Literature DB >> 28833972

Range position and climate sensitivity: The structure of among-population demographic responses to climatic variation.

Staci M Amburgey1,2, David A W Miller1, Evan H Campbell Grant3, Tracy A G Rittenhouse4, Michael F Benard5, Jonathan L Richardson6, Mark C Urban7, Ward Hughson8, Adrianne B Brand3, Christopher J Davis9, Carmen R Hardin10, Peter W C Paton11, Christopher J Raithel12, Rick A Relyea13, A Floyd Scott14, David K Skelly15, Dennis E Skidds16, Charles K Smith17, Earl E Werner18.   

Abstract

Species' distributions will respond to climate change based on the relationship between local demographic processes and climate and how this relationship varies based on range position. A rarely tested demographic prediction is that populations at the extremes of a species' climate envelope (e.g., populations in areas with the highest mean annual temperature) will be most sensitive to local shifts in climate (i.e., warming). We tested this prediction using a dynamic species distribution model linking demographic rates to variation in temperature and precipitation for wood frogs (Lithobates sylvaticus) in North America. Using long-term monitoring data from 746 populations in 27 study areas, we determined how climatic variation affected population growth rates and how these relationships varied with respect to long-term climate. Some models supported the predicted pattern, with negative effects of extreme summer temperatures in hotter areas and positive effects on recruitment for summer water availability in drier areas. We also found evidence of interacting temperature and precipitation influencing population size, such as extreme heat having less of a negative effect in wetter areas. Other results were contrary to predictions, such as positive effects of summer water availability in wetter parts of the range and positive responses to winter warming especially in milder areas. In general, we found wood frogs were more sensitive to changes in temperature or temperature interacting with precipitation than to changes in precipitation alone. Our results suggest that sensitivity to changes in climate cannot be predicted simply by knowing locations within the species' climate envelope. Many climate processes did not affect population growth rates in the predicted direction based on range position. Processes such as species-interactions, local adaptation, and interactions with the physical landscape likely affect the responses we observed. Our work highlights the need to measure demographic responses to changing climate. Published 2017. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Lithobates sylvaticus ; bioclimatic envelope model; climate change; range shifts; species distribution model; state-space model; wood frog

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28833972     DOI: 10.1111/gcb.13817

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Glob Chang Biol        ISSN: 1354-1013            Impact factor:   10.863


  6 in total

1.  Climatic influences on the breeding biology of the agile frog (Rana dalmatina).

Authors:  Magali Combes; David Pinaud; Christophe Barbraud; Jacques Trotignon; François Brischoux
Journal:  Naturwissenschaften       Date:  2017-12-19

2.  Follow-up ecological studies for cryptic species discoveries: Decrypting the leopard frogs of the eastern U.S.

Authors:  Matthew D Schlesinger; Jeremy A Feinberg; Nathan H Nazdrowicz; J D Kleopfer; Jeffrey C Beane; John F Bunnell; Joanna Burger; Edward Corey; Kathy Gipe; Jesse W Jaycox; Erik Kiviat; Jacob Kubel; Dennis P Quinn; Christopher Raithel; Peter A Scott; Sarah M Wenner; Erin L White; Brian Zarate; H Bradley Shaffer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-11-09       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Integrating broad-scale data to assess demographic and climatic contributions to population change in a declining songbird.

Authors:  James F Saracco; Madeleine Rubenstein
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2020-02-11       Impact factor: 2.912

4.  Heterogeneous responses of temperate-zone amphibian populations to climate change complicates conservation planning.

Authors:  E Muths; T Chambert; B R Schmidt; D A W Miller; B R Hossack; P Joly; O Grolet; D M Green; D S Pilliod; M Cheylan; R N Fisher; R M McCaffery; M J Adams; W J Palen; J W Arntzen; J Garwood; G Fellers; J-M Thirion; A Besnard; E H Campbell Grant
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-12-06       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  Quantifying climate sensitivity and climate-driven change in North American amphibian communities.

Authors:  David A W Miller; Evan H Campbell Grant; Erin Muths; Staci M Amburgey; Michael J Adams; Maxwell B Joseph; J Hardin Waddle; Pieter T J Johnson; Maureen E Ryan; Benedikt R Schmidt; Daniel L Calhoun; Courtney L Davis; Robert N Fisher; David M Green; Blake R Hossack; Tracy A G Rittenhouse; Susan C Walls; Larissa L Bailey; Sam S Cruickshank; Gary M Fellers; Thomas A Gorman; Carola A Haas; Ward Hughson; David S Pilliod; Steven J Price; Andrew M Ray; Walt Sadinski; Daniel Saenz; William J Barichivich; Adrianne Brand; Cheryl S Brehme; Rosi Dagit; Katy S Delaney; Brad M Glorioso; Lee B Kats; Patrick M Kleeman; Christopher A Pearl; Carlton J Rochester; Seth P D Riley; Mark Roth; Brent H Sigafus
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2018-09-25       Impact factor: 14.919

6.  Seasonal differences in climate change explain a lack of multi-decadal shifts in population characteristics of a pond breeding salamander.

Authors:  Mark A Kirk; Mark L Galatowitsch; Scott A Wissinger
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-09-06       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.