Climatic Change

, Volume 145, Issue 3–4, pp 259–271 | Cite as

Assessing species climatic requirements beyond the realized niche: some lessons mainly from tree species distribution modelling

  • Trevor H. BoothEmail author


Almost all climate change studies of plants and animals adopt an ‘equilibrium assumption’ that analyses of natural distributions provide reliable estimates of species climatic requirements. Yet commercial forestry trials around the world have shown that many tree species can grow successfully under climatic conditions somewhat different from those of their natural distributions. Under climate change it is reasonable to assume that a long-lived tree species, already well-established at particular sites, may be able to display some of the climatic adaptability shown in trials outside its natural distribution. The purpose of this paper is to outline how some species distribution modelling (SDM) and ecological niche modelling (ENM) studies have estimated species climatic requirements beyond those shown by conventional analyses of just their natural distributions, and to show how recent developments are facilitating these analyses. Some of the earliest SDM studies of trees demonstrated the desirability of assessing species climatic requirements using data from outside, as well as within, their natural distributions. In recent years, with the advent of large biodiversity databases and some revised SDM analysis methods, there has been a revival of interest in measuring species climatic requirements using data from beyond their realized niches. It is recommended that at least for tree species, natural distribution data, and where possible results from plantings beyond natural distributions, should be analysed in climate change studies. When this is not possible, some alternative methods of estimating species climatic requirements are identified and some of their advantages and disadvantages are considered.


climate change fundamental niche species extinction species vulnerability forest species distribution model 



This paper was funded by CSIRO. I am grateful to Libby Pinkard, Sadanandan Nambiar and David Bush, as well as the anonymous referees, for their comments on earlier versions of this paper. Thanks to Elsevier for permission to use Fig. 1 under the terms of their STM permissions guidelines.


