Climate-induced range overlap among closely related species

Journal name:
Nature Climate Change
Volume:
5,
Pages:
883–886
Year published:
DOI:
doi:10.1038/nclimate2699
Received
Accepted
Published online

Contemporary climate change is causing large shifts in biotic distributions1, which has the potential to bring previously isolated, closely related species into contact2. This has led to concern that hybridization and competition could threaten species persistence3. Here, we use bioclimatic models to show that future range overlap by the end of the century is predicted for only 6.4% of isolated, congeneric species pairs of New World birds, mammals and amphibians. Projected rates of climate-induced overlap are higher for birds (11.6%) than for mammals (4.4%) or amphibians (3.6%). As many species will have difficulty tracking shifting climates4, actual rates of future overlap are likely to be far lower, suggesting that hybridization and competition impacts may be relatively modest.

At a glance

Figures

  1. Projected future overlap for isolated, congeneric species of New World birds, mammals and amphibians.
    Figure 1: Projected future overlap for isolated, congeneric species of New World birds, mammals and amphibians.

    Coloured cells in map indicate areas where new overlap among species pairs is predicted by >5 of 10 GCMs; grey cells indicate areas where a majority of GCMs do not predict new overlap. The green line shows the number of non-overlapping species pairs at present, by latitude.

  2. Current geographic range size and proportion of future range in overlap.
    Figure 2: Current geographic range size and proportion of future range in overlap.

    ad, Current geographic range sizes of non-overlapping species (grey bars), and the proportion of each range size class projected to come into future geographic contact with an isolated congener (hashed bars) for all taxa (a), birds (b), amphibians (c) and mammals (d).

  3. The percentage of a species[rsquor] future bioclimatic envelope projected to overlap with that of an isolated congener.
    Figure 3: The percentage of a species future bioclimatic envelope projected to overlap with that of an isolated congener.

    Individual species may be represented more than once, as several species are projected to come into future overlap with more than one congener.

  4. The percentage of future range in overlap as a function of future range size.
    Figure 4: The percentage of future range in overlap as a function of future range size.

    This is calculated as the percentage of each species (si) future bioclimatic envelope projected to overlap with a currently isolated congener (sj), as a function of the future bioclimatic envelope size of si. The trend line represents a linear regression model (R2 = 0.358, d.f. = 1,614, P < 0.001).

