Abstract

Climate change is already affecting many fish and wildlife populations. Managing these populations requires an understanding of the nature, magnitude, and distribution of current and future climate impacts. Scientists and managers have at their disposal a wide array of models for projecting climate impacts that can be used to build such an understanding. Here, we provide a broad overview of the types of models available for forecasting the effects of climate change on key processes that affect fish and wildlife habitat (hydrology, fire, and vegetation), as well as on individual species distributions and populations. We present a framework for how climate-impacts modeling can be used to address management concerns, providing examples of model-based assessments of climate impacts on salmon populations in the Pacific Northwest, fire regimes in the boreal region of Canada, prairies and savannas in the Willamette Valley-Puget Sound Trough-Georgia Basin ecoregion, and marten Martes americana populations in the northeastern United States and southeastern Canada. We also highlight some key limitations of these models and discuss how such limitations should be managed. We conclude with a general discussion of how these models can be integrated into fish and wildlife management.

Introduction

Climate change has the potential to greatly alter fish and wildlife populations and their habitats (Parry et al. 2007). Increasing temperatures and altered precipitation patterns are likely to affect species distributions as well as hydrological cycles, fire regimes, and vegetation communities. In many cases, successful fish and wildlife management will require proactive measures to address climate change. To develop these measures, managers will need a basic understanding of the ways in which ecological systems are likely to respond to climate change (Littell et al. 2011). Models that project the potential ecological effects of climate change will play a critical role in providing such an understanding. Specifically, these models can contribute to climate change vulnerability assessments, aid in the development of climate change adaptation strategies, and help in setting management priorities and goals as part of a larger and iterative planning and decision-making process (Figure 1).

Here, we provide an overview of some of the types of models that can be used to project the effects of climate change on ecological systems (summarized in Table 1), and we describe a framework for the effective use of models (Box 1). We begin with a brief discussion of climate models. We then focus on four areas of climate impacts that are critical to fish and wildlife habitat and population management: hydrology, fire, vegetation, and individual species responses. We describe the types of models that are available, discuss model limitations, and provide examples of model applications. We develop some of those examples into case studies in which we describe the methods and model interpretation in greater detail and apply a simple climate-impacts modeling framework. We conclude by making recommendations for incorporating climate-impacts modeling into fish and wildlife management, being careful to consider the limitations of existing tools. This review is a general introduction to modeling tools for projecting climate impacts. It does not provide a comprehensive review of the history or the state-of-the-art in any of the four fields of modeling. Instead, it is meant to be an accessible overview of how ecological models can potentially contribute to climate-impacts assessments.

Modeling Approaches

Climate models

General circulation models (GCMs) are numerical models that simulate the physical processes of climate. These models are the complex dynamic models upon which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has based many of its conclusions and whose outputs biologists and modelers in other fields have used to forecast potential ecological climate impacts. The GCMs used in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC AR4) were coupled atmosphere–ocean general circulation models that incorporate processes of thermal energy storage and release in the oceans as well as the atmosphere (Solomon et al. 2007). Most of these models included sea–ice dynamics and an interactive land–surface component with hydrologic effects, and some included effects of simulated vegetation. The complexity of these models derives from the physical equations used to calculate the movement of mass, momentum, and energy through the climate system and the multiple layers of the atmosphere and ocean for which energy inputs and outputs are calculated. A very simple climate model might include three layers—the sun and outer space, the Earth's atmosphere, and the Earth's surface—and model three atmospheric processes: solar radiation, thermal radiation, and absorption. The greenhouse effect is an emergent property of this system in which thermal radiation from the Earth's surface is absorbed by the atmosphere and re-radiated back toward the Earth, maintaining the surface temperature within a range suitable for life. General circulation models explicitly model energy transfer processes such as the greenhouse effect and include many more mechanisms of climate forcing and feedback. A forcing is any model input that directly impacts either the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface or the amount of thermal radiation exiting to space (Hartmann 1994). Forcings may be natural, such as aerosols of volcanic origin, or anthropogenic, such as increases in greenhouse gases due to the burning of fossil fuels. Climate feedbacks respond to changes in global mean temperature and also directly or indirectly affect the Earth's solar and thermal radiation budgets (Bony et al. 2006). Examples of feedbacks include humidity (warmer air holds more water vapor, a greenhouse gas that contributes to further warming), clouds (may result in warming or cooling depending on the cloud type), and ice– and land–surface albedo (melting ice results in additional warming because ice cools the Earth's surface by reflecting incoming solar radiation).

Limitations and uses

Variability in climate projections provides a significant challenge for modeling ecological climate impacts. Climate sensitivity is a standardized measurement used to quantify this variability. It is the change in global mean temperature that occurs when the global average surface air temperature reaches equilibrium in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 (Bony et al. 2006). Projections of climate sensitivity range from 2.0 to 4.5° C (Solomon et al. 2007), but they may be significantly higher than this projection (Roe and Baker 2007). Some of this variability stems from variation in GCM structures and inputs. Each of the 23 GCMs involved in the IPCC AR4 simulates climate processes differently, producing different projections of future climates (Solomon et al. 2007). Gaps in our understanding of the climate system also generate uncertainty. For example, GCMs are currently unable to accurately simulate precipitation (especially in the tropics), oceanic oscillations, and cloud dynamics (Solomon et al. 2007). Forcing components are also a source of uncertainty in GCM projections, particularly the effect of aerosols and greenhouse-gas emissions (Solomon et al. 2007). Finally, the different greenhouse-gas emissions scenarios used to define anthropogenic forcings in GCMs result in a range of projections. For continental- or global-scale projections or for more than about two decades into the future, greenhouse-gas emission scenarios and GCM structure are the two greatest sources of variability in climate projections (Hawkins and Sutton 2009, 2011). The differences in emissions scenarios account for the greatest amount of variation in projections farther than about 50 y into the future. In subcontinental and regional projections of the next one or two decades, internal variability in model runs (i.e., climatic variability) is the primary source of uncertainty, followed by variability due to GCM structure (Hawkins and Sutton 2009). Improved understanding and validation of climate feedback mechanisms may further reduce uncertainties in projected climate sensitivities (Bony et al. 2006) and improve confidence in short-term regional projections, but they are unlikely to alter long-term global projections (Hawkins and Sutton 2009) or reduce the occurrence of extreme projections (Roe and Baker 2007).

General circulation model resolution is often too coarse (15,000–25,000 km2) for outputs to be used directly by regional or local climate-impacts models (Solomon et al. 2007). Therefore, projections must be downscaled to finer resolutions, either statistically or dynamically. Statistical downscaling translates climate projections to a finer scale (1–50 km2) grid cells or a single site by using statistical relationships based on historical climate records, topography, or both (Salathe et al. 2007). General circulation model outputs also can be downscaled dynamically with regional climate models (RCMs). These models are similar to GCMs, but they model dominant regional climate mechanisms at finer scales (<20 km2). Generally, RCMs differ from statistical downscaling because they model drivers of local climate explicitly (Salathe et al. 2007; Solomon et al. 2007). However, RCMs can be as difficult to build and time-consuming to run as GCMs. Both statistical and dynamic (e.g., RCM) downscaling methods introduce additional uncertainty in climate projections. Statistically and dynamically downscaled climate projections have been made publicly available at resolutions ranging from 1 to 50 km2 (e.g., Maurer et al. 2007; Ramirez and Jarvis 2008; Girvetz et al. 2009; Mearns et al. 2009) at regional and global scales, so that ecological and other climate-impacts modelers can avoid the task of manipulating the raw GCM output or performing the downscaling.

Comparative studies of output across multiple GCMs coordinated by the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (Meehl et al. 2007; CMIP 2010) found that projected changes in decadal mean surface temperatures are most informative at approximately 40 y into the future and noisier with increasing latitude (Hawkins and Sutton 2009). This finding has led, in part, to a new emphasis on decadal prediction that may increase the availability of medium-term (10–30 y) regional climate projections (Meehl et al. 2009) and is integrated into the latest Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 (Taylor et al. 2012). When studying longer term projections, out 100 y or more, an explicit characterization of uncertainties becomes more important, typically by using an ensemble of GCM simulations (e.g., Mote et al. 2011). Ensembles combine projections from multiple GCMs, emissions pathways, or a combination (Tebaldi and Knutti 2007; Knutti et al. 2010) and can help quantify the variability and inherent uncertainty in future climate projections (e.g., Garcia et al. 2012).

In spite of the many known uncertainties described above, the climate projections produced by GCMs and RCMs are useful for assessing ecological climate impacts. The strength of the GCMs lies in their foundation in physical principles (as opposed to applying purely statistical projections), and their robustness is evident in their ability to recreate broad patterns of climate variability and simulate past climates (Solomon et al. 2007). The latest generation of coupled atmosphere–ocean general circulation models and Earth System Models that include carbon cycling (e.g., http://www.cesm.ucar.edu) are a promising improvement. They include advances in simulations of important phenomena such as the El Niño Southern Oscillation (Guilyardi et al. 2012), and they outperform the previous generation of GCMs in their ability to simulate historical temperature changes at fine spatial and temporal scales (Sakaguchi et al. 2012). Despite these models representing more processes in greater detail and including more explicit feedback mechanisms, the variation among model projections has not increased (Knutti and Sedlacek 2012).

There have been many attempts to guide the selection of which GCMs should be included in a particular impacts study (e.g.,Tebaldi and Knutti 2007). However, using the ability of GCMs to reproduce historical climate (i.e., model skill) to rank models is difficult to implement consistently (Knutti et al. 2010; Weigel et al. 2010). The magnitude of projected impacts has generally shown little dependence on the skill of the GCMs included in an ensemble (e.g., Brekke et al. 2008; Pierce et al. 2009). So, it is unclear whether the ability to simulate past conditions results in greater certainty in future forecasts, leading to the common conclusion that model skill may be less important in estimating climate change impacts as long as a large ensemble of GCMs is used (Mote et al. 2011).

Hydrological models

Among other things, hydrological models can simulate climate-driven changes in the timing and quantity of stream flow, snowpack dynamics, and evapotranspiration, all factors with potential to influence fish and wildlife populations both directly and through indirect effects on habitat suitability. Model outputs can be useful for developing land-management policy. For example, projected downstream impacts of climate change on freshwater species may support upstream habitat restoration or land-use planning, particularly when model outputs suggest future increases in extreme hydrological events, such as drought and flooding. Outputs from hydrological models also provide inputs to other climate-impacts models, including fire and vegetation models.

There are a wide variety of hydrological models, and they differ in their structure and application (Kampf and Burges 2007). Most hydrological models include equations that account for the major components of water and energy budgets as well as a flow-routing scheme to redistribute water through a catchment. Spatially explicit hydrological models divide the study area into discrete elements, such as a regular grid. Meteorological data are passed to each grid cell, and the model produces estimates of important hydrological variables such as runoff, evaporation, and snowpack. Runoff is typically routed through a river network to produce flow estimates at strategic points.

Coarse-scale (15,000–25,000 km2), one-dimensional hydrological models are embedded in many GCMs. These models can be used to examine global patterns of runoff and soil moisture, but they have trouble simulating historical flows because they are one-dimensional and therefore lack routing in two-dimensional space (Parry et al. 2007). The coarse resolution of GCMs and runoff-estimate biases make these models difficult to use at subcontinental scales.

Macroscale hydrological models (e.g., Liang et al. 1994) are typically applied at grid resolutions that range from 4 to 25 km. They generally represent hydrological processes in more detail than GCM-embedded models (Cherkauer and Lettenmaier 2003). Macroscale models also can be driven by weather station data, regional climate model output, or statistically downscaled GCM output. Macroscale models are often used to examine how climate affects the hydrologic cycle at continental and subcontinental scales (e.g., Maurer 2007).

Subregional hydrological models (e.g., Wigmosta et al. 1994) represent terrain at finer resolutions (i.e., <100 m) and may contain more processes than macroscale models, such as lateral distribution of groundwater, shading in areas of high topographic relief, or vegetation effects. Subregional models also are driven by meteorological data, although the data must often be interpolated. Subregional models are appropriate for simulating the effects of climate and land use on the hydrology of small catchments, for which representing topographic complexity is important.

Limitations and uses

Hydrological models are limited by uncertainties in the parameterization of underlying physical equations, model structure, and model inputs, such as climate data and land–surface parameterizations (Parry et al. 2007). These models are particularly sensitive to uncertainties in precipitation data, the primary driver of hydrology. Precipitation is difficult to measure and is sparsely measured (e.g., one National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration cooperative observer station per ∼700 km2; Maurer et al. 2002), leading to uncertainties in the characterization of spatial distribution of precipitation used to force a hydrological model. Projections of future precipitation carry the additional uncertainties related to emission scenarios (Christensen et al. 2007), GCMs (Graham et al. 2007), and downscaling (Fowler et al. 2007). Because future temperature projections are generally more consistent among GCMs than precipitation projections, modeled hydrologic impacts driven by temperature, such as changes to snow-dominated basins (e.g., McKelvey et al. 2011), are less variable than impacts that are driven by precipitation.

Nonclimatic factors influence hydrology and may complicate interpretation of simulations if not included in a model. Land-use change, including climate-induced vegetation change, may alter hydrology as much as climate change (Parry et al. 2007). For example, the tree line may shift upward in elevation with warming (Harsch et al. 2009), and wildfires may increase in size and frequency in response to warmer, drier conditions (Littell et al. 2009; Littell and Gwozdz 2011). A warmer, drier climate also could increase irrigation demand such that even when coupled with more efficient irrigation technologies, in-stream flows could be reduced. Changes in agriculture, irrigation practices, and reservoir operation are as likely as climate-induced change, and previous study shows that such changes can affect model results (Haddeland et al. 2007). These additional factors are often addressed in a separate model that uses hydrological model output to assess water-system changes (e.g., Vicuna et al. 2007). Dynamic vegetation responses, such as effects of increased CO2 concentrations on biomass production and transpiration rates, can be important at the continental scale (Betts et al. 2007). However, these vegetation responses are rarely included in hydrological models because their hydrologic impact is considered substantially smaller than climate or land use (Piao et al. 2007; but see Lawrence et al. 2011).

Hydrological models are useful for developing adaptation strategies to address climate change. Macroscale models have been used for land-management impact assessment (e.g., Haddeland et al. 2007) and mapping of suitable wolverine Gulo gulo habitat based on projected spring snowpack (McKelvey et al. 2011). Subregional models have been used to test the effect of land-use change and forestry practices on flows (e.g., VanShaar et al. 2002) and to compare the impact of climate and habitat restoration on salmon populations (e.g., Battin et al. 2007). Selecting the right model to address the spatial scale of interest is crucial, but it often involves balancing accuracy with cost while ensuring the model is capable of simulating the most important aspects driving local ecosystem impacts. Models are constantly evolving to simulate more aspects of the environment driving or responding to hydrologic change, such as urban and agricultural water management (e.g., Yates et al. 2005), sediment production and transport (e.g., Doten et al. 2006), and stream temperatures (e.g., Ficklin et al. 2012). Subregional hydrological models may be necessary for capturing local-scale dynamics and climate-induced impacts not captured by coarse-resolution models. However, a subregional model requires additional time to parameterize, calibrate, and run compared with the simpler process of setting up and running a macroscale model, and many macroscale models do have the ability to account statistically for subgrid scale variability in elevation, rainfall, or other characteristics. Greater availability of downscaled climate data may increase the use of subregional hydrological models. Climate change adaptation strategies for freshwater systems will benefit from hydrological modeling projections that characterize the direction, magnitude, and uncertainty of future change as well as evaluate the benefits of proposed management.

Case study

Changing river flow rates can have significant ecological consequences. Flow rates influence the extent of available freshwater habitat, mediate changes in habitat condition over time, regulate the input and output of nutrients and waste, and can restrict habitat connectivity (Rolls et al. 2012). Assessing the consequences of altered flows on species of management concern is therefore a high priority for the conservation of freshwater species and ecosystems. Furthermore, identifying areas in which habitat preservation or restoration may mitigate these changes is needed for climate change adaptation.

Battin et al. (2007) linked climate, hydrological, land-use, and wildlife population models to assess the effects of climate change on habitat restoration for Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (Box 2). The system of linked models allowed the researchers to simultaneously consider scenarios for both climate change and habitat restoration and to assess their relative impact on salmon abundance. Battin et al. (2007) found that climate change is likely to impact both peak winter and minimum summer flows, with potential negative impacts on salmon recruitment that outweigh gains from habitat restoration in most places. They addressed uncertainty by using outputs from two GCMs and two habitat restoration scenarios, but they used only a single CO2 emissions scenario because variability among emissions scenarios is modest in 25- and 50-y projections. Hydrological outputs from the two GCMs agreed on the simulated magnitude and spatial pattern of change in summer minimum flows, but they differed for winter peak flows. Given these uncertainties, Battin et al. (2007) suggested focusing on downstream portions of the watershed with greater model agreement and less projected change. These downstream areas had fewer simulated declines in salmon populations under all scenarios. A focus on the restoration of low-elevation sites for their potential resilience to climate change is a strategy that may apply to other basins supporting salmon populations or other fish populations sensitive to flow rates.

Fire models

Fire is an essential ecological process affecting nutrient cycling, regulating the density of young trees and the redistribution of water and sediment, and creating habitat for fish and wildlife (Noss et al. 2006). Widespread changes in these processes may alter the habitat and food sources for entire wildlife communities, in some cases reducing habitat availability and connectivity.

Fire–climate models estimate the effects of climatic variability and change on components of fire regimes, including frequency, extent, severity, seasonality, and spatial pattern. These models can be empirical (e.g., based on correlative relationships derived from current or historical patterns; Flannigan et al. 2005), process-based (e.g., based on rules or functions that together simulate one or more processes; Andrews et al. 2004), or some combination of the two (Keane et al. 2004), and they have been used at many spatial and temporal scales (Flannigan et al. 2009). Given the critical role that fire plays in shaping the composition and distribution of vegetation, understanding the effects of climate change on fire regimes will be critical for wildlife management.

Fire is a contagious disturbance process that spreads across a landscape based on local weather and the spatial connectivity of fuels (Peterson 2002; McKenzie et al. 2011). Climate drives fire regimes through the short-term effects of weather on fuel moisture and the long-term effects of climate on vegetation growth and distribution. Vegetation patterns combine with climate and topography to influence fire regimes (Swetnam and Betancourt 1998) whose pattern, severity, and seasonality then strongly influence vegetation composition and structure (Lenihan et al. 2008). Viewed at coarse scales (e.g., subcontinental regions), fire is driven by climate (Littell et al. 2009). At finer scales (e.g., a watershed or forest stand), fuel loads and topography can have substantial effects, except under extreme weather conditions (Turner and Romme 1994). Consequently, coarse-scale fire models tend to be empirical models of fire weather, occurrence, or area burned based on the climatic conditions that drive extreme weather events (Lenihan et al. 2008). Fine-scale process-based models, including models of fire behavior and landscape succession models, often take a wider array of inputs, including vegetation structure and available fuels, topography, and ignition sources, in combination with climate-driven weather.

The temporal scale of a study also influences which processes are included in process-based simulation models and which variables are used for empirical models. For example, short-term dynamic predictions of fire behavior and fire effects usually simulate fire spread combined with calculations of consumption, smoke emissions, and plant mortality (Keane et al. 2003). Long-term projections can be based on empirical models derived from paleo-fire records (Higuera et al. 2009) and climate reconstructions, 20th century meteorological and fire observations (Littell et al. 2009), or multidecadal simulations that couple GCM outputs with a dynamic vegetation model that includes a fire module (Lenihan et al. 2008).

Among the most integrative modeling approaches are the so-called landscape fire succession models that combine process-based simulation methods with empirical relationships between climate and fire, to project the impacts of climate on vegetation, fire, and their interaction (Keane et al. 2004). These models typically produce spatially explicit estimates of vegetation succession, fire ignitions, fire spread (area burned), and fire effects (e.g., mortality, consumption, smoke, and soil heating), but they come in many forms and vary widely in complexity (Keane et al. 2004). There are four general components of the ideal landscape fire succession model: 1) ecological processes; 2) climate dynamics; 3) disturbance interactions; and 4) spatially explicit structure and process, but no models currently in use have all of these components (R. E. Keane, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory, personal communication). More sophisticated landscape fire succession models—particularly those that are to be applied to mountainous and semiarid landscapes—could incorporate topographically relevant hydrological models.

Limitations and uses

One of the largest limitations of using empirical models to predict future fire regimes is the assumption that historical relationships among climate, fuels, and fire will hold in the future. Novel climates, new vegetation communities, and future management policies may alter many of these historical relationships, particularly at finer spatial scales (McKenzie and Littell 2011). Process-based simulation models are similarly limited by their reliance on historical relationships for the specification of key fire-regime parameters, such as distributions of ignition probabilities and metrics of fire severity for specific vegetation types. Furthermore, process-based models vary in the extent to which human impacts, such as ignition probabilities, or the impacts of other natural disturbances, such as insect outbreaks and plant disease (Seidl et al. 2011), are considered.

Although it may be difficult to predict future fire regimes accurately for a given location, the differences between simulations run under a range of conditions will inform management decisions (Keane et al. 2004). For example, when given a range of possible outcomes, managers can weigh the relative need for prescribed burning, firefighting, and buffering of wildlife habitats. Empirical models have illustrated relationships between 20th century climate and area burned (Littell et al. 2009) and fire frequency (Gedalof et al. 2005), suggesting increased fire risk given projected future climate. Process-based fire simulation models suggest that negative feedback from forest clearing and previous fires may reduce, but not eliminate, projected climate-induced increases in area burned (Krawchuck and Cumming 2010). These models, along with near- and long-term climate projections, may help to identify where adaptive management techniques might be cost-effective and how much fire-control costs may escalate (Corringham et al. 2008). Reliable climate forecasts a season or two in advance could inform national fire management plans in time for proactive management. Long-term projections of climate can be used to assess potential impacts of climate-altered fire regimes on vegetation.

Case study

Wildfire impacts nutrient cycles, young trees and understory vegetation, and the distribution of water and sediment, all of which can impact fish and wildlife habitats (Noss et al. 2006). Changes in wildfire may benefit some wildlife species at the expense of others (e.g., Smucker et al. 2005), making it critical to characterize the direction and magnitude of projected change. Annual area burned, fire season length, and the frequency of large fires have been used to characterize regional changes in wildfire (Westerling et al. 2006) and can be estimated from GCM outputs (e.g., Westerling and Bryant 2007). Identifying regions with increasing risk of fire under climate change would alert managers to the need for planning and treatment to protect critical wildlife areas as well as to potentially looming suppression costs.

Flannigan et al. (2005) used statistical models to predict annual forest area burned across Canada under simulated future climates (Box 3). Models were constructed for eight ecozones reflecting broad-scale historical differences in fire frequency and extent. Models used historical meteorological data as predictors of area burned calculated from a large fire database spanning 1959–1997 (Stocks et al. 2002). Projections were made using outputs from two GCM models run for a single emissions scenario that simulated a tripling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations by the end of the century. Outputs suggest that annual area burned by wildfires will likely increase across Canada. There is some uncertainty among the GCM models used regarding the magnitude of the increase, but no ecozones were projected to experience declining wildfire. The potential addition of millions of hectares burned annually could result in dramatic changes in the distribution of vegetation and associated wildlife across Canada. These results are most informative for improving regional forest management policy, but they are too coarse in resolution for assessing the impacts at a specific location. Furthermore, outputs from a larger number of GCMs would better characterize the uncertainty surrounding the magnitude of projected increases. In spite of their limitations, these results suggest that evaluating fire impacts on fish and wildlife habitats across the boreal forest and taiga regions of Canada would be useful to identify wildlife species that may require protection or assistance under increasing wildfire.

Vegetation models

Vegetation is fundamental for terrestrial food webs and is an essential element in the habitat of many animal species. As climates change, plant species ranges will shift; biomes will exhibit altered characteristics; and the structure and composition of vegetation communities will adjust, all influencing habitat and food resources for many animals. Therefore, vegetation models have the potential to provide insight for local- to continental-scale management, policy and for planning decisions regarding wildlife.

Vegetation models range from statistical models that identify relationships between plant distributions and environmental variables to mechanistic models that simulate the physical processes controlling the distribution of vegetation. Statistical models are often used to project changes in the distributions of individual plant species or communities (e.g., Rehfeldt et al. 2012). These models are described in the Individual Species Models section below. Here, we focus on process-based vegetation models.

Process-based vegetation models simulate aspects of plant physiology (e.g., photosynthesis), carbon and nutrient cycles, competition between individual plants or vegetation types, disturbance regimes, hydrology, and other processes. They include forest gap models (e.g., Bugmann 2001; Larocque et al. 2011), landscape models (e.g., Keane et al. 2004; Keane et al. 2011), terrestrial biogeochemistry models of carbon and nutrient cycles (e.g., Parton et al. 2007), dynamic global vegetation models (Cramer et al. 2001; Quillet et al. 2010), and coupled hydrology–vegetation models (e.g., Tague and Band 2004; Lawrence et al. 2011). Vegetation in these models is represented as individual species, plant functional types (e.g., deciduous broadleaf trees and grass), or by using general measures of vegetation (e.g., net primary productivity). The models may simulate processes on subdaily to annual time-steps and over spatial extents ranging from individual plot to global. Input data for these models typically include climate data (e.g., temperature and precipitation), atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and soil characteristics (e.g., soil texture). The models may specify bioclimatic limits (e.g., lethal temperatures) and other biophysical parameters (e.g., rooting depth and fire resistance) for particular species or vegetation types. Dynamic vegetation models can simulate changes in vegetation over time in response to changing climate, whereas equilibrium vegetation models simulate vegetation under a static climate (e.g., average conditions).

Limitations and uses

The ecological processes simulated in vegetation models are complex. In many cases, the calculations of particular processes may require empirical parameters that are not well known. For example, changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations can affect plant water-use efficiency, but more information about how this effect varies among different plant species and life stages is needed to better represent this response in vegetation models. Furthermore, individual vegetation models may explicitly simulate some processes, such as fire, but either ignore or simplify other processes, such as grazing and insect outbreaks, that may be as important in determining the distribution of vegetation in certain areas (Seidl et al. 2011). As one might expect, the assumptions made in the building and parameterization of vegetation models can substantially affect model projections (Cramer et al. 2001; Quillet et al. 2010).

Vegetation models vary in their complexity and ease of use. Applying these models to particular management and research questions can require a detailed understanding of ecosystem processes and computer programming expertise to correctly parameterize a model. Vegetation models also differ in their ability to account for the effects of land-use practices and land-cover changes that may alter the flow of water or nutrients, fire regimes, or the vegetation itself. To more accurately project future climate-driven vegetation changes, future vegetation models will need to incorporate land-use projections and simulate their effects on vegetation.

Despite their limitations, all of the types of process-based vegetation models discussed above have been applied to conservation and natural resource management questions, including silvicultural applications (Pabst et al. 2008), forecasting areas of potential fire risk (Lenihan et al. 2008), and simulating future changes in habitat (Morin and Thuiller 2009). The choice of which model or combination of models to apply to a particular management question will depend on the specific aspects of vegetation one wishes to simulate; its spatial and temporal resolution; and the importance of particular processes, such as fire. For example, forest gap models simulate stand-level processes, but many are limited in their ability to predict vegetation responses across broader spatial scales (Bugmann 2001). In contrast, a dynamic global vegetation model may simulate basic plant functional types that can be translated into vegetation types or biomes (e.g., broadleaf evergreen forest, grassland, and conifer woodland) over regional to global scales, but it may not be able to simulate gradients in species composition or forest stand structure.

Some limitations can be overcome by integrating models of varying complexity and scale. For example, aspects of forest gap models have been incorporated into both landscape models (e.g., He et al. 2005; Keane et al. 2011) and dynamic vegetation models (e.g., Smith et al. 2001) to improve their simulations of plot-level vegetation dynamics. Another approach uses a mathematical approximation to scale-up the outcome of stochastic gap model processes to resolutions suitable for subcontinental scales (Moorcroft et al. 2001), resulting in output that is both locally accurate and transferable across regions (Medvigy et al. 2009). Although vegetation models generally cannot predict future vegetation changes with high accuracy and spatial resolution, the models can help managers to characterize the future rates and magnitudes of potential vegetation changes and to identify species and regions that may be particularly sensitive (or particularly resilient) to future climate changes (e.g., Lenihan et al. 2008). These results in turn can be used to help inform the management of animal species and their habitat in the face of climate change. They can provide guidance on where to restore and where not to restore habitats, which populations to monitor, and where populations will need to be intensively managed.

Case study

Prairies and savannahs are some of the most threatened ecosystems in the United States (Hoekstra et al. 2005). Consequently, the prairies and savannas of the Pacific Northwest are home to a large number of state-listed and federal candidate species, including the streaked horned lark Eremophila alpestris strigata, Taylor's checkerspot butterfly Euphydras editha taylori, Mazama pocket gopher Thomomys mazama, and western gray squirrel Sciurus griseus. Managing populations of these species requires an understanding of how climate change will alter their habitats. Projected changes in vegetation across the Pacific Northwest will have the potential to inform decisions about which populations to monitor, where to put limited restoration dollars, and how to plan for connectivity. Bachelet et al. (2011) summarized output from a dynamic global vegetation model (Rogers et al. 2011) projecting potential climate-driven changes in vegetation in the Willamette Valley-Puget Trough-Georgia Basin ecoregion (Box 4). From all of the GCMs in the IPCC AR4, they selected three GCMs whose projections captured the range of outputs for the region and included three CO2 emissions scenarios. Of the nine model runs considered, none projected an increase in prairie and savanna habitats for the end of the century, likely because the dynamic global vegetation model simulated higher water use efficiency in trees accompanying greater atmospheric CO2 concentrations, thereby increasing their tolerance of drought. Instead, the cool and wet climate projection produced no change in simulated vegetation distributions, the hot and dry projection simulated the western expansion of dry forest from the eastern Cascades, and the hot and wet projection simulated the northward expansion of warmer forests. Thus, prairie and savanna ecosystems appear likely to remain rare with climate change. Yet, empirical evidence assembled by Bachelet et al. (2011) suggests that prairies and savannas may be more resilient than forests to warm and dry summers, particularly if climate change brings more extreme drought and fire. Bachelet et al. (2011) therefore advise managers to restore prairies in unproductive agricultural lands and forest lands that are likely to become warmer and drier with climate change. Managers also may want to consider assisted migration within the ecoregion to increase populations of rare species. Finally, managers may want to monitor and improve existing sites that are likely to continue functioning as prairies over the coming century.

Individual species models

The ultimate goal of fish and wildlife management is stable, resilient animal populations that can only be assessed with species-specific models. Individual species models can be designed to estimate habitat suitability, species distributions, movement, and population-level (i.e., demographic) responses. Many modeling approaches that estimate historical changes in populations of threatened and endangered species also can be used to simulate future climate-induced changes.

Empirical approaches, typically referred to as climate-envelope, niche, or bioclimatic models, are used to project potential climate-driven shifts in species distributions (Pearson and Dawson 2003; Heikkenen et al. 2006). These models use either statistical or machine-learning methods to identify relationships between current species distributions and current climate, and they use future climate to generate projected distributions. Most empirical models use only climatic variables as predictors (e.g., temperature, precipitation, growing degree days, and drought indices), but some have incorporated other variables, such as land cover, elevation, or soil type (Prasad et al. 2006).

Whereas empirical models have generally been used to project changes in species' potential distributions, process-based models have been used to simulate a wider array of species-specific ecological effects. For example, dispersal models can simulate movement in response to climate change (e.g., Iverson et al. 2004); population models can simulate annual recruitment as a function of climate-driven changes in habitat, food resources, predators, or competitors (e.g., Carroll 2007); distribution models can make projections based on phenology, reproduction, and survival (e.g., Morin and Thuiller 2009); and bioenergetic models can project the responses of trophic groups (e.g., phyto- and zooplankton) to climate-driven changes in total energy (e.g., Peeters et al. 2007). Generally, climate is incorporated into these models through empirical relationships between temperature, precipitation, or both and individual fitness, such as making growth and reproduction a function of water temperature (Clark et al. 2003) or varying survival with annual snowfall (Carroll 2007). Empirical and process-based models also can be linked; for example, using empirical models of habitat suitability as input to a process-based population model (e.g., Carroll 2007; McRae et al. 2008; Franklin 2010; Lawson et al. 2010).

Limitations and uses

Empirical species distribution models provide a preliminary estimate of how plant and animal distributions may respond to climate change, but they have several limitations. First, empirical models do not directly model biotic interactions (e.g., predator–prey dynamics, keystone species, competition, or host specificity) that may influence potential range shifts (Pearson and Dawson 2003; Zarnetske et al. 2012). Second, these models generally do not address dispersal capacity or barriers to dispersal that may influence colonization of projected habitats (Pearson and Dawson 2003; Schloss et al. 2012). Third, empirical models do not consider evolutionary adaptation (Pearson and Dawson 2003). Fourth, it is unclear how models parameterized under present-day climates will perform in simulated future climate with no present-day analog (Williams and Jackson 2007; Williams et al., 2013). Fifth, bioclimatic tolerances may vary across life stages, impacting persistence and colonization (Jackson et al. 2009; Mclaughlin and Zavaleta 2012). Sixth, different types of empirical models can produce very different projected shifts in the potential range of a species, sometimes introducing more uncertainty than the underlying GCM projections (Garcia et al. 2012), necessitating care in model selection and testing (Thuiller 2004) or using ensembles of multiple models (Araújo and New 2007).

Given these limitations, empirical species distribution models are not currently accurate enough to be the sole source of information for selecting reserve networks, identifying translocation sites, or deciding to abandon management of a population. However, they are likely to be useful for identifying populations at risk due to a significant climate-driven range contraction (Pearson and Dawson 2003). These models also can help focus conservation efforts and monitoring programs by identifying habitats where we might expect to see the largest changes in flora or fauna (Araújo et al. 2006). For specific management decisions regarding individual species, these models can be used in conjunction with experimental information, paleoecological records, and simulations from detailed process-based models to increase projection accuracy.

Although process-based models of species distributions and populations have the potential to provide more accurate projections than empirical models, they also have limitations. Many of these limitations are similar to those discussed above in reference to the vegetation models. First, many of the parameters and relationships that would ideally be incorporated into these models are poorly known, such as dispersal rates and temperature and precipitation effects on survival and reproduction. Second, the structure of process-based models may limit their application. Some are built to investigate the effect of one particular aspect of climate (e.g., temperature) on reproduction, growth, or survival (Kell et al. 2005) and may exclude other critical factors (e.g., dispersal, Clark et al. 2003). Still, when sufficient empirical information is available to parameterize a process-based model, the model is useful for characterizing population-level responses to climate change. Furthermore, process-based models linked with other empirical (e.g., habitat) or process-based models (e.g., vegetation, hydrology, and fire) can be used to simulate cumulative effects (Lawson et al. 2010) or to compare the relative effects of stressors (Battin et al. 2007; Carroll 2007; McRae et al. 2008) on species' populations.

Case study

Marten and lynx Lynx canadensis in the northern Appalachians of the United States and Canada forage on top of snowpack during the winter, making them sensitive to rising temperatures and declining snowfall. Both are exploited populations occurring at the southern limit of their distributions. Marten, in particular, has recovered from near extirpation in the 1930s. Marten populations are also sensitive to the loss and fragmentation of mature forest stands with structurally complex understories (Ray 2000). In an approach similar to that taken by Battin et al. (2007), Carroll (2007) linked multiple models to estimate the relative impacts of climate change, logging, and hunting on marten populations in the northern Appalachians (Box 5). The system of linked models allowed for scenarios addressing stressors individually and in combination. Simulations demonstrated that declining snowpack may have a greater impact than logging or trapping alone and that logging may interact synergistically with climate change to decrease marten populations. Carroll (2007) summarizes results by state and province and makes region-specific recommendations for habitat restoration, logging, exploitation, and reintroduction potential. These types of outputs would be very useful for species and habitat management as well as decisions on logging and hunting. However, the use of a single GCM and single emissions scenario puts into question the generality of these findings. Carroll (2007) does note that there is agreement among all IPCC AR4 GCMs regarding the direction and magnitude of projected changes in temperature and precipitation for this geographic region. However, representing that variability explicitly would strengthen his conclusions.

Discussion

Using models for managing natural resources

Given the wide array of available models and their numerous limitations (Table 1), fish and wildlife managers often wonder which model to use and how to apply model projections to a given management decision. We have provided a basic framework for climate-impacts modeling (Box 1) and used it to discuss the results of several climate-impact studies (Boxes 25). In general, selecting one or more models to assess potential climate impacts requires an understanding of the underlying question and the key ecological processes involved. For example, modeling climate impacts on fire-dependent wildlife habitats will require, at the minimum, a vegetation model that adequately addresses the effects of climate on fire. Selecting an appropriate model also requires matching the spatial and temporal scale of the assessment with that of the model. For example, although a macroscale hydrological model may provide a useful estimate of runoff for a watershed, it may provide relatively poor estimates of changes in stream flow for a specific stream reach. The selection of a particular model also will depend on the time, resources, and technical capabilities available to the user. Here, the difference between empirical and statistical models and simulation models is paramount. Empirical models are less complex, require fewer inputs, and are generally more accessible; but they include a suite of biological assumptions that observational data suggest are violated. Therefore, they are most appropriate for coarse-scale projections of climate responses. A complex simulation model may provide the best estimate of a species' response to climate change, but often data, time, modeling expertise, or a combination are lacking. In those cases, first consider whether a broad-scale modeling analysis including the geographic area of interest has already been completed. Alternatively, rethink the management question to no longer require the additional accuracy (or ecological realism) that might be provided by a more complex model, for example, choosing to focus on changes in habitat suitability instead of population demographics.

Increasingly, downscaled climate projections are available online (e.g., ClimateWizard, http://www.climatewizard.org and the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute, http://occri.net), and projections from hydrological, fire, and vegetation models are being shared through cooperative associations such as the U.S. Department of Interior's Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (http://www.doi.gov/lcc/index.cfm), the U.S. Geological Survey's National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center (https://nccwsc.usgs.gov), and nongovernmental data-sharing portals such as Data Basin (http://www.databasin.org). As these datasets become more ubiquitous, it is critical for nonspecialists to understand appropriate uses for model outputs.

Understanding the thornier issue of how model results can inform management is as important as selecting the best set of models for an assessment. No model can predict the future with certainty. Furthermore, the uncertainties inherent in future climate-change projections are increased when linked to ecological climate-impacts models that have their own associated uncertainty (Maslin and Austin 2012). In the case studies described above, both Battin et al. (2007) and Carroll (2007) linked multiple models to explore climate impacts in conjunction with other stressors. Similar studies have been completed for songbirds (McCrae et al. 2008), wolverine (McKelvey et al. 2011), and plants (Lawson et al. 2010). The best applications of these models treat uncertainty explicitly. Thorough sensitivity analyses calculating the impact of varying all components in a system of linked models are currently rare (but see Fuller et al. 2008; Conlisk et al. 2013), but they should be pursued when possible to better understand the behavior of any complex model. Evaluating projections from multiple GCMs and emissions scenarios is also critical for quantifying uncertainty. For example, studies indicate that using an ensemble of GCM projections, preferably more than 10, is more important than the careful selection of one or two projections for characterizing future hydrologic impacts of climate change (Pierce et al. 2009). Such approaches bracket potential future outcomes of climate change and can be used in making consensus recommendations for conservation or in designing management actions robust to a range of climate impacts (e.g., Bachelet et al. 2011).

Ensemble modeling combines the outputs of multiple model projections, allowing the modeler to quantify the confidence in model outputs across an array of different inputs or model structures (Araújo and New 2007). For example, ensembles of models can project mean or median warming with associated confidence bands (Solomon et al. 2007). Alternatively, ensembles can be used to report the degree of agreement in model projection; for example, 80% of modeled future climates project at least a 50% change in the fauna of a given region (Lawler et al. 2009). Although depicting only mean values or the degree of consensus among model projections can be useful, it also can be misleading. Agreement within a set of model projections does not mean that those models are correct. In some cases, such as projecting the severity of future drought or flood events, projections of extremes (minimums or maximums) may be more critical than consensus or mean projections (e.g., Deser et al. 2012). However, agreement among models with different structures does suggest that those projections are robust to the assumptions of multiple model designs (Morin and Thuiller 2009), implying that the projections reflect a true underlying pattern or trend.

Scenario-based modeling provides another approach to exploring the potential effects of varying model inputs or parameterizations. A scenario is a set of model inputs reflecting how a system may behave or change. Examples of scenarios include differing CO2 emissions rates, patterns of urban development, and estimates of plant water-use efficiency responses. Scenario-based modeling contributes to the process of scenario-based planning in which decisions are made by exploring the impacts of several different potential future outcomes (Peterson et al. 2003). Scenario-based modeling can be used to compare the effects of particular climatic changes (e.g., warmer and wetter vs. warmer and drier climates) or to compare the potential effects of extreme and mean projected changes. The IPCC, among others, has provided guidance on scenario-based planning in the context of climate change (IPCC-TGICA 2007).

Climate change vulnerability assessment provides a framework for integrating climate-impacts projections with empirical information to characterize the vulnerability of species or ecological systems to climate change (Williams et al. 2008; Glick et al. 2011). Vulnerability depends on a species' exposure and sensitivity to climate change as well as its adaptive capacity and therefore integrates information from diverse sources, including modeling, natural history, experimental science, and paleoecological records (Dawson et al. 2011; and, e.g., http://climatechangesensitivity.org). Vulnerability scores and rankings can then point toward additional studies or information gaps that help integrate climate change into natural resource management decisions.

Another, complementary, way to use uncertain information in the decision-making and planning process is through adaptive management (Holling 1978; Peterson et al. 2011). Adaptive management is an iterative process in which multiple management actions are evaluated with long-term monitoring, the outcome of which is used to inform future management (Figure 1). The inherent uncertainty of the ecological impacts of climate change makes it an appropriate application of an adaptive management framework (Arvai et al. 2006). Outputs of climate-impacts models can be used to design a suite of short-term management prescriptions and then be recalibrated with data or knowledge gained from their monitoring. In one example, a hydrological model will be used within an adaptive management framework to reduce the frequency of algal blooms under future climates (Viney et al. 2007). Adaptive management will likely be a key tool for dealing with the uncertainties inherent in climate-impacts projections (West et al. 2009; Littell et al. 2011).

Conclusions

Climate-impacts modeling is a rapidly expanding field of research. Models are becoming more sophisticated and better able to capture physical and ecological processes. Yet, at best, models will be an approximation of an uncertain future. Therefore, it will always be critical to address model uncertainty through model ensembles and a range of future scenarios and to reevaluate decisions regularly, ideally in a framework of adaptive management. Also of value are ways of integrating model outputs with experimental results, paleoecological records (e.g., Martínez-Meyer et al. 2004), and expert opinion. Questions to ask of any climate-impacts study include the following: How well do you capture the range of potential futures? How much agreement is there among those models and scenarios? Can you develop management strategies that are resilient to all potential futures? This last question points toward climate change adaptation for which many institutional frameworks exist (Bachelet et al. 2010) and toward which climate-impacts modeling can contribute.

Models play a critical role in our understanding of climate-change impacts on ecological systems. For these models to be useful, the uncertainties in model projections need to be understood. However, these uncertainties should not prevent researchers and managers from using models to explore potential future climate impacts, assess vulnerabilities, and develop adaptation strategies.

Supplemental Material

Please note: The Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supplemental material. Queries should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.

Reference S1. Andrews P, Bevins C, Seli R. 2004. BehavePlus Fire Modeling System, version 3.0: user's guide. Ogden, Utah: USDA Forest Service. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-106.

Found at DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3996/062012-JFWM-055.S1; also available at http://www.firelab.org/science-applications/science-synthesis/69-behaveplus (5.7 MB PDF).

Reference S2. Keane RE, Loehman RA, Holsinger LM. 2011. The FireBGCv2 landscape fire and succession model: a research simulation platform for exploring fire and vegetation dynamics. Fort Collins, Colorado: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-255.

Found at DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3996/062012-JFWM-055.S2; also available at http://www.firelab.org/research-projects/fire-ecology/139-firebgc (3.4 MB PDF).

Reference S3. Peterson DL, Millar CI, Joyce LA, Furniss MJ, Halofsky JE, Neilson RP, Morelli T-L. 2011. Responding to climate change in national forests: a guidebook for developing adaptation options. Portland, Oregon: Pacific Northwest Research Station. USDA Forest Service. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-855.

Found at DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3996/062012-JFWM-055.S3; also available at http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/39884 (5 MB PDF).

Acknowledgments

We thank A. Cockle, H. Dewey, E. Donley, R. Haugo, N. Hough-Snee, V. Kane, A. Lambert, C. Lyons-Tinsley, and L. Urgensen for invaluable input. We also thank S. Shafer, D. Bachelet, S. Hostetler, S. Jackson, K. Johnson, the Subject Editor, and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments on the manuscript.

C.B.W. was supported by the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) Sustainable Infrastructure Project SI-1541. Funding for P.A.T. came from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Graduate Fellowship Program. J.A.F. was supported by the Wind River Canopy Crane Research Facility. The EPA has not officially endorsed this publication and these views may not reflect those of the EPA.