  1. Anderson RP, Araújo M, Guisan A, Lobo JM, Martinez-Meyer E, Peterson AT, Soberón J (2016) Final report of the task group on GBIF data fitness for use in distribution modelling. Global Biodiversity Information Facility, Geneva Google Scholar
  2. Austin M (2007) Species distribution models and ecological theory: A critical assessment and some possible new approaches. Ecol Model 200:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barve N, Barve V, Jimenez-Valverde A, Lira-Noriega A, Maher SP, Peterson AT, Soberón J, Villalobos F (2011) The crucial role of the accessible area in ecological niche modelling and species distribution modelling. Ecol Model 222:1810–1819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belbin L, Williams KJ (2015) Towards a national bio-environmental data facility: experiences from the Atlas of Living Australia. Int J Geogr Inf Syst 30:108–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bocsi T, Allen JA, Bellemare J, Kartesz J, Nishino M, Bradley B (2016) Plants’ native distributions do not reflect climatic tolerance. Divers Distrib 22:615–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boiffin J, Badeau V, Bréda N (2017) Species distribution models may misdirect assisted migration: insights from the introduction of Douglas-fir to Europe. Ecol Appl 27:446–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Booth TH (1991) A global climatological audit to assist conservation and sustainable development. Proceedings of 10th World Forestry Congress, Paris, 2:65-70Google Scholar
  8. Booth TH (2014) Using biodiversity databases to verify and improve descriptions of tree species climatic requirements. Forest Ecol Manag 315:95–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Booth TH (2016) Estimating potential range and hence climatic adaptability in selected tree species. Forest Ecol Manag 366:175–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Booth TH (2017) Impacts of climate change on eucalypt distributions in Australia: an examination of a recent study. Aust Forestry.
  11. Booth TH, Nix HA, Hutchinson MF, Jovanovic T (1988) Niche analysis and tree species introduction. Forest Ecol Manag 23:47–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Booth TH, Nix HA, Busby JR, Hutchinson MF (2014) BIOCLIM: the first species distribution modelling package, its early applications and relevance to most current MAXENT studies. Divers Distrib 20:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Booth TH, Broadhurst LM, Pinkard E, Prober SM, Dillon SK, Bush D, Pinyopusarerk K, Doran JC, Ivkovisch M, Young AG (2015) Native forests and climate change: Lessons from eucalypts. Forest Ecol Manage 247:18–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Busby JR (1988) Potential implications of climate change on Australia’s flora and fauna. In: Pearman GI (ed) Greenhouse; Planning for Climate Change. CSIRO, Melbourne, pp 387–398Google Scholar
  15. CAB International (2005) Forestry Compendium. CABI, Wallingford CD-ROMGoogle Scholar
  16. Catullo RA, Ferrier S, Hoffmann AA (2015) Extending spatial modelling of climate change responses beyond the realized niche: estimating and accommodating, physiological limits and adaptive evolution. Global Ecol Biogeogr 24:1192–1202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cheddadi R, Araújo MB, Maiorano L, Edwards M, Guisan A, Carré M, Chevalier M, Pearman PB (2016) Temperature range shifts for three European tree species over the last 10,000 years. Front Plant Sci 7:doi:
  18. Early R, Sax DF (2014) Climatic niche shifts between species’ native and naturalized ranges raise concern for ecological forecasts during invasions and climate change. Global Ecol Biogeogr 23:1356–1365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eldridge K, Davidson J, Harwood C, van Wyk G (1993) Eucalypt Domestication and Breeding. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Elith J, Phillips SJ, Hastie T, Dudik M, Chee YE, Yates CJ (2011) A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists. Divers Distrib 17:43–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Elton CS (1927) Animal ecology. Sidgwick and Jackson, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Franklin J (2009) Mapping species distributions: spatial inference and prediction. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Gaiji S, Chavan V, Arino AH, Otegui J, Hober D, Sood R, Robles E (2013) Content assessment of the primary biodiversity data published through GBIF network: status, challenges and potentials. Biodiv Info 8:94–172Google Scholar
  24. Gaston KJ (2003) The Structure and Dynamics of Geographic Ranges. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  25. Germishuizen I, Gardner RAW (2015) A tool for identifying potential Eucalyptus nitens seed orchard sites based on climate and topography. South Forests 77:123–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. González-Orozco C, Pollock LJ, Thornhill AH, Mischler BD, Knerr N, Laffan SW, Miller JT, Roscuer DF, Faith DP, Nipperess DA, Kujala H, Linke S, Butt N, Kűlheim C, Crisp MD, Gruber B (2016) Phylogenetic approaches reveal biodiversity threats under climate change. Nat Clim Change 6:1110–1114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Grinnell J (1917) The niche-relationships of the California Thrasher. Auk 34:427–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Guisan A, Thuiller W (2005) Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol Lett 8:993–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hallgren W, Beaumont L, Bowness A, Chambers L, Graham E, Holewa H, Laffan S, Mackey B, Nix H, Price J, Vanderwal J, Warren R, Weis G (2016) The Biodiversity and Climate Change Virtual Laboratory: Where ecology meets big data. Environ Modell Softw 76:182–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Harwood C (2011) Introductions: doing it right. In: Walker J (ed) Developing a Eucalypt Resource. Learning from Australia and Elsewhere. Wood Technology Research Centre, University of Canterbury, New Zealand, pp 43–54Google Scholar
