Skip to main content
Download PDF

Potential changes in the extent of suitable habitats for geladas (Theropithecus gelada) in the Anthropocene

BMC Ecology and Evolution volume 23, Article number: 65 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Climate change coupled with other anthropogenic pressures may affect the extent of suitable habitat for species and thus their distributions. This is particularly true for species occupying high-altitude habitats such as the gelada (Theropithecus gelada) of the Ethiopian highlands. To explore the impact of climate change on species distributions, Species Distribution Modelling (SDM) has been extensively used. Here we model the current and future extent of sutibale habitat for geladas. Our modelling was based on 285 presence locations of geladas, covering their complete current distribution. We used different techniques to generate pseudoabsence datasets, MaxEnt model complexities, and cut-off thresholds to map the potential distribution of gelada under current and future climates (2050 and 2070). We assembled maps from these techniques to produce a final composite map. We also evaluated the change in the topographic features of gelada over the past 200 years by comparing the topography in current and historical settings.

Results

All model runs had high performances, AUC = 0.87–0.96. Under the current climate, the suitable habitat predicted with high certainty was 90,891 km2, but it decreased remarkably under future climates, -36% by 2050 and − 52% by 2070. However, since the habitats of geladas already extend to mountaintop grasslands, no remarkable range shifts across elevation gradients were predicted under future climates.

Conclusions

Our findings indicated that climate change most likely results in a loss of suitable habitat for geladas, particularly south of the Rift Valley. Currently geladas are confined to higher altitudes and steep slopes compared to historical sightings, probably qualifying geladas as refugee species. The difference in topography is potentially associated with anthropogenic pressures that drove niche truncation to higher altitudes, undermining the climatic and topographic niche our models predicted. We recommend protecting the current habitats of geladas even when they are forecasted to become climatically unsuitable in the future, in particular for the population south of the Rift Valley.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

The Anthropocene is a proposed geological era marked by the significant influence of human actions on the Earth’s natural processes. This epoch began around the mid-20th century and has brought about profound repercussions for biodiversity, including habitat deterioration, species extinctions, alterations to ecosystems and climate in general [1]. Climate change stands as one of the foremost factors driving the ongoing global biodiversity crisis [2,3,4]. Climate change is triggering alterations and shifts in ecosystems worldwide, causing changes in the distribution and availability of suitable habitats for many species, including primates [2,3,4,5,6,7]. For most taxa distribution models predict substantial habitat loss by 2100 due to climate change [8]. In particular, the expected upslope shift of habitats in mountain areas is expected to lead to a reduction of suitable habitats and the extinction of range-restricted high-altitude species [9,10,11,12].

Among primates, a few species belong to such range-restricted high-altitude species, e.g., snub-nosed monkeys (Rhinopithecus spp.) in China and Myanmar [13, 14] and geladas (Theropithecus gelada) in Ethiopia [15]. Geladas are endemic to the Afro-alpine grasslands of Ethiopia at elevations from 1800 to 4400 m asl [16,17,18,19]. Three populations, whose taxonomic status is unclear, are recognized: T. g. gelada in northern Ethiopia, mainly in the Simien Mountains, T. g. obscurus, in the central highlands of Ethiopia, and a small population south of the Rift Valley in the Arsi Mountains (T. g.) [19,20,21; Fig. 1]. Interestingly, Chiou et al. [21] found a chromosomal polymorphism in geladas that could potentially contribute to reproductive barriers between populations, which suggests specific status for the three populations (subspecies). The ecological niches of the three taxa are highly congruent. They are diet specialists (the only graminivorous primate), depend largely on high-altitude grassland and show the same social organization [22,23,24].

Even without taking the effects of climate change into account, the population size of geladas is generally decreasing due to the conversion of their habitat into farmland, grazing grounds for livestock, and settlements [19]. T. g. obscurus is listed as of Least Concern by IUCN [25], whereas T. g. gelada is listed as Vulnerable [26, 27], and T. g. arsi as Endangered [28]. Since geladas already occupy the grasslands of the highest plateaus in Ethiopia, a further shift towards higher altitudes is no longer possible, which makes conservation of their current habitat even more important.

In general, the effects of climate change on Ethiopia’s biodiversity have not been well studied [29], but recently the effects of climate change on habitat suitability of two other endemic high-altitude species of the Ethiopian highlands have been modelled, the Walia ibex (Capra walie) and the giant lobelia (Lobelia rhynchopetalum). In both studies, significant reductions in the size of the species ranges have been projected [10, 30]. In a pioneering study on geladas, Dunbar [31] already estimated that for every 2 °C rise in the mean temperature, the lowest altitude geladas may inhabit will rise by 500 m.

For adequate conservation strategies under climate change, it is essential to include information on future potential distributions of suitable habitats [29, 32]. Species distribution models (SDMs) based on current presence-absence data or presence data alone in combination with climate change models can be applied to predict the spatiotemporal changes in suitable habitats [33,34,35,36]. However, since further elevational shifts of the high-alitude grassland in Ethiopia is very restricted by topology, we expect reduction rather than shift of suitable gelada habitat. Since all the three gelada taxa occupy the same ecological niche, in our study, we applied species distribution modelling on the genus level to project the distribution and extent of suitable habitats for geladas in the Ethiopian highlands under 2050 and 2070 climate change scenarios.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Topographic map of Ethiopia indicating the relief and geographic positions of occurrence locations of geladas (Theropithecus gelada, red dots) after 2000. The broken lines encircle the assumed distribution ranges of the northern (T. g. gelada, green), the central (T. g. obscurus, yellow), and the southern (T. g. ssp. nov., orange) populations [20, 37]

Full size image

Materials and methods

Occurrence data

We assembled occurrence points for the three subspecies of geladas from different sources such as personal surveys (n = 396), literature [17, 37,38,39,40; see also Table S1) and from GBIF.org [41]. These occurrence data were collected after 1999 to represent the current presence data of geladas. To explore whether gelada occurrence already changed topographically (e.g., altitude of occurrence), we compared historical occurrence data [16, 38] collected before 2000 with the current data. For this comparison, we divided the historical data into data collected before 1900 and data collected between 1900 and 1999 (108 occurrence point). We included only data collected after 1999 in our modelling approach. We further filtered this data by removing duplicates, and, in cases where we detected multiple occurrence points within 1 km × 1 km grid area, we included only one point. Finally, we retained 285 occurrence points for our modelling (Fig. 1). Since the number of occurrence points for each subspecies was not sufficient for proper modelling at subspecies level, we restricted our analysis to the species (genus) level.

