Table 1. Factors used to calculate the climate change vulnerability index.
| Category | Factor | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Direct exposure | Difference in mean annual temperature | Calculated from the proportion of each species’ geographic range affected by each of five different magnitudes of mean annual temperature change across Australia (S1 Table). |
| Difference in mean annual moisture index | Calculated from the proportion of each species’ geographic range affected by each of six different magnitudes of annual moisture index change across Australia (S1 Table). | |
| Indirect exposure | Exposure to sea level rise | Exposure of species’ geographic range to areas likely to be inundated by sea level rise. |
| Distribution relative to natural barriers | Overlap of a 50km buffer from the edge of the species’ current distributions with natural barriers, comprising highlands, major water bodies and areas devoid of any vegetation. | |
| Distribution relative to anthropogenic barriers | Overlap of a 50km buffer from the edge of the species’ current distributions with anthropogenic barriers, comprising urban, cultivated and managed areas. | |
| Sensitivity | Dispersal ability | Scored based on the known or predicted dispersal or movement capacity. Species better able to disperse or move long distances are expected to be better able to track suitable climate conditions. |
| Reliance on cool temperatures | Scored based on reliance on a cool temperature environment (such as frost pockets, alpine areas or south-facing slopes). | |
| Reliance on a particular moisture regime or habitat | Scored based on reliance on a seasonal hydrological regime and/or a specific aquatic or wetland habitat or localised moisture regime. For example, some species require a certain amount of rainfall each season, or a certain proximity to standing water. | |
| Dependence on a specific disturbance regime likely to be impacted by climate change | Scored based on sensitivity to changes in particular disturbance regimes, such as fire or flood, which are likely to change with climate. For example some species rely on fire for reproduction and some on flood for dispersal. Species have increased vulnerability if the altered regime is likely to negatively impact the species (eg. increased frequency of fire). | |
| Dependence on snow-cover habitats | Scored based on reliance dependance on habitats associated with ice or snow during all or parts of their life cycle (eg. winter hibernation). | |
| Reliance on a particular abiotic feature or derivatives | Scored based on reliance on, or restriction to, specific abiotic features, particulary where uncommon in the landscape (eg. restriction to sand dunes, caves or a particular soil type). | |
| Reliance on other species for habitat | Scored based on dependence on other species to provide habitat (eg. relying on particular plant species for breeding or feeding). | |
| Dietary versatility (animals only); or | Scored based on reliance on a particular taxon for diet (eg. only eats termites). | |
| Pollinator versatility (plants only) | Scored based on reliance on a particular taxon for pollination. | |
| Dependence on other species for propagule dispersal | Scored based on reliance on another species to disperse propagules (most animals do not rely on other species in this way). | |
| Reliance on another species for other interspecfic interaction | Scored based on reliance on another species for a interspecific interaction not covered by habitat, diet, pollinator or propagule dispersal (eg. reliance on a mycorrhizal symbiosis). | |
| Measured genetic variation (when available); or | Scored based a direct measure of genetic variation. Species have increased vulnerability when their genetic variation has been determined to be low in comparison with related species. | |
| Occurrence of bottlenecks in recent evolutionary history (measured genetic variation not available) | Scored based on signs of a recent genetic bottleneck, for example severe range contraction or steep population decline. |
Note that a species may only be scored on dietary versatility OR pollinator versatility and measured genetic variation OR occurrence of recent population bottlenecks (described in text as ‘low genetic variation’). Owing to limited data availability, in our assessment we did not include ‘predicted impact of land use change resulting from human responses to climate change’,‘historical thermal or hydrological niche’or ‘phenological response to climate change’, which are available for scoring in the original NatureServe index [26].