A University of Potsdam study finds that standard methods for predicting which species face extinction from climate change are missing a crucial distinction: whether a habitat disappears entirely or simply moves to a new location.

Climate change threatens species in two different ways, according to the research. A habitat can vanish altogether as temperatures and weather patterns shift. But a habitat can also move—relocating to a different geographic area while remaining intact elsewhere.

The researchers found that these two scenarios create very different extinction risks, yet current standard methods for assessing which species are vulnerable do not account for this difference. The team argues that this gap means scientists may be underestimating how many species are actually at risk.

The distinction matters because early identification of vulnerable species is essential for conservation efforts to work. Without accurate predictions, conservation resources may be directed inefficiently, and species in genuine danger could be overlooked.

In Layman Terms

Imagine a forest that is home to a particular bird species. As the climate warms, that forest could face two different futures.

In the first scenario, the forest disappears entirely. The conditions that made it suitable for trees no longer exist in that location. The birds have nowhere to go.

In the second scenario, the forest doesn't vanish—it shifts. The climate in that region becomes unsuitable for the forest, but conditions suitable for the same forest type emerge hundreds of kilometres away. The forest ecosystem moves, but it still exists somewhere.

You might think the second scenario is less dangerous for the birds. But the researchers found it's more complicated than that. When a habitat moves, a species may not be able to follow it. The birds might be trapped in their original location, unable to reach the new forest. Or they might lack the ability to migrate that far. Or other species might already occupy the new habitat.

The problem is that the standard computer models scientists use to predict extinction risk don't properly distinguish between these two situations. They treat habitat loss and habitat shift as similar problems, when in reality they create different dangers.

Why This Matters

Conservation decisions depend on knowing which species are most at risk. Governments and organizations allocate limited funding and effort based on these predictions. If the predictions are wrong, resources go to the wrong places.

If current models are underestimating extinction risk—particularly for species whose habitats are shifting rather than disappearing—then some species in genuine danger may not receive the protection they need. By the time scientists realize the risk was higher than predicted, it may be too late to save them.

The researchers are calling for standard extinction-risk assessment methods to be revised to account for the difference between habitat loss and habitat shift.

What We Still Don't Know

The source material does not specify which species or regions the researchers studied, or provide concrete examples of how much current models underestimate risk. It is unclear how widespread this problem is across different types of animals and plants, or which conservation efforts should be prioritized first. The researchers' specific recommendations for revising standard methods are not detailed in the available information.

Sources: Phys