| Literature DB >> 28690791 |
Stefan Caddy-Retalic1,2, Alan N Andersen1,3, Michael J Aspinwall1,4, Martin F Breed1,2, Margaret Byrne1,5, Matthew J Christmas1,2, Ning Dong6,7, Bradley J Evans7,8, Damien A Fordham1,2, Greg R Guerin1,2, Ary A Hoffmann1,9, Alice C Hughes10, Stephen J van Leeuwen1,5, Francesca A McInerney11, Suzanne M Prober1,12, Maurizio Rossetto1,13, Paul D Rymer1,4, Dorothy A Steane1,12,14,15, Glenda M Wardle8,16, Andrew J Lowe1,2.
Abstract
Transects that traverse substantial climate gradients are important tools for climate change research and allow questions on the extent to which phenotypic variation associates with climate, the link between climate and species distributions, and variation in sensitivity to climate change among biomes to be addressed. However, the potential limitations of individual transect studies have recently been highlighted. Here, we argue that replicating and networking transects, along with the introduction of experimental treatments, addresses these concerns. Transect networks provide cost-effective and robust insights into ecological and evolutionary adaptation and improve forecasting of ecosystem change. We draw on the experience and research facilitated by the Australian Transect Network to demonstrate our case, with examples, to clarify how population- and community-level studies can be integrated with observations from multiple transects, manipulative experiments, genomics, and ecological modeling to gain novel insights into how species and systems respond to climate change. This integration can provide a spatiotemporal understanding of past and future climate-induced changes, which will inform effective management actions for promoting biodiversity resilience.Entities:
Keywords: change detection; community turnover; ecological forecasting; environmental gradients; spatial analogues; transect replication
Year: 2017 PMID: 28690791 PMCID: PMC5496522 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.2995
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
Figure 1Results from a Web of Science search for peer‐reviewed papers published between 1914 and 2014 containing “transect” in the title in the fields of “environmental science” and “ecology.” Search was undertaken on 12 March 2016. Most studies used single large‐scale transects (e.g., altitudinal or coastal gradients) or several small‐scale transects (e.g., grids for counting birds) (gray bars). A small subset of studies used multiple or replicated transects (e.g., paired altitudinal transects) (red bars). Investigations that included manipulations (e.g., common gardens or translocations) were very rare (black bars)
Figure 3Environmental change across three subcontinental transects
Figure 2Spatial (a) and bioclimatic (b–d) context of Australian Transect Network sites against recent (1970–2005) and projected (2006–2050) climate space. (b) Recent (1970–2005) ANUClimate v 1.0, 0.01 degree climate data (Hutchinson, Kesteven, & Xu, 2014) mean annual temperature and mean annual precipitation for each site, and all of Australia (gray circles). (c) 2006–2050 ensemble mean of seven global climate models for the RCP4.5 scenario (stabilization of ~650 ppm atmospheric CO 2 equivalent (Thomson et al., 2011)). (d) 2006–2050 ensemble mean of seven global climate models for the RCP8.5 scenario (comparatively high greenhouse emissions (Riahi et al., 2011)). Models selected to be consistent with current Australian Government climate modeling (CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology, 2015). Refer to Appendix 1 for details of climate models
Figure 4Schematic representation of the hierarchy of ecological change along an environmental gradient. Change progresses from sensitive (but difficult to detect) intraspecific changes in genes or traits (i.e., adaptation), through changes in species assemblage, generally requiring intensive field surveys, to profound (but more readily detectable) biome‐level responses that can be detected using rapid surveys or remote sensing
Figure 5Turnover in species and communities on a hypothetical bioclimatic transect (a, b) and occurrence data from the TRansect for ENvironmental monitoring and Decision making (TREND) in South Australia (c). Regular species turnover would be expected if all species and communities had the same niche width and sensitivity along an even gradient (a). However, landscapes are likely to have a mix of generalist and specialist species with differing tolerances, genetic variation or niche widths, potentially displaying an uneven response between taxonomic and functional groups (b). Red arrows indicate a nonlinear ecological disjunction or “tipping point.” Nonparametric distribution models for 19 common species on the TREND based on surveys of 3,567 field plots by the Biological Survey of South Australia (c). TREND data are provided by the South Australian Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, accessed 20 August 2010 (Guerin et al., 2013). Conceptual diagrams after Austin (1985)
| ATN Transects with attributes | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transect | Gradient | Common metrics | |||
| Floristics | Focal species | Soil attributes | Indicator species | ||
| BATS | 170‐km distance | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| BoxEW | 290‐km distance | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| EADrosT | 3,500‐km distance | No | Yes | No | Yes |
| NATT | 800‐km distance | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
| SWATT | 900‐km distance | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
| TREND | 800‐km distance | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| VEAT | 500‐km distance | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
| Model | Developer |
|---|---|
| ACCESS1.0 | Bureau of Meteorology, Australia |
| CESM1‐CAMS | National Center for Atmospheric Research, USA |
| CNRM‐CM5 | Météo‐France & Centre Européen de Recherche et de Formation Avancée en Calcul Scientifique, France |
| GFDL‐ESM2M | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, USA |
| HadGEM2‐CC | Met Office, UK |
| CanESM2 | Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Canada |
| MIROC5 | International Centre for Earth Simulation, Switzerland |
| NorESM1‐M | Norwegian Climate Centre, Norway |