Climatic versus biotic drivers' effect on fitness varies with range size but not position within range in terrestrial plants

IF 7.1 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ECOLOGY
Allison M. Louthan, Aaron W. Baumgardner, Johan Ehrlén, Johan P. Dahlgren, Alexander K. Loomis, William F. Morris
{"title":"Climatic versus biotic drivers' effect on fitness varies with range size but not position within range in terrestrial plants","authors":"Allison M. Louthan, Aaron W. Baumgardner, Johan Ehrlén, Johan P. Dahlgren, Alexander K. Loomis, William F. Morris","doi":"10.1002/ecm.1640","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"All populations are affected by multiple environmental drivers, including climatic drivers such as temperature or precipitation and biotic drivers such as herbivory or mutualisms. The relative response of a population to each driver is critical to prioritizing threat mitigation for conservation and to understanding whether climatic or biotic drivers most strongly affect fitness. However, the importance of different drivers can vary dramatically across species and across populations of the same species. Theory suggests that the response to climatic versus biotic drivers can be affected by both the species' fundamental niche breadth and the latitude of the population at which the response is measured. However, we have few tests of how these two factors affect relative response to drivers separately, let alone tests of how niche breadth and latitude together influence responses. Here, we use a meta-analysis of published studies on population response to climatic and biotic drivers in terrestrial plants, combined with estimates of climatic niche breadth and position within climatic niche derived from herbarium records, to show that species' niche breadth is the primary determinant of response to climatic versus biotic drivers. Namely, we find that response to climatic drivers changes only minimally with increasing niche breadth, while response to biotic drivers increases with niche breadth. We see similar relationships when considering range size instead of niche breadth. Surprisingly, we find no effects of latitude on the relative effect of climatic versus biotic drivers. Our work suggests that populations of species with small and large ranges experience similar extirpation risks due to the negative impacts of climate change. By contrast, populations of species with large (but not small) ranges may be highly susceptible to changes in densities or distributions of interacting species.","PeriodicalId":11505,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Monographs","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecological Monographs","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ecm.1640","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

All populations are affected by multiple environmental drivers, including climatic drivers such as temperature or precipitation and biotic drivers such as herbivory or mutualisms. The relative response of a population to each driver is critical to prioritizing threat mitigation for conservation and to understanding whether climatic or biotic drivers most strongly affect fitness. However, the importance of different drivers can vary dramatically across species and across populations of the same species. Theory suggests that the response to climatic versus biotic drivers can be affected by both the species' fundamental niche breadth and the latitude of the population at which the response is measured. However, we have few tests of how these two factors affect relative response to drivers separately, let alone tests of how niche breadth and latitude together influence responses. Here, we use a meta-analysis of published studies on population response to climatic and biotic drivers in terrestrial plants, combined with estimates of climatic niche breadth and position within climatic niche derived from herbarium records, to show that species' niche breadth is the primary determinant of response to climatic versus biotic drivers. Namely, we find that response to climatic drivers changes only minimally with increasing niche breadth, while response to biotic drivers increases with niche breadth. We see similar relationships when considering range size instead of niche breadth. Surprisingly, we find no effects of latitude on the relative effect of climatic versus biotic drivers. Our work suggests that populations of species with small and large ranges experience similar extirpation risks due to the negative impacts of climate change. By contrast, populations of species with large (but not small) ranges may be highly susceptible to changes in densities or distributions of interacting species.
在陆生植物中,气候和生物驱动因素对适合度的影响随范围大小而变化,但与范围内的位置无关
所有种群都受到多种环境驱动因素的影响,包括温度或降水等气候驱动因素和草食或共生等生物驱动因素。种群对每个驱动因素的相对响应对于优先减轻保护威胁以及了解气候或生物驱动因素是否最强烈地影响适应性至关重要。然而,不同驱动因素的重要性在不同物种和同一物种的不同种群中可能会有很大差异。理论表明,对气候和生物驱动因素的响应可以受到物种基本生态位宽度和测量响应的种群纬度的影响。然而,我们很少测试这两个因素如何分别影响对司机的相对响应,更不用说测试生态位宽度和纬度如何共同影响响应。在此,我们对已发表的陆地植物种群对气候和生物驱动因素的响应研究进行了荟萃分析,并结合植物标本库记录中对气候生态位宽度和气候生态位位置的估计,表明物种的生态位宽度是对气候和生物驱动因素响应的主要决定因素。即,我们发现随着生态位宽度的增加,对气候驱动因素的响应变化最小,而对生物驱动因素的响应随着生态位宽度的增加而增加。在考虑范围大小而不是利基宽度时,我们看到了类似的关系。令人惊讶的是,我们发现纬度对气候和生物驱动因素的相对影响没有影响。我们的研究表明,由于气候变化的负面影响,小范围和大范围的物种种群经历了相似的灭绝风险。相比之下,范围大(但不是小)的物种种群可能极易受到相互作用物种密度或分布变化的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Ecological Monographs
Ecological Monographs 环境科学-生态学
CiteScore
12.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
61
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The vision for Ecological Monographs is that it should be the place for publishing integrative, synthetic papers that elaborate new directions for the field of ecology. Original Research Papers published in Ecological Monographs will continue to document complex observational, experimental, or theoretical studies that by their very integrated nature defy dissolution into shorter publications focused on a single topic or message. Reviews will be comprehensive and synthetic papers that establish new benchmarks in the field, define directions for future research, contribute to fundamental understanding of ecological principles, and derive principles for ecological management in its broadest sense (including, but not limited to: conservation, mitigation, restoration, and pro-active protection of the environment). Reviews should reflect the full development of a topic and encompass relevant natural history, observational and experimental data, analyses, models, and theory. Reviews published in Ecological Monographs should further blur the boundaries between “basic” and “applied” ecology. Concepts and Synthesis papers will conceptually advance the field of ecology. These papers are expected to go well beyond works being reviewed and include discussion of new directions, new syntheses, and resolutions of old questions. In this world of rapid scientific advancement and never-ending environmental change, there needs to be room for the thoughtful integration of scientific ideas, data, and concepts that feeds the mind and guides the development of the maturing science of ecology. Ecological Monographs provides that room, with an expansive view to a sustainable future.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信