Environmental variables

We initially considered 23 environmental variables for the modelling including 19 bioclimatic variables, land cover (https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/) and vegetation type (http://landscapeportal.org/layers/geonode:veg_ethiopia), and two topographic variables (slope and slope SD). We obtained the bioclimatic variables from the WorldClim v2.1 at a spatial resolution of 30 arc seconds (~ 1 km2) [42]. Geladas frequently use more or less flat areas on plateaus for foraging and steep cliffs as a refuge from predators and as sleeping sites [18; Fig. 2]. Therefore, we added slope data. We derived the slope angle map from a digital elevation model downloaded from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission Digital Elevation Model [SRTM DEM; 43]. In the previous study, it was shown that manually collected occurrence points for animals adapted to complex topographic landscapes tend to be confined to their foraging sites and not to places where the animals are in their inactive phases (sleeping sites) and taking refuge from predators [30]. This relationship most likely caused that slope was not found to be an important predictor variable for the Walia ibex (Capra walie), although this species is a steep-slope specialist [30]. Hence, topographic complexity may better predict the topographic requirements of geladas. Thus, to represent topographic complexity, we additionally computed the slope standard deviation as a proxy from pixels within a radius of three 1-km2 grid cells around one central grid cell for the whole landscape of the study area and used it as an additional predictor.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Gelada herd (Theropithecus gelada obscurus) in the Afro-alpine grassland in the highlands of cental Ethiopia (Guassa Community Conservation Area). Photos credit - Jeffrey T. Kerby

Full size image

To avoid multi-collinearity, we stacked all 23 environmental variables and extracted their values at each of the occurrence points and additionally at 10,000 randomly generated points. Based on these points, we computed Pearson’s pairwise correlations among all variables. From variables with a pairwise correlation coefficient of r > |0.8|, we retained only those variables that had the lowest variable inflation factor values, computed in the ‘USDM’ R package [44; Fig. S1]. With this procedure, we reduced the number of environmental variables from 23 to 13 for the final model run (Table 1).

For the temporal projections, we used the HadGEM3-GC global circulation model (GCMs) with three shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs): (1) the straightest emission pathway scenario (SSP 2.6), (2) the intermediate (SSP 4.5), (3) the worst (SSP 8.5) and applied them for two periods (2041–2060 [2050] and 2061–2080 [2070] [45]. In Ethiopia the population has increased by over four times in the past three to four decades, with more than 80% of the population residing in rural areas, land cover changes are occurring rapidly and are difficult to anticipate. There is also ongoing trend of rural-to-urban migration which may potentially relieve the less productive high mountain regions in the future. Thus, we think that projecting or relying on projected land cover changes for the future climate in our region would introduce a high degree of uncertainty into our modeling. Therefore, we have chosen to use the current land cover type as a fixed variable.

Model fitting

We used the maximum entropy algorithm MaxEnt v3.4.4 [46] to model suitable habitats for geladas under the current climate and for the projection to future climate scenarios. MaxEnt is a commonly used algorithm to predict species distributions and is robust even with small sample sizes [34, 47, 48]. One factor that affects the model performance of MaxEnt is the spatial extent from which pseudo-absence points are taken [49,50,51]. Generating pseudo-absence points over larger areas that are already known to be unsuitable to the model species may exaggerate model performance. Thus, restricting the spatial extent of pseudo-absence points is important [10, 30, 52,53,54]. We generated 10,000 pseudoabsence points as implemented in default MaxEnt [46]. However, we restricted these points to areas where we expect suitable habitats for geladas by two approaches. First, we used a bias file [53]. The bias file works by minimizing omission (false negatives) and commission errors (false positives), which may improve the prediction performance of the model [55]. We created a bias file in ArcGIS version 10.7 by mapping species records on a 1-km2 grid and producing a minimum convex polygon. Second, we restricted the area to the elevation range where geladas currently are known to occur. We extracted the altitude of each gelada occurrence point and generated pseudoabsence points within 90% of the total elevation range, omitting 2.5% of lower and upper ranges.

We combined the gelada occurrence points with both datasets for pseudoabsence and used them and the values of the selected environmental variables as input into MaxEnt. We split both combined datasets into ten equal parts using a cross-validation technique and run ten replicates of two versions of the MaxEnt model [56], one simple and one complex. The complex model was run by setting the regularization multiplier value to 1 which is the default MaxEnt setting [57], and to 8 for the simple model [30]. Eventually, we run four MaxEnt models: two complex models, one using the pseudo-absence points generated using bias file and one using the pseudo-absence points generated within the elevation limits of geladas occurrence points, and two simple models using the same two datasets. For all model runs, we used 90% of the combined occurrence and pseudo absence points for model training and (10%) of the data for validation. The robustness of the models was evaluated with 5000 iterations [46, 58]. All four MaxEnt models were projected into the three emission scenarios by 2050 and 2070 (see above). We classified the output maps from all models and model projections into binary suitable/unsuitable classes using three probability threshold criteria: (1) 10 percentile logistic training threshold, which is the predicted probability at a 10% omission rate of the training data; (2) using maximum test sensitivity plus specificity, which is the probability threshold at which the sum of fractions of correctly predicted presence and pseudo-absence points is the highest; and (3) using equal test sensitivity and specificity, which is the probability thresholds at which the difference between fractions of correctly predicted presence and pseudo-absence points are the lowest. In sum, we produced 12 binary maps for the current climate (four versions of the MaxEnt model with three threshold criteria for each version; Fig. S2) and 36 binary maps for future climate (four versions of the MaxEnt model times three threshold criteria times three emission scenarios).

We ensemble the binary maps from both, current and future climate scenarios, and produced three habitat suitability classes based on agreements among the maps in predicting habitat suitability [10]: (1) highly suitable, when pixels from more than 60% of the binary maps predict habitat as suitable (≥ 8 maps for the current climate and ≥ 22 maps for future climates); (2) uncertain, when 30–60% of the maps predict habitat suitability (4–7 maps for current climate and 12–21 maps for future climate conditions); and (3) unsuitable, when < 30% of the maps (up to three maps under current climate and 10 maps under future climates conditions) predicted habitat suitability. We further grouped the habitat suitability maps into two classes by assigning “1” to the pixels that were classified as suitable with high certainty and “0” to the rest to represent suitable and unsuitable habitats, respectively. We overlaid these maps to detect spatiotemporal changes in habitat suitability and quantify the impact of climate change.

Model evaluation

We evaluated the accuracy of each model run by using the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC), a threshold-independent measure of a model’s ability to discriminate between the pseudo-absence and the presence data [59]. This is a standard method to evaluate the accuracy of predictive distribution models [60] AUC values vary from 0 (random discrimination) to 1 (perfect discrimination) [61]. An AUC value of 0.5 or smaller indicates that the model has no predictive power, whereas perfect discrimination between suitable and unsuitable cells will give an AUC value approaching 1.0 [46].

Historical changes in gelada elevation range

To assess whether the elevation range of geladas already changed in historical times, we compared elevations of historical gelada sightings from the periods before 1900 and before 2000 with the elevations of current sightings (after 2000). We extracted the corresponding elevation range as the difference between maximum and minimum elevation within a radius of four 90-m grid cells around the recorded localities (49 neighbour cells), elevation, and slope standard deviations which are the standard deviation of elevations and slope among these neighbouring grid cells, respectively (ArcGIS version 10.7). We additionally computed slope maximum – the maximum slope among these neighbouring cells and slope range – the difference between maximum and minimum slope values. We further extracted the value of elevation from current and future (2050 and 2070) modelled suitable habitats and compared the change in elevation with the historical data (Fig. S3).

Results

Variables that predict the distribution of suitable gelada habitat under climate change

Under all settings, mean temperature of the wettest quarter (Bio8), vegetation, slope standard deviation, and precipitation of the wettest month (Bio13) explained most in predicting gelada occurrence (Table 1).

Table 1 Contributions of the predictor variables to the four MaxEnt models
Full size table

Habitat suitability modeling

All model versions had high predictive performance on both training and test data, with AUC values ≥ 0.87 (Table 2). Models in which a bias file was used for generating pseudo-absence points had relatively lower AUC values (0.88 for the simple model and 0.87 for the complex model), whereas generating pseudo-absence points within the elevation range of gelada, resulted in relatively higher AUC values (0.95 for complex and 0.95 for simple model). No remarkable differences were observed between the AUC values computed on training and test data in the predicted models. The AUC standard deviations of our results demonstrate that there was nearly zero variability or consistency (Std between 0.01 and 0.03), indicating that our data set was accurate enough to make predictions about the suitability of geladas (Table 2). Overall, our prediction was consistent across the model complexity levels, runs, and datasets.

Table 2 Average training and testing AUC values for the four MaxEnt model versions and their average cut-off of threshold values
Full size table

Under the current climate, the models predicted an area of 90,891 km2 to be suitable for geladas (Fig. 3; Table 3). As expected, the suitable habitat mainly concentrates in the northern and central highlands of Ethiopia, where the density of occurrence points is also the highest (Fig. 1). Under future climates conditions, the area predicted to be suitable with high certainty declined to 55,829 km2 by 2050 and to 43,576 km2 by 2070 (Table 3; Figs. 3, 4 and S4), a reduction of 39% and 58% by 2050 and 2070, respectively.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Distribution and extent of suitable gelada habitat produced from 12 binary maps for current climate (current; 2 techniques to generate pseudo-absence points x 2 model complexity levels x 3 threshold values; see also Fig. S2), and from 36 binary maps for future scenarios (future 2050 and 2070); two techniques to generate pseudo-absence points x 2 model complexity levels x 3 threshold values x 3 emission scenarios). When grid cells in 30% or less of the binary maps (3 maps for current and 10 maps for future climates) predict suitability, we considered them unsuitable. When grid cells of > 30 − 60% maps (4–7 maps for the current climate and 11–21 maps for the future climate conditions) predicted suitability, we considered them uncertain in terms of suitability. When grid cells from > 60% binary maps (> 7 maps for the current and > 21 maps for the future) predict suitability, we considered them as suitable

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

The area of suitable gelada habitats predicted under current and different future emission scenarios (2050 and 2070) produced using two levels of model complexity by setting a regularization multiplier values to 1 (Reg_1) and 8 (Reg_8) and by using three cut-off threshold values without and with bias file (WB): 10% (10 percentile omission rate), MTSS (maximum test sensitivity and specificity), and ETSS (equal test sensitivity and specificity). HG stands for Hadley Centre Global Environment Model version 2 (HadGEM2-ES). We used three emission scenarios (2.6, 4.5 and 8.5)

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

Predicted change in habitat suitablities of geladas by 2050 (Curr_2050) and by 2070 (curr_2070). Green, pixels that are predicted to be suitable under both current and future climates; blue, pixels that are not currently predicted to be suitable but forecasted to be suitable in the future; yellow; currently suitable but not in the future; and grey, unsuitable both under current and future climates

Full size image
Table 3 Loss and gain of suitable habitat for geladas under future climate conditions (2050 and 2070)
Full size table

Under both, current and future climate conditions, the majority of the highly suitable habitat is predicted for the central and northern Ethiopian Highlands (Figs. 3 and 5). The model projections also show some suitable habitat in northern Tigray. In the southern and eastern Ethiopian Highlands, only a few areas with suitable habitat are predicted. In particular, for the Bale, Arsi, and Ahmar Mountains south of the Rift Valley, and for some areas in the central highlands, the models show a loss of habitat. In addition, in these areas, the models indicate not only loss of habitat, but also fragmentation. However, the models also predict a gain in suitable habitat for 2050 and 2070 in northern Ethiopia, specifically in eastern Tigray (Figs. 5 and S4).

Elevation and slope of the occurrence points increased over time (1800 to 2000 s) (Fig. 6), but elevation did not increase in our projections for 2050 and 2070, compared to the current scenario. The predicted suitable habitat had an average elevation of 2749 m, 2685 m, and 2809 m for the current and future climates, respectively. Similarly, slopes became steeper and the topography more complex over time (Fig. 6).

The number of pixels per 1 km x 1 km grid cell of suitable habitat varied with elevation (Fig. S3) and the highest number, for all scenarios, was found between 2000 and 3000 m asl. However, the absolute number of pixels under the current (2000) condition was greater than under future scenarios (Fig. S3).

Fig. 6
figure 6

Changes in topographic features (elevation and slope) of gelada occurrence localities during the last 200 years. Box plots depict medians (horizontal lines), quartiles (box), ranges (whiskers), and means (red dots). The temporal variation in elevation of gelada occurrence locations is based on reported sighting from the 1800s, 1900s, and 2000s. For elevation change, we also added elevation of suitable habitat under the current climate (cur), and future climate conditions (2050 and 2070)

Full size image

Discussion

We modelled the distribution of the currently suitable habitat of a high-altitude primate, the gelada, and projected the distribution to future climate scenarios. Our MaxEnt modelling showed high predictive performance for the current distribution and suggests a significant reduction of suitable habitats for geladas under future climates (by 2050 and 2070).

Modelling

In response to the need for species conservation and management planning in times of climate change, many species distribution modelling approaches have been developed [33, 62]. Though ensemble or model averaging has greater predictive capacity than individual modelling approaches, MaxEnt is commonly used to infer species distributions and environmental tolerances from occurrence data, particularly when optimized well. In this study, we applied different complexity levels, datasets, and cut-off threshold values to tune the predictive performance of the MaxEnt predictions to use the averaged result of our prediction for designing conservation plans for gelada in the Ethiopian highlands.

Although all models had a high performance (AUC > 0.87), the model in which bias files were used to generate pseudo-absence points had a relatively lower AUC, (test AUC = 0.87 for the simple model and 0.88 for the complex model) than the model produced by using pseudo-absence points generated within the elevation range of gelada (0.95 test AUC for both simple and complex models). This may be due to the restriction of randomly generated points in proximity to the presence points when bias file is used. The predicted suitable areas were also lower when bias files were used [53]. Nevertheless, the differences among the modelling approaches were not remarkable. In general, we found consistent results across different model complexities and runs, little difference between test and training AUCs, and similar patterns of prediction among different cut-off thresholds, which indicates the reliability of our approach and the robustness of the models we used. The consistent results across different model complexities and runs indicate acceptable data quality for predictions and the ability of the MaxEnt models to identify the Ethiopian highlands as providing suitable habitat for geladas.

Our modelling shows that the mean temperature of the wettest quarter (Bio 8) was the most influential predictor variable for the distribution of suitable habitat. In a previous study on the consequences of climate change on gelada distribution, Dunbar [31] predicted that geladas will be forced to live only on a few isolated mountain summits if the temperature would increase by 7 °C. However, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [63] estimates that anthropogenically driven climate warming in the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5 °C relative to the 1850–1900 period in all scenarios and exceeds 2.0 °C in many scenarios. Though a 7 °C temperature increase may not happen within the next 100 years, the result is concerning.

We also found that the distribution of geladas is influenced by annual precipitation and the precipitation of the wettest month. Annual precipitation is associated with food availability and habitat quality [31], and it can affect space useand distribution directly or indirectly by its impact on population dynamics. Results of a recent study on the demography of geladas in the Simien Mountains from 2008 to 2019 suggest that these primates are less resilient to climate variability than previously thought [64].

Although slope had the least average contribution to our models, interestingly slope standard deviation was one of the three most important predictor variables (Table 2). Geladas use the Afro-alpine grasslands on flat plateaus for foraging and steep cliffs as sleeping sites and as refuges in case of predation [18, 65,66,67,68,69,70]. Slope standard deviation is a good proxy to landscape complexity and thus can capture these topographic niche requirements of gelada as well as other animals with similar adaptations. Thus we recommend the use of slope standard deviation as input especially when distribution models are used to map habitat suitabilities of high-altitude animals.

Future projection of habitat distribution for T. gelada

Our averaged model prediction for T. gelada shows that the current predicted suitable area covers 90,891 km2, while an additional 25,621 km2 of potential habitat is considered suitable with uncertainty. Geographically, highly suitable areas were more concentrated in the central highlands, in northern Showa, Wollo, and South Gondar, and the Debre-Libanos area.

