Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Potential colonization of newly available tree-species habitat under climate change: An analysis for five eastern US species

  • Research article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We used a combination of two models, DISTRIB and SHIFT, to estimate potential migration of five tree species into suitable habitat due to climate change over the next 100 years. These species, currently confined to the eastern half of the United States and not extending into Canada, are Diospyros virginiana (persimmon), Liquidambar styraciflua (sweetgum), Oxydendrum arboreum (sourwood), Pinus taeda (loblolly pine), and Quercus falcata var. falcata (southern red oak). DISTRIB uses a statistical approach to assess potential suitable habitat under equilibrium of 2 × CO2. SHIFT uses a cellular automata approach to estimate migration and is driven primarily by the abundance of the species near the boundary, forest density inside and outside of the boundary, and distance between cells. For each cell outside the current boundary, SHIFT creates an estimate of the probability that each unoccupied target cell will become colonized over 100 years. By evaluating the probability of colonization within the potential ‘new’ suitable habitat, we can estimate the proportion of new habitat that might be colonized within a century. This proportion is low (<15%) for all five species, suggesting that there is a serious lag between the potential movement of suitable habitat and the potential for the species to migrate into the new habitat. However, humans could hasten the migration of certain species by physically moving the propagules, especially for certain rare species that are unable to move sufficiently through fragmented landscapes, or even more common species, e.g., beech, that have lost many of their animal dispersers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aber J., Neilson R.P., McNulty S., Lenihan J.M., Bachelet D. and Drapek R.J. 2001. Forest processes and global environmental change: predicting the effects of individual and multiple stressors. BioScience 51: 735–751.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aber J.D., Ollinger S.V., Federer C.A., Reich P.B., Goulden M.L., Kicklighter D.W., Melillo J.M. and Lathrop R.G. Jr. 1995. Predicting the effects of climate change on water yield and forest production in the northeastern United States. Climate Research 5: 207–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachelet D., Lenihan J.M., Daly C., Neilson R.P., Ojima D.S. and Parton W.J. 2001a. MC1: a dynamic vegetation model for estmating the distribution of vegetation and associated carbon, nutrients, and water. Gen. Tech. Rep. 508. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachelet D., Neilson R.P., Lenihan J.M. and Drapek R.J. 2001b. Climate change effects on vegetation distribution and carbon budget in the United States. Ecosystems 4: 164–185.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Boer G.J., Flato G.M. and Ramsden D. 2000. A transient climate change simulation with historical and projected greenhouse gas and aerosol forcing: projected climate for the 21st century. Climate Dynamics 16: 427–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Box E.O., Crumpacker D.W. and Hardin E.D. 1999. Predicted effects of climatic change on distribution of ecologically important native tree and shrub species in Florida. Climatic Change 41: 213–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns R.M. and Honkala B.H. (tech. coords). 1990a. Silvics of North America: 1. Conifers. Agric. Handb. 654. US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns R.M. and Honkala B.H. (tech. coords). 1990b. Silvics of North America: 2. Hardwoods. Agric. Handb. 654. US Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carey P.D. 1996. DISPERSE: a cellular automaton for predicting the distribution of species in a changed climate. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters 5: 217–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark J.S. 1998. Why trees migrate so fast: confronting theory with dispersal biology and the paleorecord. American Naturalist 152: 204–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark J.S., Silman M., Kern R., Macklin E. and HilleRisLambers J. 1999. Seed dispersal near and far: patterns across temperate and tropical forests. Ecology 80(5): 1475–1494.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark J.S., Lewis M., McLachlan J.S. and HilleRisLambers J. 2003. Esitmating population spread: what can we forecast and how well? Ecology 84: 1979–1988.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dale V.H. 1997. The relationship between land-use change and climate change. Ecological Applications 7: 753–769.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dale V.H., Joyce L.A., McNulty S., Neilson R.P., Ayres M.P., Flannigan M.D., Hanson P.J., Irland L.C., Lugo A.E., Peterson C.J., Simberloff D., Swanson F.J., Stocks B.J. and Wotton B.M. 2001. Climate change and forest disturbances. BioScience 51: 723–734.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis A.J., Jenkinson L.S., Lawton J.H., Shorrocks B. and Wood S. 1998. Making mistakes when predicting shifts in species range in response to global warming. Nature 391: 783–786.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Davis M.B. 1981. Quaternary history and the stability of forest communities. In D.C. West and H.H. Shugart (eds). Forest succession: concepts and application, pp. 132–153. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis M.B. 1989. Lags in vegetation response to greenhouse warming. Climate Change 15: 75–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis M.B. and Zabinski C. 1992. Changes in geographical range resulting from greenhouse warming: Effects on biodiversity in forests. In R.L. Peters and T.E. Lovejoy (eds). Global warming and biological diversity, pp. 297–308. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeHayes D.H., Jacobson G.L., Schaber P.G., Bongarten B., Iverson L.R. and Kieffenbacker-Krall A. 2000. Forest responses to changing climate: Lessons from the past and uncertainty for the future. In Mickler R.A., Birdsey R.A. and Hom J.L. (eds). Responses of northern forests to environmental change, pp. 495–540. Ecol. Stud. Ser. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delcourt H.R. and Delcourt P.A. 1988. Quaternary landscape ecology: relevant scales in space and time. Landscape Ecology 2: 23–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Devall M.S. and Parresol B.R. 1998. Effects of global climate change on biodiversity in forests of the southern United States. In R.A. Mickler and S. Fox (eds). The productivity and sustainability of southern forest ecosystems in a changing environment, pp. 663–668. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer J.M. 1995. Assessment of climatic warming using a model of forest species migration. Ecological Modelling 79: 199–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gear A.J. and Huntley B. 1991. Rapid changes in the range limits of Scots pine 4000 years ago. Science 251: 544–547.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guisan A. and Theurillat J.P. 2000. Equilibrium modelling of alpine plant distribution and climate change: how far can we go? Phytocoenologia 30: 353–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen A.J., Neilson R.P., Dale V.H., Flather C.H., Iverson L.R., Currie D.J., Shafer S., Cook R. and Bartlein P.J. 2001. Global change in forests: responses of species, communities, and biomes. BioScience 51: 765–779.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen M.H., Frieswyk T., Glover J.F. and Kelly J.F. 1992. The Eastwide forest inventory data base: users manual. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-151. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. St. Paul, MN.

