Warming temperatures and shifting precipitation patterns may exacerbate pest damage in North American forests
AbstractClimate change is expected to alter the extent and severity of forest pest damage, with substantial economic and ecological consequences, but predicting future pest impacts is challenging because of complex feedbacks among climate, pests and host trees. Here we use 20 years of data from the conterminous USA to assess how bioclimatic and biotic factors have influenced forest damage by 30 high-impact pest species and to identify ecological signals in those relationships. We found consistency in pest damage responses to maximum temperature in the warmest month, including recent average conditions and shifts from a historical baseline. Mean damage from focal pest species tends to be higher in regions with moderate maximum temperatures and in regions with faster rates of warming. In certain cases, the direction and magnitude of relationships between climate and forest damage vary by pest guild, native status and region of occurrence. Our findings provide empirical support for expectations of climate-induced stress to host trees and temperature-boosted pest performance, leading to increased pest damage in future forests.
Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access through your institution
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$32.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Learn more
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Learn more
Buy this articlePurchase on SpringerLinkInstant access to the full article PDF.USD 39.95Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Additional access options:
Log in
Learn about institutional subscriptions
Read our FAQs
Contact customer support
Fig. 1: Maps of 2000–2019 IDS data for the conterminous USA, showing the extent and amount of tree damage from two focal pest species.The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.Fig. 2: Heat maps showing slope coefficient values associated with 14 predictor variables and their interactions for the two response metrics.The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.Fig. 3: Plots of marginal effects for each predictor variable from damage footprint models for two focal pest species.The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.Fig. 4: Diagram of significance and direction of each climate variable for all damage footprint models and for specific groups of pest species.The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.Fig. 5: Quadrant plots of slope coefficient values corresponding to the five bioclimatic metrics from the damage footprint models.The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.
Similar content being viewed by others
Climate, host and geography shape insect and fungal communities of trees
Article
Open access
18 July 2023
Rising cost of disturbances for forestry in Europe under climate change
Article
Open access
18 September 2025
Pervasive increase in tree mortality across the Australian continent
Article
06 January 2026
Data availability
All data used in this study are freely and publicly available at the cited sources. IDS data were obtained from the USDA Forest Service (https://www.fs.usda.gov/science-technology/data-tools-products/fhp-mapping-reporting/detection-surveys; accessed July 2023). Climate data were obtained from PRISM (https://prism.oregonstate.edu/recent/; accessed August 2023). Tree species basal area maps were obtained from ref. 85 (https://doi.org/10.2737/RDS-2013-0013; accessed October 2023). Ecoregion shapefiles were obtained from the USDA Forest Service (https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/edw/datasets.php; accessed December 2023). Processed data and all model outputs (including coefficients for all temporal windows) associated with the study are available via figshare at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.26426608 (ref. 95).
Code availability
The R code associated with the study is available via figshare at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.26426608 (ref. 95).
ReferencesMarvel, K. et al. in Fifth National Climate Assessment (eds Crimmins, A.R. et al.) Ch. 2 (US Global Change Research Program, 2023).IPCC Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2023).Adams, B. T. et al. Spring phenological variability promoted by topography and vegetation assembly processes in a temperate forest landscape. Agric. For. Meteorol. 308–309, 108578 (2021).Article
Google Scholar
Cleland, E., Chuine, I., Menzel, A., Mooney, H. & Schwartz, M. Shifting plant phenology in response to global change. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 357–365 (2007).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Freimuth, J., Bossdorf, O., Scheepens, J. F. & Willems, F. M. Climate warming changes synchrony of plants and pollinators. Proc. R. Soc. B 289, 20212142 (2022).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Pureswaran, D. S., Roques, A. & Battisti, A. Forest insects and climate change. Curr. For. Rep. 4, 35–50 (2018).Article
Google Scholar
Allen, C. D. et al. A global overview of drought and heat-induced tree mortality reveals emerging climate change risks for forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 259, 660–684 (2010).Article
Google Scholar
Baranger, A. et al. Living on the edge—physiological tolerance to frost and drought explains range limits of 35 European tree species. Ecography https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.07528 (2024).Endris, J. & Rehm, E. Leaf temperatures exceed thermal heat tolerances for a community of eastern North America hardwood trees. AoB PLANTS 17, plae060 (2025).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Gely, C., Laurance, S. G. W. & Stork, N. E. How do herbivorous insects respond to drought stress in trees?. Biol. Rev. 95, 434–448 (2019).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
van Lierop, P., Lindquist, E., Sathyapala, S. & Franceschini, G. Global forest area disturbance from fire, insect pests, diseases and severe weather events. For. Ecol. Manag. 352, 78–88 (2015).Article
Google Scholar
Lovett, G. M. et al. Nonnative forest insects and pathogens in the United States: impacts and policy options. Ecol. Appl. 26, 1437–1455 (2016).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Ayres, M. P. & Lombardero, M. J. Assessing the consequences of global change for forest disturbance from herbivores and pathogens. Sci. Total Environ. 262, 263–286 (2000).Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Haynes, K. J., Liebhold, A. M., Lefcheck, J. S., Morin, R. S. & Wang, G. Climate affects the outbreaks of a forest defoliator indirectly through its tree hosts. Oecologia 198, 407–418 (2022).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Robbins, Z. J. et al. Warming increased bark beetle-induced tree mortality by 30% during an extreme drought in California. Glob. Change Biol. 28, 509–523 (2022).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Régnière, J. & Bentz, B. Modeling cold tolerance in the mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae. J. Insect Physiol. 53, 559–572 (2007).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Ungerer, M. J., Ayres, M. P. & Lombardero, M. J. Climate and the northern distribution limits of Dendroctonus frontalis Zimmermann (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). J. Biogeogr. 26, 1133–1145 (1999).Article
Google Scholar
Bentz, B. J. et al. Climate change and bark beetles of the Western United States and Canada: direct and indirect effects. BioScience 60, 602–613 (2010).Article
Google Scholar
Neuvonen, S., Niemelä, P. & Virtanen, T. Climatic change and insect outbreaks in boreal forests: the role of winter temperatures. Ecol. Bull. 47, 63–67 (1999).Carroll, A. L., Taylor, S. W., Régnière, J. & Safranyik, L. Effects of Climate Change on Range Expansion by the Mountain Pine Beetle in British Columbia (Utah State Univ., 2003).Warlo, H. & Kautz, M. How do global forest pests respond to increasing temperatures?—a meta-analysis. Oikos 2024, e10842 (2024).Article
Google Scholar
Sturrock, R. N. et al. Climate change and forest diseases. Plant Pathol. 60, 133–149 (2011).Article
Google Scholar
Bale, J. S. et al. Herbivory in global climate change research: direct effects of rising temperature on insect herbivores. Glob. Change Biol. 8, 1–16 (2002).Article
Google Scholar
Dukes, J. S. et al. Responses of insect pests, pathogens, and invasive plant species to climate change in the forests of northeastern North America: what can we predict?. Can. J. For. Res. 39, 231–248 (2009).Article
Google Scholar
Williams, A. P. et al. Temperature as a potent driver of regional forest drought stress and tree mortality. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 292–297 (2013).Article
Google Scholar
Allen, C. D., Breshears, D. D. & McDowell, N. G. On underestimation of global vulnerability to tree mortality and forest die-off from hotter drought in the Anthropocene. Ecosphere 6, art129 (2015).Article
Google Scholar
Guyot, V., Castagneyrol, B., Vialatte, A., Deconchat, M. & Jactel, H. Tree diversity reduces pest damage in mature forests across Europe. Biol. Lett. 12, 20151037 (2016).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Jactel, H., Moreira, X. & Castagneyrol, B. Tree diversity and forest resistance to insect pests: patterns, mechanisms, and prospects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 66, 277–296 (2021).Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Kosiba, A. M. et al. Spatiotemporal patterns of forest damage and disturbance in the northeastern United States: 2000–2016. For. Ecol. Manag. 430, 94–104 (2018).Article
Google Scholar
Friedenberg, N. A., Sarkar, S., Kouchoukos, N., Billings, R. F. & Ayres, M. P. Temperature extremes, density dependence, and southern pine beetle (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) population dynamics in East Texas. Environ. Entomol. 37, 650–659 (2008).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Haynes, K. J., Allstadt, A. J. & Klimetzek, D. Forest defoliator outbreaks under climate change: effects on the frequency and severity of outbreaks of five pine insect pests. Glob. Change Biol. 20, 2004–2018 (2014).Article
Google Scholar
Harvey, J. A., Heinen, R., Gols, R. & Thakur, M. P. Climate change-mediated temperature extremes and insects: from outbreaks to breakdowns. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 6685–6701 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
Bailey, R. G. Delineation of ecosystem regions. Environ. Manag. 7, 365–373 (1983).Article
Google Scholar
Fettig, C. J. et al. Trends in bark beetle impacts in North America during a period (2000–2020) of rapid environmental change. J. For. 120, 693–713 (2022).