Compared to the size of the current suitable habitat, our projections suggested a massive loss of suitable habitats under future climates. Also, small new areas were forecasted to become suitable under climate change in the northern and central parts of Ethiopia, overall the suitable habitat is predicted to decrease by 36% (2050) and 52% (2070), respectively. The most dramatic decline of suitable habitat, however, was projected for the population south of the Rift Valley. Here the size of suitable habitat is already small due to extreme anthropogenic pressure caused by expansions of agriculture, overgrazing, and human-wildlife conflicts as a consequence [23, 24, 71]. As expected, our projections do not indicate any major elevational shifts of suitable habitat, because in most areas gelada habitat is already at the elevational limit. That, however, means that conservation efforts have to concentrate on the habitat that is currently available and the conversion of natural high-altitude grassland should be minimized.

Anthropogenic pressure

Given the strong anthropogenic pressures on gelada habitat overall in Ethiopia, the elevation shift of occurrence points in historical times can most likely be more attributed to agricultural expansion than to the impact of climate change. These pressures at the lower elevation most likely have pushed geladas already to a higher elevation where their climatic resilience might be close to its limit [64]. If geladas are currently living in marginal habitats they might represent a refugee species, which undermines the topographic and climatic tolerances our models predicted. Thus we recommend protecting the current habitats of geladas even when they are forecasted to become climatically unsuitable in the future, in particular for the population south of the Rift Valley. We also recommend conservation efforts even in areas where our models predicted suitable habitats with uncertainty. Furthermore, the predicted suitable habitat for geladas can be used comprehensively for conservation purposes, particularly for identification of refugia areas, high-risk areas for gelada and potential translocation sites.

It is important to note that the excessive expansions of anthropogenic pressures can indeed be indicative of changes in land use and land cover. These changes can have significant implications for the distribution of species. Future research should consider incorporating a more comprehensive analysis of anthropogenic pressures and their relationship with land cover to provide a more robust understanding of the factors influencing species dynamics.

Global landcover maps with limited thematic detail or themes that don not align with our geographical region are not suitable for our needs. Creating a high resolution temporal land cover map specific to our study area is imperative. However, this undertaking requires the collection of ground truth data and significant computational expertise. In particular, generating such a temporal map would vividly reveal the narrative of historical changes at the sites, reinforcing our argument regarding whether gelada is a refugee species. Such projects hold substantial importance and should be pursued.

Conclusion

Our species distribution modelling demonstrates that the current suitable habitat of geladas is vulnerable to climate change. Geladas will lose large parts of their current suitable habitat in the Ethiopian highlands. Even though species range shift was not evident in our models, significant elevational changes appeared between current and historical occurrence points, which potentially are associated with anthropogenic pressures at lower elevations. The findings of our study can be used to revisit or align the boundaries of existing protected areas with the future predicted habitats that encompass climate refugia for this high-altitude species. In particular, the population south of the Rift Valley will be severely affected. This is all the more dramatic because no protected areas exist for this (sub)species, thus there is an urgent need to create a protected area for this population.

Data Availability

The attached supplementary file contains all data.

References

  1. Head MJ, Steffen W, Fagerlind D, Waters CN, Poirier C, Syvitski J, et al. The great acceleration is real and provides a quantitative basis for the proposed Anthropocene Series/Epoch. Episodes J Int Geoscience. 2022;45(4):359–76. https://doi.org/10.18814/epiiugs/2021/021031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Root TL, Price JT, Hall KR, Schneider SH, Rosenzweig C, Pounds JA. Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants. Nature. 2003;421(6918):57–60. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01333.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Walther GR, Berger S, Sykes MT. (2005). An ecological “footprint” of climate change. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 272(1571), 1427–1432. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2005.3119.

  4. Korstjens AH, Hillyer AP. Primates and climate change: a review of current knowledge. In: Wich SA, Marshall AJ, editors. An introduction to Primate Conservation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2016. pp. 175–92.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Carvalho JS, Graham B, Rebelo H, Bocksberger G, Meyer CFJ, Wich S, Kühl HS. A global risk assessment of primates under climate and land use/cover scenarios. Glob Change Biol. 2019;25(9):3163–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Sales L, Ribeiro BR, Chapman CA, Loyola R. Multiple dimensions of climate change on the distribution of Amazon primates. Perspect Ecol Conserv. 2020;18(2):83–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2020.03.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Pinto MP, Beltrão-Mendes R, Talebi M, de Lima AA. Primates facing climate crisis in a tropical forest hotspot will lose climatic suitable geographical range. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):641. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-26756-0.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Winder IC, Mace B, Korstjens A. Climate change impacts on non-human primates: what have we modelled and what do we do now? In: McKinney T, Waters S,Rodrigues M. A, editors. Primates in anthropogenic landscapes: exploring primate behavioural flexibility across human contexts. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2023. pp. 83–100.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Dirnböck T, Essl F, Rabitsch W. Disproportional risk for habitat loss of high-altitude endemic species under climate change. Glob Change Biol. 2011;17(2):990–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02266.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chala D, Psomas A, Ehrich D, Gizaw A, Masao CA, Bakkestuen V, Zimmermann NE. Good-bye to tropical alpine plant giants under warmer climates? Loss of range and genetic diversity in Lobelia Rhynchopetalum. Ecol Evol. 2016;6(24):8931–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2603.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Freeman BG, Scholer MN, Ruiz-Gutierrez V, Fitzpatrick JW. Climate change causes upslope shifts and mountaintop extirpations in a tropical bird community. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2018;115(47):11982–7. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1804224115.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Love SJ, Schweitzer JA, Woolbright SA, Bailey JK. Sky islands are a Global Tool for Predicting the Ecological and Evolutionary consequences of Climate Change. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2023;54. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102221-050029.

  13. Zhang P, Hu K, Yang B, Yang D. Snub-nosed monkeys (Rhinopithecus spp.): conservation challenges in the face of environmental uncertainty. Sci Bull. 2016;61:345–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11434-016-1008-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Nüchel J, Bøcher PK, Xiao W, Zhu AX, Svenning JC. Snub-nosed monkeys (Rhinopithecus): potential distribution and its implication for conservation. Biodivers Conserv. 2018;27:1517–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-018-1507-0.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Zinner D, Fickenscher G, Roos C. Family Cercopithecidae (Old World monkeys). In: Mittermeier RA, Rylands AB, Wilson DE, editors. Handbook of the mammals of the World. Vol. 3. Primates. Barcelona: Lynx Edicions; 2013. pp. 550–627.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Yalden DW, Largen MJ, Kock D. Catalogue of the mammals of Ethiopia. Monitore Zoologico Italiano Supplemento. 1977;9(1):1–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/03749444.1977.10736841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gippoliti S. Theropithecus gelada distribution and variations related to taxonomy: history, challenges and implications for conservation. Primates. 2010;51(4):291–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10329-010-0202-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bergman TJ, Beehner JC. Theropithecus gelada gelada (gelada baboon). In: Butynski TM, Kingdon J, Kalina J, editors. Mammals of Africa, volume II, Primates. London: Bloomsbury; 2013. pp. 240–4.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gippoliti S, Mekonnen A, Burke R, Nguyen N, Fashing PJ. (2022). Theropithecus gelada (amended version of 2019 assessment). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2022: e.T21744A217754712. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2022-1.RLTS.T21744A217754712.en. Accessed on 05 April 2023.

  20. Trede F, Lemkul A, Atickem A, Beehner JC, Bergman TJ, Burke R, Fashing PJ, Knauf S, Mekonnen A, Moges A, Nguyen N, Roos C, Zinner D. Geographic distribution of microsatellite alleles in geladas (Primates, Cercopithecidae): evidence for three evolutionary units. Zoolog Scr. 2020;46(6):659–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/zsc.12451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Chiou KL, Janiak MC, Schneider-Crease IA, Sen S, Ayele F, Chuma IS, Snyder-Mackler N. Genomic signatures of high-altitude adaptation and chromosomal polymorphism in geladas. Nat Ecol Evol. 2022;6(5):630–43. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01703-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Bergman TJ, Beehner JC. Theropithecus gelada Gelada (gelada baboon). In: Butynski TM, Kingdon J, Kalina J, editors. Mammals of Africa, volume II, Primates. London: Bloomsbury; 2013. pp. 240–4.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Abu K, Mekonnen A, Bekele A, Fashing PJ. Diet and activity patterns of Arsi geladas in low-elevation disturbed habitat south of the Rift Valley at Indetu. Ethiopia Primates. 2018;59(2):153–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10329-017-0640-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Moges AG. Population Status, diets, Activity Budget and Range Use by Arsi Gelada (Theropithecus gelada arsi) in Eastern Arsi, Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Addis Ababa University; 2019. PhD thesis.

  25. Fashing PJ, Nguyen N, Burke R, Mekonnen A, Gippoliti S. (2022). Theropithecus gelada ssp. obscurus (amended version of 2019 assessment). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2022: e.T40010A217756116. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2022-1.RLTS.T40010A217756116.en. Accessed on 27 January 2023.

  26. Kifle Z. The mystery of gelada (Theropithecus gelada) survival and adaptation in the highly anthropogenically-modified landscapes in the Ethiopian highlands: a review. Global Ecol Conserv. 2023;47:e02669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2023.e02669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Fashing PJ, Nguyen N, Burke R, Mekonnen A, Gippoliti S. (2019). Theropithecus gelada ssp. gelada. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2019: e.T136849A17982784. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2019-3.RLTS.T136849A17982784.en. Accessed on 27 January 2023.

  28. De Jong YA, Moges A, Abu K, Jenner T, Atickem A, Zinner D, Butynski TM. (in press). Theropithecus gelada arsi, Arsi Gelada. In The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.

  29. Fashing PJ, Nguyen N, Demissew S, Gizaw A, Atickem A, Mekonnen A, Stenseth NC. (2022). Ecology, evolution, and conservation of Ethiopia’s biodiversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(50), e2206635119.

  30. Gebremedhin B, Chala D, Flagstad Ø, Bekele A, Bakkestuen V, van Moorter B, Ficetola GF, Zimmermann NE, Brochmann C, Stenseth NC. Quest for new space for restricted range mammals: the case of the endangered Walia ibex. Front Ecol Evol. 2021;9:1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.611632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Dunbar RIM. Impact of global warming on the distribution and survival of the gelada baboon: a modelling approach. Glob Change Biol. 1998;4(3):293–304. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.1998.00156.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Chala D, Roos C, Svenning J, Zinner D. Species-speci fi c effects of climate change on the distribution of suitable baboon habitats e ecological niche modeling of current and last glacial maximum conditions. J Hum Evol. 2019;132:215–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.05.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Elith J, Graham CH, Anderson RP, Dudík M, Ferrier S, Guisan A, Hijmans RJ, Huettmann F, Leathwick JR, Lehmann A, Li J, Lohmann LG, Loiselle BA, Manion G, Moritz C, Nakamura M, Nakazawa Y, Overton J, Peterson AT, Phillips SJ, Richardson K, Scachetti-Pereira R, Schapire RE, Soberón J, Williams S, Wisz MS, Zimmermann EN. (2006). Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data. Ecography, 29(2), 129–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2006.0906-7590.04596.x.

  34. Elith J, Leathwick JR. Species distribution models: ecological explanation and prediction across space and time. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2009;40(1):677–97. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.110308.120159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Bean WT, Stafford R, Brashares JS. The effects of small sample size and sample bias on threshold selection and accuracy assessment of species distribution models. Ecography. 2012;35(3):250–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2011.06545.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Urbani F, D’Alessandro P, Biondi M. Using Maximum Entropy modeling (MaxEnt) to predict future trends in the distribution of high altitude endemic insects in response to climate change. Bull Insectol. 2017;70(2):189–200.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Zinner D, Atickem A, Beehner JC, Bekele A, Bergman TJ, Burke R, Dolotovskaya S, Fashing PJ, Gippoliti S, Knauf S, Knauf Y, Mekonnen A, Moges A, Nguyen N, Chr. Stenseth N, Roos C. Phylogeography, mitochondrial DNA diversity, and demographic history of geladas (Theropithecus gelada). PLoS ONE. 2018;13(8):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202303.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Shotake T, Saijuntha W, Agatsuma T, Kawamoto Y. Genetic diversity within and among gelada (Theropithecus gelada) populations based on mitochondrial DNA analysis. Anthropol Sci. 2016;124(3):157–67. https://doi.org/10.1537/ase.160717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Girmay T, Tesfay H. New geographical range of geladas (Theropithecus gelada) in Tigray Region, Northern Ethiopia. Afr J Ecol. 2021;59(1):277–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/aje.12818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Ahmed AS, Goudar KS, Seid HI. Gelada (Theropithecus gelada) in Yegof National Forest Priority Area, Northern Ethiopia: Population structure, activity budget and local community’s perception towards its conservation. Global Ecol Conserv. 2022;34:e02041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2022.e02041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. GBIF.org. (2022). GBIF Occurrence Download https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.wjsu3h.

  42. Fick SE, Hijmans RJ. WorldClim 2: new 1-km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. Int J Climatol. 2017;37(12):4302–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.5086.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Jarvis, A., Reuter, H. I., Nelson, A., & Guevara, E. (2008). Hole-filled SRTM for the globe Version 4. https://cgiarcsi.community/data/srtm-90m-digital-elevation-database-v4-1/

  44. Naimi B, Hamm NAS, Groen TA, Skidmore AK, Toxopeus AG. Where is positional uncertainty a problem for species distribution modelling? Ecography. 2014;37(2):191–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2013.00205.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Andrews MB, Ridley JK, Wood RA, Andrews T, Blockley EW, Booth B, Burke E, Dittus AJ, Florek P, Gray LJ, Haddad S, Hardiman SC, Hermanson L, Hodson D, Hogan E, Jones GS, Knight JR, Kuhlbrodt T, Misios S, Sutton RT. Historical simulations with HadGEM3-GC3.1 for CMIP6. J Adv Model Earth Syst. 2020;12(6):1–34. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Phillips SJ, Anderson RP, Schapire RE. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol Model. 2006;190(3–4):231–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.03.026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Morales NS, Fernández IC, Baca-González V. MaxEnt’s parameter configuration and small samples: are we paying attention to recommendations? A systematic review. PeerJ. 2017;5:e3093. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3093.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Phillips SJ, Anderson RP, Dudík M, Schapire RE, Blair ME. Opening the black box: an open-source release of Maxent. Ecography. 2017;40(7):887–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.03049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. VanDerWal J, Shoo LP, Graham C, Williams SE. Selecting pseudo-absence data for presence-only distribution modeling: how far should you stray from what you know? Ecol Model. 2009;220(4):589–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2008.11.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Barbet-Massin M, Jiguet F, Albert CH, Thuiller W. Selecting pseudo‐absences for species distribution models: how, where and how many? Methods Ecol Evol. 2012;3(2):327–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2011.00172.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Senay SD, Worner SP, Ikeda T. Novel three-step pseudo-absence selection technique for improved species distribution modelling. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(8):e71218. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071218.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Mackenzie DI. What are the issues with presence-absence data for wildlife managers? J Wildl Manage. 2005;69(3):849–60. https://doi.org/10.2193/0022-541X(2005)069[0849:WATIWP]2.0.CO;2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Phillips SJ, Dudík M, Elith J, Graham CH, Lehmann A, Leathwick J, Ferrier S. Sample selection bias and presence-only distribution models: implications for background and pseudo‐absence data. Ecol Appl. 2009;19(1):181–97. https://doi.org/10.1890/07-2153.1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Descombes P, Chauvier Y, Brun P, Righetti D, Wüest RO, Karger DN, Zimmermann NE. (2022). Strategies for sampling pseudo-absences for species distribution models in complex mountainous terrain. bioRxiv, 2022.03.24.485693. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.03.24.485693.

  55. Kramer-Schadt S, Niedballa J, Pilgrim JD, Schröder B, Lindenborn J, Reinfelder V, Heckmann I, Scharf AK, Augeri DM, Cheyne SM, Hearn AJ, Ross J, Macdonald DW, Mathai J, Eaton J, Marshall AJ, Semiadi G, Rustam R, Bernard H, Alfred R, Samejima H, Duckworth JW, Breitenmoser-Wuersten C, Belant JL, Hofer H, Wilting A. The importance of correcting for sampling bias in MaxEnt species distribution models. Divers Distrib. 2013;19(11):1366–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Phillips SJ, Dudík M. Modeling of species distributions with Maxent: new extensions and a comprehensive evaluation. Ecography. 2008;31(2):161–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0906-7590.2008.5203.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Halvorsen R. A strict maximum likelihood explanation of MaxEnt, and some implications for distribution modelling. Sommerfeltia. 2013;36(1):1–132. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10208-011-0016-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Young N, Carter L, Evangelista P. (2011). A MaxEnt model v3. 3.3 e tutorial (ArcGIS v10). Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State University and the National Institute of Invasive Species Science.

  59. Fielding AH, Bell JF. A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environ Conserv. 1997;24(1):38–49. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892997000088.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Radosavljevic A, Anderson RP. Making better Maxent models of species distributions: complexity, overfitting and evaluation. J Biogeogr. 2014;41(4):629–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.12227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Hosni EM, Nasser MG, Al-ashaal SA, Rady MH, Kenawy MA. Modeling current and future global distribution of Chrysomya bezziana under changing climate. Sci Rep. 2020;1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-61962-8.

