# Wide climatic niche breadth and traits associated with climatic tolerance facilitate eucalypt occurrence in cities worldwide

Manuel Esperon-Rodriguez, Mark Tjoelker, Jonathan Lenoir, Bree Laugier, Rachael Gallagher

► To cite this version:

Manuel Esperon-Rodriguez, Mark Tjoelker, Jonathan Lenoir, Bree Laugier, Rachael Gallagher. Wide climatic niche breadth and traits associated with climatic tolerance facilitate eucalypt occurrence in cities worldwide. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 2024, 33 (6), pp.e13833. 10.1111/geb.13833. hal-04520117

HAL Id: hal-04520117

https://u-picardie.hal.science/hal-04520117v1

Submitted on 10 Nov 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Wide climatic niche breadth and traits associated with climatic tolerance facilitate eucalypt
occurrence in cities worldwide

Manuel Esperon-Rodriguez$^{a,b}$, Mark G. Tjoelker$^a$, Jonathan Lenoir$^c$, Bree Laugier$^a$, Rachael V. Gallagher$^a$

<sup>a</sup>Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment, Western Sydney University, Penrith, New South Wales, Australia

<sup>b</sup>School of Science, Western Sydney University, Penrith, New South Wales, Australia

cUMR CNRS 7058 'Ecologie et Dynamique des Systèmes Anthropisés' (EDYSAN), Université de Picardie Jules Verne, Amiens, France

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was supported partially by the Australian Government through the Australian Research Council's Discovery Projects funding scheme (project DP200102616). M.E.-R. received funding from the Research Theme Program from Western Sydney University. We thank two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and feedback. Open access publishing facilitated by Western Sydney University, as part of the Wiley - Western Sydney University agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

None.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Baseline climate data were obtained from the CHELSA database version 2.1 (climatologies at high resolution for the earth's land surface areas; Karger et al., 2021; Karger et al., 2017) available at: <https://chelsa-climate.org/downloads/>. Urban tree inventory data were obtained from the Global Urban Tree Inventory database (Ossola et al., 2020) available at: <https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.13169>. Global occurrence records were retrieved from the Australian Virtual Herbarium available at: https://avh.chah.org.au.

Polygons defining the spatial boundaries of all cities were obtained as a shapefile from Kelso and Patterson (2012) available at: <https://earthworks.stanford.edu/catalog/stanford-yk247bg4748>.

Trait data were retrieved from the AusTraits database (Falster et al., 2021) available at:
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-021-01006-6>. All data were edited and analysed in R
v.4.2.0 (R Core Team, 2022) and Microsoft Excel v.16.17.27 (201012). The complete code and data
generated and analysed for this study have been deposited on Figshare:
<https://doi.org/10.6084/m9 figshare.24760251>.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

1 Abstract

2 Aim

3 Eucalypts are important and popular urban tree species across cities worldwide. However, little is known about how their climatic niche breadth (CNB) and functional traits predict their success, and vulnerability, to current climate change in cities. We assessed the relationship between the CNB of eucalypts and key traits to understand their tolerance to climate change.

8 Location

9 Global urban areas, 66 cities in 21 countries.

10 Time period

11 1981 to 2022.

12 Major species studied

13 Fifty 'eucalypt' species belonging to the genera *Eucalyptus*, *Angophora* and *Corymbia*.

14 Methods

15 We used the species' safety margin concept to determine cities where eucalypts were planted outside the limits of their CNB, as defined from the native range, considering two extreme variables, maximum temperature of the warmest month (MTWM) and precipitation of the driest month (PDM). We assessed correlations between functional traits (leaf δ¹³C, leaf dry mass, leaf length, leaf N per dry mass, wood density) and negative safety margins, indicative of tolerance to non-native conditions.

21 Results

22 In total, 42 species planted in 40 cities exceeded their safety margins for MTWM, while 43 species in 38 cities exceeded their safety margins for PDM. Within 24 cities, all species exceeded their native CNB for both MTWM and PDM. The cities of Atakpame (Togo), Chennai (India), Chongqing (China) and the US cities of Phoenix and Riverside had the highest richness of eucalypt species growing outside their native CNB. Broadly, species with wide CNB, small leaves, high δ¹³C, high leaf N per dry mass, and high wood density were more likely to persist in cities where climatic conditions exceeded their native CNB.

29 Main conclusions

30 Eucalypts occupy many cities experiencing climatic conditions outside their native CNB. Species with traits characteristic of heat and drought tolerance are more often planted in cities where climatic conditions may exceed their CNB native limits.

33

34 Keywords: climate change risk; droughts; ecological niche modelling; habitat suitability models; niche breadth; thermal tolerance; urban heat island effect; urban forests

36
## Introduction

The genus *Eucalyptus* includes more than 750 species of flowering trees or mallees from the Myrtaceae family and along with other genera in the tribe Eucalypteae, including *Angophora* and *Corymbia*, are commonly known as 'eucalypts' (Coppen, 2002; Macphail & Thornhill, 2016). Eucalypts are predominantly native to Australia (except for *Eucalyptus deglupta*, the only species occurring naturally outside Australia in the Philippines, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea; Fensham et al., 2020) and, collectively, represent the most dominant group in the forests and woodlands of the continent (c. 40% of land area). Since the Miocene (80 MYA), the geographic isolation of Australia from other land masses has shaped the climatic conditions and the tolerance limits for eucalypts' niches (Chippendale, 1988). Historically, and across the world, eucalypts were planted in collections in botanical gardens before being developed for commercial plantations, small woodlots, windbreaks and other uses (Turnbull, 1999). More than 110 eucalypt species have now been introduced globally into more than 90 countries, with more than 20 million hectares currently planted around the world (Booth, 2013; GIT-Consulting, 2009; Jacobs, 1981; Turnbull, 1999). Eucalypts' biological attributes, such as fast growth, colourful barks and evergreen leaves, make them popular as ornamental trees and a source of raw materials in forestry worldwide (Doughty, 2000; Paine, Steinbauer, & Lawson, 2011; Tomé et al., 2021). In cities, eucalypts are planted in parks and streets (Fuwape & Onyekwelu, 2011; Jim & Liu, 2001; Nowak, 2007) and are routinely found in urban areas outside their native climatic niches (Esperon-Rodriguez, Tjoelker, et al., 2022).

As for many species, climate plays a key role in determining the geographic space that eucalypts occupy across the landscape, where range limits are partly established by the species' intrinsic tolerance to extreme conditions delineating the species climatic niche (González-Orozco et al., 2016; MacArthur, 1972). There has been sustained interest in understanding the climatic niche of eucalypts, including some of the first applications of climate-based ecological niche models (also known as habitat suitability models or species distribution models) (Booth, 1985; Booth & Pryor, 1991). These early analyses were used to identify potential planting sites and commercial trial success for *Eucalyptus* in Africa (Booth, 1985). In ecological context, Hughes et al., (1996a) analysed the natural distributions of 819 eucalypt taxa and found that 41% and 25% of the eucalypt species have a mean annual temperature range of less than 2°C and 1°C, respectively. Hence, a range of approaches have been used to improve our knowledge of the climatic niche occupied by eucalypt species worldwide (Kindt, 2023).

Aside from climate, other factors shape species distributions, including biotic interactions (e.g., competition, mutualism), reproductive and dispersal capacities, soil and topography, and even anthropogenic barriers that can limit species' movement (Domingues
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

et al., 2018; Guo, Lenoir, & Bonebrake, 2018; Miller & McGill, 2018; Peterson et al., 2011; Warren et al., 2001). Cities, however, are unique environments where human preferences, urban management and wealth, as well as policy choices define the species composition of the urban ecosystem. Consequently, cities often harbour tree species persisting outside the climatic interval delineated by their intrinsic climatic niche breadth as inferred from the native range, serving as living laboratories. For example, the honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos L.), a deciduous tree native to North America, occurs naturally in wet conditions. However, after its use in urban plantings, studies noted the species high tolerance to hot and dry conditions (McPherson, Berry, & van Doorn, 2018). Similarly, cold-climate European deciduous trees, such as the silver birch (Betula pendula Roth), Dutch elm (Ulmus x hollandica Mill.), Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) are planted in several Australian cities where climatic conditions reach the upper limit of their thermal niche breadth, as inferred from the native range (Esperon-Rodriguez et al., 2022). Within cities, management actions (e.g., irrigation) or suitable microclimates can alleviate harsh climatic conditions, such as extreme heat/cold and frost events, enabling species' persistence (Jenerette et al., 2016; Kendal et al., 2018). However, intensive management is often limited to a short period after planting during tree establishment, leaving mature trees exposed to local, and sometimes novel, urban climates where species tolerance is tested beyond the limits experienced in the native range.

Research has aimed to understand how urban trees persist in urban ecosystems, given that urban climates and conditions (e.g., urban heat island effect, root compaction, low light conditions) may threaten their survival and performance (Esperon-Rodriguez et al., 2022; Jim, 1993; Marchin et al, 2022; Ordóñez & Duinker, 2014; Sæbø, Benedikz, & Randrup, 2003). Species' intrinsic ability to cope with extreme climatic conditions within their respective native ranges together with particular constellations of physiological traits, for example, can facilitate the presence of some tree species in cities where climatic conditions are falling outside the interval of conditions delineated by the species climatic niche. To date, several studies have been conducted on a local or regional scale, focusing on few species or common garden experiments (e.g., Esperon-Rodriguez, Power, Tjoelker, Marchin, & Rymer, 2021; Esperon-Rodriguez et al., 2020; Hanley, Arndt, Livesley, & Szota, 2021; Ibsen, Santiago, Shiflett, Chandler, & Jenerette, 2023; Ilyas et al., 2021), which limits their broad applicability and capacity to describe global patterns of urban tree distribution.

In Australia, eucalypts are found in a remarkable range of environments spanning a wide range of climatic conditions and they are prized for their adaptability and growth rates in forestry applications, including in urban forestry (Booth, 2017). Eucalypts are planted in cities globally and are so successful that they may escape cultivation and spread (Richardson et al., 2020) despite their poor seed dispersal capabilities (Booth, 2017). Indeed, previous

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110
1

2

3

111

research highlights the potential invasion threats of eucalypts outside their native ranges

4

112

(e.g., Gordon, Flory, Cooper, & Morris, 2012; Hirsch et al., 2020; Ziller, de Sá Dechoum, &

6

113

Dudeque Zenni, 2019) with eight species considered as invasive alien species outside their

7

114

native ranges (Richardson & Rejmánek, 2011). Due to their historical and geographical isolation, popularity and broad use in cities, and trait data availability, eucalypts are an ideal candidate species group for the study of drivers that facilitate their presence in areas beyond their native climatic niche breadth. However, to date, there is limited research on these drivers in cities worldwide, and little is known about whether eucalypts will endure as effective urban trees into the future.

9

115

10

116

11

12

117

13

118

14

15

119

16

17

120

18

121

19

20

122

21

22

123

23

124

24

25

125

26

126

27

28

127

29

128

30

31

129

32

130

33

34

131

35

36

132

37

133

38

39

134

40

135

41

42

136

43

137

44

138

45

46

139

47

48

140

49

141

50

51

142

52

53

143

54

55

144

56

145

57

146

58

147

60

Here, we assessed the climatic niche breadth (i.e., the range of climate conditions occupied by the species, as defined by the upper and lower limits of their native range distribution) and functional traits of 50 *Eucalyptus*, *Angophora* and *Corymbia* species present in 66 cities in 21 countries and examined their tolerance to novel urban climatic conditions using the safety margin concept (Gallagher, Allen, & Wright, 2019). The safety margin concept is a measure of the distance, within the environmental niche space, between the conditions experienced by an organism within a given locality and the conditions at one of the limits of its environmental niche space. A positive value means that the locality where the focal organism occurs is comprised within its environmental niche space while a negative value means that the focal organism is thriving in conditions outside its environmental niche space, and thus potentially at risk (Esperon-Rodriguez et al. 2022).

We used plant functional traits previously related to drought and heat tolerance (leaf δ¹³C, leaf dry mass, leaf length, leaf N per dry mass, wood density) (e.g., Greenwood et al., 2017; Wright et al., 2017; Wright et al., 2010) to identify the types of functional strategies that might thrive in warmer and drier cities. We considered two extreme climate variables to delineate the thermal and precipitation safety margins, namely, the maximum temperature of the warmest month and the precipitation of the driest month, respectively. We hypothesised that species with broad climatic niche breadths will exhibit a wider global distribution in cities around the world and will have large and positive thermal or precipitation safety margins. This is because species with broad climatic niches have lower chances, relative to species with narrow climatic niches, to be planted in cities that exceed the limits of their climatic niche breadth as inferred from their native ranges. By contrast, species with narrow climatic niche breadths will be more likely to be planted in cities within their native ranges and will have low or even negative safety margins if planted in cities located outside their native ranges and experiencing novel climatic conditions. These species are often considered ecological specialists in their native range with limited potential for establishment outside their tolerance limits but may also be limited by the effects of biotic interactions (e.g., competition, dispersal limitation) rather than by a true narrow climatic tolerance. Finally, we
assessed correlations between species safety margins and functional traits related to heat and drought tolerance. We linked safety margin analysis to data on species traits in search of trait syndromes — constellations of adaptations — that predict thermal or precipitation safety margins.

## Methods

### Climate data

Baseline climate data, the long-term averages of climate conditions during the period 1981–2010, were obtained from the CHELSA database version 2.1 (climatologies at high resolution for the earth's land surface areas; Karger et al., 2021; Karger et al., 2017) at a spatial resolution of 30 arc-seconds (~1 km at the equator). We selected two bioclimatic variables from the set of 19 bioclimatic variables provided by CHELSA. These variables describe climate extremes and are reliable proxies to assess species' thermal and precipitation safety margins: the maximum temperature of the warmest month (MTWM) and the precipitation of the driest month (PDM). These variables are known for their biological relevance and influence on species distributions, ecological interactions, and species survival in natural and urban ecosystems (Esperon-Rodriguez, Tjoelker, et al., 2022; Field et al., 2014; O'Donnell & Ignizio, 2012). Furthermore, the MTWM and PDM variables can be used as indicators of species heat and drought tolerances, respectively (Esperon-Rodriguez et al., 2022).

### Species, cities, and functional traits data

We identified species from the genera *Eucalyptus*, *Angophora* and *Corymbia* (i.e., eucalypts) present in urban forests from global cities outside their native distributions using the Global Urban Tree Inventory database (Ossola et al., 2020). This database gathers presence information for 4,734 species of trees and shrubs that are present in 473 urban areas worldwide. This database incorporates information from online data portals, published and unpublished tree inventories, and lists of tree species reported in research that have been published in scientific journals. Data provided in the inventory consist only of species presence at each city and do not include geospatial records or planting context (e.g., street, park).

We found 50 species (one *Angophora* spp., six *Corymbia* spp. and 43 *Eucalyptus* spp.) planted in 66 cities in 21 countries outside their native geographic ranges in Australia. The average number of eucalypt species per city was four (± five species, standard deviation). Six cities had more than 10 species, including the United States (US) cities of San Diego (28 species), San Francisco (26 species), Pasadena (16 species), Phoenix (13 species) and Riverside (12 species) as well as Hong Kong in China (10 species). In contrast,
27 cities had just one *Eucalyptus* species reported as occurring in their urban forests (Supplementary Table S1). The most commonly planted eucalypt species in cities were *Eucalyptus camaldulensis* (32 cities), *E. globulus* (25 cities), *Corymbia citriodora* (24 cities), *E. robusta* (16 cities), *E. cinerea* (16 cities) and *E. polyanthemos* (12 cities) (Supplementary Table S2).

For all 50 studied species, we collated occurrence records from their known native ranges in Australia using digitised herbarium records. Occurrence records were retrieved from the Australian Virtual Herbarium (<https://avh.chah.org.au>), an online database developed under the auspices of the Council of Heads of Australasian Herbaria. The average number of occurrences across all species was 436 (± 577), with a maximum number of 3,316 records (*E. camaldulensis*) and a minimum of 23 records (*E. kruseana*) (Supplementary Table S3). Taxonomy followed Nicolle's Classification of the Eucalypts (Nicolle, 2022), with hybrids and cultivated specimens excluded, and subspecies merged to species level. Records were cleaned and filtered to remove duplicate and spatially invalid records as well as locations with errors (see Supplementary Data for complete list of occurrence records).