  31. Heap MJ (2016) Introducing BioSARN-an ecological niche model refinement tool. Ecol Evol 6:5808–5816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hijmans RJ, Cameron SE, Parra JL, Jones PG, Jarvis A (2005) Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int J Climatol 25:1965–1978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hughes L, Cawsey EM, Westoby M (1996) Climatic range sizes of Eucalyptus species in relation to future climate change. Global Ecol Biogeogr 5:23–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hutchinson GE (1957) Concluding remarks. Cold Spring Harb Sym 22:415–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hutchinson GE (1978) An Introduction to Population Ecology. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  36. IPCC (2014) Climate Change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. part a: global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1132 ppGoogle Scholar
  37. Iverson LR, Thompson FR, Matthew S, Peters M, Prasad A, Dijak WD, Fraser J, Wang WJ, Hanberry B, He H, Janowiak M, Butler P, Brandt L, Swanston C (2016) Multi-model comparison on the effects of climate change on tree species in the eastern U.S.: results from an enhanced niche model and process-based ecosystem and landscape models. Landscape Ecol 32:1327–1346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jacobs MR (1981) Eucalypts for Planting, 2nd edn. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  39. Kearney M, Porter W (2009) Mechanistic niche modelling: combining physiological and spatial data to predict species’ ranges. Ecol Lett 12:334–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McKenney DW, Pedlar JH, Lawrence K, Campbell K, Hutchinson MF (2007) Potential impacts of climate change on the distribution of North American trees. BioScience 57:939–948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nix HA (1986) In: Longmore R (ed) A biogeographic analysis of Australian elapid snakes. Atlas of Elapid Snakes of Australia. Australian Flora and Fauna Series 7. Bureau of Flora and Fauna, Canberra, pp 4–15Google Scholar
  42. Nogués-Bravo D, Pulido F, Araujo MB et al (2014) Phenotypic correlates of potential range size and range filling in European trees. Perspect Plant Ecol 16:219–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pearson RG, Dawson TP, Liu C (2004) Modelling species distributions in Britain: a hierarchical integration of climate and land-cover data. Ecography 27:285–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Peterson AT, Soberon J, Pearson RG, Anderson RP, Martinez-Meyer E, Nakamura M, Araujo MB (2011) Ecological niches and geographic distributions. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  45. Phillips SJ, Dudik M (2008) Modeling of species distributions with Maxent: new extensions and a comprehensive evaluation. Ecography 31:161–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Phillips SJ, Anderson RP, Schapire RE (2006) Maximum entropy modelling of species geographic distributions. Ecol Model 190:231–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Poynton RJ (1979) Tree Planting in Southern Africa. Vol. 2 The Eucalypts. Department of Forestry, Southern African Regional Commission for the Conservation and Utilisation of the Soil, PretoriaGoogle Scholar
  48. Prober SM, Potts BM, Bailey T et al (2016) Climate adaptation and ecological restoration in eucalypts. Roy Soc Vic 128:40–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Richardson DM, McMahon JP (1992) A bioclimatic analysis of E. nitens to identify potential planting regions in southern Africa. S Afr J Sci 88:380–387Google Scholar
  50. Russell DJF, Wanless S, Collingham YC, Anderson BJ, Beale C, Reid JB, Huntley B, Hamer KC (2015) Beyond climate envelopes: bio-climate modelling accords with observed 25-year changes in seabird populations of the British Isles. Divers Distrib 21:211–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sax DF, Early R, Bellemare J (2013) Niche syndromes, species extinction risks, and management under climate change. Trends Ecol Evol 28:517–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Soberón J, Nakamura M (2009) Niches and distributional areas: concepts, methods and assumptions. P Natl Acad Sci USA 106:19644–19650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Svenning J-C, Skov F (2004) Limited filling of the potential range in European tree species. Ecol Lett 7:565–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Thomas CD, Cameron A, Green RE et al (2004) Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427:145–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Thuiller W, Lavorel S, Araujo MB, Sykes MT, Prentice IC (2005) Climate change threats to plant diversity in Europe. P Natl Acad Sci USA 102:8245–8250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Urban MC (2015) Accelerating extinction risk from climate change. Science 348:571–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vetaas OR (2002) Realized and potential climatic niches: a comparison of four Rhododendron tree species. J Biogeogr 29:545–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Walentowski H, Falk W, Mette T, Kunz J, Bräuning A, Meinardus C, Zang C, Sutcliffe L, Leuschner C (2017) Assessing the future suitability of tree species under climate change by multiple methods: a case study in southern Germany. Ann For Res 60:101–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Williams JE, Brooker MIH (1997) Eucalypts: an introduction. In: Williams JE, Woinarski JCZ (eds) Eucalypt Ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–15Google Scholar
  60. Zhang J, Nielsen SE, Chen Y, Georges D, Qin Y, Wang S-S, Svenning J-C, Thuiller W (2016) Extinction risk of North American seed plants elevated by climate and land-use change. J Appl Ecol 54:303–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CSIRO Land and WaterCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations