|
|||||
|
|
Range position and climate sensitivity: The structure of among‐population demographic responses to climatic variation |
|
| Authors: | Staci M. Amburgey David A. W. Miller Evan H. Campbell Grant Tracy A. G. Rittenhouse Michael F. Benard Jonathan L. Richardson Mark C. Urban Ward Hughson Adrianne B. Brand Christopher J. Davis Carmen R. Hardin Peter W. C. Paton Christopher J. Raithel Rick A. Relyea A. Floyd Scott David K. Skelly Dennis E. Skidds Charles K. Smith Earl E. Werner |
| Affiliation: | 1. Department of Ecosystem Sciences and Management, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA;2. Intercollege Graduate Ecology Program, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA;3. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, SO Conte Anadromous Fish Research Center, Turners Falls, MA, USA;4. Department of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA;5. Department of Biology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA;6. Department of Biology, Providence College, Providence, RI, USA;7. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA;8. Parks Canada, Jasper, AB, Canada;9. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA;10. Forestry Division, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI, USA;11. Department of Natural Resources Science, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, USA;12. Division of Fish and Wildlife, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, West Kingston, RI, USA;13. Department of Biological Sciences, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, USA;14. Department of Biology, Austin Peay State University, Clarksville, TN, USA;15. School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA;16. Northeast Coastal and Barrier Network, National Parks Service, Kingston, RI, USA;17. Department of Biology, High Point University, High Point, NC, USA;18. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA |
| 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. |
| Keywords: | bioclimatic envelope model climate change Lithobates sylvaticus range shifts species distribution model state‐space model wood frog |