Abstract

Contemporary climate change is the biggest experiment ever conducted by humans on a planetary scale, and its impact on the redistribution of life is potentially huge (e.g., Barnosky et al. Nature 471:51–57, 2011, Pereira et al. Science 330:1496–1501, 2010). An accurate diagnosis of the effects of climate change on the distributions of species requires, firstly, that methods used for detection of distributional changes are able to distinguish between directional and non-directional changes and, secondly, that they are able to tease apart distributional changes driven by natural population dynamics from changes driven by external forcing (climatic or non-climatic). We ask how appropriate are methods commonly used to detect directional shifts on species range changes. We compare a widely used range-shift detection method previously used to demonstrate that climate change caused British breeding bird distributions to move northwards with alternative approaches that more comprehensively examine directionality in range changes. We find that once range dynamics are examined across all geographical quadrants in Britain, and in contrast with previous reports, no clear directional patterns of range shift emerge for this period. Some of the methods typically used for examining species range shifts are prone to false positive errors, whereby directional range shifts are detected when in fact they did not occur. Without entering the discussion of what is more important to avoid (false negative errors, whereby directional range shifts pass unnoticed by analysis, or false positive errors), we argue that methods exist to determine whether range changes are directional or non-directional (a prerequisite to discern the causes of range changes).

Highlights

  • We reanalyzed the data [23, 24] using two different analytical approaches that more explicitly seek to distinguish directional shifts from non-directional ones, and asked whether late 20th Century changes in distributional limits of British breeding birds were significantly different across geographical quadrants

  • Some of the methods typically used for examining species range shifts are prone to false positive errors, whereby directional range shifts are detected when they did not occur

  • Without entering the discussion of what is more important to avoid, we argue that methods exist to determine whether range changes are directional or nondirectional

Read more

Summary

Conclusions

There is a consensus that attribution of climate change effects to species range shifts should, ideally, be based on multiple lines of evidence (e.g., [28]). Whenever inferences of climate change effects on range dynamics are based on statistical analysis of species range change data, it is crucial that tests are able to adequately distinguish directional and non-directional shifts (see [29]). Such comparisons between observed species distributional patterns and expected distributional patterns under absence of process are the underlying principle of null models [30], and are becoming standard practice in different sub-fields of ecology (e.g., [31, 32]), biogeography (e.g., [33, 34]), conservation and global change biology (e.g., [35, 36]). Exclusion of ubiquitous species did not change the overall trends detected in Fig. 1, despite changes in p and R2 values. (TIFF 76585 kb)

Background
Main text
Findings
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call