Regional Environmental Change (2020) 20: 27

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-020-01595-9

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Hotspots and ecoregion vulnerability driven by climate change

velocity in Southern South America
Taryn Fuentes-Castillo 1 & H. Jaime Hernández 2 & Patricio Pliscoff 1,3

Received: 16 November 2017 / Accepted: 24 November 2019 / Published online: 18 February 2020
# Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
Any conservation strategy must deal with the uncertainty caused by anthropogenic climate change. In order to forecast such changes, the
climate change velocity approach has been used to measure ecosystem exposure to this phenomenon. The Tropical Andes and the Chilean
Winter Rainfall-Valdivian Forests (Central Chile) hotspots are priority for conservation due to their high species richness and threats,
where climate change is one of the serious pressures to their ecosystems. Even though previous studies have forecasted future climate
velocity patterns across the globe, these biodiversity hotspots lack a regional evaluation of the vulnerability to climate change to inform
conservation decisions. In this study, we evaluated the vulnerability of terrestrial ecosystems to climate change velocity at the Southern
South America ecoregional system, by using regional climatic data that improves the accuracy of predictions. We estimated forward and
backward velocities for temperature and precipitation, and we performed a protected area-level analysis of climate change vulnerability.
Also, we compared our results with previous evaluations. We found that forward velocity was higher in the Tropical Andes hotspot for
both climatic variables analyzed, whereas backward velocity was higher in the Central Chile hotspot considering just the temperature
variable. Finally, we found that in the Central Chile hotspot, smaller protected areas are more vulnerable to climate change as measured by
climate change velocity, whereas in the Tropical Andes hotspot, larger protected areas are more vulnerable. Several rapid change areas are
expected along the two hotspots. These findings have important conservation implications in the region, especially for the protected areas.

Keywords Climate change velocity . Tropical Andes . Central Chile . Ecosystem vulnerability . Biodiversity hotspots

Introduction 2014, 2018). Biotic and abiotic responses associated with

changes in new climate conditions have been widely docu-
Anthropogenic climate change is one of the key pressures to mented during the last century (Parmesan and Yohe 2003;
biological, physical, social, and economic systems (IPCC Dawson et al. 2011; Fei et al. 2017). Moreover, climate
change will experience rapid rates of change towards novel
Communicated by Tony Weir climatic conditions and will cause the disappearance of some
extant climates (Williams et al. 2007).
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article
(https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-020-01595-9) contains supplementary
There is no guarantee that ecosystems will be able to circum-
material, which is available to authorized users. vent such changes at accelerated rates; in fact, ecosystems
worldwide are collapsing as a result of climate- and human-
* Taryn Fuentes-Castillo induced changes (Bland et al. 2017). Ecosystem collapse may
[email protected] involve biodiversity loss, which has been reported as one of the
most serious menaces to ecosystems, threatening ecosystem
1
Facultad de Historia, Geografía y Ciencia Política, Instituto de functions and services, as well as threatening human welfare
Geografía, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Av. Vicuña (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005; Cardinale et al.
Mackenna 4860, Santiago, Chile 2012; Steffen et al. 2015). Furthermore, the uncertainty caused
2
Laboratorio de Geomática y Ecología del Paisaje, Facultad de by climate change (Yousefpour and Hanewinkel 2016) and our
Ciencias Forestales y de la Conservación de la Naturaleza, limited capacity to understand the risks and forecast ecosystem
Universidad de Chile, Santa Rosa 11315, La Pintana, Santiago, Chile
collapse (Bland et al. 2017) are the main challenges for conser-
3
Departamento de Ecología, Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas, vation strategies that support adaptation to global environmen-
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Av. Libertador Bernardo
O’Higgins 340, Santiago, Chile
tal change (Pressey et al. 2007; Lawler et al. 2015).
27 Page 2 of 15 Reg Environ Change (2020) 20: 27

Ecosystem exposure to climate change corresponds to the 2009; Carroll et al. 2015). This aspect has been analyzed by
degree in which an ecosystem is exposed to climate variations Dobrowski and Parks (2016), who remarked how mountain
over time or space (Garcia et al. 2014). To assess such expo- climate velocity had previously been underestimated, showing
sure, it is important to know how fast the climate is shifting, as that distance is not the best metric to measure climate connec-
well as the direction of that change (Loarie et al. 2009; tivity in these zones; and suggesting climate velocity can be
Dobrowski et al. 2013; Nadeau et al. 2017). Climate change higher in mountains as they are more isolated and provide
velocity (Loarie et al. 2009; Hamann et al. 2015) is a regional- climatic resistance to species movement. However, it is still
type metric and one of the most widely used for estimating uncertain how climate velocity will be able to determine con-
climate change exposure (Garcia et al. 2014), which repre- servation plans in complex terrestrial ecosystems such as
sents the rate and direction at which organisms or ecosystems mountains.
require to migrate while maintaining constant climatic condi- Southern South America (SSA) includes four of the
tions (Loarie et al. 2009; Dobrowski et al. 2013). Moreover, world’s five major climate zones (Tropical, Mediterranean,
climate change direction provides information about how cli- Temperate, and Boreal) and harbors 2 out of 35 of the world’s
mate shifts will vary across the landscape (Garcia et al. 2014), biodiversity hotspots: Tropical Andes and Winter Rainfall-
reflecting topographic aspects, or regional climate change Valdivian Forests (ChV) in Central Chile. These areas exhibit
(Ackerly et al. 2010). great species (Tropical Andes) and genus (ChV) richness of
Climate velocity can be estimated using several methodol- vascular plant species and high endemism of animal species;
ogies (Garcia et al. 2014; Brito-Morales et al. 2018), but two both are already experiencing a high degree of habitat loss
main approaches have been used to calculate it, namely local (Myers et al. 2000; Mittermeier et al. 2004, 2011).
velocity (Loarie et al. 2009) and analogue-based velocity Even though previous studies have forecasted future cli-
(Ordonez and Williams 2013; Hamann et al. 2015). The for- mate velocity patterns across the globe including SSA (e.g.,
mer considers the climate spatial variation within the neigh- global analysis by Loarie et al. 2009; Burrows et al. 2011,
borhood of a specified location (Loarie et al. 2009; Carroll 2014; and a continental analysis by Carroll et al. 2015), bio-
et al. 2015). The second approach (analogue-based velocity) diversity hotspots in SSA lack a regional evaluation of climate
represents the actual distance to where the nearest analogous velocity to determine the vulnerability to climate change that
climates will be found in the future. It can describe the speed may lead to different conclusions regarding conservation
and direction of climate variation based on landscape hetero- actions.
geneity and is facilitated by efficient nearest-neighbor search This study set out to quantify the vulnerability of terrestrial
algorithms (Hamann et al. 2015). Climate change velocity ecosystems to climate change in the SSA ecoregional system.
applications have focused on assessing the following: (1) cli- We focused on answering two main questions: (1) How will
mate vulnerability of conservation areas (Loarie et al. 2009; the magnitude and rate of climate change velocity be projected
Ackerly et al. 2010; Schueler et al. 2014; García Molinos et al. in SSA hotspots and ecoregion units? (2) Which ecoregion
2017); (2) climate change exposure of marine and terrestrial units in SSA will be more vulnerable to climate change, as
environments (Burrows et al. 2011, 2014; Diffenbaugh and measured by climate change velocity?
Field 2013); and (3) species vulnerability, migration capacity, To address these questions, we assessed an ecoregional
or refugia (Schippers et al. 2011; Sandel et al. 2011; Bateman vulnerability in SSA using a forward and backward velocity
et al. 2012; Schueler et al. 2014; Serra-Diaz et al. 2014; approach (Carroll et al. 2015) and estimated the climate
Hamann et al. 2015; Roberts and Hamann 2016; García change direction for the two biodiversity hotspots and
Molinos et al. 2016; Carroll et al. 2017; Williams and Blois ecoregions recognized in this area. Also, we compared our
2018). results with previous evaluations. The forward and backward
Terrestrial ecosystems have experienced widespread climate change direction for each ecoregion and hotspot has
changes due to climate over the last century that span the not previously been evaluated for SSA.
biological hierarchy from genes to communities and are ex-
pected to intensify in the next few decades (Scheffers et al.
2016). This rate of change is expected to be at least an order of Methods
magnitude, if not several orders of magnitude faster, than the
changes to which terrestrial ecosystems have been exposed to Study area and ecoregion units
during the past 65 million years (Diffenbaugh and Field
2013). We considered the SSA section to include Chile (Fig. 1a),
Global and continental climate velocity estimations have southern Perú, southwestern Bolivia, and north western
indicated that mountain regions with high spatial climate het- Argentina. To define terrestrial ecosystem units at a broad
erogeneity will exhibit slower velocity rates, while flatter to- level, we used an ecoregional classification following
pographical regions will exhibit faster velocities (Loarie et al. Dinerstein et al. (2017). This area includes 16 ecoregions:
Reg Environ Change (2020) 20: 27 Page 3 of 15 27

Fig. 1 Hotspots and ecoregions in Southern South America (SSA). The upper left figure depicts the study area (a), the right figure shows the world
ecoregions considered (b), and finally, in the middle panel (c), the two hotspots of SSA evaluated in this study

the Sechura Desert, Peruvian Yungas, Central Andean Puna area: Tropical, Mediterranean, and Temperate. Ecoregions
(wet and dry), Bolivian Yungas, Bolivian montane dry forests, which present a Tropical climate-type can be found in Perú,
Southern Andean Yungas, Atacama Desert, Southern Andean Bolivia, and northern Chile. Mediterranean climate-type can
Steppe, Chilean Matorral, High Monte, Low Monte, only be identified in central Chile, whereas Temperate
Valdivian Temperate Forests, Patagonian Steppe, and climate-type can be found in southern regions of Chile and
Magellanic Subpolar Forests (Fig. 1b). In the case of Argentina. Mountainous topography can be identified along
Peruvian Yungas, we considered the ecoregion limits sug- most of the 16 ecoregions, with some exceptions where flat
gested by Olson et al. (2001) and revalidated by Britto areas can be found, at either high or low altitude. These ex-
(2017). SSA presents different topographical attributes, most- ceptions include ecoregions located in the high Andes (Puna)
ly arising from the Andes mountain range across the study which corresponds to a flat plateau (3, 4, and 5 in Fig. 1), those
area. Three climatic domains can be found across the study located in the coastal area towards the Pacific Ocean in Perú
27 Page 4 of 15 Reg Environ Change (2020) 20: 27

and Chile (1, 9, and 11 in Fig. 1), and those present in the Climate change velocity algorithm
western slope of the Andes in Argentina, dominated by a flat
terrain (13 and 15 in Fig.1). We used the analogue-based velocity approach (Hamann et al.
2015) to estimate the forward and backward velocity and di-
rection of temperatures and precipitation variables, according
Present and future climate data to each GCM. Forward velocity describes the distance from
current climate locations to their nearest analogous sites in the
Current bioclimatic surfaces in SSA were obtained from future. In contrast, backward velocity describes the distance
Pliscoff et al. (2014), which considered a spatial resolution from future projected climatic cells back to current analogous
of 1 × 1 km, representing a time period of 50 years (1950– climate locations (Carroll et al. 2015). Forward and backward
2000), and a dense dataset of meteorological stations—930 climate analogues were identified using a univariate k-nearest
meteorological stations located in Chile, Bolivia, Perú, and neighbor search algorithm between present and future data
Argentina—resulting in a more accurate database than previ- (Appendix S6 in Hamann et al. 2015), where analogue dis-
ously available (e.g., Worldclim, Hijmans et al. 2005). This tances were measured as Euclidean. Furthermore, to obtain
climatic baseline has been used by subsequent studies for it forward and backward climate directions, we computed the
being a better fit for SSA (Valenzuela-Sánchez et al. 2014; De azimuth angles between the closest analogue climate match
Porras et al. 2015; Larridon et al. 2015; Martinez-Harms et al. vectors, given the result of the univariate k-nearest neighbor
2017; Espíndola and Pliscoff 2018). search algorithm. Angles were calculated in degrees among
We incorporated this baseline to infer future climate pre- each coordinate data pair.
dictions for annual mean temperature and annual precipita- Moreover, to deal with GCM variation, we calculated the
tion, using the delta statistical downscaling method (Hijmans total climate velocity average from all GCMs, at each RCP
et al. 2005; Ramírez-Villegas and Jarvis 2010). Climatic scenario and period (2030 and 2080). Climate change velocity
anomalies represent the comparative difference between fu- uncertainty was estimated by the standard deviation of veloc-
ture and present climate (deltas). Anomalies of original global ities across the multiple GCMs, where lower and upper uncer-
circulation models (GCM) were obtained and then applied to tainty were defined by RCP2.6 and RCP8.5 scenarios, respec-
the baseline climatic data. GCM deltas were sourced from the tively, following the approach by Loarie et al. (2009).
Global Climate Model data portal (Ramirez-Villegas and All of these estimations were computed using the R-Project
Jarvis 2008) (http://www.ccafs-climate.org) for periods 2030 software version 3.5.1 (R Development Core Team 2018). All
(average for 2021–2040) and 2080 (average for 2071–2090) computational calculations were done at the supercomputing
for two IPCC Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP): infrastructure of the National Laboratory for High-
RCP2.6 and RCP8.5. The RCPs are identified by their Performance Computing in Chile (NLHPC) (ECM-02).
approximate total radiative forcing in the year 2100 relative To evaluate our regional results regarding previous climate
to 1750: 2.6 W per square meter (W/m2) for RCP2.6 and 8. change velocity estimations on a continental scale, we com-
5 W/m2 for RCP8.5 (IPCC 2014). RCP2.6 represents a sce- pared our results with Carroll’s velocity calculations for SSA,
nario where radiative forcing peaks at approximately 3 W/m2 whose data is available at https://adaptwest.databasin.org.
before 2100 and then declines (van Vuuren et al. 2011; IPCC Specifically, we contrasted the forward and backward
2014). RCP8.5 represents a scenario characterized by an in- velocity averages of temperatures at each hotspot and their
creasing greenhouse gas emission trajectory over time, with spatial patterns. Then, we compared two GCMs: HadCM3
radiative forcing consequently increasing to 8.5 W/m2 in 2100 (CMIP3)—used by Carroll et al. (2015)—and HadGEM2-
(Riahi et al. 2011; IPCC 2014). ES (CMIP5)—used in this study—where we considered a
Emission scenarios were used for the CMIP5 multi-model 50 × 50-km pixel size for both data sources.
dataset by 31 GCMs in the RCP8.5 scenario and 25 GCMs
were used for the RCP2.6 scenario based on their availability Hotspot vulnerability to climate change velocity
in the Global Climate Model data portal. The total GCMs
utilized were as follows: CSIRO-ACCESS1.0, CSIRO- We analyzed the vulnerability of two major hotspots in SSA,
ACCESS1.3, BCC-CSM1.1, BCC-CSM1.1(m), BNU-ESM, the Tropical Andes and the Chilean Winter Rainfall-Valdivian
CanESM2, CCSM4, CESM1(BGC), CESM1(CAM5), Forest hotspots (ChV) (Myers et al. 2000; Mittermeier et al.
CSIRO-Mk3.6.0, EC-EARTH, FIO-ESM, GFDL-CM3, 2011). The Tropical Andes hotspot in SSA includes the fol-
GFDL-ESM2G, GFDL-ESM2M, GISS-E2-H, GISS-E2-R, lowing ecoregions: the Peruvian Yungas, the Central Andean
IPSL-CM5A-MR, INM-CM4, IPSL-CM5A-LR, FGOALS- Puna (wet and dry), the Bolivian Yungas, the Bolivian mon-
g2., MIROC-ESM, MIROC-ESM-CHEM, MIROC5, tane dry forests, and the Southern Andean Yungas, whereas
HadGEM2-CC, HadGEM2-ES, HadGEM2-AO, MPI-ESM- the ChV hotspot includes the Chilean Matorral and the
MR, IPSL-CM5B-LR, MRI-CGCM3, and NorESM1-M. Valdivian temperate forest (Fig. 1c).
Reg Environ Change (2020) 20: 27 Page 5 of 15 27

The vulnerability assessment approach follows the Chile and Argentina, with the exception of Low Monte and
forward-backward velocity assessment described by Carroll the Patagonian steppe ecoregions. The forward and backward
et al. (2015), where the linear relationship between forward velocities for each ecoregion are reported in Table 1 for tem-
(x-axis) and backward (y-axis) velocity suggests four threat peratures and in Table S1 for precipitation (see Online
quadrants, which are defined by the median of each metric. Supplement).
The interpretation of this relation is described as follows: high Uncertain spatial patterns of temperature velocity were spa-
rates of forward-velocity (km/year) suggest threats to local tially confirmed beyond the ecoregional area analyzed for
populations, whereas high rates of backward-velocity suggest both forward and backward surfaces (see Fig. S8 in the
threats to sites. Likewise, a higher forward-backward relation- Online Supplement). In the case of precipitation, uncertainty
ship velocity suggests simultaneous threats to sites and popu- was higher in the Patagonian steppe ecoregion, outside the
lations. Finally, a slower forward-backward relationship im- two analyzed hotspots. Future precipitation patterns in climate
plies a low threat. change scenarios have been reported with major uncertainty
Forward and backward velocity averages for each levels for the South American Altiplano (Minvielle and
ecoregion and hotspot were calculated for each scenario and Garreaud 2011). We also found major uncertainty in the spa-
for climate variable considered. In addition, we also evaluated tial patterns for precipitation in the Central Andean wet Puna
the relation between the size of Protected Areas and the cli- ecoregion for RCP8.5-2030 period (see Fig. S9 in the Online
mate change velocity metric at each hotspot. Protected Areas Supplement).
were sourced from the World Database on Protected Areas
(UNEP-WCMC, IUCN 2018). See Methods overview in Direction of climate change
Fig. 2.
The Tropical Andes hotspot exhibited a direction of change
towards southern latitudes based on temperature and precip-
Results itation in the most conservative scenario (RCP2.6). In con-
trast, the ChV hotspot exhibited different trajectories for
Climate change velocity behavior in Southern South temperature, particularly in the RCP8.5-2080 scenario,
America hotspots and ecoregions showing both forward (northwest and southwest) and back-
ward estimations (northeast and southeast) (Fig. 3). As part
Velocity of climate change of the ChV hotspot, the Chilean Matorral exhibited the most
north-westerly direction for temperature in all scenarios (Fig.
Our results suggest that forward velocity was much higher in S3 in the Online Supplement), which points at the influence
the Tropical Andes hotspot than in the ChV hotspot, for both of tropical climate in this ecoregion, in contrast to the
climatic variables (temperature and precipitation) (see Fig. 3, Chilean Mediterranean macrobioclimate (Luebert and
Fig. S1 and Fig. S2 in the Online Supplement). Conversely, Pliscoff 2017).
backward velocity was higher in the ChV hotspot, but only for The Atacama and Sechura Deserts presented a predomi-
the temperature variable. The differences between hotspots are nantly north-westerly direction of change considering tem-
seen more clearly for the RCP8.5-2080 scenario when consid- perature (Fig. S3 in the Online Supplement), and a south-
ering temperature velocity (Fig. 3), as follows: Tropical Andes westerly direction for precipitation change (Fig. S4 in the
hotspot forward (0.48 km/year, mean; 0.29 km/year, median) Online Supplement). These desert environments are defined
and backward velocity (0.71 km/year, mean; 0.37 km/year, by flat coastal areas and low mountain ranges, where the
media); and a ChV hotspot forward (0.27 km/year, mean; Atacama Desert has the flattest topography of the two. In
0.19 km/year, median) and backward velocity (1.81 km/year, the case of the Peruvian and Bolivian Yungas, temperatures
mean; 1.44 km/year, median). shifted towards the northwest and northeast (Fig. S3 in the
At the ecoregional scale, higher backward rates were con- Online Supplement), and these patterns changed to the
centrated in central Chile and southern ecoregions (Chilean southwest in the backward velocity scenario (Fig. S4 in
Matorral, Valdivian, and Magellanic forests), and were also the Online Supplement). The topography of the Yungas is
over 1 km/year in the Atacama Desert in the case of temper- characterized by an abrupt mountain range. The Central
atures when considering the RCP8.5 scenario. Results show a Andean Puna and its divisions—dry and wet Puna—also
north-south trend in velocity, being higher in ecoregions of showed temperature movement to the south and southwest.
northern Chile, northern Argentina, Southern Perú, and These ecosystems are characterized as highland plateaus.
Southwest Bolivia (Central Andean Puna, wet and dry). However, the RCP8.5-2080 scenario featured climate veloc-
Mean value rates can be found in coastal ecoregions of ity directions that varied from the other scenarios: the tem-
north-Chile and Perú (Sechura and Atacama deserts), and low- perature moved southwest for the Central Andean Puna,
er rates were seen in all ecoregions of central and Southern west for the dry Puna, and northwest for the wet Puna
27 Page 6 of 15 Reg Environ Change (2020) 20: 27

Fig. 2 The methodological developed process. Including (A) GIS pre- below: geographic information system (GIS), Southern South America
processing, (B) analysis in the R environment, and (C) GIS post- (SSA), global circulation model (GCM), and climate change (CC)
processing steps. The abbreviations used in the scheme are described

(Fig. S3 in the Online Supplement). Finally, the Patagonian Previous climate change velocity evaluations in Southern
steppe and Magellanic forest exhibited predominant direc- South America
tions towards the southeast. Steppe ecosystems show one
of the flattest topographies of SSA; meanwhile, the Our regional results compared with Carroll’s velocity calcula-
Magellanic forest has a mountainous topography (Fig. S3 tions for SSA (Carroll et al. 2015) featured spatial differences
in the Online Supplement). for temperature velocity (see Fig. S5 and S6 in the Online
Reg Environ Change (2020) 20: 27 Page 7 of 15 27

Fig. 3 Spatial climate change velocity patterns for temperature in the hotspot (blue plots). The Tropical Andes hotspot exhibited a common
SSA hotspots for the RCP8.5-2080 scenario. The center panel shows southwest direction between forward and backward estimations. The
forward (left) and backward (right) spatial patterns of climate change ChV hotspot exhibited opposite directions, between forward (northwest
velocity (in km/year). The histogram plots show the average and southwest) and backward (northeast and southeast) estimations. The
temperature speed (forward and backward) for the Tropical Andes two arms on each of these plots represent the main directions observed at
hotspot (red boxplot) and ChV hotspot (blue boxplot), where the each hotspot which are influenced by the Mountain ranges (Andes and
averages are taken over the range of GCMs used and the thick Coastal Mountains). Zoom pictures of the spatial pattern of climate
horizontal line represents the median value. The bottom of each box change velocity are shown in the upper-left panel for the Tropical
represents the RCP8.5 scenario including the mean value. The vertical Andes hotspot, and in the upper-right panel for the ChV hotspot. See
line represents the velocity rate in km/year. Histogram plots in polar the higher spatial contrast between slower (blue scale, on the eastern
coordinates show the average temperature direction of change (forward side) and faster (red scale) backward velocities at ChV, which are
and backward) for the Tropical Andes hotspot (red plots) and ChV clearly differentiated by the Andes Mountain range

Supplement). According to Carroll’s velocity (calculated at the of forward and backward velocity for both variables (tem-
continental level), forward and backward velocity averages were perature and precipitation) in the RCP2.6 scenario
higher in the Tropical Andes hotspot than in the ChV hotspot, (Fig. 4b, d), as well as in the RCP8.5 scenario considering
showing 3.72 km/year for forward velocity and 4.192 km/year precipitation (Fig. 4c). Forward temperature velocity was
for backward velocity averages. In this study—only considering higher than backward velocity for the RCP8.5 scenario
the HadGEM2-ES model—forward velocity was higher in the (Fig. 4a). In the case of the Yungas ecoregions, backward
Tropical Andes hotspot (0.740 km/year). Conversely, backward velocity presented the highest rates (Fig. 4). Furthermore,
velocity was higher in the ChV hotspot (1.74 km/year). The same the ChV hotspot and their two ecoregions—Chilean
trend was found considering the velocity average of 31 GCMs. Matorral and the Valdivian Temperate Forests—presented
On the striking difference in magnitude between the climate higher backward than forward velocity for temperature and
change velocities found by Carroll et al. (2015) and this study, precipitation at both RCP scenarios (Fig. 4a, c).
see our Discussion section below. Additionally, the Chilean Matorral presented the highest lin-
ear relation of forward and backward velocity for both var-
Hotspot vulnerability to climate change velocity iables (temperature and precipitation) in the RCP2.6 scenario
in Southern South America (Fig. 4b, d, and Table 1).
The vulnerability interpretation of these four quadrants
The magnitude of climate change through SSA hotspots var- (Fig. 4) suggests threats to sites in the ChV hotspot, with the
ied according to the variable considered—temperature or Chilean Matorral the most threatened under the RCP2.6 sce-
precipitation—and to the RCP scenario. nario (threats to sites and local populations). For the Puna
Ecoregions within the Tropical Andes hotspot, such as ecoregions, threats to sites and local populations were the
Central Andean Puna, Central Andean dry Puna, and most frequent responses. Finally, for the Yungas ecoregions,
Central Andean wet Puna, showed a higher linear relation threats to sites were also identified (Fig. 4b–d).
27 Page 8 of 15 Reg Environ Change (2020) 20: 27

Table 1 Temperature forward and backward velocity (km/year) in the SSA ecoregions

Code Forward velocity (km/year)

RCP 26 2030 RCP 26 2080 RCP 85 2030 RCP 85 2080

Mn Md 1Q Mn Md 1Q Mn Md 1Q Mn Md 1Q

SD 0.13 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.17 0.10 0.07 0.38 0.16 0.09
PY 0.11 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.13 0.08 0.06 0.23 0.15 0.07
CDP 0.20 0.14 0.09 0.12 0.08 0.05 0.25 0.17 0.11 0.52 0.39 0.23
CP 0.16 0.10 0.07 0.10 0.06 0.04 0.22 0.14 0.09 0.54 0.35 0.18
CWP 0.19 0.11 0.07 0.12 0.07 0.04 0.26 0.15 0.08 1.03 0.46 0.28
BY 0.12 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.14 0.09 0.06 0.23 0.18 0.11
BDF 0.11 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.13 0.09 0.06 0.27 0.21 0.12
SY 0.12 0.09 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.15 0.10 0.07 0.24 0.19 0.11
AD 0.18 0.15 0.10 0.12 0.10 0.06 0.24 0.19 0.13 0.39 0.34 0.22
SS 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.11 0.08 0.06 0.24 0.12 0.08
ChM 0.13 0.09 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.16 0.12 0.07 0.26 0.22 0.13
HM 0.12 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.14 0.10 0.07 0.16 0.13 0.09
LM 0.71 0.58 0.30 0.44 0.36 0.19 0.97 0.78 0.41 1.04 0.87 0.56
VF 0.11 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.14 0.07 0.05 0.27 0.17 0.07
PS 0.42 0.22 0.10 0.26 0.14 0.07 0.56 0.31 0.15 0.80 0.65 0.33
MF 0.10 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.12 0.07 0.05 0.22 0.14 0.06

Code Backward velocity (km/ year)

RCP 26 2030 RCP 26 2080 RCP 85 2030 RCP 85 2080

Mn Md 1Q Mn Md 1Q Mn Md 1Q Mn Md 1Q

SD 0.37 0.08 0.06 0.24 0.05 0.04 0.50 0.10 0.07 0.79 0.21 0.09
PY 0.28 0.07 0.05 0.13 0.04 0.03 0.33 0.08 0.06 0.28 0.11 0.06
CDP 0.57 0.37 0.12 0.33 0.23 0.08 0.68 0.49 0.17 0.69 0.63 0.36
CP 0.25 0.12 0.07 0.15 0.08 0.04 0.32 0.16 0.09 0.41 0.31 0.16
CWP 0.26 0.09 0.06 0.15 0.06 0.04 0.31 0.12 0.07 0.30 0.18 0.10
BY 1.34 0.10 0.06 0.84 0.07 0.03 1.66 0.13 0.06 0.81 0.29 0.10
BDF 0.24 0.08 0.06 0.16 0.05 0.03 0.31 0.10 0.06 0.69 0.36 0.17
SY 0.55 0.15 0.06 0.39 0.11 0.04 0.76 0.21 0.08 2.77 1.85 0.31
AD 0.39 0.22 0.11 0.26 0.14 0.07 0.54 0.30 0.15 1.65 1.09 0.48
SS 0.24 0.07 0.05 0.11 0.04 0.03 0.22 0.08 0.06 0.23 0.14 0.07
ChM 0.73 0.21 0.07 0.48 0.16 0.04 1.06 0.37 0.09 2.32 2.49 0.50
HM 0.48 0.18 0.06 0.31 0.12 0.04 0.66 0.27 0.08 2.00 0.86 0.23
LM 1.79 1.24 0.56 1.15 0.85 0.39 2.65 1.95 0.94 4.18 4.39 2.88
VF 0.47 0.08 0.05 0.31 0.05 0.03 0.67 0.11 0.05 1.54 0.86 0.13
PS 0.67 0.44 0.16 0.43 0.29 0.11 0.95 0.66 0.25 1.96 1.80 0.91
MF 1.00 0.14 0.05 0.68 0.17 0.03 1.34 0.32 0.05 2.29 2.40 0.68

Ecoregion code: SD, Sechura Desert; PY, Peruvian Yungas; CDP, Central Andean dry Puna; CP, Central Andean Puna; CWP, Central Andean wet Puna;
BY, Bolivian Yungas; BDF, Bolivian montane dry forests; SY, Southern Andean Yungas; AD, Atacama Desert; SS, Southern Andean steppe; ChM,
Chilean Matorral; HM, High Monte; LM, Low Monte; VF, Valdivian temperate forests; PS, Patagonian steppe; MF, Magellanic subpolar forests.
Statistics: Mn, mean; Md, median; 1Q, 1st quantile

Finally, the relationship between protected area size and depending on the hotspot. Protected areas in the Tropical
forward and backward velocity presented different responses Andes hotspot exhibited a higher vulnerability when the
along hotspots and ecoregions (Fig. 5). Forward velocities did protected area size increased, and the ChV hotspot showed
not show a clear relationship with protected area size in either higher vulnerability in smaller protected areas. These trends
one of the ecoregions; however, backward velocities showed were similar for both temperature and precipitation velocity
either a positive or negative relation with protected area size calculations.
Reg Environ Change (2020) 20: 27 Page 9 of 15 27

Fig. 4 Vulnerability scheme applied to analyze forward and backward scenario, and finally d forward and backward precipitation velocity for
velocity of temperature and precipitation variables. Four plots are shown the RCP2.6 2080 scenario. The ecoregion codes are described as follows:
for the Tropical (red triangles) and the ChV hotspot (blue triangles), (PY) Peruvian Yungas, (CDP) Central Andean dry Puna, (CP) Central
where the limits of quadrants are drafted by the median: a forward and Andean Puna, (CWP) Central Andean wet Puna, (BY) Bolivian Yungas,
backward temperature velocity for the RCP8.5 2080 scenario, b forward (BDF) Bolivian montane dry forests, (SY) Southern Andean Yungas,
and backward precipitation velocity for the RCP8.5 2080 scenario, c (ChM) Chilean Matorral, (VF) Valdivian temperate forests
forward and backward temperature velocity for the RCP2.6 2080

Discussion Additionally, backward velocity was higher at the ChV

hotspot for the temperature variable.
Climate change velocity analysis contribution Vulnerability analysis of climate change velocity allows
for Southern South America us to identify differences in the more relevant threats
between hotspots. We identified a higher threat for sites
Anthropogenic climate change has caused widespread chang- than for species and an inverse relation between protected
es in climate conditions during the last century, and more rapid area size and backward velocities for the ChV hotspot.
rates of change are expected to occur in the next decades These findings improve the results of climate change
(IPCC 2014, 2018). Such changes are expected to be faster velocity conservation implications reported previously for
than the changes to which terrestrial ecosystems have been SSA, at global (Loarie et al. 2009) and regional scale
exposed before (Diffenbaugh and Field 2013). (Carroll et al. 2015).
In this study, we evaluated the vulnerability of terrestrial Our regional results compared with Carroll’s velocity calcula-
ecosystems to climate change velocity in the SSA ecoregional tions for SSA (Carroll et al. 2015) featured spatial differences for
system, and we found that forward velocity was higher at the temperature velocity in each hotspot, being the forward and back-
Tropical Andes hotspot than at the ChV hotspot, for both ward velocity rates higher in the Tropical Andes hotspot than they
climatic variables analyzed (temperature and precipitation). were in the ChV hotspot. Comparatively, in our study, average
27 Page 10 of 15 Reg Environ Change (2020) 20: 27

Fig. 5 Protected area size versus climate change velocity. Four linear logarithmic scale. Protected areas are differentiated by the groups of
regressions are shown by each climate variable: temperature velocity in ecoregions in each hotspot Tropical Andes hotspot as heat point colors
the upper four panels (charts a, b, c, d), and precipitation velocity in the (in upper chart of each part of the figure, i.e., charts a, b, e, f), ChV
four lower panels (charts d, e, f, g). Each linear regression indicates the hotspot as green point colors (in lower chart of each part of the figure,
protected area size (x-axis) and climate velocity (y-axis) with a i.e., charts c, d, g, h)

velocity values were lower in magnitude than Carroll’s results, When we compare our results with future species and eco-
and backward velocity was higher in the ChV hotspot than the system distribution models reported in SSA areas (e.g. Pliscoff
Tropical Andes hotspot in a pessimistic scenario. Carroll et al.’s et al. 2012; Swenson et al. 2012; Bambach et al. 2013; Tovar
(2015) study was done at the continental level, considering all of et al. 2013; Ramirez-Villegas et al. 2014; Alarcón and Cavieres
north, central, and south America. From this perspective, our 2015; Fuentes-Castillo et al. 2019), we can find new emergent
findings recall the importance of regional climate change evalu- situations. One of them is the overlapping areas between for-
ations to inform conservation decisions, and of preserving sites to ward velocity identified in this study, and species range con-
face climate change in key areas in the ChV hotspot. traction areas reported previously. These combinations can be
Reg Environ Change (2020) 20: 27 Page 11 of 15 27

interpreted as priorities for the establishment of conservation univariate climate change velocities (Hamann et al. 2015) de-
area networks under climate change (Carroll et al. 2017), be- rived from average values of temperature and precipitation in
cause the combination of faster forward velocities and species/ each ecoregion, so the results have been interpreted at the
ecosystem range contraction show more urgent priority sites ecoregional level avoiding conclusions at the level of species.
that could be incorporated within a climate-smart conservation It is expected to be an initial baseline for the study of the re-
network (Nadeau et al. 2015). The combination of scenarios of sponse in terms of movement of geographic distributions of
rapid forward velocity and upward direction could increase the ecosystems in the study area. Further analyses should incorpo-
threat for many taxa, especially in the case of species with low rate new approaches that allow analyzing the multivariate cli-
dispersal capacities in the most vulnerable ecoregions of the mate effect of velocity at the species level. For example, recent
Tropical Andes hotspot (central Andes wet and dry Puna), methodological approaches allow the incorporation of multiple
where altitudinal gradient decreases the area available to find variables in climate velocity analyses (Guerin et al. 2018),
suitable conditions in the future. allowing to connect species composition with movement gra-
In fact, the main effect of mountain heterogeneous dients. Another element of the analysis that should be analyzed
landscapes—such as the main landscapes in SSA—will be to with caution is the effect of pixel size. This is especially relevant
slow climate velocity, and lowland homogeneous landscapes in some ecoregions of the study area that are dominated by an
will increase climate velocity (Loarie et al. 2009; Diffenbaugh extremely diverse topography (Hamann et al. 2015). Many of
and Field 2013; Dobrowski et al. 2013). However, heteroge- the altitudinal gradients relevant to regional scale movement
neous terrain landscapes, especially in mountain areas, can have may not be represented with a resolution of analysis of 1 km.
areas where climate trajectories traverse dissimilar climates and However, our study shows that velocity of movement in moun-
species must follow paths that minimize their exposure. Thus, tainous areas is lower than in flat areas, which should amelio-
the required velocity can have an opposite rate than a climate rate the effect of altitude gradients. In addition, the values pre-
velocity obtained by a Euclidian distance-based approach sented here are averages at the ecoregional scale, so fewer con-
(Dobrowski and Parks 2016). clusions can be drawn for more restricted sites. By using only
Nevertheless, mountain areas can also exhibit larger flat two climate variables to quantify velocity gradients, the intrin-
terrains, such as plateau systems (highlands) that will present sic variability present in each ecoregion has a very relevant
faster cores of climate velocity. In this case, the tropical Andes biological effect. A change in rainfall of (say) 20 mm/year in
hotspot presents a large plateau system (such as the Puna a hyper-arid desert environment has greater biological effect
ecoregion) that exhibited faster climate velocity cores. On than the same amount in a tropical forest. The analysis of aver-
the contrary, the ChV hotspot is completely shaped by hetero- age values could mask these variations, but it allows their inter-
geneous mountain chains and without these plateau systems. ecoregional comparison.
These differences in geographic space will impact habitat
availability of micro and macro refugia that could facilitate Conservation implications
species persistence under climate change (Ashcroft 2010;
Slavich et al. 2014; Carroll et al. 2017; Michalak et al. 2018). This study shows a methodological advance by using regional
In the tropical Andes, the direction of climate change iden- climatic data to improve the accuracy of predictions, com-
tified in this study coincides with those reported previously for pared with global data. This is especially important for land-
species and ecosystems, in which an upward movement for scapes with high environmental heterogeneity such as SSA.
high conservation value species and ecosystems has been Furthermore, several rapid change areas are expected along
forecasted due to climate change (Feeley et al. 2011; the two SSA hotspots and these findings may add important
Ramirez-Villegas et al. 2014). In the case of the ChV hotspot, information to determine conservation planning in the region.
the direction of climate change exhibited southward move- As backward velocity describes the isolation degree that a
ment, which has also been showed for main vegetation forma- site will experience under climate change (Carroll et al. 2015),
tions (Pliscoff et al. 2012) and for plant species under climate this metric was identified as being more relevant in the ChV
change projections (Fuentes-Castillo et al. 2019), especially hotspot, while at the same time, we found an inverse relation
those inhabiting lowland areas. between protected area size and backward velocity. The status
of the Chilean Matorral has been remarked to have several
Final considerations conservation issues associated with land use intensity
(Echeverria et al. 2006; Schulz et al. 2010), insufficient
This evaluation is based on velocity gradients given by two protected areas (Pliscoff and Fuentes-Castillo 2011), high sus-
climate variables (temperature and precipitation). However, ceptibility to anthropogenic forest fire events (Urrutia-Jalabert
these results must be taken cautiously, considering that species et al. 2018), and the rapid spread of exotic species (Fuentes
and ecosystems may respond differently to rainfall and temper- et al. 2015). Protected areas in this ecoregion are not only
ature gradients (Parmesan 2006). Our findings are based on scarce but small in area (Pliscoff and Fuentes-Castillo 2011)
27 Page 12 of 15 Reg Environ Change (2020) 20: 27