    Google Scholar 

  • He H.S., Mladenoff D.J. and Crow T.R. 1999. Linking an ecosystem model and a landscape model to study forest species response to climate warming. Ecological Modelling 114: 213–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins S.I. and Richardson D.M. 1999. Predicting plant migration rates in a changing world: the role of long-distance dispersal. American Naturalist 153: 464–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins S.I, Clark J.S., Nathan R., Hovestadt T., Schurr F., Fragoso J.M.V., Ribbens M.R., Aguiar E. and Lavorel S. 2003a. Forecasting plant migration rates: Managing uncertainty for risk assessment [Review]. Journal of Ecology 91: 341–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins S.I., Lavorel S. and Revilla E. 2003b. Estimating plant migration rates under habitat loss and fragmentation. Oikos 101: 354–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Houghton J.T., Meira Filho L.G., Callander B.A., Harris N., Kattenberg A. and Maskell K. 1996. Climate change 1995: The science of climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes L. 2000. Biological consequences of global warming: is the signal already apparent? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15: 56–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hunsaker C.T., Goodchild M.F., Friedl M.A. and Case T.J. 2001. Spatial uncertainty in ecology. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huntley B., Berry P., Cramer W. and McDonald A.P. 1995. Modelling present and potential future ranges of some European higher plants using climate response surfaces. Journal of Biogeography 22: 967–1001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iverson L.R., Cook E.A. and Graham R.L. 1989. A technique for extrapolating and validating forest cover data across large regions: calibrating AVHRR data with TM. International Journal of Remote Sensing 10: 1805–1812.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iverson L.R., Cook E.A. and Graham R.L. 1994. Regional forest cover estimation via remote sensing: the calibration center concept. Landscape Ecology 9: 159–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iverson L.R. and Prasad A.M. 1998. Predicting abundance of 80 tree species following climate change in the eastern United States. Ecological Monographs 68: 465–485.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iverson L.R. and Prasad A.M. 2002. Potential tree species shifts with five climate change scenarios in the Eastern United States. Forest Ecology and Management 155: 205–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iverson L.R., Prasad A.M., Hale B.J. and Sutherland E.K. 1999a. An atlas of current and potential future distributions of common trees of the eastern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-265. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Newtown Square, Pennsylvania, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iverson L.R., Prasad A.M. and Schwartz M.W. 1999b. Modeling potential future individual tree-species distributions in the Eastern United States under a climate change scenario: a case study with Pinus virginiana. Ecological Modelling 115: 77–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iverson L.R., Schwartz M.W. and Prasad A., 2004. How fast and far might tree species migrate under climate change in the eastern United States? Global Ecology and Biogeography 13: 209–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joyce L.A. and Birdsey R. (tech. eds). 2000. The impact of climate change on America’s forests: A technical document supporting the 2000 USDA Forest Service RPA Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. 59. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirilenko A.P., Belotelov N.V. and Bogatyrev B.G. 2000. Global model of vegetation migration: incorporation of climatic variability. Ecological Modelling 132: 125–133.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kirilenko A.P. and Solomon A.M. 1998. Modeling dynamic vegetation response to rapid climate change using bioclimatic classification. Climatic Change 38: 15–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirschbaum M.U.F. 2000. Forest growth and species distribution in a changing climate. Tree Physiology 20: 309–322.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Little E.L. 1971. Atlas of United States trees. Volume 1. Conifers and important hardwoods. Misc. Publ. 1146. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Washington, DC, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loehl C. 1998. Height growth rate tradeoffs determine northern and southern range limits for trees. Journal of Biogeography 25: 735–742.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur R.H. 1972. Geographical ecology: patterns in the distribution of species. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malcolm J.R., Markham A., Neilson R.P. and Garaci M. 2002. Estimated migration rates under scenarios of global climate change. Journal of Biogeography 29: 835–849.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malcolm J.R. and Pitelka L.F. 2000. Ecosystems and global climate change: A review of potential impacts on U.S. terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity. Pew Center on Climate Change, Arlington, VA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matlack G.R. 1994. Plant species migration in a mixed-history forest landscape in eastern North America. Ecology 75: 1491–1502.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy J.J., Canziani O.F., Leary N.A., Dokken D.J. and White K.S. (eds) 2001. Climate change 2001: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the third asssesment report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melillo J.M., Callaghan T.V., Woodward F.I., Salati E. and Sinha S.K. 1990. Effects on ecosystems. In Houghton J.T., Jenkins G.J. and Ephraums J.J. (eds). Climate change: The IPCC scientific assessment, pp. 283–310. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melillo J.M., Prentice I.C., Farquhar G.D., Schulze E.-D. and Sala O.E. 1996. Terrestrial biotic responses to environmental change and feedbacks to climate. In Houghton J.T., Meira Filho L.G., Callander B.A., Harris N., Kattenberg A. and Maskell K. (eds). Climate Change 1995: the science of climate change. Intergovernmental panel on climate change, pp. 445–481. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell J.F.B., Johns T.C., Gregory J.M. and Tett S. 1995. Climate response to increasing levels of greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols. Nature 376: 501–504.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • National Assessment Synthesis Team 2000. Climate change impacts on the United States: the potential consequences of climate variability and change. US Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Assessment Synthesis Team 2001. Climate change impacts on the United States: the potential consequences of climate variability and change. Foundation report. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neilson R.P. 1995. A model for predicting continental-scale vegetation distribution and water balance. Ecological Applications 5(2): 362–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neilson R.P., Prentice I.C. and Smith B. 1998. Simulated changes in vegetation distribution under global warming. In Watson R.T., Zinyowera M.C. and Moss R.H. (eds). The regional impacts of climate change: an assessment of vulnerability, pp. 439–456. Cambridge University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Overpeck J.T., Bartlein P.J. and Webb T. III 1991. Potential magnitude of future vegetation change in Eastern North America: comparisons with the past. Science 254: 692–695.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pastor J. and Post W.M. 1998. Response of northern forests to CO2 induced climate change. Nature 334: 55–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters R.L. 1990. Effects of global warming on forests. Forest Ecology and Management 35:13–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pielke R.A. 2002. Overlooked issues in the US national climate and IPCC assessments. An editorial essay. Climatic Change 52: 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitelka L.F. and the Plant Migration Workshop Group 1997. Plant migration and climate change. American Scientist 85: 464–473.

