Climatic Change

, Volume 134, Issue 4, pp 579–591 | Cite as

Advances in climate models from CMIP3 to CMIP5 do not change predictions of future habitat suitability for California reptiles and amphibians

  • Amber N. Wright
  • Mark W. Schwartz
  • Robert J. Hijmans
  • H. Bradley Shaffer


Understanding how predicted species responses to climate change are affected by advances in climate modeling is important for determining the frequency with which vulnerability assessments need to be updated. We used ecological niche models to compare predicted climatic habitat suitability for 132 species of reptiles and amphibians in California, USA under the previous and current generations of climate simulations from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP3 and CMIP5). We used data from seven global climate models for future (2014–2060) predictions under the following greenhouse gas emissions scenarios: SRES A2 for CMIP3 and RCP 8.5 for CMIP5. Ensembles of these climate models predicted a warmer and slightly wetter future California on average: CMIP3 + 2 °C mean annual temperature, +15 mm annual precipitation, CMIP5 + 2.5 °C mean annual temperature, +24 mm annual precipitation. CMIP3 and CMIP5 ensembles differed in where precipitation changes were predicted to be largest, with CMIP3 predicting greatest increased precipitation in the northern deserts and CMIP5 predicting greatest increased precipitation in the northern mountains. Under both sets of climate models (CMIP3 and CMIP5), mean habitat suitability within species ranges was predicted to decrease in the future. The degree of predicted decline was similar on average for CMIP3 and CMIP5, −15 % and −13 % respectively, suggesting that conclusions drawn from previous studies using ensembles of CMIP3 models are robust, at least for California. However, the effect of CMIP3 vs. CMIP5 on future mean habitat suitability depended strongly on which GCM was used: three GCMs predicted little change in future habitat suitability between CMIP3 and CMIP5 (MIROC, CNRM, GFDL), three predicted greater reductions in habitat suitability under CMIP3 (MPI, GISS, IPSL), and one predicted greater reductions in habitat suitability under CMIP5 (MRI). We conclude that habitat suitability assessments under CMIP3 made using more than 3 GCMs are likely to remain broadly applicable, while those made using 3 or fewer may be conservation priorities for re-evaluation under CMIP5.


Future Climate Habitat Suitability Mojave Desert Climate Change Risk Future Climate Projection 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This work was funded by the U.S. Department of the Interior Southwest Climate Science Center, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Nongame Wildlife Program via a State 2006-07 One-Time General Fund Augmentation for Nongame Fish and Wildlife Trust Resources, and State Wildlife Grant T-28-R-1 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Supplementary material

10584_2015_1552_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (536 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 535 kb)
10584_2015_1552_MOESM1_ESM.csv (193 kb)
ESM 2 (CSV 192 kb)