and surrounded by exotic tree plantations, agriculture, and dominated plants after a dispersal constrained climate change sce-
nario. PLoS One 10:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.
urban developments (Armesto et al. 2010; Miranda et al.
0119952
2017). National parks and reserves are concentrated mainly Armesto JJ, Manuschevich D, Mora A, Smith-Ramirez C, Rozzi R,
in the Andes Mountain ranges (Pliscoff and Fuentes-Castillo Abarzúa AM, Marquet PA (2010) From the Holocene to the
2011). For the ChV, the availability of protected areas to the Anthropocene: a historical framework for land cover change in
south of the hotspot could buffer the effects of the higher southwestern South America in the past 15,000 years. Land use
policy 27:148–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.07.
velocities of change in lowland areas. 006
On the other hand, forward velocity interpretation as a Ashcroft MB (2010) Identifying refugia from climate change. J Biogeogr
stand-alone climatic evaluation and without considering spe- 37:1407–1413. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2010.02300.x
cies data (Brito-Morales et al. 2018) describes the exposure of Bambach N, Meza FJ, Gilabert H, Miranda M (2013) Impacts of climate
change on the distribution of species and communities in the Chilean
species that are climatically adapted to a site in the present.
Mediterranean ecosystem. Reg Environ Chang 13:1245–1257.
This metric was identified as more relevant in the Tropical https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-013-0425-7
Andes hotspot, in which protected area size is positively cor- Bateman BL, Vanderwal J, Williams SE, Johnson CN (2012) Biotic in-
related with vulnerability. Protected areas within this hotspot teractions influence the projected distribution of a specialist mam-
also present several conservation issues, especially due to an- mal under climate change. Divers Distrib 18:861–872. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2012.00922.x
thropogenic pressures (Hoffmann et al. 2011), where climate Bax V, Francesconi W (2019) Conservation gaps and priorities in the
change can make conservation efforts more complex Tropical Andes biodiversity hotspot: implications for the expansion
(Ramirez-Villegas et al. 2014; Bax and Francesconi 2019). of protected areas. J Environ Manage 232:387–396. https://doi.org/
Additionally, threatened species may not be well represented 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.11.086
Bland LM, Regan TJ, Dinh MN et al (2017) Using multiple lines of
in the current protected areas according to climate change
evidence to assess the risk of ecosystem collapse. Proc R Soc B
forecasts (del R Avalos and Hernández 2015). Biol Sci 284. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.0660
New conservation planning approaches need to incorporate Brito-Morales I, García Molinos J, Schoeman DS et al (2018) Climate
these synergies between metrics to be more effective in the velocity can inform conservation in a warming world. Trends Ecol
face of biodiversity impacts of climate change. Some recent Evol 33:441–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2018.03.009
Britto B (2017) Update of the terrestrial ecoregions of Perú proposed in
examples demonstrating this approach could be applied using the red book of endemic plants of Perú. Gayana Botánica 74:15–29.
different metrics, data inputs, and spatial scales (Nadeau et al. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0717-66432017005000318
2015; Carroll et al. 2017; Malakoutikhah et al. 2018), thus Burrows MT, Schoeman DS, Buckley LB, Moore P, Poloczanska ES,
providing more tools and options to build conservation net- Brander KM, Brown C, Bruno JF, Duarte CM, Halpern BS,
Holding J, Kappel CV, Kiessling W, O’Connor MI, Pandolfi JM,
work areas that would be more resilient under climate change Parmesan C, Schwing FB, Sydeman WJ, Richardson AJ (2011) The
scenarios. pace of shifting climate in marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Science
Our results have provided conservation implications for 334(6056):652–655. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1210288
terrestrial ecosystems in SSA hotspots considering climate Burrows MT, Schoeman DS, Richardson AJ, Molinos JG, Hoffmann A,
Buckley LB, Moore PJ, Brown CJ, Bruno JF, Duarte CM, Halpern
change velocity, especially in protected areas. However, fur-
BS, Hoegh-Guldberg O, Kappel CV, Kiessling W, O’Connor MI,
ther research should focus on species responses to climate Pandolfi JM, Parmesan C, Sydeman WJ, Ferrier S, Williams KJ,
change in these hotspots; it will be helpful to understand Poloczanska ES (2014) Geographical limits to species-range shifts
how biodiversity can be affected by climate change exposure. are suggested by climate velocity. Nature 507:492–495. https://doi.
org/10.1038/nature12976
Acknowledgments Taryn Fuentes-Castillo would like to thank the Cardinale BJ, Duffy JE, Gonzalez A, Hooper DU, Perrings C, Venail P,
CONICYT Doctoral scholarship 21120468, FONDECYT Project Narwani A, Mace GM, Tilman D, Wardle DA, Kinzig AP, Daily
3190433, José Padarian, Mario Fajardo, María José Cires, Kylie Towle, GC, Loreau M, Grace JB, Larigauderie A, Srivastava DS, Naeem S
and Rosa Scherson. Patricio Pliscoff was funded by the FONDECYT (2012) Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486:59–
Project 1181677. We thank the anonymous reviewers who provided help- 67. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11148
ful comments to the manuscript. Powered@NLHPC: This research was Carroll C, Lawler JJ, Roberts DR, Hamann A (2015) Biotic and climatic
partially supported by the supercomputing infrastructure of the National velocity identify contrasting areas of vulnerability to climate change.
Laboratory for High-Performance Computing (NLHPC) (ECM-02). PLoS One 10:e0140486. https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.q8d7d.
Funding
Carroll C, Roberts DR, Michalak JL, Lawler JJ, Nielsen SE, Stralberg D,
Hamann A, Mcrae BH, Wang T (2017) Scale-dependent comple-
mentarity of climatic velocity and environmental diversity for iden-
References tifying priority areas for conservation under climate change. Glob
Chang Biol 23:4508–4520. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13679
Ackerly DD, Loarie SR, Cornwell WK, Weiss SB, Hamilton H, Dawson TP, Jackson ST, House JI, Prentice IC, Mace GM (2011) Beyond
Branciforte R, Kraft NJB (2010) The geography of climate change: predictions: biodiversity conservation in a changing climate.
implications for conservation biogeography. Divers Distrib 16:476– Science 332(6025):53–58. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1200303
487. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2010.00654.x De Porras ME, Maldonado A, Zamora-Allendes A, Latorre C (2015)
Alarcón D, Cavieres LA (2015) In the right place at the right time: habitat Calibrating the pollen signal in modern rodent middens from north-
representation in protected areas of South American Nothofagus- ern Chile to improve the interpretation of the late Quaternary midden
Reg Environ Change (2020) 20: 27 Page 13 of 15 27

record. Quat Res 84(3):301–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yqres. Guerin GR, O’Connor PJ, Sparrow B, Lowe AJ (2018) An ecological
2015.10.004 climate change classification for South Australia. Trans R Soc South
del R Avalos V, Hernández J (2015) Projected distribution shifts and Aust 142:70–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/03721426.2018.1438803
protected area coverage of range-restricted Andean birds under cli- Hamann A, Roberts DR, Barber QE, Carroll C, Nielsen SE (2015)
mate change. Glob Ecol Conserv 4:459–469. https://doi.org/10. Velocity of climate change algorithms for guiding conservation
1016/j.gecco.2015.08.004 and management. Glob Chang Biol 21:997–1004. https://doi.org/
Diffenbaugh NS, Field CB (2013) Changes in ecologically critical terres- 10.1111/gcb.12736
trial climate conditions. Science 341(6145):486–492. https://doi. Hijmans RJ, Cameron SE, Parra JL, Jones PG, Jarvis A (2005) Very high
org/10.1126/science.1237123 resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int J
Dinerstein E, Olson D, Joshi A, Vynne C, Burgess ND, Wikramanayake Climatol 25:1965–1978. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1276
E, Hahn N, Palminteri S, Hedao P, Noss R, Hansen M, Locke H, Hoffmann D, Oetting I, Arnillas CA, Ulloa R (2011) Climate change and
Ellis EC, Jones B, Barber CV, Hayes R, Kormos C, Martin V, Crist protected areas in the tropical Andes. In: Herzog SK, Martínez R,
E, Sechrest W, Price L, Baillie JEM, Weeden D, Suckling K, Davis Jørgensen PM, Tiessen H (eds) Climate change and biodiversity in
C, Sizer N, Moore R, Thau D, Birch T, Potapov P, Turubanova S, the tropical Andes. Inter-American Institute for Global Change
Tyukavina A, de Souza N, Pintea L, Brito José C, Llewellyn OA, Research (AI) and Scientific Committee on Problems of the
Miller AG, Patzelt A, Ghazanfar SA, Timberlake J, Klöser H, Environment (SCOPE), pp 311–325
Shennan-Farpón Y, Kindt R, Lillesø JPB, van Breugel P, Graudal IPCC (2014) Summary for policymakers. In: Field CB, Barros VR,
L, Voge M, Al-Shammari KF, Saleem M (2017) An ecoregion-based Dokken DJ, Mach KJ, Mastrandrea MD, Bilir TE, Chatterjee M,
approach to protecting half the terrestrial realm. Bioscience 67:534– Ebi KL, Estrada YO, Genova RC, Girma B, Kissel ES, Levy AN,
545. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix014 MacCracken S, Mastrandrea PR, White LL (eds) Climate Change
Dobrowski SZ, Parks SA (2016) Climate change velocity underestimates 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and
climate change exposure in mountainous regions. Nat Commun 7: Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth
12349. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12349 Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Dobrowski SZ, Abatzoglou J, Swanson AK, Greenberg JA, Mynsberge Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–32
AR, Holden ZA, Schwartz MK (2013) The climate velocity of the IPCC (2018) Summary for Policymakers. In: Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P,
contiguous United States during the 20th century. Glob Chang Biol Pörtner HO et al (eds) Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special
19:241–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12026 Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-
Echeverria C, Coomes D, Salas J, Rey-Benayas JM, Lara A, Newton A industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission path-
(2006) Rapid deforestation and fragmentation of Chilean Temperate ways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the
Forests. Biol Conserv 130:481–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. threat of climate change. World Meteorological Organization,
biocon.2006.01.017 Geneva, pp 1–32
Espíndola A, Pliscoff P (2018) The relationship between pollinator visits Larridon I, Walter HE, Guerrero PC, Duarte M, Cisternas MA, Hernández
and climatic suitabilities in specialized pollination interactions. Ann CP, Bauters K, Asselman P, Goetghebeur P, Samain M (2015) An
Entomol Soc Am:say042-say042. https://doi.org/10.1093/aesa/ integrative approach to understanding the evolution and diversity of
say042 Copiapoa (Cactaceae), a threatened endemic Chilean genus from the
Feeley KJ, Silman MR, Bush MB, Farfan W, Cabrera KG, Malhi Y, Meir Atacama Desert. Am J Bot 102:1506–1520. https://doi.org/10.3732/
P, Revilla NS, Quisiyupanqui MN, Saatchi S (2011) Upslope migra- ajb.1500168
tion of Andean trees. J Biogeogr 38:783–791. https://doi.org/10. Lawler JJ, Watson J, Game ET (2015) Conservation in the face of climate
1111/j.1365-2699.2010.02444.x change: recent developments [version 1; referees: 3 approved].
Fei S, Desprez JM, Potter KM, Jo I, Knott JA, Oswalt CM (2017) F1000Research 4(1158). doi:https://doi.org/10.12688/
Divergence of species responses to climate change. Sci Adv 3(5): f1000research.6490.1
e1603055. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1603055 Loarie SR, Duffy PB, Hamilton H, Asner GP, Field CB, Ackerly DD
(2009) The velocity of climate change. Nature 462:1052–1055.
Fuentes N, Saldaña A, Kühn I, Klotz S (2015) Climatic and socio-
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08649
economic factors determine the level of invasion by alien plants in
Chile. Plant Ecol Divers 8:371–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Luebert F, Pliscoff P (2017) Sinopsis bioclimática y vegetacional de
17550874.2014.984003 Chile: Segunda Edición. Editorial Universitaria, Santiago
Fuentes-Castillo T, Scherson R, Marquet P, Fajardo J, Corcoran D, Malakoutikhah S, Fakheran S, Hemami MR, Tarkesh M, Senn J (2018)
Roman MJ, Pliscoff P (2019) Modelling the current and future bio- Altitudinal heterogeneity and vulnerability assessment of protected
diversity distribution in the Chilean Mediterranean hotspot. The role area network for climate change adaptation planning in central Iran.
of protected areas network in a warmer future. Divers Distrib. 25: Appl Geogr 92:94–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2018.02.
1897– 1909. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12988 006
Martinez-Harms MJ, Bryan BA, Figueroa E, Pliscoff P, Runting RK,
García Molinos J, Halpern BS, Schoeman DS, Brown CJ, Kiessling W,
Moore PJ, Pandolfi JM, Poloczanska ES, Richardson AJ, Burrows Wilson KA (2017) Scenarios for land use and ecosystem services
under global change. Ecosyst Serv 25:56–68. https://doi.org/10.
MT (2016) Climate velocity and the future global redistribution of
1016/j.ecoser.2017.03.021
marine biodiversity. Nat Clim Chang 6:83–88. https://doi.org/10.
1038/nclimate2769 Michalak JL, Lawler JJ, Roberts DR, Carroll C (2018) Distribution and
protection of climatic refugia in North America. Conserv Biol 32:
García Molinos J, Takao S, Kumagai NH, Poloczanska ES, Burrows MT,
1414–1425. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13130
Fujii M, Yamano H (2017) Improving the interpretability of climate
landscape metrics: an ecological risk analysis of Japan’s Marine Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-
Protected Areas. Glob Chang Biol:00. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb. being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington
13665 Minvielle M, Garreaud RD (2011) Projecting rainfall changes over the
Garcia RA, Cabeza M, Rahbek C, Araujo MB (2014) Multiple dimen- South American Altiplano. Bull Am Meteorol Soc Soc 24:4577–
sions of climate change and their implications for biodiversity. 4583. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00051.1
Science 344:1247579. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1247579 Miranda A, Altamirano A, Cayuela L, Lara A, González M (2017) Native
forest loss in the Chilean biodiversity hotspot: revealing the
27 Page 14 of 15 Reg Environ Change (2020) 20: 27

evidence. Reg Environ Chang 17:285–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Riahi K, Rao S, Krey V, Cho C, Chirkov V, Fischer G, Kindermann G,
s10113-016-1010-7 Nakicenovic N, Rafaj P (2011) RCP 8.5- a scenario of comparative-
Mittermeier RA, Robles Gil PG, Hoffman M, Pilgrim J, Brooks TM, ly high greenhouse gas emissions. Clim Change 109:33–57. https://
Mittermeier CG, Lamoreux J, Da Fonseca GAB (2004) Hotspots doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0149-y
revisited. Earth’s Biologically Richest and Most Endangered Roberts DR, Hamann A (2016) Climate refugia and migration require-
Terrestrial Ecoregions. CEMEX, Mexico City ments in complex landscapes. Ecography 39(12):1238–1246.
Mittermeier RA, Turner WR, Larsen FW, Brooks TM, Gascon C (2011) https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.01998
Biodiversity hotspots. Distribution and protection of conservation Sandel B, Arge L, Dalsgaard B, Davies RG, Gaston KJ, Sutherland WJ,
priority areas 546. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20992-5 Svenning JC (2011) The influence of Late Quaternary climate-
Myers N, Mittermeier R, Mittermeier C, DaFonesca G, Kent J (2000) change velocity on species endemism. Science 334(6056):660–
Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Conserv Biol 403: 664. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1210173
853. https://doi.org/10.1038/35002501 Scheffers BR, De Meester L, Bridge TCL, Hoffmann AA, Pandolfi JM,
Nadeau CP, Fuller AK, Rosenblatt DL (2015) Climate-smart manage- Corlett RT, Butchart SHM, Pearce-Kelly P, Kovacs KM, Dudgeon
ment of biodiversity. Ecosphere 6:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1890/ D, Pacifici M, Rondinini C, Foden WB, Martin TG, Mora C,
ES15-00069.1 Bickford D, Watson JEM (2016) The broad footprint of climate
Nadeau CP, Urban MC, Bridle JR (2017) Climates past, present, and yet- change from genes to biomes to people. Science 354(6313):–
to-come shape climate change vulnerabilities. Trends Ecol Evol 32: aaf7671. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf7671
786–800. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2017.07.012 Schippers P, Verboom J, Vos CC, Jochem R (2011) Metapopulation shift
Olson M, Dinerstein E, Wikramanayake ED, Burgess ND, Powell GVN, and survival of woodland birds under climate change: will species
Underwood EC, D’amico JA, Itoua I, Strand HE, Morrison JC, be able to track? Ecography (Cop):909–919. https://doi.org/10.1111/
Loucks CJ, Allnutt TF, Ricketts TH, Kura Y, Lamoreux JF, j.1600-0587.2011.06712.x
Wettengel WW, Hedao P, Kassem KR (2001) Terrestrial ecoregions Schueler S, Falk W, Koskela J, Lefèvre F, Bozzano M, Hubert J, Kraigher
of the world: a new map of life on earth. Bioscience 51:933–938. H, Longauer R, Olrik DC (2014) Vulnerability of dynamic genetic
https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0933:TEOTWA]2.0. conservation units of forest trees in Europe to climate change. Glob
CO;2 Chang Biol 20:1498–1511. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12476
Ordonez A, Williams JW (2013) Climatic and biotic velocities for woody Schulz JJ, Cayuela L, Echeverria C, Salas J, Rey Benayas JM (2010)
taxa distributions over the last 16 000 years in eastern North Monitoring land cover change of the dryland forest landscape of
America. Ecol Lett 16:773–781. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12110 Central Chile (1975–2008). Appl Geogr 30:436–447. https://doi.
Parmesan C (2006) Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent cli- org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2009.12.003
mate change. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 37:637–669. https://doi.org/ Serra-Diaz JM, Franklin J, Ninyerola M, Davis FW, Syphard AD, Regan
10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.37.091305.110100 HM, Ikegami M (2014) Bioclimatic velocity: the pace of species
Parmesan C, Yohe G (2003) A globally coherent fingerprint of climate exposure to climate change. Divers Distrib 20:169–180. https://
change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421:37–42. https:// doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12131
doi.org/10.1038/nature01286 Slavich E, Warton DI, Ashcroft MB, Gollan JR, Ramp D (2014)
Pliscoff P, Fuentes-Castillo T (2011) Representativeness of terrestrial Topoclimate versus macroclimate: how does climate mapping meth-
ecosystems in Chile’s protected area system. Environ Conserv 38: odology affect species distribution models and climate change pro-
303–311. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892911000208 jections? Divers Distrib 20:952–963. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.
Pliscoff P, Arroyo MTK, Cavieres L (2012) Changes in the main vegeta- 12216
tion types of Chile predicted under climate change based on a pre- Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockström J, Cornell SE, Fetzer I, Bennett EM,
liminary study: models, uncertainties and adapting research to a Biggs R, Carpenter SR, de Vries W, de Wit CA, Folke C, Gerten D,
dynamic biodiversity world. An del Inst la Patagon 40:81–86. Heinke J, Mace GM, Persson LM, Ramanathan V, Reyers B, Sörlin
https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-686X2012000100010 S (2015) Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a
Pliscoff P, Luebert F, Hilger HH, Guisan A (2014) Effects of alternative changing planet. Science 347(6223):1259855. https://doi.org/10.
sets of climatic predictors on species distribution models and asso- 1126/science.1259855
ciated estimates of extinction risk: a test with plants in an arid envi- Swenson JJ, Young BE, Beck S, Comer P, Córdova JH, Dyson J, Embert
ronment. Ecol Model 288:166–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. D, Encarnación F, Ferreira W, Franke I, Grossman D, Hernandez P,
ecolmodel.2014.06.003 Herzog SK, Josse C, Navarro G, Pacheco V, Stein BA, Timaná M,
Pressey RL, Cabeza M, Watts ME, Cowling RM, Wilson KA (2007) Tovar A, Tovar C, Vargas J, Zambrana-Torrelio CM (2012) Plant
Conservation planning in a changing world. Trends Ecol Evol 22: and animal endemism in the eastern Andean slope: challenges to
583–592 conservation. BMC Ecol 12:1. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6785-
R Development Core Team (2018) R: a language and environment for 12-1
statistical computing. The R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Tovar C, Arnillas CA, Cuesta F, Buytaert W (2013) Diverging responses
ISBN: 3-900051-07-0. Available online at http://www.R-project. of tropical Andean biomes under future climate conditions. PLoS
org/., Vienna, Austria One 8. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0063634
Ramirez-Villegas J, Jarvis A (2008) High resolution statistically down- UNEP-WCMC, IUCN (2018) Protected planet: protected reas. The
scaled future climate surfaces. Int Cent Trop Agric (CIAT), CGIAR World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA)/The Global Database
Res Progr Clim Chang Agric Food Secur (CCAFS) Cali, Colomb on Protected Areas Management Effectiveness (GD-PAME). In:
Ramírez-Villegas J, Jarvis A (2010) Downscaling global circulation mod- Cambridge UNEP-WCMC IUCN. www.protectedplanet.net.
el outputs the delta method. Decision and Policy Analysis Working Accessed 20 Aug 2006
Paper No. 1. 18 Urrutia-Jalabert R, González ME, González-Reyes Á, Lara A, Garreaud
Ramirez-Villegas J, Cuesta F, Devenish C, Peralvo M, Jarvis A, Arnillas R (2018) Climate variability and forest fires in central and south-
CA (2014) Using species distributions models for designing conser- central Chile. Ecosphere 9:e02171. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.
vation strategies of Tropical Andean biodiversity under climate 2171
change. J Nat Conserv 22:391–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc. Valenzuela-Sánchez A, Harding G, Cunningham AA, Chirgwin C, Soto-
2014.03.007 Azat C (2014) Home range and social analyses in a mouth brooding
Reg Environ Change (2020) 20: 27 Page 15 of 15 27

frog: testing the coexistence of paternal care and male territoriality. J Williams JW, Jackson ST, Kutzbach JE (2007) Projected distributions of
Zool 294:215–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/jzo.12165 novel and disappearing climates by 2100 AD. Proc Natl Acad Sci U
van Vuuren DP, Stehfest E, den Elzen MGJ, Kram T, van Vliet J, S A 104:5738–5742. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0606292104
Deetman S, Isaac M, Klein Goldewijk K, Hof A, Mendoza Beltran Yousefpour R, Hanewinkel M (2016) Climate change and decision-
A, Oostenrijk R, van Ruijven B (2011) RCP2.6: exploring the pos- making under uncertainty. Curr For Reports 2:143–149. https://
sibility to keep global mean temperature increase below 2°C. Clim doi.org/10.1007/s40725-016-0035-y
Chang 109:95–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0152-3
Williams JE, Blois JL (2018) Range shifts in response to past and future
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
climate change: can climate velocities and species’ dispersal capa-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
bilities explain variation in mammalian range shifts? J Biogeogr 45:
2175–2189. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.13395