Climate change can alter which species are climatically suited to live in the same places, because species respond to shifting conditions at different rates and in different directions. That creates the potential for new species combinations—but a climate model’s projection of suitability is not proof that species now coexist, interact successfully, or will form a stable ecosystem. A 2023 study of native plants in Brazil’s Atlantic Forest shows how projections can inform conservation planning, while stopping short of establishing a universal prescription to abandon historical restoration goals.
What does it mean for climate change to create new species combinations?
Species do not all respond to climate change in the same way. As temperature and other climatic conditions shift, a species’ suitable range may move, shrink, or expand. Since other species may respond differently, the set of species with suitable conditions in a given place can change too.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
A 2019 review of Quaternary botany and modern ecology explains that environmental conditions constrain which species could potentially occur together. The review argues for using long-term perspectives and multiple kinds of evidence in conservation planning. Read the review in the Journal of Biogeography.
PC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minutePotential co-occurrence is not proof of a functioning community
Climate suitability is one condition for a species to occur in an area, not a guarantee that it will get there or persist. A projection of overlapping suitable areas does not establish that species encounter one another, form particular ecological interactions, or maintain ecosystem functions. Those questions require evidence beyond modeled climatic affinity.
#1 Best Overall
For that reason, “new combinations” should be understood as possible changes in which species are climatically suited to occur together—not as a blanket finding that novel, stable ecosystems have already formed.
What does the Brazilian Atlantic Forest study show?
A study first published on 5 July 2023 in the Journal of Applied Ecology used ecological niche models to examine native plant species in Brazil’s Atlantic Forest. The authors grouped species by climatic similarity, identified 15 groups with finer climatic affinities, and assessed two emissions scenarios across two future periods. They discuss how the resulting groups and maps of climatically suitable areas could inform agroforestry and conservation planning. Read the study.
Rank #2
| Model input | What the study assessed |
|---|---|
| Climate scenarios | SSP2-4.5 and SSP5-8.5 |
| Future periods | Mid-term: 2041–2060; long-term: 2061–2080 |
| Species analysis | Native plants grouped by climatic similarity, including 15 groups with finer climatic affinities |
| Planning relevance | Potentially suitable areas and groupings to inform agroforestry and conservation |
The authors reported mean negative changes in species climatic similarity of 9.5% to 13.7% under SSP2-4.5 and 9.5% to 10.5% under SSP5-8.5 across the future periods they assessed. These are modeled results for this regional study, not observed changes in species interactions or global forecasts. The ranges should not be read as a simple ranking of the scenarios: the study’s results depend on its species, models, geographic scope, and time periods.
Does this mean conservation should stop restoring historical ecosystems?
No. The study provides one example of how projected future climatic suitability can inform decisions; it does not demonstrate that historical reference conditions are irrelevant or that restoration should be abandoned. Nor does it establish a single consensus approach called “novel ecosystem” management.
A more grounded implication is to consider both the conditions conservation aims to protect now and the ways climate may alter species distributions and community composition. For a particular project, that could mean asking whether a current restoration target remains feasible under projected conditions, and whether protecting connected areas or planning for changing suitability would complement that target. The answer will depend on the place, species, objectives, and evidence available.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What the evidence can—and cannot—support
- It supports: climate change can shift potential species co-occurrence because species have different environmental niches and responses.
- It supports: modeling climatic similarity and suitable areas can help identify conservation and agroforestry planning priorities in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest case.
- It does not establish: that every projected grouping will occur in nature, persist, or deliver particular ecological functions.
- It does not establish: a universal conservation rule or a verified call by specific people to replace historical restoration goals.
The broad headline claim that climate change is prompting calls to rethink conservation goals should therefore be treated cautiously unless it is tied to a specific, verifiable source. The evidence here supports planning that accounts for ongoing change; it does not identify who made a particular call or prove that conservation should adopt one new goal everywhere.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
