Table 2 Changes in the coverage (km2) of suitable areas for Phelypaea tournefortii estimated by the models using only bioclimatic variables (bioclims) and using the host’s models as variables (bioclims + host).

From: Effect of global warming on the potential distribution of a holoparasitic plant (Phelypaea tournefortii): both climate and host distribution matter

SSPs

Scenario

Range expansion

Range contraction

Overall change

Phelypaea tournefortii (bioclims only)

Phelypaea tournefortii (bioclims + hosts)

Phelypaea tournefortii (bioclims only)

Phelypaea tournefortii (bioclims + hosts)

Phelypaea tournefortii (bioclims only)

Phelypaea tournefortii (bioclims + hosts)

CNRM

SSP1-2.6

343.171

343.171

6.713.889

6.713.889

− 70%

− 70%

SSP2-4.5

682.604

77.756

14.244.211

8.601.703

 − 82%

 − 94%

SSP3-7.0

44.859

0.000

16.384.730

9.038.330

− 99%

− 100%

SSP5-8.5

0.000

0.000

16.557.437

9.039.825

− 100%

− 100%

GISS-E2

SSP1-2.6

702.790

9.385.239

12.124.626

3.716.564

− 69%

63%

SSP2-4.5

1.359.226

11.803.884

11.368.005

3.700.115

− 60%

90%

SSP3-7.0

719.986

9.639.440

14.427.385

4.817.103

− 83%

53%

SSP5-8.5

741.668

8.843.194

14.855.040

5.801.009

− 85%

34%

INM

SSP1-2.6

288.593

349.152

10.572.506

6.814.074

− 62%

− 72%

SSP2-4.5

599.615

150.277

15.198.211

8.502.266

− 88%

− 92%

SSP3-7.0

595.129

674.379

15.512.971

7.812.933

− 90%

− 79%

SSP5-8.5

299.060

113.643

15.982.495

9.026.368

− 95%

− 99%

  1. The future models were obtained using made using four projections of four shared socio-economic pathways (SSPs) and 12 scenarios.