Step 1: Turn the picture into a simple number.
For any species, compute the residual $r = (\text{2025 midpoint}) - (\text{2000 midpoint})$. On the identity line, $r=0$. Points above the line have $r>0$, meaning the species moved to a higher elevation, and a bigger $r$ means a bigger shift.
Step 2: Estimate the typical residual for each group.
Reading across the plot, the tropical (solid) points sit noticeably higher above the dashed line than the temperate (open) points do, at almost every position along the x-axis. So the average $r$ for tropical species is clearly bigger than the average $r$ for temperate species.
Step 3: Connect residual size to sensitivity.
A bigger residual means a bigger upward range shift for the same amount of warming, which is exactly what "more sensitive to temperature change" means in this context. Since tropical species show the bigger residual, they are the more sensitive group.
Step 4: Check the remaining choices.
The claim that temperate species shift more does not match the picture, since their points sit closer to the line. The claim of equal sensitivity would need both sets of points to sit at a similar distance from the line, which they do not. The claim that no conclusion is possible does not hold either, since the two groups are visibly separated in how far they sit from the identity line.
Step 5: Conclude.
\[ \boxed{\text{Tropical species are more sensitive than temperate species to temperature change}} \]