%ASchultz, Emily [Laboratory of Tree Ring Research University of Arizona Tucson Arizona USA]%AHülsmann, Lisa [Theoretical Ecology Lab University of Regensburg Regensburg Germany]%APillet, Michiel [Laboratory of Tree Ring Research University of Arizona Tucson Arizona USA, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of Arizona Tucson Arizona USA]%AHartig, Florian [Theoretical Ecology Lab University of Regensburg Regensburg Germany]%ABreshears, David [School of Natural Resources and the Environment University of Arizona Tucson Arizona USA]%ARecord, Sydne [Department of Biology Bryn Mawr College Bryn Mawr Pennsylvania USA]%AShaw, John [USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station Forest Inventory and Analysis Ogden Utah USA]%ADeRose, R. [Department of Wildland Resources Utah State University Logan Utah USA]%AZuidema, Pieter [Forest Ecology and Forest Management group Wageningen University and Research Wageningen The Netherlands]%AEvans, Margaret [Laboratory of Tree Ring Research University of Arizona Tucson Arizona USA, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of Arizona Tucson Arizona USA]%AChase, ed., Jonathan%BJournal Name: Ecology Letters; Journal Volume: 25; Journal Issue: 1; Related Information: CHORUS Timestamp: 2023-08-20 06:51:59 %D2021%IWiley-Blackwell %JJournal Name: Ecology Letters; Journal Volume: 25; Journal Issue: 1; Related Information: CHORUS Timestamp: 2023-08-20 06:51:59 %K %MOSTI ID: 10417726 %PMedium: X %TClimate‐driven, but dynamic and complex? A reconciliation of competing hypotheses for species’ distributions %X
Estimates of the percentage of species “committed to extinction” by climate change range from 15% to 37%. The question is whether factors other than climate need to be included in models predicting species’ range change. We created demographic range models that include climate vs. climate‐plus‐competition, evaluating their influence on the geographic distribution of