| Literature DB >> 23919135 |
Philippa Gullett1, Ben J Hatchwell, Robert A Robinson, Karl L Evans.
Abstract
Climate change-induced shifts in phenology have important demographic consequences, and are frequently used to assess species' sensitivity to climate change. Therefore, developing accurate phenological predictions is an important step in modeling species' responses to climate change. The ability of such phenological models to predict effects at larger spatial and temporal scales has rarely been assessed. It is also not clear whether the most frequently used phenological index, namely the average date of a phenological event across a population, adequately captures phenological shifts in the distribution of events across the season. We use the long-tailed tit Aegithalos caudatus (Fig. 1) as a case study to explore these issues. We use an intensive 17-year local study to model mean breeding date and test the capacity of this local model to predict phenology at larger spatial and temporal scales. We assess whether local models of breeding initiation, termination, and renesting reveal phenological shifts and responses to climate not detected by a standard phenological index, that is, population average lay date. These models take predation timing/intensity into account. The locally-derived model performs well at predicting phenology at the national scale over several decades, at both high and low temperatures. In the local model, a trend toward warmer Aprils is associated with a significant advance in termination dates, probably in response to phenological shifts in food supply. This results in a 33% reduction in breeding season length over 17 years - a substantial loss of reproductive opportunity that is not detected by the index of population average lay date. We show that standard phenological indices can fail to detect patterns indicative of negative climatic effects, potentially biasing assessments of species' vulnerability to climate change. More positively, we demonstrate the potential of detailed local studies for developing broader-scale predictive models of future phenological shifts.Entities:
Keywords: Fecundity; first egg date; global warming; lay date; microevolutionary change; predation; reproductive window; selection pressure; timing of breeding; trophic mismatch
Year: 2013 PMID: 23919135 PMCID: PMC3728930 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.558
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
Figure 2Hypothetical distributions of population lay dates prior to (solid line) and following (dotted line) climate change, showing resultant changes in mean lay date. Numerous responses are possible, but this subset illustrates the problem with using population mean breeding date as a phenological indicator of species' responses to climate change. Mean breeding date can advance when populations: (A) start and end breeding earlier or (B) start at the same time, but end breeding earlier. Mean breeding date may also (C) exhibit no advance when breeding commences earlier if breeding continues for longer, and (D) exhibit changes that are unrelated to climate change, such as a later mean breeding date due to increased predation rates that increase the proportion of renests.
Figure 1A long-tailed tit Aegithalos caudatus in the Rivelin Valley, Sheffield.
Figure 3Temporal trends in long-tailed tit phenology in the Rivelin Valley, Sheffield (1995–2011), showing linear regressions (solid lines) ± 95% CI (dashed lines). (A) annual median lay dates of renests have advanced (slope = −0.66 ± 0.21, r2 = 0.44), while annual median lay dates of all nesting attempts and first attempts show no significant change; (B) timing of termination has advanced (slope = −0.97 ± 0.15, r2 = 0.77); and (C) breeding season length has decreased (slope = −0.50 ± 0.22, r2 = 0.30). Day 1 represents 1 March.
Temporal trends in phenological indices (initiation date i.e., average lay date of first attempts, renesting date, average lay date, termination index, and breeding season length index), indices of predation timing (median predation date, median predation date of first attempts) and indices of predation intensity (proportion of nests predated, Mayfield estimate of predation risk), in the Rivelin Valley, Sheffield (1995–2011)
| Index | Linear trend (days ± 1SE) | Linear model ΔAICcnull | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initiation date | −0.10 ± 0.28 | 0.01 | 0.141,14 | 0.72 | +3.02 |
| Renesting date | −0.66 ± 0.21 | 0.44 | 10.071,13 | 0.007 | −5.42 |
| Average lay date | −0.12 ± 0.24 | 0.02 | 0.261,14 | 0.62 | +2.89 |
| Termination index | −0.97 ± 0.15 | 0.77 | 42.501,13 | <0.0001 | −18.59 |
| Breeding season length index | −0.51 ± 0.22 | 0.30 | 5.471,13 | 0.04 | −2.09 |
| Predation date | 0.03 ± 0.37 | <0.01 | 0.011,14 | 0.93 | +3.17 |
| Predation date of 1st attempts | 0.07 ± 0.46 | <0.01 | 0.021,14 | 0.88 | +3.16 |
| Proportion of nests predated | −0.007 ± 0.005 | 0.14 | 2.281,14 | 0.15 | +0.77 |
| Mayfield estimate of predation | 0.008 ± 0.005 | 0.15 | 2.481,14 | 0.14 | +0.58 |
Linear and quadratic models were compared for each response variable by assessing the change in Akaike's Information Criterion corrected for small sample size (AICc) with respect to the null model, where a negative ΔAICcnull indicates evidence of a temporal trend; linear models were always more parsimonious than quadratic ones, and linear trends are therefore displayed with associated statistics.