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

References

References
Andrews
P
,
Bevins
C
,
Seli
R
.
2004
.
BehavePlus Fire Modeling System, version 3.0: user's guide
.
Ogden, Utah
:
USDA Forest Service. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-106
. .
Araújo
MB
,
New
M
.
2007
.
Ensemble forecasting of species distributions
.
Trends in Ecology and Evolution
22
:
42
47
.
Araújo
MB
,
Thuiller
W
,
Pearson
RG
.
2006
.
Climate warming and the decline of amphibians and reptiles in Europe
.
Journal of Biogeography
33
:
1712
1728
.
Arvai
J
,
Bridge
G
,
Dolsak
N
,
Franzese
R
,
Koontz
T
,
Luginbuhl
A
,
Robbins
P
,
Richards
K
,
Smith Korfmacher
K
,
Sohngen
B
,
Tansey
K
,
Thompson
A
.
2006
.
Adaptive management of the global climate problem: bridging the gap between climate research and climate policy
.
Climatic Change
78
:
217
225
.
Bachelet
D
,
Brooks
ML
,
Cross
MS
,
Enquist
CAF
,
Fleishman
E
,
Graumlich
L
,
Groves
CR
,
Hannah
L
,
Hansen
L
,
Hayward
G
,
Koopman
M
,
Lawler
JJ
,
Malcolm
J
,
Nordgren
J
,
Petersen
B
,
Scott
D
,
Shafer
SL
,
Shaw
MR
,
Tabor
GM
,
Zavaleta
ES
.
2010
.
Climate Change Adaptation for Conservation Targets (ACT) Framework
. .
Bachelet
D
,
Johnson
BR
,
Bridgham
SD
,
Dunn
PV
,
Anderson
HE
,
Rogers
BM
.
2011
.
Climate change impacts on western Pacific Northwest prairies and savannas
.
Northwest Science
85
:
411
429
.
Battin
J
,
Wiley
MW
,
Ruckelshaus
MH
,
Palmer
RN
,
Korb
E
,
Bartz
KK
,
Imaki
H
.
2007
.
Projected impacts of climate change on salmon habitat restoration
.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
104
:
6720
6725
.
Bernhardt
ES
,
Palmer
MA
,
Allan
JD
,
Alexander
G
,
Barnas
K
,
Brooks
S
,
Carr
J
,
Clayton
S
,
Dahm
C
,
Follstad-Shah
J
,
Galat
D
,
Gloss
S
,
Goodwin
P
,
Hart
D
,
Hassett
B
,
Jenkinson
R
,
Katz
S
,
Kondolf
GM
,
Lake
PS
,
Lave
R
,
Meyer
JL
,
O'Donnell
TK
,
Pagano
L
,
Powell
B
,
Sudduth
E
.
2005
.
Synthesizing U.S. river restoration efforts
.
Science
308
:
636
637
.
Betts
RA
,
Boucher
O
,
Collins
M
,
Cox
PM
,
Falloon
PD
,
Gedney
N
,
Hemming
DL
,
Huntingford
C
,
Jones
CD
,
Sexton
DMH
,
Webb
MJ
.
2007
.
Projected increase in continental runoff due to plant responses to increasing carbon dioxide
.
Nature
448
:
1037
1041
.
Bony
S
,
Colman
R
,
Kattsov
VM
,
Allan
RP
,
Bretherton
CS
,
Dufresne
JL
,
Hall
A
,
Hallegatte
S
,
Holland
MM
,
Ingram
W
,
Randall
DA
,
Soden
BJ
,
Tselioudis
G
,
Webb
MJ
.
2006
.
How well do we understand and evaluate climate change feedback processes
?
Journal of Climate
19
:
3445
3482
.
Botkin
DB
,
Saxe
H
,
Araújo
MB
,
Betts
R
,
Richard
HWB
,
Cedhagen
T
,
Chesson
P
,
Dawson
TP
,
Etterson
JR
,
Faith
DP
,
Ferrier
S
,
Guisan
A
,
Hansen
AS
,
Hilbert
DW
,
Loehle
C
,
Margules
C
,
New
M
,
Sobel
MJ
,
Stockwell
DRB
.
2007
.
Forecasting the effects of global warming on biodiversity
.
Bioscience
57
:
227
236
.
Brekke
LD
,
Dettinger
MD
,
Maurer
EP
,
Anderson
M
.
2008
.
Significance of model credibility in estimating climate projection distributions for regional hydroclimatological risk assessments
.
Climatic Change
89
:
371
394
.
Bugmann
H
.
2001
.
A review of forest gap models
.
Climatic Change
51
:
259
305
.
Carroll
C
.
2007
.
Interacting effects of climate change, landscape conversion, and harvest on carnivore populations at the range margin: marten and lynx in the Northern Appalachians
.
Conservation Biology
21
:
1092
1104
.
Cherkauer
KA
,
Lettenmaier
DP
.
2003
.
Simulation of spatial variability in snow and frozen soil
.
Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres
108
:
8858
.
Christensen
JH
,
Hewitson
B
,
Busuioc
A
,
Chen
A
,
Gao
X
,
Held
I
,
Jones
R
,
Kolli
RK
,
Kwon
W-T
,
Laprise
R
,
Magaña Rueda
V
,
Mearns
L
,
Menéndez
CG
,
Räisänen
J
,
Rinke
A
,
Sarr
A
,
Whetton
P
.
2007
.
Regional climate projections
. Pages
848
940
in
Solomon
S
,
Qin
D
,
Manning
M
,
Chen
Z
,
Marquis
M
,
Averyt
KB
,
Tignor
M
,
Miller
HL
,
editors
.
Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
.
Cambridge, UK
:
Cambridge University Press
. .
Clark
RA
,
Fox
CJ
,
Viner
D
,
Livermore
M
.
2003
.
North Sea cod and climate change – modeling the effects of temperature on population dynamics
.
Global Change Biology
9
:
1669
1680
.
[CMIP] Coupled Model Intercomparison Project
.
2010
.
Coupled Model Intercomparison Project
.
Available: http//:cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov (June 2010)
.
Conlisk
E
,
Syphard
A
,
Franklin
J
,
Flint
L
,
Flint
A
,
Reagan
H
.
2013
.
Uncertainty in assessing the impacts of global change with coupled dynamic species distribution and population models
.
Global Change Biology
19
:
858
869
.
Corringham
TW
,
Westerling
AL
,
Morehouse
BJ
.
2008
.
Exploring use of climate information in wildland fire management: a decision calendar study
.
Journal of Forestry
106
:
71
77
.
Cramer
W
,
Bondeau
A
,
Woodward
FI
,
Prentice
IC
,
Betts
RA
,
Brovkin
V
,
Cox
PM
,
Fisher
V
,
Foley
JA
,
Friend
AD
,
Kucharik
C
,
Lomas
MR
,
Ramankutty
N
,
Sitch
S
,
Smith
B
,
White
A
,
Young-Molling
CY
.
2001
.
Global response of terrestrial ecosystem structure and function to CO2 and climate change: results from six dynamic global vegetation models
.
Global Change Biology
7
:
357
373
.
Dawson
TP
,
Jackson
ST
,
House
JI
,
Prentice
IC
,
Mace
GM
.
2011
.
Beyond predictions: biodiversity conservation in a changing climate
.
Science
332
:
53
58
.
Deser
C
,
Phillips
A
,
Bourdette
V
,
Teng
H
.
2012
.
Uncertainty in climate change projections: the role of internal variability
.
Climate Dynamics
38
:
527
546
.
Doten
CO
,
Bowling
LC
,
Lanini
JS
,
Maurer
EP
,
Lettenmaier
DP
.
2006
.
A spatially distributed model for the dynamic prediction of sediment erosion and transport in mountainous forested watersheds
.
Water Resources Research
42
:
W04417
.
Ficklin
DL
,
Luo
Y
,
Stewart
IT
,
Maurer
EP
.
2012
.
Development and application of a hydroclimatological stream temperature model within the Soil and Water Assessment Tool
.
Water Resources Research
48
:
W01511
.
Flannigan
MD
,
Krawchuk
MA
,
de Groot
WJ
,
Wotton
BM
,
Gowman
LM
.
2009
.
Implications of changing climate for global wildland fire
.
International Journal of Wildland Fire
18
:
483
507
.
Flannigan
MD
,
Logan
KA
,
Amiro
BD
,
Skinner
WR
,
Stocks
BJ
.
2005
.
Future area burned in Canada
.
Climatic Change
72
:
1
16
.
Fowler
HJ
,
Blenkinsop
S
,
Tebaldi
C
.
2007
.
Linking climate change modelling to impacts studies: recent advances in downscaling techniques for hydrological modelling
.
International Journal of Climatology
27
:
1547
1578
.
Franklin
J
.
2010
.
Moving beyond static species distribution models in support of conservation biogeography
.
Diversity and Distributions
16
:
321
330
.
Fuller
T
,
Morton
DP
,
Sarkar
S
.
2008
.
Incorporating uncertainty about species' potential distributions under climate change into the selection of conservation areas with a case study from the Arctic Coast Plain of Alaska
.
Biological Conservation
141
:
1547
1559
.
Garcia
RA
,
Burgess
ND
,
Cabeza
M
,
Rahbek
C
,
Araújo
MB
.
2012
.
Exploring consensus in 21st century projections of climatically suitable areas for African vertebrates
.
Global Change Biology
18
:
1253
1269
.
Gedalof
Z
,
Peterson
DL
,
Mantua
NJ
.
2005
.
Atmospheric, climatic, and ecological controls on extreme wildfire years in the northwestern United States
.
Ecological Applications
15
:
154
174
.
Girvetz
EH
,
Zganjar
C
,
Raber
GT
,
Maurer
EP
,
Kareiva
P
,
Lawler
JJ
.
2009
.
Applied climate-change analysis: the Climate Wizard Tool
.
PLoS ONE
4
:
e8320
.
Glick
P
,
Stein
BA
,
Edelson
NA
.
2011
.
Scanning the conservation horizon: a guide to climate change vulnerability assessment
.
Washington, D.C.
:
National Wildlife Federation
.
Graham
LP
,
Hagemann
S
,
Jaun
S
,
Beniston
M
.
2007
.
On interpreting hydrological change from regional climate models
.
Climatic Change
81
:
97
122
.
Guilyardi
E
,
Bellenger
H
,
Collins
M
,
Ferrett
S
,
Cai
W
,
Wittenberg
A. T
.
2012
.
A first look at ENSO in CMIP5
.
CLIVAR Exchanges
58
:
29
32
.
Haddeland
I
,
Skaugen
T
,
Lettenmaier
DP
.
2007
.
Hydrologic effects of land and water management in North America and Asia: 1700–1992
.
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences
11
:
1035
1045
.
Harsch
MA
,
Hulme
PE
,
McGlone
MS
,
Duncan
RP
.
2009
.
Are treelines advancing? A global meta-analysis of treeline response to climate warming
.
Ecology Letters
12
:
1040
1049
.
Hartmann
DL
.
1994
.
Global physical climatology
.
San Diego, California
:
Academic Press
.
Hawkins
E
,
Sutton
R
.
2009
.
The potential to narrow uncertainty in regional climate predictions
.
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
90
:
1095
1107
.
Hawkins
E
,
Sutton
R
.
2011
.
The potential to narrow uncertainty in projections of regional precipitation change
.
Climate Dynamics
37
:
407
418
.
He
HS
,
Hao
Z
,
Mladenoff
DJ
,
Shao
G
,
Hu
Y
,
Chang
Y
.
2005
.
Simulating forest ecosystem response to climate warming incorporating spatial effects in northeastern China
.
Journal of Biogeography
32
:
2043
2056
.
Heikkinen
RK
,
Luoto
M
,
Araújo
MB
,
Virkkala
R
,
Thuiller
W
,
Sykes
MT
.
2006
.
Methods and uncertainties in bioclimatic envelope modelling under climate change
.
Progress in Physical Geography
30
:
751
777
.
Higuera
PE
,
Brubaker
LB
,
Anderson
PM
,
Hu
FS
,
Brown
TA
.
2009
.
Vegetation mediated the impacts of postglacial climate change on fire regimes in the south-central Brooks Range, Alaska
.
Ecological Monographs
79
:
201