We obtained polygons delineating the spatial boundaries of all 66 cities where the 50 studied species occurred as a shapefile (WGS84; 1:10 million; EPSG:4326) from Kelso and Patterson (2012). Then, for each city, we placed a grid (1 km × 1 km) over its area and extracted the values of the MTWM and PDM variables for the period 1981-2010 at each cell intersecting the city polygon using the function 'exact_extract)' from the *exactextractr* package (Baston, ISciences, & Baston, 2021). For each city, we calculated the 5th percentile of the PDM variable and the 95th percentile of the MTWM variable to identify climate extremes for both thermal and precipitation safety margins (i.e., the upper limit in case of warmer conditions for MTWM and the lower limit in case of drier conditions for PDM) (Supplementary Table S1).

Species trait data were extracted from the AusTraits database (Falster et al. 2021). This database harmonises curated plant trait observations for Australian plant taxa. For all 50 species, trait data were available for a total of 279 functional traits for at least one species. We retained data for five traits available for at least 35 species: (1) leaf δ¹³C (‰); (2) leaf dry mass (mg); (3) leaf length (mm); (4) leaf N per dry mass (mg/g); and (5) wood density (mg/mm³) (Supplementary Table S4). When multiple values were available for a given species, we calculated and retained for subsequent analyses, mean trait values.

## Species realized climatic niche breadths and safety margins

Here, we broadly adopt the Hutchinsonian definition of the niche as the "n-dimensional" set of abiotic and biotic conditions under which a species or population can maintain non-
negative growth rates without immigration (sensu Hutchinson, 1957). Specifically, we refer to the climatic niche breadth as the range of climate conditions occupied by the species, as defined by the upper and lower limits of their native range distribution and can serve as a useful metric for evaluating whether climatic conditions within a given locality are falling within or outside the limits of the species' climatic niche breadth (Carscadden et al., 2020; Khan & Conway, 2020). Using the species' occurrence records from their known native distributions, we first extracted the values of MTWM and PDM during the period 1981-2010 at each 1-km² cell where a species occurs in its native range and then calculated the 5th and 95th percentiles values for both MTWM and PDM to determine the range of temperature and precipitation conditions experienced by each species within its native range (i.e., the species climatic niche breadth). Then we used the 5th percentile of PDM and the 95th percentile of MTWM to determine the climatic limits indicative of the species' tolerance to drought (i.e., 5th percentile of PDM) and heat (95th percentile of MTWM) stress, respectively, for survival and growth under a likely future of drier and warmer conditions (Esperon-Rodriguez et al., 2022; Gallagher et al., 2019) (Supplementary Table S2).

To assess whether a species is planted in a city where climatic conditions are falling outside the interval of its climatic niche breadth — i.e., under warmer and drier conditions — we computed the so-called species' safety margins for MTWM and PDM, respectively. The safety margin expresses the difference between the climatic limits in the native range and the climate conditions in the city where the focal species was planted. It is calculated as the difference between (i) the species climatic threshold (i.e., obtained from the realized climatic niche) of the 5th percentile for PDM and the 95th percentile for MTWM and (ii) the 30-yr average conditions in climate extremes (i.e., also the 5th percentile of PDM and the 95th percentile of MTWM) experienced within each city during the period 1981-2010 (Esperon-Rodriguez et al., 2022). Hence, the safety margin (S) was calculated as the difference between a species-specific climatic threshold (Species<sub>ClimateVariable[i]</sub>) and location-specific baseline (1980-2010) climatic conditions experienced at each city (City<sub>ClimateVariable[i]</sub>) as follows:

$$S = \begin{cases} Species_{ClimateMTWM} - City_{ClimateMTWM} \\ City_{ClimatePDM} - Species_{ClimatePDM} \end{cases} \quad (1)$$

A positive value of the safety margin (S > 0) indicates that the climatic conditions in a given city are within the climatic niche breadth of the focal species — i.e., the species is planted in a city where climatic conditions are neither too dry nor too warm relative to the known limits of the species' climatic niche breadth as inferred from its native range. A negative value (S < 0) indicates that the species already occurs in a given city where climatic
conditions are novel for the species and exceed its climatic niche breadth — i.e., the species is planted in a city where climatic conditions are either drier or warmer than the known limits of the species' climatic niche breadth as inferred from its native range.

## Statistical analyses

We used generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMMs; using the *glmer* function) (Bates, Mächler, Bolker, & Walker, 2015), with a Gaussian family, to assess functional traits and species' climatic niche breadths as predictors of safety margins for MTWM and PDM, followed by an analysis of variance to evaluate model performance using the *car* package (Fox et al., 2007). Models were tested using “city” and “species” as two random effect terms (i.e., random intercepts). We tested the significance of random effects using a likelihood ratio test (i.e., fit the full and reduced models, where the reduced model is the model with the focal variance set to zero). We examined the respective effects of five plant functional traits of interest and accounted for the species' intrinsic climatic niche breadth (model formula: MTWM/PDM safety margin ~ leaf δ¹³C + leaf dry mass + leaf length + leaf N per dry mass + wood density + climatic niche breadth<sub>MTWM/PDM</sub> + (1|city) + (1|species)). All variables were standardized and their units, therefore, were given in units of standard deviation.

We also used GLMMs, with a Binomial family, to analyse the effect of latitude, in absolute values (i.e., zero meaning the equator and increasing values meaning poleward), on the proportion of eucalypt species that exceed (proportion of species exceeding, PSE) their native climatic niche limits for either MTWM or PDM within a given city. We also assessed the effect of the interaction term between absolute latitude and hemisphere to explore and test for potential differences between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres in the effect of absolute latitudinal position on the proportion of species exceeding their safety margins (PSE). For each city separately, we computed the total number of eucalypt species whose safety margins for MTWM and PDM are negative and calculated the proportion of these species out of the total number of species at each city (n = 66 cities). The response variable in these models was a vector of two columns with one column being the number of species within a city that is exceeding the thermal/precipitation safety margin (negative safety margin values) and the second column being the number of species within a city that is not exceeding the thermal/precipitation safety margin (positive safety margin values). We fitted two independent models, one for MTWM and one for PDM: MTWM/PDM PSE ~ abs(Latitude)* Hemisphere.

Model performance was evaluated through the calculation of the z-statistic and chi-square values at a significance level of *P* < 0.05. Maps were generated using *maptools* package (Bivand et al., 2022). All analyses were conducted using the statistical software R v.4.2.0 (R Core Team, 2022).
## Results

Across all species and cities (n = 241 cities by species combinations), the average thermal safety margin for MTWM was -0.5 °C (± 5.7 °C), being +4.7°C (± 3.5°C), on average, for those species not exceeding their thermal safety margins in cities where they occur (i.e., the upper thermal limit as defined from their native range; S > 0) and -4.6°C (± 3.4°C), on average, for those species already exceeding their thermal safety margins in cities where they occur (i.e., the upper thermal limit as defined from their native range; S < 0). For PDM, the average precipitation safety margin across all species was -1.7 mm (± 28.7 mm), being +27.6 mm (± 29 mm) and -17.1 mm (± 11.5), on average, for species not exceeding and exceeding, respectively, their precipitation safety margins (Figure 1; Supplementary Tables S2 and S5).

We identified 42 species (84% out of the total) exceeding their thermal safety margins for MTWM (S < 0; i.e., outside their native climatic tolerances) in all of the 40 cities (60%) in which they occur. *Eucalyptus globulus* (16 cities), *E. polyanthemos* (11 cities), *E. robusta* (11 cities) and *C. citriodora* (11 cities) had the highest number of cities exceeding their safety margins for MTWM. Across all studied species and cities, *C. ficifolia* (-18.5 °C), *E. globulus* (-15.4 °C) and *E. polyanthemos* (-12.9 °C) had the lowest thermal safety margins in the US city of Phoenix, Arizona — i.e., exceeding the upper thermal limit as defined from their native ranges. For PDM, 43 species (86%) exceeded their precipitation safety margins in 38 cities (57%) where they occur. *Corymbia citriodora* (18 cities), *E. globulus* (16 cities), *E. robusta* (13 cities) and *E. polyanthemos* (12 cities) had the highest number of cities exceeding their safety margins for PDM. *Eucalyptus gunnii* (-41.1 mm in San Francisco, US), *E. mannifera* (-37.8 mm in San Diego, US) and *E. botryoides* (-36.7 mm in Morelia, Mexico) had the lowest precipitation safety margins of all eucalypt species examined (Supplementary Table S6).

We identified 38 species (76%) exceeding both thermal and precipitation safety margins simultaneously in 30 cities (45%). The US cities of San Diego (15 species), Pasadena (15), Riverside (12) and Phoenix (11) had the highest number of species for which climatic conditions in the focal city were exceeding the upper and lower limits of the species' climatic niche breadths for both MTWM and PDM simultaneously. Four species (*C. citriodora*, *E. camaldulensis*, *E. globulus*, and *E. microtheca*) did not exceed the upper or lower limit of their climatic niche breadth neither for MTWM nor for PDM, respectively, in ten cities: San Diego, San Francisco (Panama), San Jose (Costa Rica), Santa Cruz de Tenerife (Spain), Santiago del Estero (Argentina) Sarasota (US), Trabzon (Turkey), Uyo (Nigeria), Valdivia (Chile), and Valencia (Spain).
Of the 66 studied cities, 40 (60%) had at least one eucalypt species with negative safety margin for MTWM; that is, at least one of the eucalypt species planted in those cities is experiencing conditions that are warmer than within its native range. For 24 of the studied cities (26%), all eucalypt species (100%) planted therein were shown to be experiencing climatic conditions that are warmer than within their native ranges (i.e., negative safety margin) for MTWM, although 13 of these cities (19%) had only one species reported as occurring in their urban forests. Phoenix (13 species) and Riverside, California (12 species), both in the western US, had the highest number of eucalypt species, all growing in warmer conditions than the known thermal limits of these species. For PDM, 38 cities (57%) had at least one eucalypt species with a negative safety margin. Similarly, 24 cities (36%) had all their eucalypt species (100%) experiencing drier conditions than the drier limits of their known niche breadths for precipitation. While 11 cities (17%) had only one eucalypt species planted, the cities of Atakpame (26 species) in Togo, Chennai (16 species) in India, Chongqing (12 species) in China, and El Centro (eight species) in the US had the highest number of species with negative safety margins for PDM (Figure 2).

While the species' climatic niche breadth had no significant effect on the breadth of the safety margin for PDM, niche breadth did have a positive effect on the safety margin for MTWM; species with low and negative safety margins were associated with narrow niches along the gradient of MTWM. Model results suggest that both the thermal and precipitation safety margins for MTWM and PDM, respectively, were associated with key functional traits related to their tolerance to heat and water deficit. For the thermal safety margin, leaf δ¹³C, leaf length, and wood density were significantly associated with species' safety margins (Table 1). In general, species with low thermal safety margins had high (i.e., less negative) values of leaf δ¹³C, high wood density, and smaller leaves. For PDM, species safety margins were significantly influenced by all leaf traits, where species with low safety margins had high values of leaf δ¹³C, leaf dry mass and leaf N per dry mass, and low values of leaf length (Table 1). For both safety margins, we found that cities and species were significant as random effects; that is, both city and species are contributing significantly to the overall variability observed in the data. (Table 2 and Supplementary Table S7).

Absolute latitude, hemisphere and their interaction term had a significant effect on the number of species exceeding their safety margin for MTWM. Cities from the Northern Hemisphere had a higher proportion of species exceeding their thermal safety margin, on average, than cities from the Southern Hemisphere (Table 3). In general, cities at high absolute latitudes from both hemispheres had higher proportions of species exceeding their thermal safety margin compared to cities located at low absolute latitudes (i.e., towards the equator). Regarding PDM, we found some evidence that cities of the Northern Hemisphere had, on average, a higher proportion of species exceeding their precipitation safety margin
than cities of the Southern Hemisphere. However, we also found an interaction effect between absolute latitude and hemisphere, such that cities of the Southern Hemisphere show a negative effect of latitude on the proportion of species exceeding their precipitation safety margin (Table 3). In general, cities at high latitudes (i.e., towards the pole) in the Northern Hemisphere and at low latitudes (i.e., towards the equator) in the Southern Hemisphere had higher proportions of species exceeding their thermal safety margin.

## Discussion

In summary, we found 38 eucalypt species (76%) planted outside of their native range in 30 of the 66 studied cities (45%) that are already experiencing climatic conditions exceeding the known limits of their climatic niche breadth, as inferred from their native ranges in Australia, for both MTWM and PDM simultaneously. For MTWM, 42 eucalypt species (84%) occurring at least once in 40 cities (60%) are currently experiencing temperature conditions exceeding their thermal upper limits (i.e., negative values for the thermal safety margin). Similarly, 43 eucalypt species (86%) occurring at least once in 38 cities (57%) outside Australia are currently experiencing precipitation regimes below the lower limits of the precipitation regimes they usually experience within their native ranges in Australia. The cities of Atakpame (Togo), Chennai (India) Chongqing (China) and the US cities of Phoenix and Riverside had the highest number of eucalypt species growing in climatic conditions exceeding the known limits of their climatic niche breadths as inferred from their native ranges. A suite of functional traits (i.e., leaf δ¹³C, leaf dry mass, leaf length, leaf N/dry mass, and wood density) were either positively or negatively associated with the magnitude of either the thermal or precipitation safety margins for MTWM and PDM, respectively.

Our findings suggest that most eucalypt species are already occurring in cities with more extreme climatic conditions than that of their native ranges in Australia, consistent with the general idea that urban tree species are typically planted in climatic conditions not necessarily matching the climatic conditions of their native ranges (Kendal et al., 2018). Notably, cities in North America (USA and Mexico), India and China had proportionally more eucalypt species experiencing climatic conditions that exceed the known limits of the species' climatic niche breadths (i.e., negative thermal or precipitation safety margins). These findings suggest either that these species may be experiencing thermal or precipitation stress, or that these species are potentially tolerant to novel climatic conditions beyond the known limits of their realized climatic niches as inferred from their native ranges. The latitudinal position of cities in the Northern Hemisphere was a significant predictor of the proportion of species exceeding their safety margin for MWTM. Cities located at higher mid-latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere – such as Barcelona, Spain – tended to harbour species exceeding their safety margins for MTWM and PDM. These findings add to evidence
that cities in mid-latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere tend to harbour species exceeding their thermal or precipitation safety margins, potentially making them more vulnerable to future climate change (Esperon-Rodriguez et al., 2022).

## Climatic niche breadths and species presence in global cities

The presence of eucalypt species in global cities might be facilitated by their relatively broad climatic niche breadths. Cities like Ado Etiki (Nigeria), Antalya (Turkey), Barcelona, and Bella Vista (Panama) harbour species with broad climatic niches (~13°C) and none of the species planted in those cities exceeded the upper or lower limit of their climatic niche breadth neither for MTWM nor for PDM. *Eucalyptus camaldulensis*, for example, has a broad natural distribution across the Australian continent, is well-adapted to arid and semi-arid lands and has a wide climatic envelope (Booth & Pryor, 1991; Hanley et al., 2021; Teulières, Bossinger, Moran, & Marque, 2007); here, *E. camaldulensis* had the broadest climatic niche breadth for MTWM of all the species. This species is also the most commonly planted eucalypt species in cities worldwide (32 cities; 48%), had the highest thermal and precipitation safety margins and only exceeded its realized climatic niche breadth in four cities (6%) for MTWM (Bhopal, India; El Centro, Las Vegas and Phoenix, USA) and in seven cities (10%) for PDM (El Centro, Pasadena, San Diego and San Francisco, USA; Gaza, Palestine; Piura, Peru; Tel Aviv, Israel). These characteristics probably have favoured the selection of *E. camaldulensis* in cities around the world. However, these traits may also explain the invasiveness potential of the species (Richardson et al., 2020).

Cities, on the other hand, can provide eucalypt species that have narrow niches with uncharted or novel climatic conditions and, in effect, expand their realized climatic niche breadth. We found that cities of the US (El Centro, Pasadena, Phoenix, San Diego, San Francisco), Mexico (Morelia) and Spain (Santa Cruz de Tenerife) tended to harbour species with narrow climatic niche breadths (1-2°C), all exceeding their thermal and precipitation safety margins. However, multiple climatic and environmental factors collectively influence species success (McPherson et al., 2018; Vogt et al., 2017). Therefore, the combinations of climate variables are important. For instance, 27 Eucalyptus species are recorded as growing in San Francisco. Although the precipitation safety margin for these species can be largely negative (e.g., *E. gunnii* and *E. viminalis*), the dry climate of the city can be moderated and even compensated by other environmental drivers such as relative air humidity that can be maintained during the cool summer. This mitigation effect is even more important in cities where species exceeded both MTWM and PDM safety margins simultaneously.

## Effect of climatic niche breadth on species safety margin
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

442

We found evidence to support our initial hypothesis that the climatic niche breadth for MTWM positively affected the thermal safety margin of eucalypt species for MTWM. That is, species with broad climatic niches were more likely to be planted in cities where climatic conditions were colder than the warmer limits of species' climatic niche breadths.

443

444

445

Temperatures associated with extreme events that exceed the species' thermal tolerance are a key determinant of urban forest species' composition (Esperon-Rodriguez et al., 2022; Jenerette et al., 2016; Kendal et al., 2018). Importantly, management options for altering or mitigating rising temperatures, particularly maxima and minima, are limited (Norton et al., 2015); therefore, species heat tolerance can be a crucial factor for species selection to ensure healthy urban forests in future cities.

446

447

448

449

450

451

452

Regarding PDM, the climatic niche breadth did not have a statistically significant effect on the precipitation safety margin for PDM. This finding may indicate that additional management actions can be facilitating the species presence in cities where climatic conditions are drier than the species' climatic niche breadths, for example, by providing irrigation during periods of lower water availability or severe climate stress (Van der Veken, Hermy, Vellend, Knapen, & Verheyen, 2008). Irrigation or other sources of water (e.g., run-off or leaky pipes) may explain why we found no evidence for our initial hypothesis that the climatic niche breadth for PDM should positively affect the magnitude of the precipitation safety margin. If water is provided through active management actions or other sources, species from wet origins or narrow climatic niche breadths can survive and thrive in dry cities. Unfortunately, data on irrigation were not available in the amount or quality needed for a global comparative study of this kind but, many cities, particularly in semi-arid regions rely on irrigation to maintain their urban forests (Pataki, McCarthy, Litvak, & Pincetl, 2011). Alternatively, deep rooting may provide water access for eucalypts during dry periods. It might also be possible that the realized niche in the native range is much narrower than the fundamental niche of the species and thus when planted outside their native range, these species explore and occupy novel climatic conditions in cities. Another option is that cities may harbour a range of favourable local conditions that provide access to water (e.g., stormwater runoff, water table, parks) and function as oases of water availability that may facilitate their survival.

453

454

455

456

457

458

459

460

461

462

463

464

465

466

467

468

469

470

471

472

473

## Species tolerance and functional traits

474

Some eucalypt species are known for their remarkable heat and drought tolerance, which might be a reason why they are used in urban settings, even in cities where they exceed their climatic niche breadths as defined from their native ranges. *Eucalyptus globulus*, for example, was identified to be exceeding its climatic niche breadth in 16 (64%) of the 25 cities where it is planted and had the second lowest thermal safety margin for MTWM.

475

476

477

478
1

2

3

479

However, this species can increase its heat tolerance during drought and under elevated atmospheric CO₂ and temperature (Gauthier et al., 2014), which may facilitate its presence in those cities. Similarly, *E. gunnii* had the lowest precipitation safety margin for PDM and has high drought tolerance in its native distribution (Kirkpatrick & Gibson, 1999).

4

5

480

6

481

7

482

8

9

483

10

484

11

485

12

486

13

487

14

488

15

489

16

490

17

491

18

492

19

493

20

494

21

495

22

496

23

497

24

498

25

499

26

500

27

501

28

502

29

503

30

504

31

505

32

506

33

507

34

508

35

509

36

510

37

511

38

512

39

513

40

514

41

515

42

Functional traits have proved to be useful determinants of the likely tolerance of a large panel of urban tree species to heat and drought stresses (Esperon-Rodriguez et al., 2020; Hanley et al., 2021; Ibsen et al., 2023; Marchin et al., 2022; Sjöman, Hirons, & Bassuk, 2018). Here we found evidence that species with small leaves, high δ¹³C, high leaf N per dry mass and high wood density — which are typical characteristics of heat and drought tolerant species — are planted in cities experiencing warmer and drier conditions than in their native range in Australia. Leaf size tends to be lower in arid and semiarid environments where water limitation and high temperatures combine to reduce individual leaf area, and therefore, the demand for evaporative cooling (Wright et al., 2017). The less negative δ¹³C ratios indicate a more conservative water use (i.e., trees kept their stomata closed relatively more often) in warm and dry environments under high vapour pressure deficit or low soil moisture (Farquhar & Sharkey, 1982). Low concentrations and content of N is common in arid environments where N uptake is limited (Gao & Ma, 2015; Ma et al., 2019). Species with high wood density have lower susceptibility to drought through reduced xylem vessel diameter and, consequently, higher cavitation resistance (Greenwood et al., 2017). However, it remains unknown if information related to functional traits is broadly considered in cities when selecting tree species in urban planning (Farrell et al., 2022). Information on climate-sensitive species and their knowledge is embedded in the practice of arboriculture and urban forestry, although this information is often not clearly collated in terms of tolerance to extreme climatic events (Esperon-Rodriguez, Rymer, et al., 2022).

## Caveats and limitations

We would like to highlight some caveats in our study. First, we acknowledge there is a difference between being able to tolerate and persist in certain conditions and being able to thrive and reproduce in those conditions. That is, species whose thermal or precipitation safety margins are exceeded may be able to tolerate but could underperform and have low reproductive capacity. Although reproduction (and the inference for natural regeneration) is not really an issue in urban forest management as urban trees do not need to maintain sustainable populations, human needs and preferences, along with the desired benefits associated with plantings, are key factors influencing species selection for urban forests (Sæbø et al., 2003). For instance, species are selected for their colourful flowers and if they fail to produce these, then they do not provide desirable benefits. Second, we have no data on cultivars, genetic material or provenances that can influence species' tolerance (Lucani,

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

516 Brodribb, Jordan, & Mitchell, 2018). Some provenances can show a high level of adaptability to climates markedly different to those of their origin. A widely distributed tree species may be chosen by practitioners based on the idea of its robustness, yet the origin of the genetic material used for planting may not reflect that tolerance. Genetic selection has been undertaken for eucalypts in forestry and selection may have resulted in particular genetic lineages being introduced in cities, which were not considered here. Third, additional functional traits for which we did not have data can also be related to the species' presence in cities. Functional traits such as leaf turgor loss point, stomatal conductance, and the Huber value can determine species' tolerance in cities (Esperon-Rodriguez et al., 2021; Esperon-Rodriguez et al., 2020; Hanley et al., 2021; Hirons et al., 2021; Marchin et al., 2022; Sjöman et al., 2018).

527 We acknowledge that other seasonal climatic variables can provide additional information on species responses and tolerance to climate change in cities. The precipitation of the warmest quarter, for example, can have a direct effect on mortality rates (Kim et al., 2023). In some cities the driest month may not overlap with the hottest month, thus drought is not directly associated with heat stress in those cities. Species planted in cities where the driest and hottest month coincide are likely to suffer from both stresses simultaneously, but trees planted in cities where the driest and hottest month do not coincide are also likely to suffer from a succession of stresses. For instance, trees planted in cities where spring seasons are very dry might be even more impacted by a subsequent heatwave during the summer season than trees that are planted in cities where both the hottest and driest month coincide just after a very rainy spring season. Additionally, we did not account for trait variability and plasticity along with planting context. We acknowledge, nevertheless, that trees can change their functional traits via plasticity in response to local climates (Esperon-Rodriguez et al., 2020) and understanding climatic adaptability is needed for predicting the species ability to survive heat and drought. As a future perspective, it would be informative to also collect trait data right where tree species have been planted. Further, climatic conditions can vary depending on the planting context, where street trees usually face harsher conditions (e.g., limited nutrients, soil volume and water) compared to trees planted in parks (Brandt, Johnson, North, Faje, & Rutledge, 2021).

546 We highlight the need for a global tree trial database (sensu Booth, 2023) to support the analysis of natural and ex-situ plants to determine which species are suitable for urban plantings. This database should consider species' climatic requirements and tolerances, and mapped locations with suitable climates. This information can be used to guide species selection to identify highly adaptable and wide-ranging species, but also incorporates more unusual narrow-range species that represent opportunities in urban plantings. This could
include species with narrow temperature niches that have wide latitudinal ranges due to functional trait plasticity (Hughes et al., 1996b).

## Conclusions

Urban trees from the genera *Eucalyptus*, *Angophora* and *Corymbia* are presently planted in many cities worldwide, experiencing warmer and drier climates than the climatic conditions experienced by these species in their native ranges in Australia. Our results suggest that the breadth of climate conditions experienced in the native range is an informative indicator of species heat tolerance in urban settings, while factors other than climate niche breadth, such as functional traits, may set limits on species drought tolerance. Indeed, we found key functional traits correlated to the likelihood of a species being planted in cities currently experiencing temperature conditions and precipitation regimes that exceed the thermal and precipitation limits of the focal species as inferred from its native range. Trees with narrow climatic niche breadths tend to be planted in cities already experiencing warmer and drier conditions than within their native ranges; however, trait characteristics, such as having small leaves, high δ¹³C, high leaf N per dry mass and high wood density can provide means to thrive and survive in those cities.

## Conflict of interest statement

None.

## References

* Baston, D., ISciences, L., & Baston, M. D. (2021). Package 'exactextractr'. In: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. URL: https://cran.r-project.org ....

* Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. *Journal of Statistical Software*, 67, 1-48.

* Bivand, R., Lewin-Koh, N., Pebesma, E., Archer, E., Baddeley, A., Bearman, N., ... Carrillo, G. (2022). Package 'maptools'. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/maptools/maptools.pdf.

* Booth, T. (2017). Going nowhere fast: a review of seed dispersal in eucalypts. *Australian Journal of Botany*, 65(5), 401-410. doi:https://doi.org/10.1071/BT17019

* Booth, T. H. (1985). A new method for assisting species selection. *The Commonwealth Forestry Review*, 64(3 (200)), 241-250.

* Booth, T. H. (2013). Eucalypt plantations and climate change. *Forest Ecology and Management*, 301, 28-34.

* Booth, T. H. (2017). Assessing species climatic requirements beyond the realized niche: some lessons mainly from tree species distribution modelling. *Climatic Change*, 145(3-4), 259-271.

* Booth, T. H. (2023). The Need for a Global Tree Trial Database. *New Forests*, 54(1), 1-7. doi:10.1007/s11056-022-09940-y

* Booth, T. H., & Pryor, L. D. (1991). Climatic requirements of some commercially important eucalypt species. *Forest Ecology and Management*, 43(1), 47-60. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-1127(91)90075-7

* Brandt, L. A., Johnson, G. R., North, E. A., Faje, J., & Rutledge, A. (2021). Vulnerability of Street Trees in Upper Midwest Cities to Climate Change. *Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution*, 9. doi:10.3389/fevo.2021.721831
1

2

3 598

Carscadden, K. A., Emery, N. C., Arnillas, C. A., Cadotte, M. W., Afkhami, M. E., Gravel, D., ...

4 599

Wiens, J. J. (2020). Niche Breadth: Causes and Consequences for Ecology, Evolution, and

5 600

Conservation. *The Quarterly Review of Biology*, 95(3), 179-214. doi:10.1086/710388

6 601

Chippendale, G. (1988). Flora of Australia. Volume 19. Myrtaceae-Eucalyptus, Angophora. In.

7 602

Canberra, Australia: Aust. Gov. Publ. Serv.

8 603

Coppen, J. J. (2002). *Eucalyptus: the genus Eucalyptus*: CrC Press.

9 604

Domingues, T. F., Ometto, J. P. H. B., Nepstad, D. C., Brando, P. M., Martinelli, L. A., & Ehleringer, J.

10 605

R. (2018). Ecophysiological plasticity of Amazonian trees to long-term drought. *Oecologia*,

11 606

187, 933-940.

12 607

Doughty, R. W. (2000). *The Eucalyptus: a natural and commercial history of the gum tree*: Johns

13 608

Hopkins University Press.

14 609

Esperon-Rodriguez, M., Power, S., Tjoelker, M., Marchin, R., & Rymer, P. (2021). Contrasting heat

15 610

tolerance of urban trees to extreme temperatures during heatwaves. *Urban Forestry & Urban*

16 611

*Greening*, 66, 127387. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127387

17 612

Esperon-Rodriguez, M., Rymer, P. D., Power, S. A., Barton, D. N., Cariñanos, P., Dobbs, C., ...

18 613

Tjoelker, M. G. (2022). Assessing climate risk to support urban forests in a changing climate.

19 614

*Plants People Planet* (2022), 1-13. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.10240

20 615

Esperon-Rodriguez, M., Rymer, P. D., Power, S. A., Challis, A., Marchin, R. M., & Tjoelker, M. G.

21 616

(2020). Functional adaptations and trait plasticity of urban trees along a climatic gradient.

22 617

*Urban Forestry & Urban Greening*, 54, 126771.

23 618

Esperon-Rodriguez, M., Tjoelker, M., Lenoir, J., Baumgartner, J., Beaumont, L., Nipperess, N., ...

24 619

Gallagher, R. (2022). Climate change increases global risk to urban forests. *Nature Climate*

25 620

*Change*, 12, 950-955. doi:10.1038/s41558-022-01465-8

26 621

Farquhar, G. D., & Sharkey, T. D. (1982). Stomatal conductance and photosynthesis. *Annual Review*

27 622

*of Plant Physiology*, 33(1), 317-345.

28 623

Fensham, R. J., Laffineur, B., Collingwood, T. D., Beech, E., Bell, S., Hopper, S. D., ... White, M.

29 624

(2020). Rarity or decline: Key concepts for the Red List of Australian eucalypts. *Biological*

30 625

*Conservation*, 243, 108455. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108455

31 626

Field, C., Barros, V., Dokken, D., Mach, K., Mastrandrea, M., Bilir, T., ... White, L. L. (2014). IPCC,

32 627

2014: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and

33 628

Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the

34 629

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,

35 630

United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

36 631

Fox, J., Friendly, G. G., Graves, S., Heiberger, R., Monette, G., Nilsson, H., ... Suggests, M. (2007).

37 632

The car package. *R Foundation for Statistical Computing*, 1109, 1431.

38 633

Fuwape, J. A., & Onyekwelu, J. C. (2011). Urban forest development in West Africa: benefits and

39 634

challenges. *Journal of Biodiversity and Ecological Sciences*, 1(1), 77-94.

40 635

Gallagher, R. V., Allen, S., & Wright, I. J. (2019). Safety margins and adaptive capacity of vegetation

41 636

to climate change. *Scientific reports*, 9(1), 8241.

42 637

Gao, Y.-M., & Ma, B. (2015). Nitrogen, phosphorus, and zinc supply on seed and metal accumulation

43 638

in canola grain. *Journal of Plant Nutrition*, 38(3), 473-483.

44 639

Gauthier, P. P., Crous, K. Y., Ayub, G., Duan, H., Weerasinghe, L. K., Ellsworth, D. S., ... Atkin, O.

45 640

K. (2014). Drought increases heat tolerance of leaf respiration in Eucalyptus globulus saplings

46 641

grown under both ambient and elevated atmospheric [CO2] and temperature. *Journal of*

47 642

*Experimental Botany*, 65(22), 6471-6485.

48 643

GIT-Consulting. (2009). Eucalyptus Universalis – cultivated eucalypt forests global map 2008.

49 644

González-Orozco, C. E., Pollock, Laura J., Thornhill, Andrew H., Mishler, Brent D., Knerr, N., Laffan,

50 645

Shawn W., ... Gruber, B. (2016). Phylogenetic approaches reveal biodiversity threats under

51 646

climate change. *Nature Climate Change*, 6(12), 1110-1114. doi:10.1038/nclimate3126

52 647

Gordon, D. R., Flory, S. L., Cooper, A. L., & Morris, S. K. (2012). Assessing the invasion risk of

53 648

Eucalyptus in the United States using the Australian weed risk assessment. *International*

54 649

*Journal of Forestry Research*, 2012.

55 650

Greenwood, S., Ruiz-Benito, P., Martínez-Vilalta, J., Lloret, F., Kitzberger, T., Allen, C. D., ...

56 651

Bönisch, G. (2017). Tree mortality across biomes is promoted by drought intensity, lower

57 652

wood density and higher specific leaf area. *Ecology Letters*, 20(4), 539-553.

58 653

Guo, F., Lenoir, J., & Bonebrake, T. C. (2018). Land-use change interacts with climate to determine

59 654

elevational species redistribution. *Nature Communications*, 9(1), 1315. doi:10.1038/s41467-

60 655

018-03786-9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

656

657

658

659

660

661

662

663

664

665

666

667

668

669

670

671

672

673

674

675

676

677

678

679

680

681

682

683

684

685

686

687

688

689

690

691

692

693

694

695

696

697

698

699

700

701

702

703

704

705

706

707

708

709

710

711

712

713

714

715

Hanley, P. A., Arndt, S. K., Livesley, S. J., & Szota, C. (2021). Relating the climate envelopes of urban tree species to their drought and thermal tolerance. *Science of The Total Environment*, 753, 142012.