  1. Araújo MB, New M (2007) Ensemble forecasting of species distributions. Trends Ecol Evol 22:42–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Araújo MB, Thuiller W, Pearson RG (2006) Climate warming and the decline of amphibians and reptiles in Europe. J Biogeogr 33:1712–1728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2014) lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.0–6Google Scholar
  4. Beaumont LJ, Hughes L, Pitman AJ (2008) Why is the choice of future climate scenarios for species distribution modelling important? Ecol Lett 11:1135–1146Google Scholar
  5. Conant R, Collins JT (1998) A field guide to reptiles & amphibians: eastern and central North America. Houghton Mifflin CompanyGoogle Scholar
  6. Dufresne JL, Foujols MA, Denvil S, et al. (2013) Climate change projections using the IPSL-CM5 earth system model: from CMIP3 to CMIP5. Clim Dyn 40:2123–2165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Elith J, Leathwick JR (2009) Species distribution models: ecological explanation and prediction across space and time. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 40:677–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Elith J, Phillips SJ, Hastie T, Dudik M, Chee YE, Yates CJ (2011) A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists. Divers Distrib 17:43–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Franklin J (2010) Mapping species distributions: spatial inference and prediction. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  10. Graham CH, Hijmans RJ (2006) A comparison of methods for mapping species ranges and species richness. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 15:578–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Guisan A, Rahbek C (2011) SESAM–a new framework integrating macroecological and species distribution models for predicting spatio-temporal patterns of species assemblages. J BiogeogrGoogle Scholar
  12. Hawkins E, Sutton R (2009) The potential to narrow uncertainty in regional climate predictions. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 90:1095–1107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hijmans RJ, Cameron SE, Parra JL, Jones PG, Jarvis A (2005) Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int J Climatol 25:1965–1978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hijmans RJ, Phillips S, Leathwick J, Elith J (2013). dismo: Species distribution modeling. R package version 0.9–3Google Scholar
  15. Hof C, Araújo MB, Jetz W, Rahbek C (2011) Additive threats from pathogens, climate and land-use change for global amphibian diversity. Nature 480:516–519Google Scholar
  16. Kearney MR, Wintle BA, Porter WP (2010) Correlative and mechanistic models of species distribution provide congruent forecasts under climate change. Conserv Lett 3:203–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Knutti R, Sedláček J (2012) Robustness and uncertainties in the new CMIP5 climate model projections. Nat Clim Chang 3:369–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kuznetsova A, Brockhoff PB, Christensen RHB (2013) lmerTest: Tests for random and fixed effects for linear mixed effect models (lmer objects of lme4 package) R package version 1.2–0Google Scholar
  19. Leemans R, Solomon AM (1993) Modeling the potential change in yield and distribution of the earth’s crops under a warmed climate. Clim Res 3:79–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McKenney DW, Pedlar JH, Rood RB, Price D (2011) Revisiting projected shifts in the climate envelopes of north American trees using updated general circulation models. Glob Chang Biol 17:2720–2730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Meehl GA, Covey C, McAvaney B, Latif M, Stouffer RJ (2005) Overview of the coupled model intercomparison project. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 86:89–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Milanovich JR, PetermanWE NNP, Maerz JC (2010) Projected loss of a salamander diversity hotspot as a consequence of projected global climate change. PLoS One 5:e12189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moss RH, Edmonds JA, Hibbard KA, Manning MR, Rose SK, van Vuuren DP, Carter TR, Emoir S, Kainuma M, Kram T, Meehl GA, Mitchell JFB, Nakicenovic N, Riahi K, Smith SJ, Stouffer RJ, Thomson AM, Weyant JP, Wilbanks TJ (2010) The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature 463:747–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nakicenovic N, Alcamo J, Davis G, de Vries B (2000) Special report on emissions scenarios: a special report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeGoogle Scholar
  25. Ochoa-Ochoa LM, Rodríguez P, Mora F, Flores-Villela O, Whittaker RJ (2012) Climate change and amphibian diversity patterns in Mexico. Biol Conserv 150:94–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pearson RG, Raxworthy CJ, Nakamura M, Townsend Peterson A (2007) Predicting species distributions from small numbers of occurrence records: a test case using cryptic geckos in Madagascar. J Biogeogr 34:102–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Peters GP, Andrew RM, Boden T, Candell JG, Ciasis P, Le Quéré C, Marland G, Raupach MR, Wilson C (2012) The challenge to keep global warming below 2 °C. Nat Clim Chang 3:4–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Peterson AT, Soberón J, Pearson RG, Anderson RP, Martinez-Meyer E, Nakamura M, Araújo MB (2011) Ecological niches and geographic distributions. Princeton University Press Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  29. Phillips SJ, Dudík M (2008) Modeling of species distributions with Maxent: new extensions and a comprehensive evaluation. Ecography 31:161–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Phillips SJ, Anderson RP, Schapire RE (2006) Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol Model 190:231–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Phillips SJ, Dudík M, Elith J, Graham CH, Lehmann A, Leathwick J, Ferrier S (2009) Sample selection bias and presence-only distribution models: implications for background and pseudo-absence data. Ecol Appl 19:181–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. R Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  33. Ramirez J, Jarvis A (2008) High resolution statistically downscaled future climate surfaces. International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT); CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). Cali, ColombiaGoogle Scholar
  34. Reichler T, Kim J (2008) How well do coupled models simulate today's climate? Bull Am Meteorol Soc 89:303–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rogelj J, Meinshausen M, Knutti R (2012) Global warming under old and new scenarios using IPCC climate sensitivity range estimates. Nat Clim Chang 2:248–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rowland EL, Davison JE, Graumlich LJ (2011) Approaches to evaluating climate change impacts on species: a guide to initiating the adaptation planning process. Environ Manag 47:322–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stebbins RC (2003) A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. Houghton Mifflin HarcourtGoogle Scholar
  38. Taylor KE, Stouffer RJ, Meehl GA (2012) An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 93:485–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thorne JH, Seo C, Basabose A, Gray M, Belfiore NM, Hijmans RJ (2013) Alternative biological assumptions strongly influence models of climate change effects on mountain gorillas. Ecosphere 4:art108Google Scholar
  40. Trenberth K (2010) More knowledge, less certainty. Nature Reports Clim Change 4:20–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vuuren DP, Edmonds J, Kainuma M, et al. (2011) The representative concentration pathways: an overview. Clim Chang 109:5–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Warren DL, Seifert SN (2011) Ecological niche modeling in Maxent: the importance of model complexity and the performance of model selection criteria. Ecol Appl 21:335–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Warren DL, Wright AN, Seifert SN, Shaffer HB (2014) Incorporating model complexity and spatial sampling bias into ecological niche models of climate change risks faced by California vertebrate species of concern. Divers Distrib 20:334–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wright AN, Hijmans RJ, Schwartz MW, Shaffer, HB (2013) California amphibian and reptile species of future concern: conservation and climate change Final Report to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Nongame Wildlife Program, Task 12, Contract No P0685904Google Scholar
  45. Wright AN, Hijmans RJ, Schwartz MW, Shaffer H (2015) Multiple sources of uncertainty affect metrics for ranking conservation risk under climate change. Divers Distrib 21:111–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amber N. Wright
    • 1
    • 2
  • Mark W. Schwartz
    • 3
  • Robert J. Hijmans
    • 3
  • H. Bradley Shaffer
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Evolution and EcologyUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of Hawai’i at MānoaHonoluluUSA
  3. 3.Department of Environmental Science and PolicyUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  4. 4.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and La Kretz Center for California Conservation ScienceUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations