the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Objective biome classification across global vegetation models reveals consistent biome shifts under future climate change
Abstract. Climate change is altering ecosystems and will reshape the global distribution of biomes. These shifts can significantly influence ecosystem functions and services that are essential for human livelihoods. Robust assessments of future biome dynamics are therefore urgently needed. Here, we employed random forest models and 31 observation-based biome maps representing current land cover to classify outputs from five global vegetation models (GVMs) into biomes, and evaluated potential biome shifts under three climate change scenarios (RCP2.6, RCP6.0, RCP8.5). Model-derived biome maps showed strong agreement with observation-based maps (average κ = 0.77), with higher agreement for biomes with well-known temperature constraints. Across all scenarios, GVMs projected biome shifts until the end of the century, where the likelihood of change increased with the level of climate change in RCP scenarios. Between 4 % and 56 % of the land surface were projected to undergo biome transitions in different combinations of GVMs, RCP and observation-based biome maps used to create biome maps. Broad spatial patterns of biome change were consistent across models. Poleward shifts of boreal and temperate forests dominated, as biomes follow temperature change. Equatorial rainforests remained largely stable, while other studies found forest dieback. These findings highlight regions and biomes most susceptible to future climate change, even under the low-emission scenario RCP2.6. Our transparent and objective biome classification approach can be applied to any vegetation model and provides critical insights for targeted climate mitigation and adaptation strategies and conservation of the remaining natural vegetation.
- Preprint
(4988 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(14493 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 07 Mar 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-221', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 Feb 2026 reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 180 | 85 | 14 | 279 | 41 | 10 | 15 |
- HTML: 180
- PDF: 85
- XML: 14
- Total: 279
- Supplement: 41
- BibTeX: 10
- EndNote: 15
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
This manuscript uses global vegetation models (GVMs) to project the likelihood of biome shifts in different climate change scenarios. The study shows that the used gvms are capable of reproducing current biome distribution as biome maps derived from model outputs agree with observation-based biome maps. The gvm biome projections show increasing risks of biomes shifts in higher emission scenarios and that higher latitudes were more likely to have biome shifts than lower latitudes, which the authors attribute primarily to temperature effects.
The manuscript is well written and generally clear, despite the methodology requiring some clarifications and the discussion being excessively long and descriptive in my opinion. I found the study results interesting and useful for scientists interested in climate change. My main criticism is related with how some hypotheses are tested. The authors use a classification based on expert knowledge of temperature limited and not-limited biomes and compare how these groups shift. The problem with this approach is that the actual temperature change in the grid cell is not considered, then it is impossible to claim if the biome really shifted because of temperature effects or some other reason (that is, even a very temperature limited biome still couldn’t have shifted because of temperature if there was no temperature changes in that particular grid cell to being with). I believe a more rigorous test should involve assessing the relationship between biome shifts and the actual temperature change in the grid cell.
Specific comments:
L24: Provide references for the claim that biomes are often used to assess vegetation change.
L35: I think this statement needs to be clarified. Model projections of precipitation are more uncertain than temperature projections but that doesn’t mean precipitation regimes won’t change in the future, only that model capacity to project it is currently more limited/varied between models. Therefore, I think it needs to be clarified that temperature limited biomes could respond more to current climate change projections, which does not necessarily mean they will be the most affected by climate change. In addition, it is important to consider that increased temperatures could also contribute to drought, through temperature effects on atmospheric vapor pressure deficit.
L95: I don’t fully understand the justification for using only increased CO2 scenarios. This was the combination that had the highest number of models available?
L98: Please clarify if all these models have a dynamic vegetation component (e.g. PFTs competing for grid-cell space, Prentice et al 2007)? I think it should be better explained how each model handles vegetation dynamics and responses to climate (especially temperature) in supplementary material S1.
L115: Is it really sensible to discuss biome shifts in anthropogenic areas (for example Agricultural lands)? You are assuming agricultural lands are currently a natural biome based on potentially minuscule PFT fractions on it? Wouldn’t be more sensible to exclude these areas?
L145: Why 2 PFT products? One current and one future? Please clarify
L187: That doesn’t seem like a very rigorous test of the temperature effect.
L240: Please show graphically or at least describe these effects better. From the info in the previous paragraph, the difference between scenarios does not appear very large. P-values from traditional statistics are not always very informative when using very large samples that can be obtained from model outputs and will be highly “significant” even when the actual effect is very small.
L270: Where do this p value comes from and what it refers to? The difference between coefficients of variation?
L279: I do not think this claim was rigorously tested in your results. I suggest investigating the temperature changes in grid cells with different likelihood of biome shifts.
L308: If fire is included in the GVMs you use and they still have low-agreement with data it shows that either the fire model is not working very well or that other factors not explicitly included in the models (such as herbivores) or even other aspects of the model structure or parametrization do not work well for the biomes here.
L333: Couldn’t these acclimation effects also affect the vulnerability of higher altitude biomes? As far as I know they aren’t included in GVMs.
L385: Do any of the used GVMs use these empirical limits? That would make the high agreement with observation maps less impressive than if were the result of bottom-up vegetation dynamic models as suggested in the beginning of the discussion.
L394: It would be important to clarify which processes are affected by temperature in each model in the methods section.
Fig. 4. Please define “Man” in the legend.