Google Scholar
Marini, L., Ayres, M. P., Battisti, A. & Faccoli, M. Climate affects severity and altitudinal distribution of outbreaks in an eruptive bark beetle. Clim. Change 115, 327–341 (2012).Article
Google Scholar
Fleming, R. A. & Volney, W. J. A. Effects of climate change on insect defoliator population processes in Canada’s boreal forest: some plausible scenarios. Water Air Soil Pollut. 82, 445–454 (1995).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Klapwijk, M. J., Csóka, G., Hirka, A. & Björkman, C. Forest insects and climate change: long-term trends in herbivore damage. Ecol. Evol. 3, 4183–4196 (2013).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
La Porta, N. et al. Forest pathogens with higher damage potential due to climate change in Europe. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 30, 177–195 (2008).Article
Google Scholar
Logan, J. A., Régnière, J. & Powell, J. A. Assessing the impacts of global warming on forest pest dynamics. Front. Ecol. Environ. 1, 130–137 (2003).Article
Google Scholar
Root, R. B. Organization of a plant–arthropod association in simple and diverse habitats: the fauna of collards (Brassica Oleracea). Ecol. Monogr. 43, 95–124 (1973).Article
Google Scholar
Fettig, C. J. et al. The effectiveness of vegetation management practices for prevention and control of bark beetle infestations in coniferous forests of the western and southern United States. For. Ecol. Manag. 238, 24–53 (2007).Article
Google Scholar
Gougherty, A. V. & Davies, T. J. Evolutionary history of host trees amplifies the dilution effect of biodiversity on forest pests. PLoS Biol. 22, e3002473 (2024).Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Damien, M. et al. Pest damage in mixed forests: disentangling the effects of neighbor identity, host density and host apparency at different spatial scales. For. Ecol. Manag. 378, 103–110 (2016).Article
Google Scholar
Guyot, V. et al. Tree diversity limits the impact of an invasive forest pest. PLoS ONE 10, e0136469 (2015).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Guo, Q., Fei, S., Potter, K. M., Liebhold, A. M. & Wen, J. Tree diversity regulates forest pest invasion. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 7382–7386 (2019).Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Vehviläinen, H., Koricheva, J. & Ruohomäki, K. Tree species diversity influences herbivore abundance and damage: meta-analysis of long-term forest experiments. Oecologia 152, 287–298 (2007).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Ward, S. F., Liebhold, A. M. & Fei, S. Variable effects of forest diversity on invasions by non-native insects and pathogens. Biodivers. Conserv. 31, 2575–2586 (2022).Haase, J. et al. Contrasting effects of tree diversity on young tree growth and resistance to insect herbivores across three biodiversity experiments. Oikos 124, 1674–1685 (2015).Article
Google Scholar
Schuldt, A. et al. Tree diversity promotes insect herbivory in subtropical forests of south-east China. J. Ecol. 98, 917–926 (2010).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Maguire, D. Y., James, P. M. A., Buddle, C. M. & Bennett, E. M. Landscape connectivity and insect herbivory: a framework for understanding tradeoffs among ecosystem services. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 4, 73–84 (2015).
Google Scholar
Asaro, C., Koch, F. H. & Potter, K. M. Denser forests across the USA experience more damage from insects and pathogens. Sci. Rep. 13, 3666 (2023).Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Ferrenberg, S. Landscape features and processes influencing forest pest dynamics. Curr. Landscape Ecol. Rep. 1, 19–29 (2016).Article
Google Scholar
Robert, L. et al. Landscape host abundance and configuration regulate periodic outbreak behavior in spruce budworm Choristoneura fumiferana. Ecography 41, 1556–1571 (2018).Article
Google Scholar
Robert, L.-E., Kneeshaw, D. & Sturtevant, B. R. Effects of forest management legacies on spruce budworm (Choristoneura fumiferana) outbreaks. Can. J. For. Res. 42, 463–475 (2012).Article
Google Scholar
Koricheva, J., Klapwijk, M. J. & Björkman, C. in Insect Outbreaks Revisited (eds Barbosa, P. et al.) 177–196 (Wiley-Blackwell, 2012).Ward, S. F. & Aukema, B. H. Anomalous outbreaks of an invasive defoliator and native bark beetle facilitated by warm temperatures, changes in precipitation and interspecific interactions. Ecography 42, 1068–1078 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
Johnson, D. M. & Haynes, K. J. Spatiotemporal dynamics of forest insect populations under climate change. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 56, 101020 (2023).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Buckley, L. B. Temperature-sensitive development shapes insect phenological responses to climate change. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 52, 100897 (2022).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment Vol. I (US Global Change Research Program, 2017).Jactel, H., Koricheva, J. & Castagneyrol, B. Responses of forest insect pests to climate change: not so simple. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 35, 103–108 (2019).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Lehmann, P. et al. Complex responses of global insect pests to climate warming. Front. Ecol. Environ. 18, 141–150 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
Seidl, R. & Rammer, W. Climate change amplifies the interactions between wind and bark beetle disturbances in forest landscapes. Landscape Ecol. 32, 1485–1498 (2017).Article
Google Scholar
Geiszler, D. R., Gara, R. I. & Littke, W. R. Bark beetle infestations of Lodgepole pine following a fire in South Central Oregon. J. Appl. Entomol.98, 389–394 (1984).
Google Scholar
Liebhold, A. M. et al. Historical change in the outbreak dynamics of an invading forest insect. Biol. Invasions 24, 879–889 (2022).Article
Google Scholar
Simler-Williamson, A. B., Rizzo, D. M. & Cobb, R. C. Interacting effects of global change on forest pest and pathogen dynamics. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 50, 381–403 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
Ward, S. F., Aukema, B. H., Fei, S. & Liebhold, A. M. Warm temperatures increase population growth of a nonnative defoliator and inhibit demographic responses by parasitoids. Ecology 101, e03156 (2020).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Duncan, R. P. Time lags and the invasion debt in plant naturalisations. Ecol. Lett. 24, 1363–1374 (2021).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Rosenthal, L. M., Simler-Williamson, A. B. & Rizzo, D. M. Community-level prevalence of a forest pathogen, not individual-level disease risk, declines with tree diversity. Ecol. Lett. 24, 2477–2489 (2021).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Joyce, L. A. & Coulson, D. Climate Scenarios and Projections: a Technical Document Supporting the USDA Forest Service 2020 RPA Assessment (USDA, 2020).Costanza, J. K., Koch, F. H. & Reeves, M. C. Future exposure of forest ecosystems to multi-year drought in the United States. Ecosphere 14, e4525 (2023).Article
Google Scholar
Berryman, E. & McMahan, A. in Forest Health Monitoring: National Status, Trends, And Analysis 2018 (eds Potter, K.M. & Conkling, B.L.) 125–141 (USDA, 2019).McConnell, T. J., Johnson, E. W. & Burns, B. A Guide to Conducting Aerial Sketchmapping Surveys (USDA, 2000).Coleman, T. W. et al. Accuracy of aerial detection surveys for mapping insect and disease disturbances in the United States. For. Ecol. Manag. 430, 321–336 (2018).Article
Google Scholar
Forest Health Protection Publications (USDA Forest Service, 2022).Jin, S. et al. Overall methodology design for the United States national land cover database 2016 products. Remote Sens. 11, 2971 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
Busby, P. E. & Canham, C. D. An exotic insect and pathogen disease complex reduces aboveground tree biomass in temperate forests of eastern North America. Can. J. For. Res. 41, 401–411 (2011).Article
Google Scholar
Dormann, C. F. et al. Collinearity: a review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography 36, 27–46 (2013).Article
Google Scholar
Daly, C. et al. High-quality spatial climate data sets for the United States and beyond. Trans. ASAE 43, 1957–1962 (2000).Article
Google Scholar
