By the same authors

From the same journal

From the same journal

Climate change vulnerability for species—Assessing the assessments

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Standard

Climate change vulnerability for species—Assessing the assessments. / Wheatley, Christopher J.; Beale, Colin M.; Bradbury, Richard B.; Pearce-Higgins, James W.; Critchlow, Rob; Thomas, Chris D.

In: Global Change Biology, Vol. 23, No. 9, 01.09.2017, p. 3704-3715.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

Wheatley, CJ, Beale, CM, Bradbury, RB, Pearce-Higgins, JW, Critchlow, R & Thomas, CD 2017, 'Climate change vulnerability for species—Assessing the assessments', Global Change Biology, vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 3704-3715. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13759

APA

Wheatley, C. J., Beale, C. M., Bradbury, R. B., Pearce-Higgins, J. W., Critchlow, R., & Thomas, C. D. (2017). Climate change vulnerability for species—Assessing the assessments. Global Change Biology, 23(9), 3704-3715. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13759

Vancouver

Wheatley CJ, Beale CM, Bradbury RB, Pearce-Higgins JW, Critchlow R, Thomas CD. Climate change vulnerability for species—Assessing the assessments. Global Change Biology. 2017 Sep 1;23(9):3704-3715. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13759

Author

Wheatley, Christopher J. ; Beale, Colin M. ; Bradbury, Richard B. ; Pearce-Higgins, James W. ; Critchlow, Rob ; Thomas, Chris D. / Climate change vulnerability for species—Assessing the assessments. In: Global Change Biology. 2017 ; Vol. 23, No. 9. pp. 3704-3715.

Bibtex - Download

@article{70cce4018de94056b9307dab08270788,
title = "Climate change vulnerability for species—Assessing the assessments",
abstract = "Climate change vulnerability assessments are commonly used to identify species at risk from global climate change, but the wide range of methodologies available makes it difficult for end users, such as conservation practitioners or policymakers, to decide which method to use as a basis for decision-making. In this study, we evaluate whether different assessments consistently assign species to the same risk categories and whether any of the existing methodologies perform well at identifying climate-threatened species. We compare the outputs of 12 climate change vulnerability assessment methodologies, using both real and simulated species, and validate the methods using historic data for British birds and butterflies (i.e. using historical data to assign risks and more recent data for validation). Our results show that the different vulnerability assessment methods are not consistent with one another; different risk categories are assigned for both the real and simulated sets of species. Validation of the different vulnerability assessments suggests that methods incorporating historic trend data into the assessment perform best at predicting distribution trends in subsequent time periods. This study demonstrates that climate change vulnerability assessments should not be used interchangeably due to the poor overall agreement between methods when considering the same species. The results of our validation provide more support for the use of trend-based rather than purely trait-based approaches, although further validation will be required as data become available.",
keywords = "biodiversity, climate change, conservation prioritization, policy, risk assessment, species conservation, vulnerability assessment",
author = "Wheatley, {Christopher J.} and Beale, {Colin M.} and Bradbury, {Richard B.} and Pearce-Higgins, {James W.} and Rob Critchlow and Thomas, {Chris D.}",
note = "{\circledC} 2017 The Authors.",
year = "2017",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/gcb.13759",
language = "English",
volume = "23",
pages = "3704--3715",
journal = "Global Change Biology",
issn = "1354-1013",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "9",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) - Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - Climate change vulnerability for species—Assessing the assessments

AU - Wheatley, Christopher J.

AU - Beale, Colin M.

AU - Bradbury, Richard B.

AU - Pearce-Higgins, James W.

AU - Critchlow, Rob

AU - Thomas, Chris D.

N1 - © 2017 The Authors.

PY - 2017/9/1

Y1 - 2017/9/1

N2 - Climate change vulnerability assessments are commonly used to identify species at risk from global climate change, but the wide range of methodologies available makes it difficult for end users, such as conservation practitioners or policymakers, to decide which method to use as a basis for decision-making. In this study, we evaluate whether different assessments consistently assign species to the same risk categories and whether any of the existing methodologies perform well at identifying climate-threatened species. We compare the outputs of 12 climate change vulnerability assessment methodologies, using both real and simulated species, and validate the methods using historic data for British birds and butterflies (i.e. using historical data to assign risks and more recent data for validation). Our results show that the different vulnerability assessment methods are not consistent with one another; different risk categories are assigned for both the real and simulated sets of species. Validation of the different vulnerability assessments suggests that methods incorporating historic trend data into the assessment perform best at predicting distribution trends in subsequent time periods. This study demonstrates that climate change vulnerability assessments should not be used interchangeably due to the poor overall agreement between methods when considering the same species. The results of our validation provide more support for the use of trend-based rather than purely trait-based approaches, although further validation will be required as data become available.

AB - Climate change vulnerability assessments are commonly used to identify species at risk from global climate change, but the wide range of methodologies available makes it difficult for end users, such as conservation practitioners or policymakers, to decide which method to use as a basis for decision-making. In this study, we evaluate whether different assessments consistently assign species to the same risk categories and whether any of the existing methodologies perform well at identifying climate-threatened species. We compare the outputs of 12 climate change vulnerability assessment methodologies, using both real and simulated species, and validate the methods using historic data for British birds and butterflies (i.e. using historical data to assign risks and more recent data for validation). Our results show that the different vulnerability assessment methods are not consistent with one another; different risk categories are assigned for both the real and simulated sets of species. Validation of the different vulnerability assessments suggests that methods incorporating historic trend data into the assessment perform best at predicting distribution trends in subsequent time periods. This study demonstrates that climate change vulnerability assessments should not be used interchangeably due to the poor overall agreement between methods when considering the same species. The results of our validation provide more support for the use of trend-based rather than purely trait-based approaches, although further validation will be required as data become available.

KW - biodiversity

KW - climate change

KW - conservation prioritization

KW - policy

KW - risk assessment

KW - species conservation

KW - vulnerability assessment

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85026737738&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/gcb.13759

DO - 10.1111/gcb.13759

M3 - Article

VL - 23

SP - 3704

EP - 3715

JO - Global Change Biology

JF - Global Change Biology

SN - 1354-1013

IS - 9

ER -