Evaluating multiple historical climate products in ecological models under current and projected temperatures

Gridded historical climate products (GHCPs) are employed with increasing frequency when modeling ecological phenomena across large scales and predicting ecological responses to projected climate changes. Concurrently, there is an increasing acknowledgement of the need to account for uncertainty when employing climate projections from ensembles of global circulation models (GCMs) and emissions scenarios. Despite the growing usage and documented differences among GHCPs, uncertainty characterization has primarily focused on GCM and emissions scenario choice, while the consequences of using a single GHCP to make predictions over space and time have received less attention. Here we employ average July temperature data from observations and seven GHCPs to model plant canopy cover and tree basal area across central Alaska, USA. We first compare the fit of, and support for, models employing observed temperatures, GHCP temperatures, and GHCP temperatures with an elevation adjustment, finding (1) greater support for, and better fit using, elevation‐adjusted vs. raw temperature models and (2) overall similar fits of elevation‐adjusted models employing temperatures from observations or GHCPs. Focusing on basal area, we next compare predictions generated by elevation‐adjusted models employing GHCP data under current conditions and a warming scenario of current temperatures plus 2°C, finding good agreement among GHCPs though with between‐GHCP differences and variation primarily at middle elevations (~1,000 m). These differences were amplified under the warming scenario. Finally, using pooled indices of prediction variation and difference across GHCP models, we identify characteristics of areas most likely to exhibit prediction uncertainty under current and warming conditions. Despite (1) overall good performance of GHCP data relative to observations in models and (2) positive correlation among model predictions, variation in predictions across models, particularly in mid‐elevation areas where the position of treeline may be changing, suggests researchers should exercise caution if selecting a single GHCP for use in models. We recommend the use of multiple GHCPs to provide additional uncertainty information beyond standard estimated prediction intervals, particularly when model predictions are employed in conservation planning.