The DOI matches its Crossref record; 71 of the 71 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Climate change and the global redistribution of biodiversity: substantial variation in empirical support for expected range shifts
Open accessAbstract
Background: Among 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. Methods: We 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 findings: We 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). Conclusions: Despite 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.
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 globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems
Parmesan, C., & Yohe, G. (2003) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature01286 · Cited by 11,265
Ecological responses to recent climate change.
Walther, G.-R., Post, E., Convey, P., Menzel, A., Parmesan, C., Beebee, T. J. C., Fromentin, J.-M., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., & Bairlein, F. (2002) · Nature · doi:10.1038/416389a · Cited by 9,975
Rapid Range Shifts of Species Associated with High Levels of Climate Warming
Chen, I.-C., Hill, J. K., Ohlemüller, R., Roy, D. B., & Thomas, C. D. (2011) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1206432 · Cited by 5,518
Status and Trends of Amphibian Declines and Extinctions Worldwide
Stuart, S. N., Chanson, J. S., Cox, N. A., Young, B. E., Rodrigues, A. S. L., Fischman, D. L., & Waller, R. W. (2004) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1103538 · Cited by 4,508
Impacts of climate change on the future of biodiversity
Bellard, C., Bertelsmeier, C., Leadley, P., Thuiller, W., & Courchamp, F. (2012) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01736.x · Cited by 4,234
Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: Impacts on ecosystems and human well-being
Pecl, G. T., Araújo, M. B., Bell, J. D., Blanchard, J., Bonebrake, T. C., Chen, I.-C., Clark, T. D., Colwell, R. K., Danielsen, F., Evengård, B., et al. (2017) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aai9214 · Cited by 3,668
Self-citationThe biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection
Pimm, S. L., Jenkins, C. N., Abell, R., Brooks, T. M., Gittleman, J. L., Joppa, L. N., Raven, P. H., Roberts, C. M., & Sexton, J. O. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1246752 · Cited by 3,542 · cited 1×
“In particular, amphibians are declining globally [80, 81], and so lack of shifts to follow changing climate drivers may be especially concerning.”
BackgroundUtilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions
Schardt, C., Adams, M. B., Owens, T., Keitz, S., & Fontelo, P. (2007) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/1472-6947-7-16 · Cited by 3,053
Biological consequences of global warming: is the signal already apparent?
Hughes, L. (2000) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/s0169-5347(99)01764-4 · Cited by 2,106
Greenhalgh, T., & Peacock, R. (2005) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.38636.593461.68 · Cited by 2,045 · cited 1×
“We used the snowball method [40], whereby we reviewed the cited literature within each article that passed title/ Search Term ((“climate” OR “global warming” OR "temperature" OR "precipita(cid:9)on") AND (“range” OR “distribu(cid:9)on” OR “habitat extent” OR “occupancy”) AND (“species”))…”
Metadata
- Authors
- Rubenstein, M. A., Weiskopf, S. R., Bertrand, R., Carter, S. L., Comte, L., Eaton, M. J., Johnson, C. G., Lenoir, J., Lynch, A. J., Miller, B. W., Morelli, T. L., Rodriguez, M. A., Terando, A., & Thompson, L. M.
- Venue
- Environmental Evidence
- Published
- 2023-04-11
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 7-7
- ISSN
- 2047-2382 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4363679403
- Cited by
- 268
- References
- 71
- FWCI
- 103.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Climate change and the global redistribution of biodiversity: substantial variation in empirical support for expected range shifts. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s13750-023-00296-0
- The paper
- Rubenstein, M. A., Weiskopf, S. R., Bertrand, R., Carter, S. L., Comte, L., Eaton, M. J., Johnson, C. G., Lenoir, J., Lynch, A. J., Miller, B. W., Morelli, T. L., Rodriguez, M. A., Terando, A., & Thompson, L. M. (2023). Climate change and the global redistribution of biodiversity: substantial variation in empirical support for expected range shifts. Environmental Evidence. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-023-00296-0
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.