Hirons, A. D., Watkins, J. H. R., Baxter, T. J., Miesbauer, J. W., Male-Muñoz, A., Martin, K. W., . . . Sjöman, H. (2021). Using botanic gardens and arboreta to help identify urban trees for the future. *Plants, People, Planet*, 3(2), 182-193.

Hirsch, H., Allsopp, M. H., Canavan, S., Cheek, M., Geerts, S., Geldenhuys, C. J., . . . Keet, J.-H. (2020). Eucalyptus camaldulensis in South Africa–past, present, future. *Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa*, 75(1), 1-22.

Hughes, L., Cawsey, E., & Westoby, M. (1996a). Climatic range sizes of Eucalyptus species in relation to future climate change. *Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters*, 5(1), 23-29.

Hughes, L., Cawsey, E. M., & Westoby, M. (1996b). Geographic and Climatic Range Sizes of Australian Eucalypts and a Test of Rapoport's Rule. *Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters*, 5(3), 128-142. doi:10.2307/2997395

Hutchinson, G. (1957). *A Treatise on limnology* (Vol. Vol 1). New York: Wiley-Interscience.

Ibsen, P. C., Santiago, L. S., Shiflett, S. A., Chandler, M., & Jenerette, G. D. (2023). Irrigated urban trees exhibit greater functional trait plasticity compared to natural stands. *Biology letters*, 19(1), 20220448.

Ilyas, M., Liu, Y.-Y., Shah, S., Ali, A., Khan, A. H., Zaman, F., . . . Ahmed, N. (2021). Adaptation of functional traits and their plasticity of three ornamental trees growing in urban environment. *Scientia Horticulturae*, 286, 110248.

Jacobs, M. R. (1981). *Eucalypts for planting: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations*.

Jenerette, G. D., Clarke, L. W., Avolio, M. L., Pataki, D. E., Gillespie, T. W., Pincetl, S., . . . McFadden, J. P. (2016). Climate tolerances and trait choices shape continental patterns of urban tree biodiversity. *Global Ecology and Biogeography*, 25(11), 1367-1376.

Jim, C. Y. (1993). Soil compaction as a constraint to tree growth in tropical & subtropical urban habitats. *Environmental Conservation*, 20(1), 35-49.

Jim, C. Y., & Liu, H. T. (2001). Species diversity of three major urban forest types in Guangzhou City, China. *Forest Ecology and Management*, 146(1), 99-114. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00449-7

Karger, D., Conrad, O., Böhner, J., Kawohl, T., Kreft, H., Soria-Auza, R., . . . Kessler, M. (2021). Climatologies at high resolution for the earth's land surface areas. *EnviDat*, https://doi.org/10.16904/envidat.228.v2.1.

Karger, D., Conrad, O., Böhner, J., Kawohl, T., Kreft, H., Soria-Auza, R. W., . . . Kessler, M. (2017). Climatologies at high resolution for the earth's land surface areas. *Scientific Data*, 4, 170122.

Kelso, N., & Patterson, T. (2012). *World Urban Areas, LandScan, 1:10 million* (2012). [Shapefile]. *North American Cartographic Information Society. Retrieved from* https://earthworks.stanford.edu/catalog/stanford-yk247bg4748. Retrieved from

Kendal, D., Dobbs, C., Gallagher, R., Beaumont, L., Baumann, J., Williams, N., & Livesley, S. (2018). A global comparison of the climatic niches of urban and native tree populations. *Global Ecology and Biogeography*, 27(5), 629-637.

Khan, T., & Conway, T. M. (2020). Vulnerability of Common Urban Forest Species to Projected Climate Change and Practitioners Perceptions and Responses. *Environmental management*, 65(4), 534-547. doi:10.1007/s00267-020-01270-z

Kim, E. H., Hitchmough, J. D., Cameron, R. W., Schrodt, F., Martin, K. W. E., & Cubey, R. (2023). Applying the concept of niche breadth to understand urban tree mortality in the UK. *Science of The Total Environment*, 902, 166304. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.166304

Kindt, R. (2023). TreeGOER: A database with globally observed environmental ranges for 48,129 tree species. *Global change biology*, 29(22), 6303-6318. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16914

Kirkpatrick, J., & Gibson, N. (1999). Towards an explanation of the altitudinal distributions of three species of Eucalyptus in central Tasmania. *Australian journal of ecology*, 24(2), 123-131.

Lucani, C. J., Brodribb, T. J., Jordan, G., & Mitchell, P. J. (2018). Intraspecific variation in drought susceptibility in Eucalyptus globulus is linked to differences in leaf vulnerability. *Functional Plant Biology*, 46(3), 286-293.

Ma, B.-L., Zheng, Z., Whalen, J. K., Caldwell, C., Vanasse, A., Pageau, D., . . . Smith, D. L. (2019). Uptake and nutrient balance of nitrogen, sulfur, and boron for optimal canola production in eastern Canada. *Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science*, 182(2), 252-264.

MacArthur, R. (1972). *Geographical ecology*. New York, USA.: Harper and Row, New York.

Macphail, M., & Thornhill, A. H. (2016). How old are the eucalypts? A review of the microfossil and phylogenetic evidence. *Australian Journal of Botany*, 64(8), 579-599.
1

2

3 716

4 717

5 718

6 719

7 720

8 721

9 722

10 723

11 724

12 725

13 726

14 727

15 728

16 729

17 730

18 731

19 732

20 733

21 734

22 735

23 736

24 737

25 738

26 739

27 740

28 741

29 742

30 743

31 744

32 745

33 746

34 747

35 748

36 749

37 750

38 751

39 752

40 753

41 754

42 755

43 756

44 757

45 758

46 759

47 760

48 761

49 762

50 763

51 764

52 765

53 766

54 767

55 768

56 769

57 770

58 771

59 772

60 773

Marchin, R. M., Esperon-Rodriguez, M., Tjoelker, M. G., & Ellsworth, D. S. (2022). Crown dieback and mortality of urban trees linked to heatwaves during extreme drought. *Science of The Total Environment*, 850, 157915. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157915

McPherson, E. G., Berry, A. M., & van Doorn, N. S. (2018). Performance testing to identify climate-ready trees. *Urban Forestry & Urban Greening*, 29, 28-39.

Miller, K. M., & McGill, B. J. (2018). Land use and life history limit migration capacity of eastern tree species. *Global Ecology and Biogeography*, 27(1), 57-67.

Nicolle, D. (2022). *Classification of the eucalypts (Angophora, Corymbia and Eucalyptus) Version 6*. Retrieved from

Norton, B. A., Coutts, A. M., Livesley, S. J., Harris, R. J., Hunter, A. M., & Williams, N. S. (2015). Planning for cooler cities: A framework to prioritise green infrastructure to mitigate high temperatures in urban landscapes. *Landscape and Urban Planning*, 134, 127-138.

Nowak, D. J. (2007). *Assessing urban forest effects and values: San Francisco's urban forest: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research*.

O'Donnell, M. S., & Ignizio, D. A. (2012). Bioclimatic predictors for supporting ecological applications in the conterminous United States. *US Geological Survey Data Series*. 691(10).

Ordóñez, C., & Duinker, P. (2014). Assessing the vulnerability of urban forests to climate change. *Environmental Reviews*, 22(3), 311-321.

Ossola, A., Hoeppner, M. J., Burley, H. M., Gallagher, R. V., Beaumont, L. J., & Leishman, M. R. (2020). The Global Urban Tree Inventory: A database of the diverse tree flora that inhabits the world's cities. *Global Ecology and Biogeography*, 2020, 1-8.

Paine, T. D., Steinbauer, M. J., & Lawson, S. A. (2011). Native and exotic pests of Eucalyptus: a worldwide perspective. *Annual Review of Entomology*, 56, 181-201.

Pataki, D. E., McCarthy, H. R., Litvak, E., & Pincetl, S. (2011). Transpiration of urban forests in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. *Ecological Applications*, 21(3), 661-677. doi:https://doi.org/10.1890/09-1717.1

Peterson, T., Soberón, J., Pearson, R., Anderson, R., Martínez-Meyer, E., Nakamura, M., & Araújo, M. (2011). *Ecological Niches and Geographic Distributions*. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Pither, J. (2003). Climate tolerance and interspecific variation in geographic range size. *Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences*, 270(1514), 475-481. doi:doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.2275

R Core Team. (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from www.R-project.org

Richardson, D., & Rejmánek, M. (2011). Trees and shrubs as invasive alien species – a global review. *Diversity and Distributions*, 17(5), 788-809. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2011.00782.x

Richardson, D. M., Foxcroft, L. C., Latombe, G., Le Maitre, D. C., Rouget, M., & Wilson, J. R. (2020). The biogeography of South African terrestrial plant invasions. *Biological Invasions in South Africa*, 67-96.

Sæbø, A., Benedikz, T., & Randrup, T. B. (2003). Selection of trees for urban forestry in the Nordic countries. *Urban Forestry & Urban Greening*, 2(2), 101-114.

Sjöman, H., Hirons, A., & Bassuk, N. (2018). Improving confidence in tree species selection for challenging urban sites: a role for leaf turgor loss. *Urban Ecosystems*, 21(6), 1171-1188.

Slatyer, R. A., Hirst, M., & Sexton, J. P. (2013). Niche breadth predicts geographical range size: a general ecological pattern. *Ecology Letters*, 16(8), 1104-1114. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12140

Teulières, C., Bossinger, G., Moran, G., & Marque, C. (2007). Stress studies in Eucalyptus. *Plant Stress*, 1, 197-215.

Tomé, M., Almeida, M. H., Barreiro, S., Branco, M. R., Deus, E., Pinto, G., ... Rodríguez-Soalleiro, R. (2021). Opportunities and challenges of Eucalyptus plantations in Europe: The Iberian Peninsula experience. *European Journal of Forest Research*, 140(3), 489-510.

Turnbull, J. W. (1999). Eucalypt plantations. *New Forests*, 17, 37-52.

Van der Veken, S., Hermy, M., Vellend, M., Knapen, A., & Verheyen, K. (2008). Garden plants get a head start on climate change. *Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment*, 6(4), 212-216.

Vogt, J., Gillner, S., Hofmann, M., Tharang, A., Dettmann, S., Gerstenberg, T., ... Berger, U. (2017). Citree: A database supporting tree selection for urban areas in temperate climate. *Landscape and Urban Planning*, 157, 14-25.
1

2

3 774

Warren, M. S., Hill, J. K., Thomas, J. A., Asher, J., Fox, R., Huntley, B., ... Thomas, C. D. (2001).

4 775

Rapid responses of British butterflies to opposing forces of climate and habitat change.

5 776

*Nature*, 414(6859), 65-69. doi:10.1038/35102054

6 777

Wright, I. J., Dong, N., Maire, V., Prentice, I. C., Westoby, M., Díaz, S., ... Law, E. A. (2017). Global

7 778

climatic drivers of leaf size. *science*, 357(6354), 917-921.

8 779

Wright, S. J., Kitajima, K., Kraft, N. J., Reich, P. B., Wright, I. J., Bunker, D. E., ... Díaz, S. (2010).

9 780

Functional traits and the growth-mortality trade-off in tropical trees. *Ecology*, 91(12), 3664-3674.

10 781

11 782

Ziller, S. R., de Sá Dechoum, M., & Dudeque Zenni, R. (2019). Predicting invasion risk of 16 species

12 783

of eucalypts using a risk assessment protocol developed for Brazil. *Austral ecology*, 44(1), 28-35.

13 784

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60
## Data Accessibility Statement

Baseline climate data were obtained from the CHELSA database version 2.1 (climatologies at high resolution for the earth's land surface areas; Karger et al., 2021; Karger et al., 2017) available at: <https://chelsa-climate.org/downloads/>.

Urban tree inventory data were obtained from the Global Urban Tree Inventory database (Ossola et al., 2020) available at: <https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.13169>.

Global occurrence records were retrieved from the Australian Virtual Herbarium available at: <https://avh.chah.org.au>.

Polygons defining the spatial boundaries of all cities were obtained as a shapefile from Kelso and Patterson (2012) available at: <https://earthworks.stanford.edu/catalog/stanford-yk247bg4748>.

Trait data were retrieved from the AusTraits database (Falster et al. 2021) available at: <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-021-01006-6>.

All data were edited and analysed in R v.4.2.0 (R Core Team, 2022).

and Microsoft Excel v.16.17.27 (201012). The complete code and data generated and analysed for this study have been deposited on Figshare: <10.6084/m9.fishshare.24760251>.
Tables

<table><caption>**Table 1.** Outputs from the Generalized Linear Mixed-effects Models of traits associated with heat and water deficit tolerance (leaf δ13C, leaf dry mass, leaf length, leaf N per dry mass, and wood density), species' climate niche breadths (estimated as the difference between the 95th and the 5th percentiles of MTWM and PDM), and thermal and precipitation safety margins, for maximum temperature of the warmest month (MTWM) and precipitation of the driest month (PDM), respectively. Bold indicates a significant effect (*P* < 0.05). For each model we included Conditional (c) and Marginal (m) R².</caption><thead><tr><th>Dependent variable</th><th>Explanatory variable</th><th>Estimate</th><th>Std. Error</th><th>t-value</th><th>Chisq</th><th>P-value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="6">MTWM safety margin</td><td>(Intercept)</td><td>0.35</td><td>0.15</td><td>2.32</td><td></td><td><strong>0.02</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Wood density</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.05</td><td>2.24</td><td>5.00</td><td><strong>0.03</strong></td></tr><tr><td>R<sup>2</sup>c = 0.93</td><td>Leaf δ13C</td><td>0.14</td><td>0.06</td><td>2.32</td><td>5.40</td><td><strong>0.02</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">R<sup>2</sup>m = 0.15</td><td>Leaf dry mass</td><td>-0.04</td><td>0.11</td><td>-0.35</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.72</td></tr><tr><td>Leaf length</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.12</td><td>2.45</td><td>6.02</td><td><strong>0.01</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Leaf N/dry mass</td><td>-0.19</td><td>0.10</td><td>-1.94</td><td>3.75</td><td>0.05</td></tr><tr><td>Breadth<sub>MTWM</sub></td><td>0.37</td><td>0.10</td><td>3.73</td><td>13.88</td><td><strong>&lt; 0.001</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">PDM safety margin</td><td>(Intercept)</td><td>0.42</td><td>0.19</td><td>2.20</td><td></td><td><strong>0.03</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Wood density</td><td>-0.01</td><td>0.05</td><td>-0.11</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.91</td></tr><tr><td>R<sup>2</sup>c = 0.98</td><td>Leaf δ13C</td><td>0.15</td><td>0.06</td><td>2.65</td><td>6.99</td><td><strong>0.01</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">R<sup>2</sup>m = 0.19</td><td>Leaf dry mass</td><td>-0.31</td><td>0.08</td><td>-4.06</td><td>16.46</td><td><strong>&lt; 0.001</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Leaf length</td><td>0.41</td><td>0.11</td><td>3.62</td><td>13.09</td><td><strong>&lt; 0.001</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Leaf N/dry mass</td><td>-0.22</td><td>0.09</td><td>-2.47</td><td>6.09</td><td><strong>0.01</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Breadth<sub>PDM</sub></td><td>-0.03</td><td>0.06</td><td>-0.53</td><td>0.28</td><td>0.60</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>**Table 2.** Outputs from the Generalized Linear Mixed-effects Models of the random effects (i.e., city, species) of the models showing the association among functional traits (leaf δ13C, leaf dry mass, leaf length, leaf N per dry mass, and wood density), species' climate niche breadths (estimated as the difference between the 95th and the 5th percentiles of MTWM and PDM), and thermal and precipitation safety margins, for maximum temperature of the warmest month (MTWM) and precipitation of the driest month (PDM), respectively. Bold indicates a significant effect (*P* < 0.05).</caption><thead><tr><th>Dependent variable</th><th>Random effect variable</th><th>Variance</th><th>Std. Dev.</th><th>Chisq</th><th>P-value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">MTWM safety margin</td><td>City</td><td>0.406</td><td>0.637</td><td>1522.4</td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Species</td><td>0.060</td><td>0.245</td><td>125.26</td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Residual</td><td>2.16E-15</td><td>4.64E-08</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">PDM safety margin</td><td>City</td><td>0.765</td><td>0.874</td><td>1535.9</td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Species</td><td>0.044</td><td>0.211</td><td>187.08</td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Residual</td><td>1.91E-15</td><td>4.38E-08</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 3.** Outputs from the Generalized Linear Mixed-effects Models of the effect of latitude and hemisphere on the proportion of species exceeding (PSE) their safety margins for maximum temperature of the warmest month (MTWM) and precipitation of the driest month (PDM). Bold indicates a significant effect (P < 0.05). For each model we included Conditional (c) and Marginal (m) R².</caption><thead><tr><th>Dependent variable</th><th>Explanatory variable</th><th>Estimate</th><th>Std. Error</th><th>z-value</th><th>Chisq</th><th>P-value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">MTWM PSE</td><td>(Intercept) (North)</td><td>17.34</td><td>3.44</td><td>5.0</td><td></td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td></tr><tr><td>abs(Latitude)</td><td>-0.84</td><td>0.17</td><td>-5.1</td><td>19.93</td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td></tr><tr><td>R<sup>2</sup>c = 0.99</td><td>Hemisphere (South)</td><td>-2.85</td><td>8.39</td><td>-0.3</td><td>16.95</td><td>0.73</td></tr><tr><td>R<sup>2</sup>m = 0.27</td><td>abs(Latitude):Hemisphere (South)</td><td>0.82</td><td>0.34</td><td>2.4</td><td>5.71</td><td><strong>0.02</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">PDM PSE</td><td>(Intercept) (North)</td><td>0.61</td><td>1.21</td><td>0.50</td><td></td><td><strong>0.62</strong></td></tr><tr><td>abs(Latitude)</td><td>-0.03</td><td>0.04</td><td>-0.66</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.85</td></tr><tr><td>R<sup>2</sup>c = 0.93</td><td>Hemisphere (South)</td><td>-8.49</td><td>4.76</td><td>-1.79</td><td>0.78</td><td>0.38</td></tr><tr><td>R<sup>2</sup>m = 0.21</td><td>abs(Latitude):Hemisphere (South)</td><td>0.41</td><td>0.19</td><td>2.16</td><td>4.67</td><td><strong>0.03</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>
Figures

