Understanding the past and predicting the future by looking across space and time

May 24, 2013 by Jill Sakai

(Phys.org) —Studying complex systems like ecosystems can get messy, especially when trying to predict how they interact with other big unknowns like climate change.

In a new paper published this week (May 20) in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and elsewhere validate a fundamental assumption at the very heart of a popular way to predict relationships between complex variables.

To how climate changes may impact biodiversity, researchers like Jessica Blois and John W. (Jack) Williams routinely use an approach called "space-for- substitution." The idea behind this method is to use the information in current geographic distributions of species to build a model that can predict climate-driven in the past or future. But does it really work?

"It's a necessary assumption, but it's generally untested," says lead study author Blois, a former with Williams at UW-Madison. She is now an assistant professor at the University of California, Merced. "Yet we're using this every day when we make predictions about biodiversity going into the future with ."

Their results should give other ecologists—and potentially others such as economists who use similar models—more confidence in their methods.

"At these spatial and temporal scales, the space-for-time assumption does work well," says Williams, professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research at the UW-Madison Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies. "Our fossil data did support the idea that you can use spatial relationships as a source of information for making these predictions for the future."

Their research focus is paleoecology, the study of ancient ecosystems. By looking at fossilized pollen trapped in cores of sediment from the bottoms of lakes, the scientists reconstructed information about the present at locations across eastern North America during the past 21,000 years.

If climate has influenced communities the same way across space and through time, Blois explains, then a model based on the spatial data should make the same predictions as a model based on their temporal data. And in fact, they did.

The space-for-time model explained about 72 percent of the variation seen in their time data, and the remainder is likely due to other biological and environmental factors that the simplified model does not include, Blois says.

Though the testing does not capture all the ways space-for-time substitutions are used in other predictive fields, she says that the results are very encouraging for questions spanning large geographic and time scales—scales at which collecting good temporal data can be very challenging.

"We found that at these broad time scales we're looking at, that space does substitute for time relatively well," Blois says. "It makes me more confident in my analyses going forward."

Explore further: PacifiCorp Energy pleads guilty in bird deaths (Update)

Related Stories

Study: Mountain vegetation impacted by climate change

Oct 25, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Climate change has had a significant effect on mountain vegetation at low elevations in the past 60 years, according to a study done by the University of California at Davis, the University of Wisconsin-Madison ...

Climate change may have little impact on tropical lizards

May 17, 2013

A new Dartmouth College study finds human-caused climate change may have little impact on many species of tropical lizards, contradicting a host of recent studies that predict their widespread extinction in a rapidly warming ...

Recommended for you

Study finds tropical fish moving into temperate waters

Dec 19, 2014

Tropical herbivorous fish are beginning to expand their range into temperate waters – likely as a result of climate change – and a new international study documents the dramatic impact of the intrusion ...

User comments : 1

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

DavidW
1 / 5 (2) May 24, 2013
72% huh? And we are predicting the future here with a simple model that is calling for more information to explain fault? Seems to me that simpler is better. In this case it requires two defined points. I would think the model, beyond the two points data set itself, is why it is not 50%.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.