagher, R. V., Beaumont, L. J., Hughes, L. & Leishman, M. R. Evidence for climatic niche and biome shifts between native and novel ranges in plant species introduced to Australia. J. Ecol. 98, 790–799 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Early, R. & Sax, D. F. Climatic niche shifts between species’ native and naturalized ranges raise concern for ecological forecasts during invasions and climate change. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 23, 1356–1365 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Liu, X. et al. Realized climatic niches are conserved along maximum temperatures among herpetofaunal invaders. J. Biogeogr. 44, 111–121 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Strubbe, D., Broennimann, O., Chiron, F. & Matthysen, E. Niche conservatism in non-native birds in Europe: niche unfilling rather than niche expansion. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 22, 962–970 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Petitpierre, B. et al. Climatic niche shifts are rare among terrestrial plant invaders. Science 335, 1344–1348 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Pimentel, D. et al. Economic and environmental threats of alien plant, animal, and microbe invasions. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 84, 1–20 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Perrings, C. et al. Biological invasion risks and the public good: an economic perspective. Ecol. Soc. 6, 1 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Wiens, J. J. et al. Niche conservatism as an emerging principle in ecology and conservation biology. Ecol. Lett. 13, 1310–1324 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Keane, R. M. & Crawley, M. J. Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17, 164–170 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Shea, K. & Chesson, P. Community ecology theory as a framework for biological invasions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17, 170–176 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Webber, B. L., Le Maitre, D. C. & Kriticos, D. J. Comment on “Climatic niche terrestrial plant invaders”. Science 338, 193 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Li, Y., Liu, X., Li, X., Petitpierre, B. & Guisan, A. Residence time, expansion toward the Equator in the invaded range and native range size matter to climatic niche shifts in non-native species. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 23, 1094–1104 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Elith, J. & Leathwick, J. R. Species distribution models: ecological explanation and prediction across space and time. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 40, 677–697 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Broennimann, O. et al. Measuring ecological niche overlap from occurrence and spatial environmental data. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 21, 481–497 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Cox, C. B., Cottage, F. & Close, B. The biogeographic regions reconsidered. J. Biogeogr. 28, 511–523 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Warren, D. L., Glor, R. E. & Turelli, M. Environmental niche equivalency versus conservatism: quantitative approaches to niche evolution. Evolution 62, 2868–2883 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Meyer, C., Weigelt, P., Kreft, H. & Lambers, J. H. R. Multidimensional biases, gaps and uncertainties in global plant occurrence information. Ecol. Lett. 19, 992–1006 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Schoener, T. The Anolis lizards of Bimini: resource partitioning in a complex fauna. Ecology 49, 704–726 (1968).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Rödder, D. & Engler, J. O. Quantitative metrics of overlaps in Grinnellian niches: advances and possible drawbacks. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 20, 915–927 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Jiménez-Valverde, A. et al. Use of niche models in invasive species risk assessments. Biol. Invasions 13, 2785–2797 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Václavík, T. & Meentemeyer, R. K. Equilibrium or not? Modelling potential distribution of invasive species in different stages of invasion. Divers. Distrib. 18, 73–83 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Lee, C. E. Evolutionary genetics of invasive species. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17, 386–391 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Peterson, A. T. Ecological niche conservatism: a time-structured review of evidence. J. Biogeogr. 38, 817–827 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Guisan, A. & Thuiller, W. Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol. Lett. 8, 993–1009 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    R Development Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2017).

  37. 37.

    Hijmans, R. J., Cameron, S. E., Parra, J. L., Jones, P. G. & Jarvis, A. Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 25, 1965–1978 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Revelle, A. W. & Revelle, M. W. psych: Procedures for Psychological, Psychometic, and Rersonality Research R Package Version 1.5.4 (Northwestern University, Evanston, 2016).

  39. 39.

    Phillips, S. J. et al. Sample selection bias and presence-only distribution models: implications for background and pseudo-absence data. Ecol. Appl. 19, 181–197 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Yackulic, C. B. et al. Presence-only modelling using MAXENT: when can we trust the inferences? Methods Ecol. Evol. 4, 236–243 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Nychka, D., Furrer, R., Paige, J. & Sain, S. fields: Tools for Spatial Data R Package Version 8.2–1 (University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, 2015).

  42. 42.

    Bivand, R. et al. rgdal: Bindings for the 'Geospatial' Data Abstraction Library R Package Version 0.9–2 (Geospatial Data Abstraction Laboratory, 2016).

  43. 43.

    Hijmans, R. raster: Geographic Data Analysis and Modeling R Package Version 2.3–40 (2016).

  44. 44.

    Hijmans, R. J., Phillips, S., Leathwick, J. & Elith, J. dismo: Species Distribution Modeling R Package Version 1.0–12 (2016).

  45. 45.

    Bates, D. M., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models usinglme 4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Kenward, M. G. & Roger, J. H. Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximuml likelihood. Biometrics 53, 983–997 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Halekoh, U. & Hojsgaard, S. A Kenward–Roger approximation and parametric bootstrap methods for tests in linear mixed models: the R package pbkrtest. J. Stat. Softw. 59, 1–30 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B. & Christensen, R. H. B. lmerTest: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models R Package Version 2.0–29 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, 2016).

  49. 49.

    VanDerWal, J., Falconi, L., Januchowski, S., Shoo, L. & Storlie, C. SDMTools: Species Distribution Modelling Tools: Tools for Processing Data Associated with Species Distribution Modelling Exercises R Package Version 1.1–221 (2014).

Download references


This work was partially supported by the Virginia Tech College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and the USDA's Controlling Weedy and Invasive Plants programme (2013-67013-21306).

Author information




J.N.B. and D.Z.A. conceived the study, which was refined by all authors. C.E. developed the species geographic databases and D.Z.A. refined them. D.Z.A. developed and performed all analyses with contributions from J.N.B. All authors discussed the results and contributed to writing the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Z. Atwater.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Supplementary Information

Supplementary tables and figures

Life Sciences Reporting Summary

Supplementary Dataset

Supplementary dataset 1

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Atwater, D.Z., Ervine, C. & Barney, J.N. Climatic niche shifts are common in introduced plants. Nat Ecol Evol 2, 34–43 (2018).

Download citation

Further reading


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