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Probability density of the safety margins for the maximum temperature of the warmest month (MTWM; A) and the precipitation of the driest month (PDM; B) for 50 eucalypt species planted in 66 cities of 21 countries (n = 241 cities by species combinations). Shaded areas indicate species exceeding (i.e., red) or still within (i.e., blue) the limits of their climatic tolerances. Dotted lines indicate the respective median values for both groups. Black solid lines indicate the zero (S = 0); a positive safety margin (S > 0) indicates eucalypt species for which the baseline (1981-2010) climatic conditions (cf. MTWM or PDM) in the focal city is falling within the climatic tolerance of the focal species as defined by the native distribution of that focal species in Australia (i.e., not exceeding their safety margins); a negative value (S < 0) indicates the opposite, namely eucalypt species for which the baseline (1981-2010) climatic conditions (cf. MTWM or PDM) in the focal city is warmer (i.e., for MTWM) or drier (i.e., for PDM) than the climatic tolerance of the focal species as defined by the native distribution of that focal species in Australia (i.e., exceeding their safety margins). Climate conditions represent the long-term average during the period 1981–2010.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

**Figure 2.** Proportion of eucalypt species planted in cities currently exceeding their safety margins (S < 0), according to the baseline climatic conditions during 1981-2010, either for maximum temperature of the warmest month (A) or precipitation of the driest month (B) across 66 cities in 21 countries worldwide. Colours represent the proportion of species experiencing conditions outside their tolerances in a given city. All eucalypt species considered here are native from Australia (shown in black). Mollweide projection.
# Supplementary Material

## Wide climatic niche breadth and traits associated with climatic tolerance facilitate eucalypt occurrence in cities worldwide

**Short title:** Eucalypts in urban spaces worldwide

<table><caption>**Supplementary Table S1.** Climatic values of the 95th percentile of the maximum temperature of the warmest month (MTWM 95th, °C) and 5th percentile of the precipitation of the driest month (PDM 5th, mm) of 66 cities worldwide and total number of eucalypts species planted in each city.</caption><thead><tr><th>City</th><th>MTWM 95<sup>th</sup></th><th>PDM 5<sup>th</sup></th><th>Species</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Ado Etiki</td><td>32.5</td><td>6.0</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Antalya</td><td>35.9</td><td>3.0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Atakpame</td><td>33.8</td><td>8.1</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Barcelona</td><td>32.4</td><td>5.5</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Bella Vista</td><td>30.9</td><td>42.3</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Belo Horizonte</td><td>28.3</td><td>6.1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Bhopal</td><td>40.7</td><td>2.6</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Birmingham</td><td>20.6</td><td>79.3</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Bogota</td><td>18.8</td><td>43.5</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Brasilia</td><td>28.7</td><td>5.1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Bristol</td><td>21.0</td><td>57.9</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Buenos Aires</td><td>27.8</td><td>46.2</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Carson City</td><td>31.4</td><td>4.2</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Charleston</td><td>29.9</td><td>71.6</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Chengdu</td><td>31.3</td><td>7.1</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Chennai</td><td>36.8</td><td>5.4</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Chongqing</td><td>31.9</td><td>6.7</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Cork</td><td>17.5</td><td>70.4</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Curitiba</td><td>24.6</td><td>73.8</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>El Centro</td><td>42.6</td><td>0.4</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>El Paraiso</td><td>31.0</td><td>29.5</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Gaza</td><td>31.9</td><td>0.6</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Guarapuava</td><td>24.3</td><td>104.5</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Haikou</td><td>30.9</td><td>19.0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Hong Kong</td><td>32.1</td><td>21.5</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>Honolulu</td><td>26.8</td><td>24.9</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Ibadan</td><td>32.7</td><td>5.4</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Ibague City</td><td>27.6</td><td>83.4</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Ioanina</td><td>29.5</td><td>24.2</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Kpalime</td><td>32.4</td><td>17.8</td><td>3</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>City</th><th>MTWM 95<sup>th</sup></th><th>PDM 5<sup>th</sup></th><th>Species</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Kunming</td><td>24.9</td><td>14.2</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Las Vegas</td><td>41.8</td><td>2.1</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Lima</td><td>26.3</td><td>0.9</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Linares</td><td>34.3</td><td>18.6</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Lome</td><td>31.1</td><td>8.3</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>London</td><td>21.4</td><td>38.2</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Los Angeles</td><td>35.6</td><td>0.6</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Manizales</td><td>22.0</td><td>86.1</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Medellin</td><td>23.0</td><td>57.4</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Mexico City</td><td>25.3</td><td>4.2</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Modesto</td><td>33.7</td><td>0.1</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Morelia</td><td>28.2</td><td>6.3</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Nanchang</td><td>33.5</td><td>48.5</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>New Delhi</td><td>41.5</td><td>1.1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>New Orleans</td><td>30.2</td><td>96.1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Pasadena</td><td>34.8</td><td>0.6</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>Pereira</td><td>24.9</td><td>142.9</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Phoenix</td><td>41.7</td><td>1.2</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>Piura</td><td>30.6</td><td>0.4</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Ponta Grossa</td><td>25.3</td><td>70.6</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Richmond</td><td>27.0</td><td>40.6</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Riverside</td><td>35.4</td><td>1.1</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>San Diego</td><td>31.7</td><td>0.6</td><td>28</td></tr><tr><td>San Francisco</td><td>26.3</td><td>0.2</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td>San Francisco, Panama</td><td>29.2</td><td>17.8</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>San Jose</td><td>26.0</td><td>25.4</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Santa Cruz de Tenerife</td><td>24.0</td><td>2.9</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Santiago de Chile</td><td>30.5</td><td>1.1</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Santiago del Estero</td><td>31.3</td><td>2.6</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Sarasota</td><td>30.0</td><td>48.9</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Tampa</td><td>30.3</td><td>48.5</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Tel Aviv</td><td>31.9</td><td>0.6</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Trabzon</td><td>27.1</td><td>38.9</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Uyo</td><td>30.9</td><td>14.4</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Valdivia</td><td>22.7</td><td>42.5</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Valencia</td><td>30.9</td><td>7.9</td><td>3</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Supplementary Table S2.** Climatic limits estimated as the 95th percentile of the maximum temperature of the warmest month (MTWM 95th, °C) and 5th percentile of the precipitation of the driest month (PDM 5th, mm), climatic breaths estimated as the difference between the 5th and 95th percentiles values for both MTWM (°C) and PDM (mm) (MTWM breadth and PDM breadth), and average thermal and precipitation safety margins (MTWM SM and PDM SM, respectively) of 50 eucalypts species planted in urban cities worldwide. Cities indicate the number of urban areas where each species is planted.</caption><thead><tr><th>Species</th><th>MTWM 95<sup>th</sup></th><th>MTWM breadth</th><th>MTWM SM</th><th>PDM 5<sup>th</sup></th><th>PDM breadth</th><th>PDM SM</th><th>Cities</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Angophora costata</td><td>27.53</td><td>3.96</td><td>-3.41</td><td>28.95</td><td>41.68</td><td>-28.48</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia calophylla</td><td>30.65</td><td>8.37</td><td>3.42</td><td>8.00</td><td>17.60</td><td>8.45</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia citriodora</td><td>32.28</td><td>6.97</td><td>0.30</td><td>8.36</td><td>37.12</td><td>6.21</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia dallachiana</td><td>35.10</td><td>7.32</td><td>-6.60</td><td>2.00</td><td>21.94</td><td>-0.80</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia ficifolia</td><td>23.19</td><td>1.42</td><td>-6.37</td><td>21.06</td><td>7.94</td><td>-12.89</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia maculata</td><td>27.75</td><td>4.33</td><td>0.52</td><td>32.22</td><td>45.65</td><td>-15.77</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia torelliana</td><td>29.60</td><td>4.25</td><td>-2.70</td><td>18.14</td><td>32.27</td><td>-7.76</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus albopurpurea</td><td>22.50</td><td>3.47</td><td>-3.81</td><td>11.00</td><td>8.00</td><td>-10.80</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus botryoides</td><td>25.53</td><td>2.31</td><td>-2.70</td><td>42.99</td><td>32.75</td><td>-36.69</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus camaldulensis</td><td>37.80</td><td>13.25</td><td>6.60</td><td>1.00</td><td>33.03</td><td>16.72</td><td>32</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus cinerea</td><td>27.66</td><td>7.13</td><td>0.34</td><td>34.51</td><td>36.16</td><td>10.99</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus cladocalyx</td><td>29.43</td><td>10.49</td><td>-1.51</td><td>11.86</td><td>12.14</td><td>-11.39</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus coccifera</td><td>18.37</td><td>4.72</td><td>-3.01</td><td>42.25</td><td>59.81</td><td>-4.05</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus conferruminata</td><td>24.95</td><td>3.20</td><td>-4.07</td><td>19.22</td><td>6.74</td><td>-18.82</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus cordata</td><td>19.35</td><td>3.35</td><td>-10.85</td><td>40.06</td><td>28.22</td><td>56.04</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus cornuta</td><td>25.10</td><td>3.22</td><td>-0.07</td><td>14.02</td><td>11.97</td><td>9.72</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus dalrympleana</td><td>24.99</td><td>8.07</td><td>3.61</td><td>31.76</td><td>39.36</td><td>6.44</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus dunnii</td><td>27.26</td><td>3.50</td><td>2.78</td><td>32.00</td><td>25.23</td><td>57.18</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus erythrocorrys</td><td>31.93</td><td>2.69</td><td>-1.31</td><td>2.00</td><td>6.87</td><td>-1.33</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus erythronema</td><td>32.72</td><td>2.44</td><td>0.99</td><td>9.00</td><td>4.00</td><td>-8.40</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus exserta</td><td>34.13</td><td>6.64</td><td>2.03</td><td>7.00</td><td>32.64</td><td>14.50</td><td>1</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Species</th><th>MTWM 95<sup>th</sup></th><th>MTWM breadth</th><th>MTWM SM</th><th>PDM 5<sup>th</sup></th><th>PDM breadth</th><th>PDM SM</th><th>Cities</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Eucalyptus globulus</td><td>26.26</td><td>8.79</td><td>-1.82</td><td>34.46</td><td>34.14</td><td>-8.12</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus gomphocephala</td><td>29.80</td><td>4.09</td><td>-1.93</td><td>7.00</td><td>7.98</td><td>-2.34</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus grandis</td><td>29.05</td><td>4.53</td><td>1.07</td><td>17.89</td><td>50.91</td><td>47.61</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus gunnii</td><td>18.18</td><td>3.00</td><td>-3.17</td><td>41.32</td><td>50.17</td><td>7.88</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus kruseana</td><td>32.60</td><td>1.47</td><td>0.70</td><td>11.35</td><td>4.30</td><td>-10.75</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus lansdowneana</td><td>30.19</td><td>1.14</td><td>-1.53</td><td>12.01</td><td>5.19</td><td>-11.41</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus lehmannii</td><td>26.04</td><td>2.85</td><td>-2.98</td><td>16.37</td><td>9.27</td><td>-15.97</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus leucoxylon</td><td>29.28</td><td>8.58</td><td>-4.35</td><td>15.64</td><td>17.89</td><td>-14.99</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus macrandra</td><td>29.28</td><td>5.27</td><td>2.98</td><td>11.90</td><td>11.01</td><td>-11.70</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus mannifera</td><td>25.99</td><td>4.51</td><td>-5.73</td><td>38.44</td><td>35.00</td><td>-37.84</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus melanophloia</td><td>35.50</td><td>8.14</td><td>3.60</td><td>3.00</td><td>33.96</td><td>-2.40</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus melliodora</td><td>30.59</td><td>7.47</td><td>1.57</td><td>25.00</td><td>29.48</td><td>-24.60</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus microtheca</td><td>37.49</td><td>4.09</td><td>0.83</td><td>0.00</td><td>3.00</td><td>2.01</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus nicholii</td><td>24.23</td><td>2.63</td><td>-6.71</td><td>35.40</td><td>14.85</td><td>-34.94</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus pauciflora</td><td>24.49</td><td>6.89</td><td>3.11</td><td>30.12</td><td>49.24</td><td>8.08</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus platypus</td><td>27.88</td><td>2.78</td><td>-5.38</td><td>13.97</td><td>7.12</td><td>-13.37</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus polyanthemos</td><td>28.78</td><td>6.43</td><td>-5.65</td><td>29.92</td><td>30.66</td><td>-28.69</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus pulverulenta</td><td>24.99</td><td>3.08</td><td>-1.31</td><td>34.18</td><td>25.78</td><td>-33.98</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus robusta</td><td>28.80</td><td>3.80</td><td>-1.30</td><td>32.84</td><td>40.61</td><td>-15.86</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus rudis</td><td>32.00</td><td>7.42</td><td>1.06</td><td>7.00</td><td>9.79</td><td>-6.53</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus saligna</td><td>29.03</td><td>6.41</td><td>0.07</td><td>24.17</td><td>40.47</td><td>4.13</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus salubris</td><td>34.27</td><td>6.07</td><td>-7.43</td><td>9.00</td><td>9.56</td><td>-7.80</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus sideroxylon</td><td>31.28</td><td>5.85</td><td>-2.74</td><td>24.00</td><td>23.79</td><td>-15.51</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus spathulata</td><td>31.73</td><td>5.78</td><td>-9.97</td><td>9.01</td><td>7.74</td><td>-7.81</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus subcrenulata</td><td>18.13</td><td>3.80</td><td>-3.25</td><td>37.48</td><td>68.79</td><td>0.72</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus tereticornis</td><td>32.01</td><td>8.41</td><td>-0.42</td><td>9.85</td><td>47.53</td><td>5.74</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus torquata</td><td>32.58</td><td>2.62</td><td>-2.26</td><td>11.27</td><td>9.86</td><td>-10.67</td><td>6</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Species</th><th>MTWM 95<sup>th</sup></th><th>MTWM breadth</th><th>MTWM SM</th><th>PDM 5<sup>th</sup></th><th>PDM breadth</th><th>PDM SM</th><th>Cities</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><i>Eucalyptus urnigera</i></td><td>19.05</td><td>5.06</td><td>-2.33</td><td>42.28</td><td>28.83</td><td>-4.08</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td><i>Eucalyptus viminalis</i></td><td>26.82</td><td>8.19</td><td>-2.54</td><td>17.00</td><td>50.02</td><td>1.81</td><td>4</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Supplementary Table S3.** Number of occurrence records retrieved from the Australian Virtual Herbarium (<https://avh.chah.org.au>) for 50 *Eucalyptus*, *Angophora* and *Corymbia* species used to estimate realized climate niches and safety margins. see **Supplementary Data** for complete list of occurrence records.</caption><thead><tr><td>Species</td><td>No. records</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Angophora costata</td><td>275</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia calophylla</td><td>458</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia citriodora</td><td>429</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia dallachiana</td><td>347</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia ficifolia</td><td>96</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia maculata</td><td>121</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia torelliana</td><td>85</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus albopurpurea</td><td>216</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus botryoides</td><td>167</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus camaldulensis</td><td>3316</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus cinerea</td><td>78</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus cladocalyx</td><td>155</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus coccifera</td><td>387</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus conferruminata</td><td>70</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus cordata</td><td>166</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus cornuta</td><td>220</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus dalrympleana</td><td>595</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus dunnii</td><td>67</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus erythrocorys</td><td>56</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus erythronema</td><td>137</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus exserta</td><td>782</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus globulus</td><td>713</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus gomphocephala</td><td>86</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus grandis</td><td>200</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus gunnii</td><td>262</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus kruseana</td><td>23</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus lansdowneana</td><td>80</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus lehmannii</td><td>207</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus leucoxylon</td><td>1528</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus macrandra</td><td>114</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus mannifera</td><td>715</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus melanophloia</td><td>686</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus melliodora</td><td>990</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus microtheca</td><td>433</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus nicholii</td><td>92</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus pauciflora</td><td>1396</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus platypus</td><td>217</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus polyanthemos</td><td>536</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus pulverulenta</td><td>107</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus robusta</td><td>173</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><td>Species</td><td>No. records</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Eucalyptus rudis</td><td>400</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus saligna</td><td>233</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus salubris</td><td>434</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus sideroxylon</td><td>401</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus spathulata</td><td>112</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus subcrenulata</td><td>170</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus tereticornis</td><td>1293</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus torquata</td><td>119</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus urnigera</td><td>114</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus viminalis</td><td>1751</td></tr></tbody></table>
<caption>Supplementary Table S4. Trait values of 50 *Eucalyptus*, *Angophora* and *Corymbia* species.</caption>

Data obtained from Falster et al. (2021).

<table><thead><tr><th>Species</th><th>Leaf δ<sup>13</sup>C<br>(‰)</th><th>Leaf dry mass<br>(mg)</th><th>Leaf length<br>(mm)</th><th>Leaf N per dry mass<br>(mg/g)</th><th>Wood density<br>(mg/mm<sup>3</sup>)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Angophora costata</td><td>-25.80</td><td>371.66</td><td>24.03</td><td>9.58</td><td>0.66</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia calophylla</td><td>-27.65</td><td>430.71</td><td>130.00</td><td>14.52</td><td>0.55</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia citriodora</td><td>-27.51</td><td>319.63</td><td>150.00</td><td>13.29</td><td>0.73</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia dallachiana</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>181.50</td><td>-</td><td>0.75</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia ficifolia</td><td>-26.53</td><td>405.40</td><td>110.00</td><td>10.60</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia maculata</td><td>-28.42</td><td>650.39</td><td>68.81</td><td>13.30</td><td>0.84</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia torelliana</td><td>-</td><td>132.08</td><td>112.50</td><td>-</td><td>0.73</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus albopurpurea</td><td>-25.72</td><td>474.78</td><td>105.00</td><td>13.10</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus botryoides</td><td>-30.11</td><td>850.97</td><td>146.00</td><td>14.22</td><td>0.72</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus camaldulensis</td><td>-28.67</td><td>-</td><td>180.00</td><td>12.49</td><td>0.77</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus cinerea</td><td>-29.57</td><td>-</td><td>101.67</td><td>14.00</td><td>0.66</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus cladocalyx</td><td>-</td><td>696.78</td><td>125.00</td><td>-</td><td>0.87</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus coccifera</td><td>-</td><td>399.33</td><td>83.33</td><td>-</td><td>0.58</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus conferruminata</td><td>-</td><td>391.25</td><td>65.00</td><td>-</td><td>0.78</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus cordata</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>93.33</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus cornuta</td><td>-25.72</td><td>-</td><td>101.00</td><td>15.50</td><td>0.91</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus dalrympleana</td><td>-</td><td>315.44</td><td>170.00</td><td>12.60</td><td>0.59</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus dunnii</td><td>-29.85</td><td>610.98</td><td>177.50</td><td>16.34</td><td>0.66</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus erythrocorys</td><td>-28.08</td><td>642.09</td><td>145.00</td><td>13.80</td><td>0.70</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus erythronema</td><td>-26.25</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>10.00</td><td>0.89</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus exserta</td><td>-28.19</td><td>-</td><td>126.25</td><td>11.90</td><td>0.87</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus globulus</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>300.00</td><td>25.27</td><td>0.72</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus gomphocephala</td><td>-27.13</td><td>418.33</td><td>140.00</td><td>13.09</td><td>0.87</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus grandis</td><td>-29.24</td><td>702.30</td><td>138.00</td><td>16.26</td><td>0.63</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus gunnii</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>71.67</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus kruseana</td><td>-26.77</td><td>-</td><td>17.50</td><td>10.50</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus lansdowneana</td><td>-27.70</td><td>1074.98</td><td>99.25</td><td>11.80</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus lehmannii</td><td>-27.02</td><td>175.32</td><td>66.00</td><td>9.80</td><td>0.91</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus leucoxylon</td><td>-27.40</td><td>-</td><td>152.33</td><td>14.30</td><td>0.86</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus macrandra</td><td>-26.83</td><td>454.30</td><td>88.50</td><td>10.90</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus mannifera</td><td>-26.44</td><td>-</td><td>130.00</td><td>15.68</td><td>0.67</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus melanophloia</td><td>-27.82</td><td>300.70</td><td>66.25</td><td>10.88</td><td>0.93</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus melliodora</td><td>-29.50</td><td>186.25</td><td>108.00</td><td>14.50</td><td>0.85</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus microtheca</td><td>-</td><td>167.00</td><td>107.75</td><td>-</td><td>0.96</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus nicholii</td><td>-27.94</td><td>4.97</td><td>95.00</td><td>15.00</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus pauciflora</td><td>-25.05</td><td>612.38</td><td>124.20</td><td>11.86</td><td>0.60</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus platypus</td><td>-26.68</td><td>440.52</td><td>-</td><td>10.30</td><td>0.89</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus polyanthemos</td><td>-26.54</td><td>199.28</td><td>65.00</td><td>19.48</td><td>0.89</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus pulverulenta</td><td>-28.60</td><td>-</td><td>66.25</td><td>12.60</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus robusta</td><td>-27.62</td><td>2034.10</td><td>131.25</td><td>12.90</td><td>0.69</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>Eucalyptus rudis</td><td>-27.78</td><td>345.29</td><td>-</td><td>17.10</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus saligna</td><td>-29.22</td><td>100.04</td><td>137.50</td><td>27.12</td><td>0.74</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus salubris</td><td>-24.91</td><td>264.72</td><td>85.00</td><td>11.39</td><td>0.94</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus sideroxylon</td><td>-</td><td>87.04</td><td>108.00</td><td>28.84</td><td>0.93</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus spathulata</td><td>-26.15</td><td>68.28</td><td>65.00</td><td>10.50</td><td>0.87</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus subcrenulata</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>99.00</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus tereticornis</td><td>-29.95</td><td>-</td><td>150.00</td><td>15.99</td><td>0.74</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus torquata</td><td>-27.72</td><td>480.78</td><td>97.50</td><td>8.80</td><td>0.90</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus urnigera</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>81.67</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus viminalis</td><td>-30.00</td><td>269.00</td><td>158.00</td><td>16.79</td><td>0.62</td></tr></table>
<table><caption>**Supplementary Table S5.** Thermal and precipitation safety margins (MTWM SM and PDM SM, respectively) of 50 eucalypts species planted in urban cities worldwide.</caption><thead><tr><th>Species</th><th>City</th><th>Country</th><th>MTWM SM</th><th>PDM SM</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Angophora costata</td><td>Pasadena</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-7.3</td><td>-28.3</td></tr><tr><td>Angophora costata</td><td>San Diego</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-4.2</td><td>-28.3</td></tr><tr><td>Angophora costata</td><td>San Francisco</td><td>United States of America</td><td>1.2</td><td>-28.7</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia calophylla</td><td>Bogota</td><td>Colombia</td><td>11.9</td><td>35.5</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia calophylla</td><td>Hong Kong</td><td>China</td><td>-1.4</td><td>13.5</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia calophylla</td><td>San Diego</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-1.1</td><td>-7.4</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia calophylla</td><td>San Francisco</td><td>United States of America</td><td>4.3</td><td>-7.8</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia citriodora</td><td>Atakpame</td><td>Togo</td><td>-1.5</td><td>-0.3</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia citriodora</td><td>Chengdu</td><td>China</td><td>1.0</td><td>-1.3</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia citriodora</td><td>Curitiba, Paran, àö⁻∞</td><td>Brazil</td><td>7.6</td><td>65.5</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia citriodora</td><td>El Centro</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-10.4</td><td>-8.0</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia citriodora</td><td>Hong Kong</td><td>China</td><td>0.2</td><td>13.1</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia citriodora</td><td>Honolulu</td><td>United States of America</td><td>5.5</td><td>16.5</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia citriodora</td><td>Kpalime</td><td>Togo</td><td>-0.1</td><td>9.5</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia citriodora</td><td>Lome</td><td>Togo</td><td>1.2</td><td>-0.1</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia citriodora</td><td>Morelia</td><td>Mexico</td><td>4.0</td><td>-2.1</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia citriodora</td><td>Pasadena</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-2.5</td><td>-7.8</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia citriodora</td><td>Pereira</td><td>Colombia</td><td>7.4</td><td>134.5</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia citriodora</td><td>Phoenix</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-9.4</td><td>-7.2</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia citriodora</td><td>Piura</td><td>Peru</td><td>1.7</td><td>-8.0</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia citriodora</td><td>Riverside</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-3.1</td><td>-7.3</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia citriodora</td><td>Riverside</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-3.1</td><td>-7.3</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia citriodora</td><td>Riverside</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-3.1</td><td>-7.3</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia citriodora</td><td>Riverside</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-3.1</td><td>-7.3</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia citriodora</td><td>Riverside</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-3.1</td><td>-7.3</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia citriodora</td><td>Riverside</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-3.1</td><td>-7.3</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia citriodora</td><td>San Diego</td><td>United States of America</td><td>0.6</td><td>-7.8</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia citriodora</td><td>San Francisco</td><td>United States of America</td><td>6.0</td><td>-8.2</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia citriodora</td><td>San Jose</td><td>Costa Rica</td><td>6.3</td><td>17.0</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia citriodora</td><td>Santa Cruz de Tenerife</td><td>Spain</td><td>8.2</td><td>-5.5</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia citriodora</td><td>Tel Aviv</td><td>Israel</td><td>0.4</td><td>-7.8</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia dallachiana</td><td>Phoenix</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-6.6</td><td>-0.8</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia ficifolia</td><td>Bogota</td><td>Colombia</td><td>4.4</td><td>22.4</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia ficifolia</td><td>Pasadena</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-11.6</td><td>-20.5</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia ficifolia</td><td>Phoenix</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-18.5</td><td>-19.9</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia ficifolia</td><td>San Diego</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-8.5</td><td>-20.5</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia ficifolia</td><td>San Francisco</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-3.1</td><td>-20.9</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia ficifolia</td><td>Santa Cruz de Tenerife</td><td>Spain</td><td>-0.9</td><td>-18.2</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia maculata</td><td>Bogota</td><td>Colombia</td><td>9.0</td><td>11.3</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia maculata</td><td>Hong Kong</td><td>China</td><td>-4.3</td><td>-10.7</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Species</th><th>City</th><th>Country</th><th>MTWM SM</th><th>PDM SM</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Corymbia maculata</td><td>San Diego</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-4.0</td><td>-31.6</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia maculata</td><td>San Francisco</td><td>United States of America</td><td>1.4</td><td>-32.0</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia torelliana</td><td>Ado Etiki</td><td>Nigeria</td><td>-2.9</td><td>-12.1</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia torelliana</td><td>Atakpame</td><td>Togo</td><td>-4.2</td><td>-10.0</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia torelliana</td><td>Hong Kong</td><td>China</td><td>-2.5</td><td>3.4</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia torelliana</td><td>Kpalime</td><td>Togo</td><td>-2.8</td><td>-0.3</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia torelliana</td><td>Lome</td><td>Togo</td><td>-1.5</td><td>-9.8</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia torelliana</td><td>Tel Aviv</td><td>Israel</td><td>-2.3</td><td>-17.5</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus albopurpurea</td><td>San Francisco</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-3.8</td><td>-10.8</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus botryoides</td><td>Morelia</td><td>Mexico</td><td>-2.7</td><td>-36.7</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus camaldulensis</td><td>Ado Etiki</td><td>Nigeria</td><td>5.3</td><td>5.0</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus camaldulensis</td><td>Antalya</td><td>Turkey</td><td>1.9</td><td>2.0</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus camaldulensis</td><td>Barcelona</td><td>Spain</td><td>5.4</td><td>4.5</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus camaldulensis</td><td>Bella Vista</td><td>Panama</td><td>6.9</td><td>41.3</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus camaldulensis</td><td>Bella Vista</td><td>Panama</td><td>6.9</td><td>41.3</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus camaldulensis</td><td>Bhopal</td><td>India</td><td>-2.9</td><td>1.6</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus camaldulensis</td><td>Bogota</td><td>Colombia</td><td>19.0</td><td>42.5</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus camaldulensis</td><td>Buenos Aires</td><td>Argentina</td><td>10.0</td><td>45.2</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus camaldulensis</td><td>El Centro</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-4.8</td><td>-0.6</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus camaldulensis</td><td>Gaza</td><td>Palestine</td><td>5.9</td><td>-0.4</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus camaldulensis</td><td>Hong Kong</td><td>China</td><td>5.7</td><td>20.5</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus camaldulensis</td><td>Ibadan</td><td>Nigeria</td><td>5.1</td><td>4.4</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus camaldulensis</td><td>Ibague City</td><td>Colombia</td><td>10.2</td><td>82.4</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus camaldulensis</td><td>Las Vegas (Clark County)</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-4.0</td><td>1.1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus camaldulensis</td><td>Linares</td><td>Mexico</td><td>3.5</td><td>17.6</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus camaldulensis</td><td>Mexico City</td><td>Mexico</td><td>12.5</td><td>3.2</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus camaldulensis</td><td>Morelia</td><td>Mexico</td><td>9.6</td><td>5.3</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus camaldulensis</td><td>Pasadena</td><td>United States of America</td><td>3.0</td><td>-0.4</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus camaldulensis</td><td>Phoenix</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-3.9</td><td>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus camaldulensis</td><td>Piura</td><td>Peru</td><td>7.2</td><td>-0.6</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus camaldulensis</td><td>Ponta Grossa</td><td>Brazil</td><td>12.5</td><td>69.6</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus camaldulensis</td><td>San Diego</td><td>United States of America</td><td>6.1</td><td>-0.4</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus camaldulensis</td><td>San Francisco</td><td>United States of America</td><td>11.5</td><td>-0.8</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus camaldulensis</td><td>San Francisco, Panama</td><td>Panama</td><td>8.6</td><td>16.8</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus camaldulensis</td><td>San Jose</td><td>Costa Rica</td><td>11.8</td><td>24.4</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus camaldulensis</td><td>Santa Cruz de Tenerife</td><td>Spain</td><td>13.8</td><td>1.9</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus camaldulensis</td><td>Santiago del Estero</td><td>Argentina</td><td>6.5</td><td>1.6</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus camaldulensis</td><td>Sarasota</td><td>United States of America</td><td>7.8</td><td>47.9</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus camaldulensis</td><td>Tel Aviv</td><td>Israel</td><td>5.9</td><td>-0.4</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus camaldulensis</td><td>Trabzon</td><td>Turkey</td><td>10.7</td><td>37.9</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus camaldulensis</td><td>Uyo</td><td>Nigeria</td><td>6.9</td><td>13.4</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus camaldulensis</td><td>Valencia</td><td>Spain</td><td>6.9</td><td>6.9</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Species</th><th>City</th><th>Country</th><th>MTWM SM</th><th>PDM SM</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Eucalyptus cinerea</td><td>Bogota</td><td>Colombia</td><td>8.9</td><td>9.0</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus cinerea</td><td>Buenos Aires</td><td>Argentina</td><td>-0.1</td><td>11.7</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus cinerea</td><td>Charleston</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-2.2</td><td>37.1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus cinerea</td><td>Curitiba</td><td>Brazil</td><td>3.0</td><td>39.3</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus cinerea</td><td>Guarapuava</td><td>Brazil</td><td>3.3</td><td>70.0</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus cinerea</td><td>Hong Kong</td><td>China</td><td>-4.4</td><td>-13.0</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus cinerea</td><td>Los Angeles</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-7.9</td><td>-33.9</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus cinerea</td><td>Manizales</td><td>Colombia</td><td>5.6</td><td>51.6</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus cinerea</td><td>Medellin</td><td>Colombia</td><td>4.7</td><td>22.9</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus cinerea</td><td>Mexico City</td><td>Mexico</td><td>2.3</td><td>-30.3</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus cinerea</td><td>Pasadena</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-7.1</td><td>-33.9</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus cinerea</td><td>Pereira</td><td>Colombia</td><td>2.8</td><td>108.4</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus cinerea</td><td>San Diego</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-4.1</td><td>-33.9</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus cinerea</td><td>San Francisco</td><td>United States of America</td><td>1.4</td><td>-34.3</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus cinerea</td><td>San Jose</td><td>Costa Rica</td><td>1.7</td><td>-9.1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus cinerea</td><td>Sarasota</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-2.3</td><td>14.4</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus cladocalyx</td><td>Pasadena</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-5.4</td><td>-11.3</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus cladocalyx</td><td>San Diego</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-2.3</td><td>-11.3</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus cladocalyx</td><td>San Francisco</td><td>United States of America</td><td>3.1</td><td>-11.7</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus coccifera</td><td>London</td><td>United Kingdom</td><td>-3.0</td><td>-4.0</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus conferruminata</td><td>San Diego</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-6.8</td><td>-18.6</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus conferruminata</td><td>San Francisco</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-1.4</td><td>-19.0</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus cordata</td><td>New Orleans</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-10.8</td><td>56.0</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus cornuta</td><td>Cork</td><td>Ireland</td><td>7.6</td><td>56.4</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus cornuta</td><td>San Diego</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-6.6</td><td>-13.4</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus cornuta</td><td>San Francisco</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-1.2</td><td>-13.8</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus dalrympleana</td><td>London</td><td>United Kingdom</td><td>3.6</td><td>6.4</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus dunnii</td><td>Curitiba</td><td>Brazil</td><td>2.6</td><td>41.8</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus dunnii</td><td>Guarapuava</td><td>Brazil</td><td>2.9</td><td>72.5</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus erythrocorys</td><td>Phoenix</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-9.8</td><td>-0.8</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus erythrocorys</td><td>San Diego</td><td>United States of America</td><td>0.2</td><td>-1.4</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus erythrocorys</td><td>San Francisco</td><td>United States of America</td><td>5.6</td><td>-1.8</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus erythronema</td><td>San Diego</td><td>United States of America</td><td>1.0</td><td>-8.4</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus exserta</td><td>Hong Kong</td><td>China</td><td>2.0</td><td>14.5</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus globulus</td><td>Barcelona</td><td>Spain</td><td>-6.1</td><td>-29.0</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus globulus</td><td>Bogota</td><td>Colombia</td><td>7.5</td><td>9.0</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus globulus</td><td>Bristol</td><td>United Kingdom</td><td>5.3</td><td>23.4</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus globulus</td><td>Buenos Aires</td><td>Argentina</td><td>-1.5</td><td>11.7</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus globulus</td><td>Charleston</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-3.6</td><td>37.1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus globulus</td><td>Chengdu</td><td>China</td><td>-5.0</td><td>-27.4</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus globulus</td><td>Chennai</td><td>India</td><td>-10.5</td><td>-29.1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus globulus</td><td>Chongqing</td><td>China</td><td>-5.7</td><td>-27.8</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Species</th><th>City</th><th>Country</th><th>MTWM SM</th><th>PDM SM</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Eucalyptus globulus</td><td>Ioanina</td><td>Greece</td><td>-3.2</td><td>-10.3</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus globulus</td><td>Kunming</td><td>China</td><td>1.4</td><td>-20.3</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus globulus</td><td>Lima</td><td>Peru</td><td>-0.1</td><td>-33.6</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus globulus</td><td>London</td><td>United Kingdom</td><td>4.9</td><td>3.7</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus globulus</td><td>Manizales</td><td>Colombia</td><td>4.2</td><td>51.6</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus globulus</td><td>Mexico City</td><td>Mexico</td><td>0.9</td><td>-30.3</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus globulus</td><td>Morelia</td><td>Mexico</td><td>-2.0</td><td>-28.2</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus globulus</td><td>Pasadena</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-8.5</td><td>-33.9</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus globulus</td><td>Pereira</td><td>Colombia</td><td>1.4</td><td>108.4</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus globulus</td><td>Phoenix</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-15.4</td><td>-33.3</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus globulus</td><td>Richmond</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-0.7</td><td>6.1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus globulus</td><td>San Diego</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-5.5</td><td>-33.9</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus globulus</td><td>San Francisco</td><td>United States of