References

  1. Chen, I. C., Hill, J. K., Ohlemüller, R., Roy, D. B. & Thomas, C. D. Rapid range shifts of species associated with high levels of climate warming. Science 333, 10241026 (2011).
  2. Chunco, A. Hybridization in a warmer world. Ecol. Evol. 4, 20192031 (2014).
  3. Kelly, B. P., Whiteley, A. & Tallmon, D. The arctic melting pot. Nature 468, 891 (2010).
  4. Schloss, C. A., Nunez, T. A. & Lawler, J. J. Dispersal will limit ability of mammals to track climate change in the Western Hemisphere. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 86068611 (2012).
  5. Williams, J. W. & Jackson, S. T. Novel climates, no-analog communities, and ecological surprises. Front. Ecol. Environ. 5, 475482 (2007).
  6. Walther, G. R. et al. Ecological responses to recent climate change. Nature 416, 389395 (2002).
  7. Jankowski, J. E., Robinson, S. K. & Levey, D. J. Squeezed at the top: Interspecific aggression may constrain elevational ranges in tropical birds. Ecology 91, 18771884 (2010).
  8. Urban, M. C., Tewksbury, J. J. & Sheldon, K. S. On a collision course: Competition and dispersal differences create no-analogue communities and cause extinctions during climate change. Proc. R. Soc. B 279, 20722080 (2012).
  9. Rhymer, J. M. & Simberloff, D. Extinction by hybridization and introgression. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 27, 83109 (1996).
  10. Beatty, G. E., Philipp, M. & Provan, J. Unidirectional hybridization at a species range boundary: Implications for habitat tracking. Divers. Distrib. 16, 19 (2010).
  11. Mallet, J., Wynne, I. R. & Thomas, C. D. Hybridisation and climate change: Brown argus butterflies in Britain (Polyommatus subgenus Aricia). Insect Conserv. Divers. 4, 192199 (2011).
  12. Fitzpatrick, M. C. & Hargrove, W. W. The projection of species distribution models and the problem of non-analog climate. Biodivers. Conserv. 18, 22552261 (2009).
  13. Araújo, M. B. & Luoto, M. The importance of biotic interactions for modelling species distributions under climate change. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 16, 743753 (2007).
  14. Hellman, J. J., Prior, K. M. & Pelini, S. L. The influence of species interactions on geographic range change under climate change. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 1249, 1828 (2012).
  15. Vallin, N., Rice, A. M., Arntsen, H., Kulma, K. & Qvarnström, A. Combined effects of interspecific competition and hybridization impede local coexistence of Ficedula flycatchers. Evol. Ecol. 26, 927942 (2012).
  16. Burns, J. H. & Strauss, S. Y. More closely related species are more ecologically similar in an experimental test. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 53025307 (2011).
  17. Barton, N. H. & Hewitt, G. M. Analysis of hybrid zones. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 16, 113148 (1985).
  18. Becker, M. et al. Hybridization may facilitate in situ survival of endemic species through periods of climate change. Nature Clim. Change 3, 10391043 (2013).
  19. Theobald, D. M., Reed, S. E., Fields, K. & Soule, M. Connecting natural landscapes using a landscape permeability model to prioritize conservation activities in the United States. Conserv. Lett. 5, 123133 (2012).
  20. Heller, N. E. & Zavaleta, E. S. Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: A review of 22 years of recommendations. Biol. Conserv. 142, 1432 (2009).
  21. Hilty, J. A., Lidicker, W. Z. Jr & Merenlender, A. Corridor Ecology: The Science and Practice of Linking Landscapes for Biodiversity Conservation (Island Press, 2006).
  22. Thomas, C. D. et al. Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427, 145148 (2004).
  23. Anacker, B. L. & Strauss, S. Y. The geography and ecology of plant speciation: Range overlap and niche divergence in sister species. Proc. R. Soc. B 281, 20132980 (2014).
  24. Lawler, J. J. et al. Projected climate-induced faunal change in the Western Hemisphere. Ecology 90, 588597 (2009).
  25. Breiman, L. Random forests. Mach. Learn. 45, 532 (2001).
  26. R Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2009); http://www.R-project.org
  27. Lawler, J. J., White, D., Neilson, R. P. & Blaustein, A. R. Predicting climate-induced range shifts: Model differences and model reliability. Glob. Change Biol. 12, 15681584 (2006).
  28. Ridgely, R. S. et al. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere (NatureServe, 2003).
  29. Patterson, B. D. et al. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere (NatureServe, 2007).
  30. New, M., Hulme, M. & Jones, P. Representing twentieth-century space-time climate variability. Part I: Development of a 1961–90 mean monthly terrestrial climatology. J. Clim. 12, 829856 (1999).
  31. New, M. et al. A high-resolution data set of surface climate over global land areas. Clim. Res. 21, 125 (2002).
  32. Mitchell, T. D. & Jones, P. D. An improved method of constructing a database of monthly climate observations and associated high-resolution grids. Int. J. Climatol. 25, 693712 (2005).
  33. Nakicenovic, N. et al. Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000).
  34. Kenward, M. G. & Roger, J. H. Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Biometrics 53, 983997 (1997).

Download references

Author information

  1. Present addresses: National Audubon Society, 220 Montgomery Street, Suite 1000, San Francisco, California 94104-3402, USA (C.B.W.); Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Biology, 310 Ferst Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30332, USA (J.L.M.); Division of Science and Environmental Policy California State University, Monterey Bay 100 Campus Center Seaside, California 93955-8000, USA (J.M.D.).

    • Chad B. Wilsey,
    • Jenny L. McGuire &
    • Jennifer M. Duggan

Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology, University of Washington, Box 351800 Seattle, Washington 98195-1800, USA

    • Meade Krosby &
    • Joshua J. Tewksbury
  2. Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington, Box 355674, Seattle, Washington 98195-5674, USA

    • Meade Krosby
  3. School of Environmental and Forest Sciences, University of Washington, Box 352100 Seattle, Washington 98195-2100, USA

    • Chad B. Wilsey,
    • Jenny L. McGuire,
    • Jennifer M. Duggan,
    • Theresa M. Nogeire,
    • Julie A. Heinrichs &
    • Joshua J. Lawler
  4. Luc Hoffman Institute, WWF International, Avenue du Mont-Blanc 1196 Gland, Switzerland

    • Joshua J. Tewksbury

Contributions

M.K. conceived the study. M.K., C.B.W., J.M.D., J.L.M., J.A.H., T.M.N., J.J.T. and J.J.L. designed the analysis. C.B.W. and J.M.D. conducted most of the data analysis, with additional analysis completed by J.L.M., T.M.N., J.A.H. and M.K. M.K., J.J.L., J.J.T., C.B.W. and J.M.D. wrote the paper.

Competing financial interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to:

Author details

Supplementary information

Additional data