ArticleEcology and evolution2019
Meta-analyzing the likely cross-species responses to climate change.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Meta-analyzing the likely cross-species responses to climate change.Ecology and evolution · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ecological Niche Models (ENMs) have different performances in predicting potential geographic distributions. Here we meta-analyzed the likely effects of climate change on the potential geographic distribution of 1,205 bird species from the Neotropical region, modeled using eight ENMs and three Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models (AOGCM). We considered the variability in ENMs performance to estimate a weighted mean difference between potential geographic distributions for baseline and future climates. On average, potential future ranges were projected to be from 25.7% to 44.5% smaller than current potential ranges across species. However, we found that 0.2% to 18.3% of the total variance in range shifts occurred "within species" (i.e., owing to the use of different modeling techniques and climate models) and 81.7% to 99.8% remained between species (i.e., it could be explained by ecological correlates). Using meta-analytical techniques akin to regression, we also showed that potential range shifts are barely predicted by bird biological traits. We demonstrated that one can combine and reduce species-specific effects with high uncertainty in ENMs and also explore potential causes of climate change effect on species using meta-analytical tools. We also highlight that the search for powerful correlates of climate change-induced range shifts can be a promising line of investigation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.