Phylogeny predicts future habitat shifts due to climate change

PLoS One. 2014 Jun 3;9(6):e98907. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0098907. eCollection 2014.

Abstract

Background: Taxa may respond differently to climatic changes, depending on phylogenetic or ecological effects, but studies that discern among these alternatives are scarce. Here, we use two species pairs from globally distributed spider clades, each pair representing two lifestyles (generalist, specialist) to test the relative importance of phylogeny versus ecology in predicted responses to climate change.

Methodology: We used a recent phylogenetic hypothesis for nephilid spiders to select four species from two genera (Nephilingis and Nephilengys) that match the above criteria, are fully allopatric but combined occupy all subtropical-tropical regions. Based on their records, we modeled each species niche spaces and predicted their ecological shifts 20, 40, 60, and 80 years into the future using customized GIS tools and projected climatic changes.

Conclusions: Phylogeny better predicts the species current ecological preferences than do lifestyles. By 2080 all species face dramatic reductions in suitable habitat (54.8-77.1%) and adapt by moving towards higher altitudes and latitudes, although at different tempos. Phylogeny and life style explain simulated habitat shifts in altitude, but phylogeny is the sole best predictor of latitudinal shifts. Models incorporating phylogenetic relatedness are an important additional tool to predict accurately biotic responses to global change.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Animals
  • Biodiversity*
  • Climate Change*
  • Ecosystem*
  • Environment
  • Models, Theoretical
  • Phylogeny*
  • Spiders / classification

Grants and funding

This research was supported in part by a Raffles Museum for Biodiversity Research (RMBR) Short-term Fellowship and the grants P10236, BI-US/09-12-016 and MU-PROM/12-001 from the Slovenian Research Agency to M.K. and by the NSFC grant (31272324) and Singapore Ministry of Education (MOE) AcRF grant (R-154-000-476-112) to D.L. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.