The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Vulnerability of South African animal taxa to climate change
Abstract
The responsiveness of South African fauna to climate change events is poorly documented and not routinely incorporated into regional conservation planning. We model the likely range alterations of a representative suite of 179 animal species to climate change brought about by the doubling of CO 2 concentrations. This scenario is expected to cause a mean temperature increase of 2 °C. We applied a multivariate climate envelope approach and evaluated model performance using the most comprehensive bird data set. The results were encouraging, although model performance was inconsistent in the eastern coastal area of the country. The levels of climate change induced impacts on species ranges varied from little impact to local extinction. Some 17% of species expanded their ranges, 78% displayed range contraction (4–98%), 3% showed no response and 2% became locally extinct. The majority of range shifts (41%) were in an easterly direction, reflecting the east–west aridity gradient across the country. Species losses were highest in the west. Substantially smaller westward shifts were present in some eastern species. This may reflect a response to the strong altitudinal gradient in this region, or may be a model artifact. Species range change (composite measure reflecting range contraction and displacement) identified selected species that could act as climate change indicator taxa. Red‐data and vulnerable species showed similar responses but were more likely to display range change (58% vs. 43% for all species). Predictions suggest that the flagship, Kruger National Park conservation area may loose up to 66% of the species included in this analysis. This highlights the extent of the predicted range shifts, and indicates why conflicts between conservation and other land uses are likely to escalate under conditions of climate change.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
DeLong, E. R., DeLong, D. M., & Clarke-Pearson, D. L. (1988) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2531595 · Cited by 22,649
A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models
FIELDING, A. H., & BELL, J. F. (1997) · Environmental Conservation · doi:10.1017/s0376892997000088 · Cited by 6,956
Biological response to climate change on a tropical mountain
Pounds, J. A., Fogden, M. P. L., & Campbell, J. H. (1999) · Nature · doi:10.1038/19297 · Cited by 1,429
Cited by
Accelerating extinction risk from climate change
Urban, M. C. (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aaa4984 · Cited by 2,436
Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: A review of 22 years of recommendations
Heller, N. E., & Zavaleta, E. S. (2009) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.10.006 · Cited by 1,510
Human impacts on the rates of recent, present, and future bird extinctions
Pimm, S., Raven, P., Peterson, A., Şekercioğlu, Ç. H., & Ehrlich, P. R. (2006) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0604181103 · Cited by 342
PEARCE‐HIGGINS, J. W., DENNIS, P., WHITTINGHAM, M. J., & YALDEN, D. W. (2010) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01883.x · Cited by 147
Weyer, N. M. (2018) · Unpublished · doi:10.13140/rg.2.2.11625.40809 · Cited by 5
Metadata
- Authors
- Erasmus, B. F. N., Van Jaarsveld, A. S., Chown, S. L., Kshatriya, M., & Wessels, K. J.
- Venue
- Global Change Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-06-07
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 679-693
- ISSN
- 1354-1013 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2486
- OpenAlex
- W2127304314
- Cited by
- 342
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 11.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Vulnerability of South African animal taxa to climate change. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2002.00502.x
- The paper
- Erasmus, B. F. N., Van Jaarsveld, A. S., Chown, S. L., Kshatriya, M., & Wessels, K. J. (2002). Vulnerability of South African animal taxa to climate change. Global Change Biology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2002.00502.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.