  62. Valavi R, Guillera-Arroita G, Lahoz-Monfort JJ, Elith J. Predictive performance of presence-only species distribution models: a benchmark study with reproducible code. Ecol Monogr. 2022;92(1):1–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecm.1486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. IPCC., 2021: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou, editors]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 3 – 32, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.001.

  64. Sloan ET, Beehner JC, Bergman TJ, Lu A, Snyder-Mackler N, Jacquemyn H. Effects of climate variability on the demography of wild geladas. Ecol Evol. 2022;12(3):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.8759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Stark D, Frick H. Beobachtungen an äthiopischen Primaten. Zoologische Jahrbücher Abteilung für Systematik Ökologie Und Geographie Der Tiere. 1958;86:41–70.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Dunbar RIM. Feeding ecology of gelada baboons: a preliminary report. In: Clutton-Brock TH, editor. Primate Ecology: studies of feeding and ranging Behaviour in Lemurs, monkeys and apes. London: Academic Press; 1977. pp. 252–73.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Iwamoto T. The ecology of Theropithecus gelada. In: Jablonski N, editor. The rise and fall of a Primate Genus. Theropithecus: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1993. pp. 441–52.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  68. Iwamoto T, Mori A, Kawai M, Bekele A. Anti-predator behavior of gelada baboons. Primates. 1996;37(4):389–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02381374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Anandam MV, Bennett EL, Davenport TRB, Davies NJ, Detwiler KM, Engelhardt A, Eudey AA, Gadsby EL, Groves CP, Healy A, Karanth KP, Molur S, Nadler T, Richardson MC, Riley EP, Roos C, Rylands AB, Sheeran LK, Ting N, Wallis J, Waters SS, Whittaker DJ, Zinner D. (2013). Species accounts of Cercopithecidae. In R. A. Mittermeier, A. B. Rylands, & D. E. Wilson, editors, Handbook of the Mammals of the World. Vol. 3. Primates (pp. 628–753). Barcelona: Lynx Edicions.

  70. Lin B, Foxfoot IR, Miller CM, Venkatamaran VV, Kerby JT, Bechtold EK, Kellogg BS, Nguyen N, Fashing PJ. Leopard predation on gelada monkeys at Guassa, Ethiopia. Am J Primatol. 2020;82(2):e23098. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.23098.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Abu K. (2011). Population census and ecology of a rare gelada population (Theropithecus gelada unnamed subsp) in Indato, eastern Arsi, Ethiopia. MSc thesis, Addis Ababa University.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Addis Ababa University provided facilities to carryout this research. Jens-Christian Svenning was supported by the VILLUM Investigator project “Biodiversity Dynamics in a Changing World”, funded by VILLUM FONDEN (grant 16549), the Centre for Ecological Dynamics in a Novel Biosphere (ECONOVO), funded by the Danish National Research Foundation (grant DNRF173), and the Independent Research Fund Denmark | Natural Sciences project MegaComplexity (grant 0135-00225B).

Funding

There are no any funding resources for this study.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Ahmed Seid Ahmed and Desalegn Chala shared first authorship.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology, Hawassa University, P. O. Box 05, Hawassa, Ethiopia

    Ahmed Seid Ahmed

  2. Department of Zoological Sciences, Addis Ababa University, P. O. Box. 1176, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

    Ahmed Seid Ahmed, Chala Adugna Kufa, Anagaw Atickem & Afework Bekele

  3. Natural History Museum, University of Oslo, P. O. Box 1172, Blindern, Oslo, NO-0318, Norway

    Desalegn Chala

  4. Department of Biology, Woldia University, P. O. Box 400, Woldia, Ethiopia

    Chala Adugna Kufa

  5. Center for Ecological Dynamics in a Novel Biosphere (ECONOVO), Department of Biology, Aarhus University, Ny Munkegade 114, Aarhus C, DK-8000, Denmark

    Jens-Christian Svenning

  6. Center for Biodiversity Dynamics in a Changing World (BIOCHANGE), Department of Biology, Aarhus University, Ny Munkegade 114, Aarhus C, DK-8000, Denmark

    Jens-Christian Svenning

  7. Cognitive Ecology Laboratory, German Primate Center, Leibniz Institute for Primate Research, 37077, Göttingen, Germany

    Dietmar Zinner

  8. Department of Primate Cognition, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, 37077, Göttingen, Germany

    Dietmar Zinner

  9. Leibniz Science Campus Primate Cognition, 37077, Göttingen, Germany

    Dietmar Zinner

Authors
  1. Ahmed Seid Ahmed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Desalegn Chala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chala Adugna Kufa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anagaw Atickem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Afework Bekele
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jens-Christian Svenning
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Dietmar Zinner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

ASA and DC.: data collection and organization, formal analysis, writing (the original draft). CAK: data collection and methodology, organizing, formal analysis, and writing. AA: reviewing, and editing the manuscript. JCS contributes to the comments, editorial and writes a manuscript. AB. edited and reviewed the manuscript, proofread it for the final submission, and is the senior author. DZ. is co-initiator of the study, developed the research question, made significant contributions to, data collection, analysis, and write-up. All authors contributed to the writing of the manuscript. This is original research that has not previously been published and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. All authors contributed to the writing of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmed Seid Ahmed.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical guidelines

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ahmed, A.S., Chala, D., Kufa, C.A. et al. Potential changes in the extent of suitable habitats for geladas (Theropithecus gelada) in the Anthropocene. BMC Ecol Evo 23, 65 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-023-02173-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-023-02173-3

Keywords

BMC Ecology and Evolution

ISSN: 2730-7182

Contact us