America</td><td>0.0</td><td>-34.3</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus globulus</td><td>Santa Cruz de Tenerife</td><td>Spain</td><td>2.2</td><td>-31.6</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus globulus</td><td>Santiago de Chile</td><td>Chile</td><td>-4.2</td><td>-33.4</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus globulus</td><td>Valdivia</td><td>Chile</td><td>3.6</td><td>8.0</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus globulus</td><td>Valencia</td><td>Spain</td><td>-4.6</td><td>-26.6</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus gomphocephala</td><td>Barcelona</td><td>Spain</td><td>-2.6</td><td>-1.5</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus gomphocephala</td><td>Tel Aviv</td><td>Israel</td><td>-2.1</td><td>-6.4</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus gomphocephala</td><td>Valencia</td><td>Spain</td><td>-1.1</td><td>0.9</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus grandis</td><td>Brasilia</td><td>Brazil</td><td>0.3</td><td>-12.8</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus grandis</td><td>Pereira</td><td>Colombia</td><td>4.2</td><td>125.0</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus grandis</td><td>Tampa</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-1.3</td><td>30.6</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus gunnii</td><td>Birmingham</td><td>United Kingdom</td><td>-2.4</td><td>37.9</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus gunnii</td><td>Bristol</td><td>United Kingdom</td><td>-2.8</td><td>16.6</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus gunnii</td><td>Cork</td><td>Ireland</td><td>0.7</td><td>29.1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus gunnii</td><td>London</td><td>United Kingdom</td><td>-3.2</td><td>-3.1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus gunnii</td><td>San Francisco</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-8.1</td><td>-41.1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus kruseana</td><td>Tel Aviv</td><td>Israel</td><td>0.7</td><td>-10.8</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus lansdowneana</td><td>San Diego</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-1.5</td><td>-11.4</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus lehmannii</td><td>San Diego</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-5.7</td><td>-15.8</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus lehmannii</td><td>San Francisco</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-0.3</td><td>-16.2</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus leucoxylon</td><td>Pasadena</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-5.5</td><td>-15.0</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus leucoxylon</td><td>Phoenix</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-12.4</td><td>-14.4</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus leucoxylon</td><td>San Diego</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-2.4</td><td>-15.0</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus leucoxylon</td><td>San Francisco</td><td>United States of America</td><td>3.0</td><td>-15.4</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus macrandra</td><td>San Francisco</td><td>United States of America</td><td>3.0</td><td>-11.7</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus mannifera</td><td>San Diego</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-5.7</td><td>-37.8</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus melanophloia</td><td>Tel Aviv</td><td>Israel</td><td>3.6</td><td>-2.4</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus melliodora</td><td>San Diego</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-1.1</td><td>-24.4</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus melliodora</td><td>San Francisco</td><td>United States of America</td><td>4.3</td><td>-24.8</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Species</th><th>City</th><th>Country</th><th>MTWM SM</th><th>PDM SM</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Eucalyptus microtheca</td><td>Carson City</td><td>United States of America</td><td>6.1</td><td>4.2</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus microtheca</td><td>Las Vegas</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-4.3</td><td>2.1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus microtheca</td><td>Phoenix</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-4.2</td><td>1.2</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus microtheca</td><td>San Diego</td><td>United States of America</td><td>5.8</td><td>0.6</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus nicholii</td><td>Pasadena</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-10.6</td><td>-34.8</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus nicholii</td><td>San Diego</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-7.5</td><td>-34.8</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus nicholii</td><td>San Francisco</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-2.1</td><td>-35.2</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus pauciflora</td><td>London</td><td>United Kingdom</td><td>3.1</td><td>8.1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus platypus</td><td>Pasadena</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-6.9</td><td>-13.4</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus platypus</td><td>San Diego</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-3.8</td><td>-13.4</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus polyanthemos</td><td>Barcelona</td><td>Spain</td><td>-3.6</td><td>-24.4</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus polyanthemos</td><td>Modesto</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-4.9</td><td>-29.8</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus polyanthemos</td><td>Pasadena</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-6.0</td><td>-29.3</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus polyanthemos</td><td>Phoenix</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-12.9</td><td>-28.7</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus polyanthemos</td><td>Riverside</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-6.6</td><td>-28.8</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus polyanthemos</td><td>Riverside</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-6.6</td><td>-28.8</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus polyanthemos</td><td>Riverside</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-6.6</td><td>-28.8</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus polyanthemos</td><td>Riverside</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-6.6</td><td>-28.8</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus polyanthemos</td><td>Riverside</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-6.6</td><td>-28.8</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus polyanthemos</td><td>Riverside</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-6.6</td><td>-28.8</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus polyanthemos</td><td>San Diego</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-2.9</td><td>-29.3</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus polyanthemos</td><td>San Francisco</td><td>United States of America</td><td>2.5</td><td>-29.7</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus pulverulenta</td><td>San Francisco</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-1.3</td><td>-34.0</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus robusta</td><td>Buenos Aires</td><td>Argentina</td><td>1.0</td><td>13.4</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus robusta</td><td>Chengdu</td><td>China</td><td>-2.5</td><td>-25.7</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus robusta</td><td>Chongqing</td><td>China</td><td>-3.1</td><td>-26.1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus robusta</td><td>El Paraiso</td><td>Puerto Rico</td><td>-2.2</td><td>-3.3</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus robusta</td><td>Haikou</td><td>China</td><td>-2.1</td><td>-13.8</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus robusta</td><td>Hong Kong</td><td>China</td><td>-3.3</td><td>-11.3</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus robusta</td><td>Honolulu</td><td>United States of America</td><td>2.0</td><td>-7.9</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus robusta</td><td>Kunming</td><td>China</td><td>3.9</td><td>-18.6</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus robusta</td><td>Modesto</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-4.9</td><td>-32.7</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus robusta</td><td>Nanchang</td><td>China</td><td>-4.7</td><td>15.7</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus robusta</td><td>Pasadena</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-6.0</td><td>-32.2</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus robusta</td><td>San Diego</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-2.9</td><td>-32.2</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus robusta</td><td>San Francisco</td><td>United States of America</td><td>2.5</td><td>-32.6</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus robusta</td><td>Santa Cruz de Tenerife</td><td>Spain</td><td>4.8</td><td>-29.9</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus robusta</td><td>Santiago de Chile</td><td>Chile</td><td>-1.7</td><td>-31.7</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus robusta</td><td>Tampa</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-1.5</td><td>15.7</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus rudis</td><td>Pasadena</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-2.8</td><td>-6.4</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus rudis</td><td>San Diego</td><td>United States of America</td><td>0.3</td><td>-6.4</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus rudis</td><td>San Francisco</td><td>United States of America</td><td>5.7</td><td>-6.8</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Species</th><th>City</th><th>Country</th><th>MTWM SM</th><th>PDM SM</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Eucalyptus saligna</td><td>Buenos Aires</td><td>Argentina</td><td>1.2</td><td>22.0</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus saligna</td><td>Charleston</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-0.9</td><td>47.4</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus saligna</td><td>Hong Kong</td><td>China</td><td>-3.1</td><td>-2.7</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus saligna</td><td>Medellin</td><td>Colombia</td><td>6.0</td><td>33.2</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus saligna</td><td>San Diego</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-2.7</td><td>-23.6</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus saligna</td><td>San Francisco</td><td>United States of America</td><td>2.7</td><td>-24.0</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus saligna</td><td>Tel Aviv</td><td>Israel</td><td>-2.9</td><td>-23.6</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus salubris</td><td>Phoenix</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-7.4</td><td>-7.8</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus sideroxylon</td><td>Buenos Aires</td><td>Argentina</td><td>3.5</td><td>22.2</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus sideroxylon</td><td>Las Vegas</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-10.5</td><td>-21.9</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus sideroxylon</td><td>Pasadena</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-3.5</td><td>-23.4</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus sideroxylon</td><td>Phoenix</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-10.4</td><td>-22.8</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus sideroxylon</td><td>San Diego</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-0.4</td><td>-23.4</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus sideroxylon</td><td>San Francisco</td><td>United States of America</td><td>5.0</td><td>-23.8</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus spathulata</td><td>Phoenix</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-10.0</td><td>-7.8</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus subcrenulata</td><td>London</td><td>United Kingdom</td><td>-3.2</td><td>0.7</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus tereticornis</td><td>Atakpame</td><td>Togo</td><td>-1.8</td><td>-1.7</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus tereticornis</td><td>Belo Horizonte</td><td>Brazil</td><td>3.7</td><td>-3.7</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus tereticornis</td><td>Buenos Aires</td><td>Argentina</td><td>4.2</td><td>36.4</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus tereticornis</td><td>Hong Kong</td><td>China</td><td>-0.1</td><td>11.7</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus tereticornis</td><td>Kpalime</td><td>Togo</td><td>-0.3</td><td>8.0</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus tereticornis</td><td>Lome</td><td>Togo</td><td>0.9</td><td>-1.5</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus tereticornis</td><td>New Delhi</td><td>India</td><td>-9.5</td><td>-8.7</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus torquata</td><td>El Centro</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-10.1</td><td>-10.9</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus torquata</td><td>Pasadena</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-2.2</td><td>-10.7</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus torquata</td><td>Phoenix</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-9.1</td><td>-10.1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus torquata</td><td>San Diego</td><td>United States of America</td><td>0.9</td><td>-10.7</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus torquata</td><td>San Francisco</td><td>United States of America</td><td>6.3</td><td>-11.1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus torquata</td><td>Tel Aviv</td><td>Israel</td><td>0.7</td><td>-10.7</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus urnigera</td><td>London</td><td>United Kingdom</td><td>-2.3</td><td>-4.1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus viminalis</td><td>Curitiba</td><td>Brazil</td><td>2.2</td><td>56.8</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus viminalis</td><td>Pasadena</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-8.0</td><td>-16.4</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus viminalis</td><td>San Diego</td><td>United States of America</td><td>-4.9</td><td>-16.4</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus viminalis</td><td>San Francisco</td><td>United States of America</td><td>0.5</td><td>-16.8</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Supplementary Table S6.** Number of cities where 50 Eucalypts species are predicted to remain below or exceed their safety margins for the 95th percentile of the maximum temperature of the warmest month (MTWM, °C) and the 5th percentile of the precipitation of the driest quarter (PDM, mm) for baseline climatic conditions across 66 cities in 21 countries. Climate conditions represent the long-term average during the period 1981–2010. Total indicates the number of cities where each species is planted.</caption><thead><tr><th>Species</th><th>MTWM below</th><th>MTWM exceed</th><th>PDM below</th><th>PDM exceed</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Angophora costata</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td>3</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia calophylla</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia citriodora</td><td>13</td><td>11</td><td>6</td><td>18</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia dallachiana</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia ficifolia</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia maculata</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia torelliana</td><td>-</td><td>6</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus albopurpurea</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus botryoides</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus camaldulensis</td><td>28</td><td>4</td><td>25</td><td>7</td><td>32</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus cinerea</td><td>9</td><td>7</td><td>9</td><td>7</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus cladocalyx</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td>3</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus coccifera</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus conferruminata</td><td>-</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td>2</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus cordata</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus cornuta</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus dalrympleana</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus dunnii</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus erythrocorys</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>3</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus erythronema</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus exserta</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus globulus</td><td>9</td><td>16</td><td>9</td><td>16</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus gomphocephala</td><td>-</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus grandis</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus gunnii</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus kruseana</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus lansdowneana</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus lehmannii</td><td>-</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td>2</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus leucoxylon</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>-</td><td>4</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus macrandra</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus mannifera</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus melanophloia</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus melliodora</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>2</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus microtheca</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>-</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus nicholii</td><td>-</td><td>3</td><td>-</td><td>3</td><td>3</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Species</th><th>MTWM below</th><th>MTWM exceed</th><th>PDM below</th><th>PDM exceed</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Eucalyptus pauciflora</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus platypus</td><td>-</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td>2</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus polyanthemos</td><td>1</td><td>11</td><td>-</td><td>12</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus pulverulenta</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus robusta</td><td>5</td><td>11</td><td>3</td><td>13</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus rudis</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>3</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus saligna</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus salubris</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus sideroxylon</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus spathulata</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus subcrenulata</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus tereticornis</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus torquata</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>-</td><td>6</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus urnigera</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus viminalis</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>4</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Supplementary Table S7.** Intercept values for cities and species (i.e., random effects) of two Generalized Linear Mixed-effects Models examining the effects of five plant functional traits and the species' intrinsic climatic niche breadth as predictors of safety margins for the maximum temperature of the warmest month (MTWM) and the precipitation of the driest month (PDM).</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="2">MTWM</th><th colspan="2">PDM</th></tr><tr><th>City</th><th>Intercept</th><th>City</th><th>Intercept</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Atakpame</td><td>-0.720</td><td>Atakpame</td><td>-0.632</td></tr><tr><td>Barcelona</td><td>-0.471</td><td>Barcelona</td><td>-0.723</td></tr><tr><td>Bogota</td><td>1.896</td><td>Bogota</td><td>0.600</td></tr><tr><td>Brasilia</td><td>0.161</td><td>Brasilia</td><td>-0.736</td></tr><tr><td>Buenos Aires</td><td>0.326</td><td>Buenos Aires</td><td>0.694</td></tr><tr><td>Charleston</td><td>-0.041</td><td>Charleston</td><td>1.577</td></tr><tr><td>Chengdu</td><td>-0.278</td><td>Chengdu</td><td>-0.667</td></tr><tr><td>Chongqing</td><td>-0.392</td><td>Chongqing</td><td>-0.680</td></tr><tr><td>Curitiba</td><td>0.879</td><td>Curitiba</td><td>1.654</td></tr><tr><td>El Centro</td><td>-2.264</td><td>El Centro</td><td>-0.900</td></tr><tr><td>El Paraiso</td><td>-0.231</td><td>El Paraiso</td><td>0.113</td></tr><tr><td>Guarapuava</td><td>0.931</td><td>Guarapuava</td><td>2.723</td></tr><tr><td>Haikou</td><td>-0.215</td><td>Haikou</td><td>-0.253</td></tr><tr><td>Hong Kong</td><td>-0.424</td><td>Hong Kong</td><td>-0.166</td></tr><tr><td>Honolulu</td><td>0.500</td><td>Honolulu</td><td>-0.047</td></tr><tr><td>Kpalime</td><td>-0.470</td><td>Kpalime</td><td>-0.293</td></tr><tr><td>Kunming</td><td>0.832</td><td>Kunming</td><td>-0.420</td></tr><tr><td>Lome</td><td>-0.254</td><td>Lome</td><td>-0.625</td></tr><tr><td>London</td><td>0.065</td><td>London</td><td>-0.395</td></tr><tr><td>Medellin</td><td>1.164</td><td>Medellin</td><td>1.083</td></tr><tr><td>Modesto</td><td>-0.703</td><td>Modesto</td><td>-0.910</td></tr><tr><td>Morelia</td><td>0.250</td><td>Morelia</td><td>-0.694</td></tr><tr><td>Nanchang</td><td>-0.667</td><td>Nanchang</td><td>0.774</td></tr><tr><td>Pasadena</td><td>-0.892</td><td>Pasadena</td><td>-0.893</td></tr><tr><td>Pereira</td><td>0.836</td><td>Pereira</td><td>4.057</td></tr><tr><td>Phoenix</td><td>-2.099</td><td>Phoenix</td><td>-0.872</td></tr><tr><td>Piura</td><td>-0.166</td><td>Piura</td><td>-0.900</td></tr><tr><td>Riverside</td><td>-1.005</td><td>Riverside</td><td>-0.875</td></tr><tr><td>San Diego</td><td>-0.359</td><td>San Diego</td><td>-0.893</td></tr><tr><td>San Francisco</td><td>0.587</td><td>San Francisco</td><td>-0.907</td></tr><tr><td>San Francisco</td><td>0.587</td><td>San Francisco</td><td>-0.907</td></tr><tr><td>San Jose</td><td>0.641</td><td>San Jose</td><td>-0.030</td></tr><tr><td>Santa Cruz de Tenerife</td><td>0.981</td><td>Santa Cruz de Tenerife</td><td>-0.813</td></tr><tr><td>Santiago de Chile</td><td>-0.145</td><td>Santiago de Chile</td><td>-0.875</td></tr><tr><td>Tampa</td><td>-0.110</td><td>Tampa</td><td>0.774</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th colspan="2">MTWM</th><th colspan="2">PDM</th></tr><tr><th>City</th><th>Intercept</th><th>City</th><th>Intercept</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Tel Aviv</td><td>-0.390</td><td>Tel Aviv</td><td>-0.893</td></tr><tr><td>Valencia</td><td>-0.215</td><td>Valencia</td><td>-0.639</td></tr><tr><th colspan="2">Species</th><th colspan="2">Species</th></tr><tr><td>Angophora costata</td><td>-0.135</td><td>Angophora costata</td><td>-0.305</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia calophylla</td><td>-0.033</td><td>Corymbia calophylla</td><td>0.162</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia citriodora</td><td>0.011</td><td>Corymbia citriodora</td><td>-0.051</td></tr><tr><td>Corymbia maculata</td><td>-0.120</td><td>Corymbia maculata</td><td>-0.048</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus botryoides</td><td>-0.220</td><td>Eucalyptus botryoides</td><td>-0.593</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus dunnii</td><td>-0.101</td><td>Eucalyptus dunnii</td><td>-0.501</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus erythrocorys</td><td>0.599</td><td>Eucalyptus erythrocorys</td><td>0.394</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus gomphocephala</td><td>-0.275</td><td>Eucalyptus gomphocephala</td><td>-0.004</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus grandis</td><td>0.246</td><td>Eucalyptus grandis</td><td>0.268</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus lehmannii</td><td>-0.646</td><td>Eucalyptus lehmannii</td><td>-0.139</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus melanophloia</td><td>0.527</td><td>Eucalyptus melanophloia</td><td>0.598</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus melliodora</td><td>-0.025</td><td>Eucalyptus melliodora</td><td>-0.144</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus pauciflora</td><td>0.009</td><td>Eucalyptus pauciflora</td><td>-0.025</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus polyanthemos</td><td>-0.255</td><td>Eucalyptus polyanthemos</td><td>-0.191</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus robusta</td><td>0.019</td><td>Eucalyptus robusta</td><td>0.133</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus saligna</td><td>0.250</td><td>Eucalyptus saligna</td><td>0.171</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus salubris</td><td>0.104</td><td>Eucalyptus salubris</td><td>-0.150</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus spathulata</td><td>-0.021</td><td>Eucalyptus spathulata</td><td>-0.018</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus torquata</td><td>0.454</td><td>Eucalyptus torquata</td><td>0.048</td></tr><tr><td>Eucalyptus viminalis</td><td>-0.549</td><td>Eucalyptus viminalis</td><td>0.057</td></tr></tbody></table>
References

