Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39294691›Full record

SynthesisEnvironmental evidence2023

Climate change and the global redistribution of biodiversity: substantial variation in empirical support for expected range shifts.

Madeleine A Rubenstein, Sarah R Weiskopf, Romain Bertrand, Shawn L Carter, Lise Comte, Mitchell J Eaton, Ciara G Johnson, Jonathan Lenoir, Abigail J Lynch, Brian W Miller and 4 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Environmental evidence, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

60 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Species range shifts often speed ahead of their modeled climatic niches.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Madeleine A Rubenstein *U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National Climate Adaptation Science Center, Reston, USA.
Sarah R Weiskopf *U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National Climate Adaptation Science Center, Reston, USA. sweiskopf@usgs.gov.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5933-8191
Romain BertrandUniversité de Toulouse 3, Toulouse, France.
Shawn L CarterU.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National Climate Adaptation Science Center, Reston, USA.
Lise ComteSchool of Biological Sciences, Illinois State University, Normal, USA.
Mitchell J EatonSoutheast Climate Adaptation Science Center, USGS, Raleigh, USA.
Ciara G JohnsonDepartment of Environmental Science & Policy, George Mason University, Fairfax, USA.
Jonathan LenoirUniversité de Picardie Jules Verne, Amiens, France.
Abigail J LynchU.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National Climate Adaptation Science Center, Reston, USA.
Brian W MillerNorth Central Climate Adaptation Science Center, USGS, Boulder, USA.
Toni Lyn MorelliNortheast Climate Adaptation Science Center, USGS, Amherst, USA.
Mari Angel RodriguezU.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National Climate Adaptation Science Center, Reston, USA.
Adam TerandoSoutheast Climate Adaptation Science Center, USGS, Raleigh, USA.
Laura M ThompsonU.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National Climate Adaptation Science Center, Reston, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAmong the most widely predicted climate change-related impacts to biodiversity are geographic range shifts, whereby species shift their spatial distribution to track their climate niches. A series of commonly articulated hypotheses have emerged in the scientific literature suggesting species are expected to shift their distributions to higher latitudes, greater elevations, and deeper depths in response to rising temperatures associated with climate change. Yet, many species are not demonstrating range shifts consistent with these expectations. Here, we evaluate the impact of anthropogenic climate change (specifically, changes in temperature and precipitation) on species' ranges, and assess whether expected range shifts are supported by the body of empirical evidence.

methodsWe conducted a Systematic Review, searching online databases and search engines in English. Studies were screened in a two-stage process (title/abstract review, followed by full-text review) to evaluate whether they met a list of eligibility criteria. Data coding, extraction, and study validity assessment was completed by a team of trained reviewers and each entry was validated by at least one secondary reviewer. We used logistic regression models to assess whether the direction of shift supported common range-shift expectations (i.e., shifts to higher latitudes and elevations, and deeper depths). We also estimated the magnitude of shifts for the subset of available range-shift data expressed in distance per time (i.e., km/decade). We accounted for methodological attributes at the study level as potential sources of variation. This allowed us to answer two questions: (1) are most species shifting in the direction we expect (i.e., each observation is assessed as support/fail to support our expectation); and (2) what is the average speed of range shifts? REVIEW

findingsWe found that less than half of all range-shift observations (46.60%) documented shifts towards higher latitudes, higher elevations, and greater marine depths, demonstrating significant variation in the empirical evidence for general range shift expectations. For the subset of studies looking at range shift rates, we found that species demonstrated significant average shifts towards higher latitudes (average = 11.8 km/dec) and higher elevations (average = 9 m/dec), although we failed to find significant evidence for shifts to greater marine depths. We found that methodological factors in individual range-shift studies had a significant impact on the reported direction and magnitude of shifts. Finally, we identified important variation across dimensions of range shifts (e.g., greater support for latitude and elevation shifts than depth), parameters (e.g., leading edge shifts faster than trailing edge for latitude), and taxonomic groups (e.g., faster latitudinal shifts for insects than plants).

conclusionsDespite growing evidence that species are shifting their ranges in response to climate change, substantial variation exists in the extent to which definitively empirical observations confirm these expectations. Even though on average, rates of shift show significant movement to higher elevations and latitudes for many taxa, most species are not shifting in expected directions. Variation across dimensions and parameters of range shifts, as well as differences across taxonomic groups and variation driven by methodological factors, should be considered when assessing overall confidence in range-shift hypotheses. In order for managers to effectively plan for species redistribution, we need to better account for and predict which species will shift and by how much. The dataset produced for this analysis can be used for future research to explore additional hypotheses to better understand species range shifts.

Indexed as

DepthDistribution shiftElevationGlobal changeLatitudeSpecies redistributionVulnerabilityWarming

Identifiers

PMID39294691
PMCPMC11378804

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.