The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How much does climate change threaten European forest tree species distributions?
Abstract
Although numerous species distribution models have been developed, most were based on insufficient distribution data or used older climate change scenarios. We aimed to quantify changes in projected ranges and threat level by the years 2061–2080, for 12 European forest tree species under three climate change scenarios. We combined tree distribution data from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility, EUFORGEN, and forest inventories, and we developed species distribution models using MaxEnt and 19 bioclimatic variables. Models were developed for three climate change scenarios—optimistic (RCP 2.6), moderate (RCP 4.5), and pessimistic (RPC 8.5)—using three General Circulation Models, for the period 2061–2080. Our study revealed different responses of tree species to projected climate change. The species may be divided into three groups: “winners”—mostly late‐successional species: Abies alba, Fagus sylvatica, Fraxinus excelsior, Quercus robur, and Quercus petraea; “losers”—mostly pioneer species: Betula pendula, Larix decidua, Picea abies, and Pinus sylvestris; and alien species—Pseudotsuga menziesii, Quercus rubra, and Robinia pseudoacacia, which may be also considered as “winners.” Assuming limited migration, most of the species studied would face a significant decrease in suitable habitat area. The threat level was highest for species that currently have the northernmost distribution centers. Ecological consequences of the projected range contractions would be serious for both forest management and nature conservation.
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
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
A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists
Elith, J., Phillips, S. J., Hastie, T., Dudík, M., Chee, Y. E., & Yates, C. J. (2011) · Diversity and Distributions · doi:10.1111/j.1472-4642.2010.00725.x · Cited by 6,699
Hutchinson, G. E. (1957) · Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology · doi:10.1101/sqb.1957.022.01.039 · Cited by 6,228
Pearson, R. G., & Dawson, T. P. (2003) · Global Ecology and Biogeography · doi:10.1046/j.1466-822x.2003.00042.x · Cited by 4,252
Increasing forest disturbances in Europe and their impact on carbon storage
Seidl, R., Schelhaas, M.-J., Rammer, W., & Verkerk, P. J. (2014) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate2318 · Cited by 1,224
Europe’s forest management did not mitigate climate warming
Naudts, K., Chen, Y., McGrath, M. J., Ryder, J., Valade, A., Otto, J., & Luyssaert, S. (2016) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aad7270 · Cited by 421
Brundu, G., & Richardson, D. M. (2016) · NeoBiota · doi:10.3897/neobiota.30.7015 · Cited by 176
Cited by
Uncertainty in ensembles of global biodiversity scenarios
Thuiller, W., Guéguen, M., Renaud, J., Karger, D. N., & Zimmermann, N. E. (2019) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-019-09519-w · Cited by 513
Tullus, A., Rusalepp, L., Lutter, R., Rosenvald, K., Kaasik, A., Rytter, L., Kontunen-Soppela, S., & Oksanen, E. (2021) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2021.746165 · Cited by 20
Metadata
- Authors
- Dyderski, M. K., Paź, S., Frelich, L. E., & Jagodziński, A. M.
- Venue
- Global Change Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2017-10-30
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 1150-1163
- ISSN
- 1354-1013 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2486
- OpenAlex
- W2763250374
- Cited by
- 929
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 23.83
- 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: How much does climate change threaten European forest tree species distributions? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/gcb.13925
- The paper
- Dyderski, M. K., Paź, S., Frelich, L. E., & Jagodziński, A. M. (2018). How much does climate change threaten European forest tree species distributions? Global Change Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13925
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.