Abstract:AimPredicting future changes in species richness in response to climate change is one of the key challenges in biogeography and conservation ecology. Stacked species distribution models (S‐SDMs) are a commonly used tool to predict current and future species richness. Macroecological models (MEMs), regression models with species richness as response variable, are a less computationally intensive alternative to S‐SDMs. Here, we aim to compare the results of two model types (S‐SDMS and MEMs), for the first time for more than 14,000 species across multiple taxa globally, and to trace the uncertainty in future predictions back to the input data and modelling approach used. LocationGlobal land, excluding Antarctica. TaxonAmphibians, birds and mammals. MethodsWe fitted S‐SDMs and MEMs using a consistent set of bioclimatic variables and model algorithms and conducted species richness predictions under current and future conditions. For the latter, we used four general circulation models (GCMs) under two representative concentration pathways (RCP2.6 and RCP6.0). Predicted species richness was compared between S‐SDMs and MEMs and for current conditions also to extent‐of‐occurrence (EOO) species richness patterns. For future predictions, we quantified the variance in predicted species richness patterns explained by the choice of model type, model algorithm and GCM using hierarchical cluster analysis and variance partitioning. ResultsUnder current conditions, species richness predictions from MEMs and S‐SDMs were strongly correlated with EOO‐based species richness. However, both model types over‐predicted areas with low and under‐predicted areas with high species richness. Outputs from MEMs and S‐SDMs were also highly correlated among each other under current and future conditions. The variance between future predictions was mostly explained by model type. Main conclusionsBoth model types were able to reproduce EOO‐based patterns in global terrestrial vertebrate richness, but produce less collinear predictions of future species richness. Model type by far contributes to most of the variation in the different future species richness predictions, indicating that the two model types should not be used interchangeably. Nevertheless, both model types have their justification, as MEMs can also include species with a restricted range, whereas S‐SDMs are useful for looking at potential species‐specific responses.

Predicting continental-scale patterns of bird species richness with spatially explicit models

Species richness and evolutionary niche dynamics: a spatial pattern–oriented simulation experiment

The Dynamics of Bird Diversity in the New World

The coincidence of rarity and richness and the potential signature of history in centres of endemism

Evaluating ecological uniqueness over broad spatial extents using species distribution modelling

Predicting tree distributions in an East African biodiversity hotspot: model selection, data bias and envelope uncertainty

The mid-domain effect: geometric constraints on the geography of species richness

Spatiotemporal modelling of abundance from multiple data sources in an integrated spatial distribution model

Species Diversity Patterns Derived from Species-Area Models

Structural Uncertainty in Models Projecting the Consequences of Habitat Loss and Fragmentation on Biodiversity

Predicting emergent animal biodiversity patterns across multiple scales

Effects of Geographical Extent on the Determinants of Woody Plant Diversity

Spatial predictions at the community level: from current approaches to future frameworks

The influence of scale-dependent geodiversity on species distribution models in a biodiversity hotspot

Rare edges and abundant cores: range-wide variation in abundance in North American birds

The mid‐domain effect and species richness patterns: What have we learned so far?

A comparison of macroecological and stacked species distribution models to predict future global terrestrial vertebrate richness

Mapping multiscale breeding bird species distributions across the United States and evaluating their conservation applications

Spatio‐temporal integrated Bayesian species distribution models reveal lack of broad relationships between traits and range shifts

A Phenomenological Spatial Model for Macro-Ecological Patterns in Species-Rich Ecosystems

On the relationship between spatial environmental variability, dispersion and biodiversity