denotes variables showing evidence of a temporal trend (P < 0.05 and negative ΔAICcnull).
Figure 4Associations between climate and long-tailed tit phenology in the Rivelin Valley, Sheffield (1995–2011), showing relationships from model averaged estimates holding other variables at mean values. (A) median lay date of first attempts advances with warmer March temperature (slope = −3.40 ± 0.74, partial r2 = 0.58); (B) median lay date of renest attempts advances with warmer April temperature (slope = −2.74 ± 1.18, partial r2 = 0.35); (C) termination date advances with warmer April temperature (slope = −2.79 ± 1.21, partial r2 = 0.32). Day 1 represents 1 March.
Model averaging results from multiple regressions of breeding phenology (median lay date of all attempts/first attempts/renest attempts, termination index, and breeding season length index) in response to monthly spring temperature (temp) and precipitation (prec) during 1995–2011. Predation (pred) intensity and timing were also included as predictors in the latter three models
| Model | February temp | March temp | April temp | May temp | February prec | March prec | April prec | May prec | Pred intensity | Pred timing | Model average |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All attempts | |||||||||||
| Estimate | −0.03 | −2.93 | −0.01 | −0.16 | <0.01 | −0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | n/a | n/a | |
| ±1SE | 0.22 | 0.72 | 0.25 | 0.54 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | n/a | n/a | |
| Partial | <0.01 | 0.54 | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | n/a | n/a | |
| 1st attempts | |||||||||||
| Estimate | −0.14 | −3.4 | −0.01 | n/a | <0.01 | −0.01 | −0.01 | n/a | n/a | n/a | |
| ±1SE | 0.39 | 0.74 | 0.26 | n/a | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.01 | n/a | n/a | n/a | |
| Partial | 0.01 | 0.58 | <0.01 | n/a | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.01 | n/a | n/a | n/a | |
| Renest attempts | |||||||||||
| Estimate | n/a | 0 | −2.74 | 0 | n/a | 0 | −0.03 | 0 | +3.34 | 0 | |
| ±1SE | n/a | 0 | 1.18 | 0 | n/a | 0 | 0.04 | 0 | 8.79 | 0 | |
| Partial | n/a | 0 | 0.32 | 0 | n/a | 0 | 0.06 | 0 | 0.02 | 0 | |
| Termination | |||||||||||
| Estimate | n/a | 0 | −2.79 | 0 | n/a | −0.02 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| ±1SE | n/a | 0 | 1.21 | 0 | n/a | 0.05 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Partial | n/a | 0 | 0.32 | 0 | n/a | 0.02 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Breeding season length | |||||||||||
| Estimate | +1.32 | +0.76 | −0.60 | −0.13 | <0.01 | −0.01 | <0.01 | −0.02 | +0.02 | −0.04 | |
| ±1SE | 1.1 | 1.21 | 0.95 | 0.59 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 1.63 | 0.12 | |
| Partial | 0.24 | 0.10 | 0.05 | 0.01 | <0.01 | 0.01 | <0.01 | 0.04 | <0.01 | 0.02 | |
Variables not included are indicated by n/a. Variables not retained in the model average are indicated by 0.
Figure 5Predictions of national average lay date derived from the local climatic model (average lay date in response to March temperature), compared with observed national average lay dates, 1968–2010 (filled circles: 1968–1994; open circles: 1995–2010). Observed and predicted dates are strongly correlated (solid line: r40 = 0.68; P < 0.001), and the slope of this relationship is close to unity (1.17 ± 0.20); dashed lines represent 95% confidence intervals. Predictive capacity is similar when restricting prediction to those years that were not represented in the local model (i.e., 1968–1994; filled circles; r25 = 0.63; P < 0.001). Day one represents 1 March.