The ecology of geographic range limits.

IF 11.7 1区 生物学 Q1 BIOLOGY
Tom Radomski
{"title":"The ecology of geographic range limits.","authors":"Tom Radomski","doi":"10.1111/brv.70070","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Identifying processes underlying species' geographic range limits is currently at the forefront of ecological research, in part due to increasing attention to climate change effects on the distributions of organisms. Our understanding of range limits has benefitted from a rich body of theory, but several influential reviews have insisted that we know little about causes of range limits in nature because there is scant empirical work relative to theoretical. More recent syntheses show mounting support for different hypotheses, although they are not always able to separate different ecological processes. In this review, I recommend a shift in how researchers think about range limits: (i) identifying a first-principles hypothesis of range limits which should structure range limit studies; and (ii) reconsidering the processes that limit geographic distributions, which are relatively few and redundant. First, I argue that estimating the scenopoetic niche (habitat requirements that exclude biotic interactions) allows a first-principles approach to understanding geographic distributions and limits. Some general empirical support for the scenopoetic niche as a primary range-limiting factor has accumulated. Estimates of the scenopoetic niche will structure subsequent tests of range-limiting processes based on how it underpredicts or overpredicts species' distributions. I discuss observational and empirical ways of testing whether the scenopoetic niche is actively limiting species' distributions. Second, I review various theoretical models of geographic range limits; theoretical ecological models only vary a few key parameters, so our understanding of what limits species' geographic distributions might be much better than previously asserted. For instance, predation, competition, and parasitism are all distinct biotic relationships, but they are all antagonistic biotic interactions that can influence range limits in similar ways by reducing the set of conditions under which a species could persist. Several issues complicate causal inferences from static geographic patterns that have remained problematic in empirical work for decades. These issues are related to spatial autocorrelation and interpretation of range overlap. Theoretical metapopulation models have been developed to understand how range limits can form, although metapopulation processes are understood to be consequences of ecological dynamics that are formally modelled in non-metapopulation models (e.g. per capita effects of interspecific interactions, effects of the abiotic environment). I then discuss methods for empirical tests of various range limit hypotheses. Implementation of different methods will depend on tractability with geography and ecology - many researchers cannot survey remote areas, study demography of long-lived organisms, collect large sample sizes for rare species, or conduct field manipulations. However, at least some of the methods showcased will have applicability for any study system. Finally, I suggest a research agenda for improving our understanding of the ecology of geographic range limits: better teasing apart of ecological causes of range limits (e.g. scenopoetic niche versus various biotic interactions) and incorporating spatiotemporal variability. Hopefully some of the ideas highlighted here will support more conservative interpretations of data, stimulate tests of multiple hypotheses, and produce better predictions of changes in geographic distributions under environmental change.</p>","PeriodicalId":133,"journal":{"name":"Biological Reviews","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":11.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biological Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.70070","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Identifying processes underlying species' geographic range limits is currently at the forefront of ecological research, in part due to increasing attention to climate change effects on the distributions of organisms. Our understanding of range limits has benefitted from a rich body of theory, but several influential reviews have insisted that we know little about causes of range limits in nature because there is scant empirical work relative to theoretical. More recent syntheses show mounting support for different hypotheses, although they are not always able to separate different ecological processes. In this review, I recommend a shift in how researchers think about range limits: (i) identifying a first-principles hypothesis of range limits which should structure range limit studies; and (ii) reconsidering the processes that limit geographic distributions, which are relatively few and redundant. First, I argue that estimating the scenopoetic niche (habitat requirements that exclude biotic interactions) allows a first-principles approach to understanding geographic distributions and limits. Some general empirical support for the scenopoetic niche as a primary range-limiting factor has accumulated. Estimates of the scenopoetic niche will structure subsequent tests of range-limiting processes based on how it underpredicts or overpredicts species' distributions. I discuss observational and empirical ways of testing whether the scenopoetic niche is actively limiting species' distributions. Second, I review various theoretical models of geographic range limits; theoretical ecological models only vary a few key parameters, so our understanding of what limits species' geographic distributions might be much better than previously asserted. For instance, predation, competition, and parasitism are all distinct biotic relationships, but they are all antagonistic biotic interactions that can influence range limits in similar ways by reducing the set of conditions under which a species could persist. Several issues complicate causal inferences from static geographic patterns that have remained problematic in empirical work for decades. These issues are related to spatial autocorrelation and interpretation of range overlap. Theoretical metapopulation models have been developed to understand how range limits can form, although metapopulation processes are understood to be consequences of ecological dynamics that are formally modelled in non-metapopulation models (e.g. per capita effects of interspecific interactions, effects of the abiotic environment). I then discuss methods for empirical tests of various range limit hypotheses. Implementation of different methods will depend on tractability with geography and ecology - many researchers cannot survey remote areas, study demography of long-lived organisms, collect large sample sizes for rare species, or conduct field manipulations. However, at least some of the methods showcased will have applicability for any study system. Finally, I suggest a research agenda for improving our understanding of the ecology of geographic range limits: better teasing apart of ecological causes of range limits (e.g. scenopoetic niche versus various biotic interactions) and incorporating spatiotemporal variability. Hopefully some of the ideas highlighted here will support more conservative interpretations of data, stimulate tests of multiple hypotheses, and produce better predictions of changes in geographic distributions under environmental change.