Falster, D., Gallagher, R., Wenk, E. H., Wright, I. J., Indiarto, D., Andrew, S. C., . . . Fuchs, A. (2021). AusTraits, a curated plant trait database for the Australian flora. *Scientific Data*, 8(1), 1-20.
Dear Chief Editors Amanda Bates, Maria Dornelas and Richard Field

Thank you again for considering our manuscript and for the opportunity to re-submit a second revised version of our manuscript now entitled "*Wide climate niche breath and traits associated with climatic tolerance facilitate eucalypt occurrence in cities worldwide*" for potential publication in *Global Ecology and Biogeography*. We have revised the manuscript responding to all comments from the handling Editor (John-Arvid Grytnes) and Referee #1.

Our detailed responses to each comment can be found below.

We hope that you consider this revised version acceptable for publication in *Global Ecology and Biogeography*.

Sincerely,

The authors
Editor: Grytnes, John-Arvid

Comments to the Author:

Your manuscript has been evaluated again by one of the previous reviewers, and the
reviewer recommends a minor revision clarifying some aspects around the meaning of the
safety margins. I agree with the comments made by the reviewer and look forward to seeing
a new version of the manuscript.

**Response.** Thank you, Prof. John-Arvid Grytnes for giving us the opportunity to re-submit our revised manuscript after minor revisions. We have now addressed all the remaining minor comments from Referee #1 and we have clarified sections regarding our safety margin approach accordingly. For instance, we now provide a crystal clear definition of the safety margin concept at the end of the introduction section (see L125-130), which should help the reader better grasp this concept without necessarily reading the cited references. We now believe the revised manuscript has significantly improved and we hope that it will be accepted for publication in GEB.
Referee: 1

Comments to the Author

**R1. 1.** I thank all the authors for providing their improved manuscript with appropriate feedbacks to my earlier comments. I have some minor suggestions, but quite important, to align your title/main message as below. Overall, it seems a bit of too much emphasis in explaining the lack of correlation between the CNB-PDM safety margins, but at the end you're leading to the conclusion that CNB relate with drought tolerance. So, adding a bridging paragraph OR illustrated evidence (as well as condensing some overloaded information) might help.

**Response.** We thank Referee #1 for this comment, and we agree with Referee #1 that the previous version of the manuscript emphasised too much on the correlation between the climatic niche breadth (CNB) and the precipitation of the driest month (PDM) safety margin. In the new revised version of the manuscript, we have now toned this down to address this point. We also agree that the conclusion needed revision to make the significance of CNB on drought tolerance clear to the reader. We have revised the conclusion and clarified this point. See L558-561. The updated conclusion now reads as:

"Our results suggest that the breadth of climate conditions experienced in the native range is an informative indicator of species heat tolerance in urban settings, while factors other than climate niche breadth, such as functional traits, may set limits on species drought tolerance."

**R1. 2.** - In543, In conclusion (as well as in the title), the relation of CNB size and drought tolerance is the key message (in addition to traits). It seems that the 'CNB-MTWM safety margin' relation was clearly addressed whereas its relation to PDM safety margin is not significant due to all other contextual reasons you fully discussed. Then, wouldn't it be clearer if you articulate that, for instance, how species in 30 cities you mentioned in In318 for exceeding both MTWM and PDM, differed in CNB from those are not for In 401-404. If CNB is not independently relating with PDM only, then maybe with MTWM x PDM? ex. You pointed out that latitude certainly had an influence on both, and the following map clearly illustrated your point.

**Response.** We agree with Referee #1 about improving the clarity of the message of the manuscript. Indeed, the title overlooks the effect of MTWM and seems to emphasise PDM as the main driver of the species safety margin. We have updated the title of the manuscript
to better reflect our findings. The updated title now reads as "*Wide climatic niche breadth and traits associated with climatic tolerance facilitate eucalypt occurrence in cities worldwide*". Additionally, we have now clarified that PDM was not a statistically significant factor, therefore, our conclusions on the effect of this variable on the safety margin remain limited (see response to comment R1.1 where we have revised the conclusion). Additional clarifications were included, and we edited the discussion following this suggestion. See sections "*Climatic niche breadths and species presence in global cities*" in L426-439 and "*Effect of climatic niche breadth on species safety margin*" in L452-462. The updated manuscript now reads as:

"*Cities, on the other hand, can provide eucalypt species that have narrow niches with uncharted or novel climatic conditions and, in effect, expand their realized climatic niche breadth. We found that cities of the US (El Centro, Pasadena, Phoenix, San Diego, San Francisco), Mexico (Morelia) and Spain (Santa Cruz de Tenerife) tended to harbour species with narrow climatic niche breadths (1-2°C), all exceeding their thermal and precipitation safety margins. However, multiple climatic and environmental factors collectively influence species success (McPherson et al., 2018; Vogt et al., 2017). Therefore, the combinations of climate variables are important. For instance, 27 Eucalyptus species are recorded as growing in San Francisco. Although the precipitation safety margin for these species can be largely negative (e.g., E. gunnii and E. viminalis), the dry climate of the city can be moderated and even compensated by other environmental drivers such as relative air humidity that can be maintained during the cool summer. This mitigation effect is even more important in cities where species exceeded both MTWM and PDM safety margins simultaneously.*"

"*Regarding PDM, the climatic niche breadth did not have a statistically significant effect on the precipitation safety margin for PDM. This finding may indicate that additional management actions can be facilitating the species presence in cities where climatic conditions are drier than the species' climatic niche breadths, for example, by providing irrigation during periods of lower water availability or severe climate stress (Van der Veken, Hermy, Vellend, Knapen, & Verheyen, 2008). Irrigation or other sources of water (e.g., run-off or leaky pipes) may explain why we found no evidence for our initial hypothesis that the climatic niche breadth for PDM should positively affect the magnitude of the precipitation safety margin. If water is provided through active management actions or other sources, species from wet origins or narrow climatic niche breadths can survive and thrive in dry cities.*"
**R1. 3.** - In409-413, How do these cities with contrasted CNBs differ in their safety margins (PDM and MTWM)?

**Response.** We have updated this section to improve clarity regarding the species safety margins in those cities. See L428-431. The updated manuscript now reads as:

> "Cities, on the other hand, can provide eucalypt species that have narrow niches with uncharted or novel climatic conditions and, in effect, expand their realized climatic niche breadth. We found that cities of the US (El Centro, Pasadena, Phoenix, San Diego, San Francisco), Mexico (Morelia) and Spain (Santa Cruz de Tenerife) tended to harbour species with narrow climatic niche breadths (1-2°C), all exceeding their thermal and precipitation safety margins."

**R1. 4.** - In410, it would be good to include a reference in support of your statement?

**Response.** We have added references to support this statement in the revised manuscript.

L431-432. The updated manuscript reads as:

> "However, multiple climatic and environmental factors collectively influence species success (McPherson et al., 2018; Vogt et al., 2017)."

**R1. 5.** - In445-467, Do E.globulus and E. gunnii represent narrow range size in contrast to E. camaldulensis? So, you're contrasting E. globulus and E. gunnii on narrow range-narrow CNB vs. E. camaldulensis on wide range-wide CNB. However, the former ones show very negative safety margins (= high tolerance?), whereas E. camaldulensis show positive safety margins (= low tolerance or high tolerance?). The reason I am restating is because the paragraph is a bit losing its focus. Another counter example, species of narrow niche breadths for PDM (e.g., between 0 and 50) could lead to positive safety margins in dry regions than those of wider niche breadths (e.g., between 50 and 300).

**Response.** We thank Referee #1 for this comment. We agree the order of the examples we provided was confusing and did not flow properly in the manuscript. We have edited the Discussion to improve clarity and improve the reading flow. See L410-425 and L474-482. The updated manuscript reads as:
"The presence of eucalypt species in global cities might be facilitated by their relatively broad climatic niche breadths. Cities like Ado Etiki (Nigeria), Antalya (Turkey), Barcelona, and Bella Vista (Panama) harbour species with broad climatic niches (~13°C) and none of the species planted in those cities exceeded the upper or lower limit of their climatic niche breadth neither for MTWM nor for PDM. Eucalyptus camaldulensis, for example, has a broad natural distribution across the Australian continent, is well-adapted to arid and semi-arid lands and has a wide climatic envelope (Booth & Pryor, 1991; Hanley et al., 2021; Teulières, Bossinger, Moran, & Marque, 2007); here, E. camaldulensis had the broadest climatic niche breadth for MTWM of all the species. This species is also the most commonly planted eucalypt species in cities worldwide (32 cities; 48%), had the highest thermal and precipitation safety margins and only exceeded its realized climatic niche breadth in four cities (6%) for MTWM (Bhopal, India; El Centro, Las Vegas and Phoenix, USA) and in seven cities (10%) for PDM (El Centro, Pasadena, San Diego and San Francisco, USA; Gaza, Palestine; Piura, Peru; Tel Aviv, Israel). These characteristics probably have favoured the selection of E. camaldulensis in cities around the world. However, these traits may also explain the invasiveness potential of the species (Richardson et al., 2020)."

"Some eucalypt species are known for their remarkable heat and drought tolerance, which might be a reason why they are used in urban settings, even in cities where they exceed their climatic niche breadths as defined from their native ranges. Eucalyptus globulus, for example, was identified to be exceeding its climatic niche breadth in 16 (64%) of the 25 cities where it is planted and had the second lowest thermal safety margin for MTWM. However, this species can increase its heat tolerance during drought and under elevated atmospheric CO2 and temperature (Gauthier et al., 2014), which may facilitate its presence in those cities. Similarly, E. gunnii had the lowest precipitation safety margin for PDM and has high drought tolerance in its native distribution (Kirkpatrick & Gibson, 1999)."

R1. 6. - The discussion section might be more readable with sub sections.

**Response.** We have added subtitles in the Discussion as suggested. See the updated Discussion. Once again, we wish to thank reviewer #1 for insightful comments that did improve the quality of our manuscript.