PRISM climate data. PRISM Climate Group https://prism.oregonstate.edu/ (2024).Baston, D. exactextractr: Fast extraction from raster datasets using polygons. R package version 0.10.0 (2020).Hijmans, R. J. raster: Geographic data analysis and modeling. R package version 3.6-2.6 (2024).Hijmans, R. J. terra: Spatial data analysis. R package version 1.7-78 (2024).R Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2023).Hijmans, R. J., Phillips, S., Leathwick, J. & Elith, J. dismo: Species distribution modeling. R package version 1.3-14 (2023).Wilson, B., Lister, A., Riemann, R. & Griffith, D. Live Tree Species Basal Area of the Contiguous United States (2000–2009) (USDA Forest Service, 2013).Crop Protection Compendium (CAB International, 2023).EPPO Global Database (EPPO, 2024).Liebhold, A. M. et al. A highly aggregated geographical distribution of forest pest invasions in the USA. Divers. Distrib. 19, 1208–1216 (2013).Article
Google Scholar
Potter, K. M., Escanferla, M. E., Jetton, R. M. & Man, G. Important insect and disease threats to United States tree species and geographic patterns of their potential impacts. Forests 10, 304 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
Cleland, D. T. et al. in Ecosystem Management: Applications for Sustainable Forest and Wildlife Resources (eds Boyce, M. S. & Haney, A.) 181–200 (Yale Univ. Press, 1997).Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 (2015).Lüdecke, D., Ben-Shachar, M., Patil, I., Waggoner, P. & Makowski, D. performance: an R package for assessment, comparison and testing of statistical models. J. Open Source Softw. 6, 3139 (2021).Article
Google Scholar
Balduzzi, S., Rücker, G. & Schwarzer, G. How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial. BMJ Mental Health 22, 153–160 (2019).Cooper, M. moranfast: Conduct a quick and memory-efficient Moran’s I test. R package version 1 (2020).Clipp, H.L. & Gougherty, A.V. Data and code from warming temperatures and shifting precipitation patterns may exacerbate pest damage in North American forests. figshare https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.26426608 (2026).Download referencesAcknowledgementsH.L.C. was supported by the USDA Forest Service Resource Assistants Program and by an appointment to the USDA Forest Service Research Participation Program administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) through an interagency agreement between the US Department of Energy (DOE) and USDA. ORISE is managed by ORAU under DOE contract no. DE-SC0014664. All opinions expressed in this paper belong to the authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies and views of USDA, DOE or ORAU/ORISE.Author informationAuthors and AffiliationsUSDA Forest Service Northern Research Station, Delaware, OH, USAHannah L. Clipp, Matthew P. Peters, Anantha M. Prasad, Stephen N. Matthews & Andrew V. GoughertyUSDA Forest Service Southern Research Station, Research Triangle Park, NC, USAKevin M. PotterSchool of Environment and Natural Resources, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USAStephen N. MatthewsAuthorsHannah L. ClippView author publicationsSearch author on:PubMed Google ScholarKevin M. PotterView author publicationsSearch author on:PubMed Google ScholarMatthew P. PetersView author publicationsSearch author on:PubMed Google ScholarAnantha M. PrasadView author publicationsSearch author on:PubMed Google ScholarStephen N. MatthewsView author publicationsSearch author on:PubMed Google ScholarAndrew V. GoughertyView author publicationsSearch author on:PubMed Google ScholarContributionsH.L.C. co-developed the methods, handled data compilation and processing, performed the statistical analyses, generated the figures and cowrote the paper. K.M.P. provided insight into the IDS data and contributed to editing the paper. M.P.P., A.M.P. and S.N.M. provided input on methods and contributed to editing the paper. A.V.G. conceived the study, co-developed the methods and co-wrote the paper.Corresponding authorCorrespondence to
Andrew V. Gougherty.Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Ecology & Evolution thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Additional informationPublisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.Extended dataExtended Data Fig. 1 Map of tree species richness across the conterminous United States of America.This map was created by stacking the 324 tree species basal area maps modeled at a 250-m resolution by Wilson et al85. and converting basal area to occurrence, resulting in a single raster containing the number of tree species present in each cell.Extended Data Fig. 2 Map of ecoregions within the conterminous United States of America.These ecoregions (N = 11, excluding water) correspond to ecosystem divisions delineated in the USDA Forest Service EcoMap33,90.Extended Data Fig. 3 Conceptual diagram of the Insect and Disease Survey (IDS) data processing.IDS polygons (box 1) represent areas with discrete boundaries that contain tree mortality or defoliation damage caused by insect and disease activity. For each IDS polygon, we calculated a