生态的地理范围是有限的。
确定物种地理范围限制的过程目前是生态学研究的前沿,部分原因是人们越来越关注气候变化对生物分布的影响。我们对范围限制的理解得益于丰富的理论体系,但一些有影响力的评论坚持认为,我们对自然界范围限制的原因知之甚少,因为与理论相关的经验工作很少。最近的综合研究显示越来越多的证据支持不同的假设,尽管它们并不总是能够分离不同的生态过程。在这篇综述中,我建议研究人员改变对范围限制的看法:(I)确定范围限制的第一原理假设,这应该构成范围限制的研究;(ii)重新考虑限制地理分布的过程,这些地理分布相对较少且冗余。首先,我认为估算景观生态位(排除生物相互作用的栖息地需求)可以用第一性原理的方法来理解地理分布和限制。一些普遍的经验支持景观生态位作为主要的范围限制因素已经积累起来。对景观生态位的估计将根据其如何低估或高估物种分布来构建范围限制过程的后续测试。我讨论了观察和经验的方法来测试景观生态位是否积极地限制了物种的分布。其次,回顾了地理范围限制的各种理论模型;理论生态模型只改变了几个关键参数,因此我们对物种地理分布限制的理解可能比以前断言的要好得多。例如,捕食、竞争和寄生都是不同的生物关系,但它们都是对抗性的生物相互作用,可以通过减少物种可以生存的条件,以类似的方式影响范围限制。几个问题使静态地理模式的因果推论复杂化,这些推论在几十年来的实证工作中仍然存在问题。这些问题与空间自相关和距离重叠的解释有关。虽然超种群过程被理解为在非超种群模型中正式建模的生态动力学的结果(例如,种间相互作用的人均效应,非生物环境的效应),但理论上的超种群模型已经被开发出来,以理解范围限制是如何形成的。然后讨论了各种极差假设的经验检验方法。不同方法的实施将取决于地理和生态学的可操作性——许多科学家不能调查偏远地区、研究长寿生物的人口统计学、收集大量稀有物种的样本,或者进行实地操作。然而,至少其中一些方法适用于任何学习系统。最后,我提出了一个研究议程,以提高我们对地理范围限制生态学的理解:更好地梳理范围限制的生态原因(例如,景观生态位与各种生物相互作用),并纳入时空变异性。希望这里强调的一些观点能够支持对数据更保守的解释,促进对多种假设的检验,并对环境变化下的地理分布变化做出更好的预测。
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
Biological Reviews
Biological Reviews 生物-生物学
CiteScore
21.30
自引率
2.00%
发文量
99
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Biological Reviews is a scientific journal that covers a wide range of topics in the biological sciences. It publishes several review articles per issue, which are aimed at both non-specialist biologists and researchers in the field. The articles are scholarly and include extensive bibliographies. Authors are instructed to be aware of the diverse readership and write their articles accordingly. The reviews in Biological Reviews serve as comprehensive introductions to specific fields, presenting the current state of the art and highlighting gaps in knowledge. Each article can be up to 20,000 words long and includes an abstract, a thorough introduction, and a statement of conclusions. The journal focuses on publishing synthetic reviews, which are based on existing literature and address important biological questions. These reviews are interesting to a broad readership and are timely, often related to fast-moving fields or new discoveries. A key aspect of a synthetic review is that it goes beyond simply compiling information and instead analyzes the collected data to create a new theoretical or conceptual framework that can significantly impact the field. Biological Reviews is abstracted and indexed in various databases, including Abstracts on Hygiene & Communicable Diseases, Academic Search, AgBiotech News & Information, AgBiotechNet, AGRICOLA Database, GeoRef, Global Health, SCOPUS, Weed Abstracts, and Reaction Citation Index, among others.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信