    Google Scholar 

  • Portnoy S. and Willson M.F. 1993. Seed dispersal curves: behavior of the tail of the distribution. Evolutionary Ecology 7: 25–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prasad A.M. and Iverson L.R. 1999. A Climate Change Atlas for 80 Forest Tree Species of the Eastern United States [database]. www.fs.fed.us/ne/delaware/atlas.

  • Schimel D., Melillo J., Tian H., McGuire A.D., Kicklighter D., Kittel T., Rosenbloom N., Running S., Thornton P., Ojima D., Parton W., Kelly R., Sykes M., Neilson R. and Rizzo B. 2000. Contribution of increasing CO2 and climate to carbon storage by ecosystems in the United States. Science 287: 2004–2006.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz M.W. 1993. Modelling effects of habitat fragmentation on the ability of trees to respond to climatic warming. Biodiversity and Conservation 2: 51–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz M.W., Iverson L.R. and Prasad A.M. 2001. Predicting the potential future distribution of four tree species in Ohio, USA, using current habitat availability and climatic forcing. Ecosystems 4: 568–581.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shigesada N. and Kawasaki K. 1997. Biological invasions: theory and practice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shriner D.S. and Street R.B. 1998. North America. In Watson R.T., Zinyowera M.C. and Moss R.H. (eds). The regional impacts of climate change: An assessment of vulnerability, pp. 253–330. Cambridge University Press, New York, New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sykes M.T. and Prentice I.C. 1996. Climate change, tree species distributions and forest dynamics: a case study in the mixed conifer norther hardwoods zone of northern Europe. Climatic Change 34: 161–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas C.D., Cameron A., Green R.E., Bakkenes M., Beaumont L.J., Collingham Y.C., Erasmus B.F., de Siqueira M.F., Grainger A., Hannah L., Hughes L., Huntley B., Van Jaarsveld A., Midgley G.F., Miles L., Ortega-Huerta M.A., Peterson A.T., Phillips O.L. and Williams S.E. 2004. Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427: 145–148.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • VEMAP Members 1995. Vegetation/ecosystem modeling and analysis project: comparing biogeography and biogeochemistry models in a continental-scale study of terrestrial ecosystem responses to climate change and CO2 doubling. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 9: 407–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson R.T., Noble I.R., Bolin B., Ravindranath N.H., Verardo D.J. and Dokken D.J. (eds). 2000. Land use, land-use change, and forestry. Special report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson D.M. 1997. Plant colonization; Are wind dispersed seeds really dispersed by birds at larger spatial and temporal scales? Journal of Biogeography 24: 61–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yates D.N., Kittel T.G.F. and Cannon R.F. 2000. Comparing the correlative Holdridge model to mechanistic biogeographical models for assessing vegetation distribution response to climatic change. Climatic Change 44: 59–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu Z. and Evans D.L. 1994. US forest types and predicted percent forest cover from AVHRR data. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 60: 525–531.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, 359 Main Road, 43015, Delaware, OH, USA

    Louis R. Iverson & Anantha M. Prasad

  2. Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California, 95616, Davis, CA, USA

    M. W. Schwartz

Authors
  1. Louis R. Iverson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. W. Schwartz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anantha M. Prasad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Louis R. Iverson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Iverson, L.R., Schwartz, M.W. & Prasad, A.M. Potential colonization of newly available tree-species habitat under climate change: An analysis for five eastern US species. Landscape Ecol 19, 787–799 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-005-3990-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-005-3990-5

Key words

Search

Navigation