219
.
Hoekstra
JM
,
Boucher
TM
,
Ricketts
TH
,
Roberts
C
.
2005
.
Confronting a biome crisis: global disparities of habitat loss and protection
.
Ecology Letters
8
:
23
29
.
Holling
CS
.
1978
.
Adaptive environmental assessment and management
.
New York
:
Wiley
.
[IPCC-TGICA] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Task Group on Data and Scenario Support for Impact and Climate Assessment
.
2007
.
General guidelines on the use of scenario data for climate impact and adaptation assessment, version 2. Carter TR (lead author), Alfsen K, Barrow E, Bass B, Dai X, Desanker P, Gaffin SR, Giorgi F, Hulme M, Lal M, Mata LJ, Mearns LO, Mitchell JFB, Morita T, Moss R, Murdiyarso D, Pabon-Caicedo JD, Palutikof J, Parry ML, Rosenzweig C, Seguin B, Scholes RL, Whetton PH (contributing authors)
.
Cambridge, UK
:
University of Cambridge Press
.
Available: http://www.ipcc-data.org/guidelines/ (March 2013)
.
Iverson
LR
,
Schwartz
MW
,
Prasad
AM
.
2004
.
How fast and far might tree species migrate in the eastern United States due to climate change
?
Global Ecology and Biogeography
13
:
209
219
.
Jackson
ST
,
Betancourt
JL
,
Booth
RK
,
Gray
ST
.
2009
.
Ecology and the ratchet of events: climate variability, niche dimensions, and species distributions
.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
106
(Supplement 2):
19685
19692
.
Kampf
SK
,
Burgess
SJ
.
2007
.
A framework for classifying and comparing distributed hillslope and catchment hydrologic models
.
Water Resources Research
43
:
W05423
.
Keane
RE
,
Cary
GJ
,
Davies
ID
,
Flannigan
M
,
Gardner
RH
,
Lavorel
S
,
Lenihan
JM
,
Li
C
,
Rupp
TS
.
2004
.
A classifications of landscape fire succession models: spatial simulations of fire and vegetation dynamics
.
Ecological Modelling
179
:
3
27
.
Keane
RE
,
Cary
GJ
,
Parsons
R
.
2003
.
Using simulation to map fire regimes: an evaluation of approaches, strategies, and limitations
.
International Journal of Wildland Fire
12
:
309
322
.
Keane
RE
,
Loehman
RA
,
Holsinger
LM
.
2011
.
The FireBGCv2 landscape fire and succession model: a research simulation platform for exploring fire and vegetation dynamics
.
Fort Collins, Colorado
:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-255
(see Supplemental Material, Reference S2, http://dx.doi.org/10.3996/062012-JFWM-055.S2); also available: http://www.firelab.org/research-projects/fire-ecology/139-firebgc (March 2013)
.
Kell
LT
,
Pilling
GM
,
O'Brien
CM
.
2005
.
Implications of climate change for the management of North Sea cod (Gadus morhua)
.
ICES Journal of Marine Science
62
:
1483
1491
.
Knutti
R
,
Furrer
R
,
Tebaldi
C
,
Cermak
J
,
Meehl
GA
.
2010
.
Challenges in combining projections from multiple climate models
.
Journal of Climate
23
:
2739
2758
.
Knutti
R
,
Sedlacek
J
.
2012
.
Robustness and uncertainties in the new CMIP5 climate model projections
.
Nature Climate Change
3
:
369
373
.
Krawchuck
MA
,
Cumming
SG
.
2010
.
Effects of biotic feedback and harvest management on boreal forest fire activity under climate change
.
Ecological Applications
21
:
122
136
.
Larocque
GR
,
Archambault
L
,
Delisle
C
.
2011
.
Development of the gap model ZELIG-CFS to predict the dynamics of North American mixed forest types with complex structures
.
Ecological Modelling
222
:
2570
2583
.
Lawler
JJ
,
Shafer
SL
,
White
D
,
Kareiva
P
,
Maurer
EP
,
Blaustein
AR
,
Bartlein
PJ
.
2009
.
Projected climate-induced faunal change in the Western Hemisphere
.
Ecology
90
:
588
597
.
Lawrence
DM
,
Oleson
KW
,
Flanner
MG
,
Thornton
PE
,
Swenson
SC
,
Lawrence
PJ
,
Zeng
X
,
Yang
Z-L
,
Levis
S
,
Sakaguchi
K
,
Bonan
GB
,
Slater
AG
.
2011
.
Parameterization improvements and functional and structural advances in version 4 of the Community Land Model
.
Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems
3
:
M03001
.
Lawson
DM
,
Regan
HM
,
Zedler
PH
,
Franklin
A
.
2010
.
Cumulative effects of land-use, altered fire regime and climate change on persistence of Ceanothus verrucosus, a rare, fire-dependent plant species
.
Global Change Biology
16
:
2518
2529
.
Lenihan
JM
,
Bachelet
D
,
Neilson
RP
,
Drapek
R
.
2008
.
Response of vegetation distribution, ecosystem productivity, and fire to climate change scenarios for California
.
Climate Change
87
:
S215
S230
.
Liang
X
,
Lettenmaier
DP
,
Wood
EF
,
Burges
SJ
.
1994
.
A simple hydrologically based model of land surface water and energy fluxes for GSMs
.
Journal of Geophysical Research
99
:
14415
14428
.
Littell
JS
,
Gwozdz
RB
.
2011
.
Climatic water balance and regional fire years in the Pacific Northwest, USA: linking regional climate and fire at landscape scales
. Pages
117
139
in
McKenzie
D
,
Miller
C
,
Falk
DA
,
editors
.
The landscape ecology of fire
.
Dordrecht, The Netherlands
:
Springer
.
Littell
JS
,
McKenzie
D
,
Kerns
BK
,
Cushman
SA
,
Shaw
CB
.
2011
.
Managing uncertainty in climate-driven ecological models to inform adaptation to climate change
.
Ecosphere
2
:
102
.
Littell
JS
,
McKenzie
D
,
Peterson
DL
,
Westerling
AL
.
2009
.
Climate and wildfire area burned in western U.S. ecoprovinces, 1916–2003
.
Ecological Applications
19
:
1003
1021
.
Martínez-Meyer
E
,
Peterson
AT
,
Hargrove
WW
.
2004
.
Ecological niches as stable distributional constraints on mammal species, with implications for Pleistocene extinctions and climate change projections for biodiversity
.
Global Ecology and Biogeography
13
:
305
314
.
Maslin
M
,
Austin
P
.
2012
.
Uncertainty: climate models at their limit
?
Nature
486
:
183
184
.
Maurer
EP
.
2007
.
Uncertainty in hydrologic impacts of climate change in the Sierra Nevada, California, under two emissions scenarios
.
Climatic Change
82
:
309
325
.
Maurer
EP
,
Brekke
L
,
Pruitt
T
,
Duffy
PB
.
2007
.
Fine-resolution climate change projections enhance regional climate change impact studies
.
Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union
88
:
504
.
Maurer
EP
,
Wood
AW
,
Adam
JC
,
Lettenmaier
DP
,
Nijssen
B
.
2002
.
A long-term hydrologically-based data set of land surface fluxes and states for the conterminous United States
.
Journal of Climate
15
:
3237
3251
.
McKelvey
KS
,
Copeland
JP
,
Schwartz
MK
,
Littell
JS
,
Aubry
KB
,
Squires
JR
,
Parks
SA
,
Elsner
MM
,
Mauger
GS
.
2011
.
Climate change predicted to shift wolverine distributions, connectivity, and dispersal corridors
.
Ecological Applications
21
:
2882
2897
.
McKenzie
D
,
Littell
JS
.
2011
.
Climate change and wilderness fire regimes
.
International Journal of Wilderness
17
:
22
27
.
McKenzie
D
,
Miller
C
,
Falk
DA
.
2011
.
Toward a theory of landscape fire
. Pages
3
26
in
McKenzie
D
,
Miller
C
,
Falk
DA
,
editors
.
The landscape ecology of fire
.
Dordrecht, The Netherlands
:
Springer
.
Mclaughlin
BC
,
Zavaleta
ES
.
2012
.
Predicting species responses to climate change: demography and climate microrefugia in California valley oak (Quercus lobata)
.
Global Change Biology
18
:
2301
2312
.
McRae
BH
,
Schumaker
NH
,
McKane
RB
,
Busing
RT
,
Solomon
AM
,
Burdick
CA
.
2008
.
A multi-model framework for simulating wildlife population response to land-use and climate change
.
Ecological Modelling
219
:
77
91
.
Mearns
LO
,
Gutowski
W
,
Jones
R
,
Leung
S
,
McGinnis
S
,
Nunes
A
,
Qian
Y
.
2009
.
A regional climate change assessment program for North America
.
Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union
90
:
311
.
Medvigy
D
,
Wofsy
SC
,
Munger
JW
,
Hollinger
DY
,
Moorcroft
PR
.
2009
.
Mechanistic scaling of ecosystem function and dynamics in space and time: ecosystem demography model version 2
.
Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences
114
(
G1
).
Meehl
GA
,
Covey
C
,
Delworth
T
,
Latif
M
,
McAvaney
B
,
Mitchell
JFB
,
Stouffer
RJ
,
Taylor
KE
.
2007
.
The WCRP CMIP3 multimodel dataset: a new era in climate change research
.
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
88
:
1383
1394
.
Meehl
GA
,
Goddard
L
,
Murphy
J
,
Stouffer
RJ
,
Boer
G
,
Danabasoglu
G
,
Dixon
K
,
Giorgetta
MA
,
Greene
AM
,
Hawkins
E
,
Hegerl
G
,
Karoly
D
,
Keenlyside
N
,
Kimoto
M
,
Kirtman
B
,
Navarra
A
,
Pulwarty
R
,
Smith
D
,
Stammer
D
,
Stockdale
T
.
2009
.
Decadal prediction, can it be skillful
?
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
90
:
1467
1485
.
Moorcroft
PR
,
Hurtt
GC
,
Pacala
SW
.
2001
.
A method for scaling vegetation dynamics: the ecosystem demography model (ED)
. Ecological Monographs
71
557
586
.
Morin
X
,
Thuiller
W
.
2009
.
Comparing niche- and process-based models to reduce prediction uncertainty in species range shifts under climate change
.
Ecology
90
:
1301
1313
.
Mote
P
,
Brekke
L
,
Duffy
PB
,
Maurer
E
.
2011
.
Guidelines for constructing climate scenarios
.
Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union
92
:
257
.
Noss
RF
,
Franklin
JF
,
Baker
WL
,
Schoennagel
T
,
Moyle
PB
.
2006
.
Managing fire-prone forests in the western United States
.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
4
:
481
487
.
Pabst
RJ
,
Goslin
MN
,
Garman
SL
,
Spies
TA
.
2008
.
Calibrating and testing a gap model for simulating forest management in the Oregon Coast Range
.
Forest Ecology and Management
256
:
958
972
.
Parry
ML
,
Canziani
OF
,
Palutikof
J
,
van der Linden
PJ
,
Hanson
CE
.
editors
.
2007
.
Climate Change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on climate change
.
Cambridge, UK
:
Cambridge University Press
. .
Parton
WJ
,
Morgan
JA
,
Wang
G
,
Del Grosso
S
.
2007
.
Projected ecosystem impact of the prairie heating and CO2 Enrichment experiment
.
New Phytologist
174
:
823
834
.
Pearson
RG
,
Dawson
TP
.
2003
.
Predicting the impacts of climate change on the distribution of species: are bioclimate envelope models useful
?
Global Ecology and Biogeography
12
:
361
371
.
Peeters
F
,
Straile
D
,
Lorke
A
,
Livingstone
DM
.
2007
.
Earlier onset of the spring phytoplankton bloom in lakes of the temperate zone in a warmer climate
.
Global Change Biology
13
:
1898
1909
.
Peterson
DL
,
Millar
CI
,
Joyce
LA
,
Furniss
MJ
,
Halofsky
JE
,
Neilson
RP
,
Morelli
T-L
.
2011
.
Responding to climate change in national forests: a guidebook for developing adaptation options
.
Portland, Oregon
:
Pacific Northwest Research Station. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-855
(see Supplemental Material, Reference S3, http://dx.doi.org/10.3996/062012-JFWM-055.S3); also available: http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/39884 (March 2013)
.
Peterson
GD
.
2002
.
Contagious disturbance, ecological memory, and the emergence of landscape pattern
.
Ecosystems
5
:
329
338
.
Peterson
GD
,
Cumming
GS
,
Carpenter
SR
.
2003
.
Scenario planning: a tool for conservation in an uncertain world
.
Conservation Biology
17
:
358
366
.
Piao
S
,
Friedlingstein
P
,
Ciais
P
,
de Noblet-Decoudré
N
,
Labat
D
,
Zaehle
S
.
2007
.
Changes in climate and land use have a larger direct impact than rising CO2 on global river runoff trends
.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
104
:
15242
15247
.
Pierce
DW
,
Barnett
TP
,
Santer
BD
,
Gleckler
PJ
.
2009
.
Selecting global climate models for regional climate change studies
.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
106
:
8441
8446
.
Prasad
AM
,
Iverson
LR
,
Liaw
A
.
2006
.
Newer classification and regression tree techniques: bagging and random forests for ecological prediction
.
Ecosystems
9
:
181
199
.
Quillet
A
,
Peng
C
,
Garneau
M
.
2010
.
Toward dynamic global vegetation models for simulating vegetation-climate interactions and feedbacks: recent developments, limitations, and future challenges
.
Environmental Reviews
18
:
333
353
.
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, Colombia. Available: http://www.ccafs-climate.org (March 2013)
.
Ray
JC
.
2000
.
Mesocarnivores of northeastern North America: status and conservation issues
.
Working Paper No. 15. Wildlife Conservation Society, New York
.
Rehfeldt
GE
,
Crookston
NL
,
Sáenz-Romero
C
,
Campbell
EM
.
2012
.
North American vegetation model for land-use planning in a changing climate: a solution to large classification problems
.
Ecological Applications
22
:
119
141
.
Roe
GH
,
Baker
MB
.
2007
.
Why is climate sensitivity so unpredictable
?
Science
318
:
629
632
.
Rogers
BM
,
Neilson
RP
,
Drapek
R
,
Lenihan
JM
,
Wells
JR
,
Bachelet
D
,
Law
BE
.
2011
.
Impacts of climate change on fire regimes and carbon stocks of the U.S. Pacific Northwest
.
Journal of Geophysical Research
116
:
G03037
.
Rolls
RJ
,
Leigh
C
,
Sheldon
F
.
2012
.
Mechanistic effects of low-flow hydrology on riverine ecosystems: ecological principles and consequences of alteration
.
Freshwater Science
31
:
1163
1186
.
Salathe
EP
,
Mote
PW
,
Wiley
MW
.
2007
.
Review of scenario selection and downscaling methods for the assessment of climate change impacts on hydrology in the United States Pacific Northwest
.
International Journal of Climatology
27
:
1611
1621
.
Sakaguchi
K
,
Zeng
Z
,
Brunke
MA
.
2012
.
The hindcast skill of the CMIP ensembles for the surface air temperature trend
.
Journal of Geophysical Research
117
:
113
.
Scheuerell
MD
,
Hilborn
R
,
Ruckelshaus
MH
,
Bartz
KK
,
Lagueux
KM
,
Haas
AD
,
Rawson
K
.
2006
.
The Shiraz model: a tool for incorporating anthropogenic effects and fish-habitat relationships in conservation planning
.
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
63
:
1596
1607
.
Schloss
CA
,
Nuñez
TA
,
Lawler
JJ
.
2012
.
Dispersal will limit ability of mammals to track climate change in the Western Hemisphere
.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
109
:
8606
8611
.
Schumaker
NH
,
Ernst
T
,
White
D
,
Baker
J
,
Haggerty
P
.
2004
.
Projecting wildlife responses to alternative future landscapes in Oregon's Willamette Basin
.
Ecological Applications
14
:
381
400
.
Seidl
R
,
Fernandes
PM
,
Fonseca
TF
,
Gillet
F
,
Jönsson
AM
,
Merganičová
K
,
Netherer
S
,
Arpaci
A
,
Bontemps
JD
,
Bugmann
H
.
2011
.
Modelling natural disturbances in forest ecosystems: a review
.
Ecological Modelling
222
:
903
924
.
Smith
B
,
Prentice
IC
,
Sykes
MT
.
2001
.
Representation of vegetation dynamics in the modelling of terrestrial ecosystems: comparing two contrasting approaches within European climate space
.
Global Ecology and Biogeography
10
:
621
637
.
Smucker
KM
,
Hutto
RL
,
Steele
BM
.
2005
.
Changes in bird abundance after wildfire: importance of fire severity and time since fire
.
Ecological Applications
15
:
1535
1549
.
Solomon
S
,
Qin
D
,
Manning
M
,
Chen
Z
,
Marquis
M
,
Averyt
KB
,
Tignor
M
,
Miller
HL
.
editors
.
2007
.
Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
.
Cambridge, UK
:
Cambridge University Press
. .
Stocks
BJ
,
Mason
JA
,
Todd
JB
,
Bosch
EM
,
Wotton
BM
,
Amiro
BD
,
Flannigan
MD
,
Hirsch
KG
,
Logan
KA
,
Martell
DL
,
Skinner
WR
.
2002
.
Large forest fires in Canada, 1959–1997
.
Journal of Geophysical Research
107
:
8149
.
Swetnam
TW
,
Betancourt
JL
.
1998
.
Mesoscale disturbance and ecological response to decadal climatic variability in the American Southwest
.
Journal of Climate
11
:
3128
3147
.
Tague
C
,
Band
L
.
2004
.
RHESSys: regional hydro-ecologic simulation system: an object-oriented approach to spatially distributed modeling of carbon, water and nutrient cycling
.
Earth Interactions
8
:
1
42
.
Taylor
KE
,
Stouffer
RJ
,
Meehl
GA
.
2012
.
An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design
.
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
93
:
485
498
.
Tebaldi
C
,
Knutti
R
.
2007
.
The use of the multi-model ensemble in probabilistic climate projections. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
.
Series A: Mathematical and Physical Sciences
365
:
2053
2075
.
Thuiller
W
.
2004
.
Patterns and uncertainties of species' range shifts under climate change
.
Global Change Biology
10
:
2020
2027
.
Turner
MG
,
Romme
WH
.
1994
.
Landscape dynamics in crown fire ecosystems
.
Landscape Ecology
9
:
59
77
.
VanShaar
JR
,
Haddeland
I
,
Lettenmaier
DP
.
2002
.
Effects of land-cover changes on the hydrological response of interior Columbia River basin forested catchments
.
Hydrological Processes
16
:
2499
2520
.
Vicuna
S
,
Maurer
EP
,
Joyce
B
,
Dracup
JA
,
Purkey
D
.
2007
.
The sensitivity of California water resources to climate change scenarios
.
Journal of the American Water Resources Association
43
:
482
498
.
Viney
NR
,
Bates
BC
,
Charles
SP
,
Webster
IT
,
Bormans
M
.
2007
.
Modelling adaptive management strategies for coping with the impacts of climate variability and change on riverine algal blooms
.
Global Change Biology
13
:
2453
2465
.
Weigel
AP
,
Knutti
R
,
Liniger
MA
,
Appenzeller
C
.
2010
.
Risks of model weighting in multimodel climate projections
.
Journal of Climate
23
:
4175
4191
.
West
JM
,
Julius
SH
,
Kareiva
P
,
Enquist
C
,
Lawler
JJ
,
Peterson
AE
,
Johnson
E
,
Shaw
MR
.
2009
.
U.S. natural resources and climate change: concepts and approaches for management adaptation
.
Environmental Management
44
:
1001
1021
.
Westerling
AL
,
Bryant
BP
.
2007
.
Climate change and wildfire in California
.
Climatic Change
87
:
231
249
.
Westerling
AL
,
Hidalgo
HG
,
Cayan
DR
,
Swetnam
TW
.
2006
.
Increases in Western US forest wildfire associated with warming and advances in the timing of spring
.
Science
313
:
940
943
.
Wigmosta
MS
,
Vail
LW
,
Lettenmaier
DP
.
1994
.
A distributed hydrology–vegetation model for complex terrain
.
Water Resources Research
30
:
1665
1679
.
Williams
JW
,
Jackson
ST
.
2007
.
Novel climates, no-analog communities, and ecological surprises
.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
5
:
475
482
.
Williams
JW
,
Kharouba
HM
,
Veloz
S
,
Vellend
M
,
McLachlan
J
,
Liu
Z
,
Otto-Bliesner
B
,
He
F
.
2013
.
The ice age ecologist: testing methods for reserve prioritization during the last global warming
.
Global Ecology and Biogeography
22
:
29
201
.
Williams
SE
,
Shoo
LP
,
Isaac
JL
,
Hoffmann
AA
,
Langham
G
.
2008
.
Towards an Integrated Framework for Assessing the Vulnerability of Species to Climate Change
.
PLoS Biology
6
:
e325
e325
.
Yates
D
,
Sieber
J
,
Purkey
DR
,
Huber-Lee
A
.
2005
.
WEAP21: a demand-, priority-, and preference-driven water planning model: part 1, model characteristics
.
Water International
30
:
487
500
.
Zarnetske
PL
,
Skelly
DK
,
Urban
MC
.
2012
.
Biotic multipliers of climate change
.
Science
336
:
1516
1518
.

Author notes

Wilsey CB, Lawler JJ, Maurer EP, McKenzie D, Townsend PA, Hutten KM. 2013. Tools for assessing climate impacts on fish and wildlife. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 4(1):220-241; e1944-687X. doi: 10.3996/062012-JFWM-055

The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Editor's Note: Dr. Kurt Johnson (kurt_johnson@fws.gov) served as the Guest Editor and invited this themed paper (along with several others, to be published in subsequent issues) focused on assessing impacts and vulnerability of fish and wildlife to accelerating climate change.