damage footprint metric (Response 1) as the proportion of forest cover within the polygon using National Land Cover Database75 (NLCD) data from the year closest to the survey year (box 2). For the subset of polygons with information on percent damage (the percent area showing damage within the polygon) provided by the surveyor, we additionally calculated a refined damage metric (Response 2) as the product of Response 1 and the midpoint of the percent range (box 3) indicated by either a percent affected code (1 = 1–3%, 2 = 4–10%, 3 = 11–29%, 4 = 30–50%, 5 = > 50%) or legacy pattern code (1 | 2 = > 50%, 3 | 4 = < 50%), the latter of which links contemporary data standards to the legacy standards.Extended Data Fig. 4 Results of cross-validation and spatial autocorrelation analyses.Models were cross-validated by splitting observations by state-year and then assigning each record to one of four folds. Using this spatial-temporal structure ensured state-years were contributing to each fold in proportion to their total data. Models were then retrained, but with one fold withheld for testing. The retrained ‘reduced’ models were compared to the ‘full’ model (with no data withheld) by assessing (a) percent difference in root mean square error (RMSE), (b) the average number of climate predictors with different signs compared to the full model, and (c) the correlation between climate predictors in the full and reduced models. Each of these plots indicate that models trained on the full dataset were generally robust to data being withheld. (d) Spatial autocorrelation was calculated on the residuals of the full models. Generally, lower values (near or <-1) indicate residuals were dispersed, while higher values (near or >1) indicate clustering. This plot indicates that most models had relatively low residual spatial autocorrelation. In each histogram, counts are the number of models.Extended Data Fig. 5 Diagram of significance and direction of each climate variable for all refined damage models and for specific groups of pest species.Columns correspond to the climate window (‘CW’) and climate anomaly (‘CA’) metrics of the five bioclimatic metrics. Rows correspond to different groupings of the focal pest species, including all refined damage models, bark beetles vs. defoliators, native vs. non-native species, and western vs. nationwide vs. eastern species. Pie charts indicate the proportion of significant positive relationships (gold), significant negative relationships (gray), and non-significant relationships (white).Extended Data Fig. 6 Quadrant plots of slope coefficient values corresponding to the five bioclimatic metrics from the refined damage models.Within each plot, coordinates of the points reflect mean slope coefficient values for each bioclimatic metric (mean temperature range, maximum temperature in the warmest month, minimum temperature in the coldest month, precipitation in the wettest month, and precipitation in the driest month), calculated within a climate window (x-axis) and as a climate anomaly (y-axis), from the 28 refined damage models. Horizontal and vertical lines represent 95% confidence intervals of the slope coefficients for the climate window variable and climate anomaly variable, respectively. If the 95% confidence interval overlaps 0, then that slope coefficient value is not considered statistically significant (as reflected by the color and fill of the point). Pest type is denoted by the shape of the point, and pest distribution within the USA is delineated by columns and color themes. Axes labels describe the climate conditions associated with each quadrant, and shading of a single quadrant (‘Quadrant Emphasis’) indicates that quadrant contains the greatest number of significant points.Extended Data Table 1 List of 30 focal pest species in our studyFull size tableExtended Data Table 2 List of model information corresponding to the 30 focal pest species in our studyFull size tableExtended Data Table 3 Effect sizes of the slope coefficients for the climate window and anomaly metrics of the five bioclimatic variablesFull size tableExtended Data Table 4 Standardized means of the slope coefficients for the climate window and anomaly metrics of the five bioclimatic variablesFull size tableSupplementary informationReporting Summary (download PDF )Rights and permissionsReprints and permissionsAbout this articleCite this articleClipp, H.L., Potter, K.M., Peters, M.P. et al. Warming temperatures and shifting precipitation patterns may exacerbate pest damage in North American forests.
Nat Ecol Evol (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-026-03039-9Download citationReceived: 12 May 2025Accepted: 03 March 2026Published: 17 April 2026Version of record: 17 April 2026DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-026-03039-9Share this articleAnyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:Get shareable linkSorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.Copy shareable link to clipboard
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative More
