Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Ecological winners and losers of extreme drought in California

Abstract

An unprecedented era of climatic volatility is altering ecosystems across our planet1. The potential scale, pace and consequences of this global change have been modelled extensively2, yet little empirical research has quantified the impacts of extreme climate events on the composition of contemporary ecological communities. Here, we quantified the responses of 423 sympatric species of plants, arthropods, birds, reptiles and mammals to California’s drought of 2012–2015—the driest period in the past 1,200 years3 for this global biodiversity hotspot. Plants were most responsive to one-year water deficits, whereas vertebrates responded to longer-term deficits, and extended drought had the greatest impact on carnivorous animals. Locally rare species were more likely to increase in numbers and abundant species were more likely to decline in response to drought, and this negative density dependence was remarkably consistent across taxa and drought durations. Our system-wide analysis reveals that droughts indirectly promote the long-term persistence of rare species by stressing dominant species throughout the food web. These findings highlight processes that shape community structure in highly variable environments and provide insights into whole-community responses to modern climate volatility.

This is a preview of subscription content

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Precipitation patterns in the CPNM (2000–2015).
Fig. 2: Winners and losers in response to drought.
Fig. 3: Competitive release of rare nocturnal rodents in response to the drought-induced crash of the dominant giant kangaroo rat (D. ingens) population.
Fig. 4: Drought effects move up the food web over time.

References

  1. 1.

    Walther, G. R. et al. Ecological responses to recent climate change. Nature 416, 389–395 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Moss, R. H. et al. The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature 463, 747–756 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Griffin, D. & Anchukaitis, K. J. How unusual is the 2012–2014 California drought? Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 9017–9023 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Trenberth, K. E. et al. Global warming and changes in drought. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 17–22 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Chou, C. et al. Increase in the range between wet and dry season precipitation. Nat. Geosci. 6, 263–267 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Dai, A. Increasing drought under global warming in observations and models. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 52–58 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Van Dijk, A. I. J. M. et al. The Millennium drought in southeast Australia (2001–2009): natural and human causes and implications for water resources, ecosystems, economy, and society. Water Resour. Res. 49, 1040–1057 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Chesson, P. & Huntly, N. The roles of harsh and fluctuating conditions in the dynamics of ecological communities. Am. Nat. 150, 519–553 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Tilman, D. Resource Competition and Community Structure (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1982).

  10. 10.

    Lloret, F., Escudero, A., Iriondo, J. M., Martinez-Vilalta, J. & Valladares, F. Extreme climatic events and vegetation: the role of stabilizing processes. Glob. Change Biol. 18, 797–805 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Goldberg, D. & Novoplansky, A. On the relative importance of competition in unproductive environments. J. Ecol. 85, 409–418 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Gandiwa, E., Heitkonig, I. M. A., Eilers, P. H. C. & Prins, H. H. T. Rainfall variability and its impact on large mammal populations in a complex of semi-arid African savanna protected areas. Trop. Ecol. 57, 163–180 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Georgiadis, N. J., Ihwagi, F., Olwero, J. G. N. & Romanach, S. S. Savanna herbivore dynamics in a livestock-dominated landscape. II: ecological, conservation, and management implications of predator restoration. Biol. Conserv. 137, 473–483 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Thomson, D. M. Local bumble bee decline linked to recovery of honey bees, drought effects on floral resources. Ecol. Lett. 19, 1247–1255 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Cruz-McDonnell, K. K. & Wolf, B. O. Rapid warming and drought negatively impact population size and reproductive dynamics of an avian predator in the arid southwest. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 237–253 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., da Fonseca, G. A. B. & Kent, J.Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403, 853–858 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Williams, D. F. et al. Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998).

  18. 18.

    Young, D. J. N. et al. Long-term climate and competition explain forest mortality patterns under extreme drought. Ecol. Lett. 20, 78–86 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Timbrook, J., Johnson, J. R. & Earle, D. D.Vegetation burning by the Chumash. J. Calif. Great Basin Anthropol. 4, 163–186 (1982).

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Brown, J. H. & Munger, J. C. Experimental manipulation of a desert rodent community: food addition and species removal. Ecology 66, 1545–1563 (1985).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Economo, E. P., Kerkhoff, A. J. & Enquist, B. J. Allometric growth, life-history invariants and population energetics. Ecol. Lett. 8, 353–360 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Shaw, W. T. The ability of the giant kangaroo rat as a harvester and storer of seeds. J. Mammal. 15, 275–286 (1934).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Brose, U., Berlow, E. L. & Martinez, N. D. Scaling up keystone effects from simple to complex ecological networks. Ecol. Lett. 8, 1317–1325 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Greenville, A. C., Wardle, G. M. & Dickman, C. R. Extreme climatic events drive mammal irruptions: regression analysis of 100-year trends in desert rainfall and temperature. Ecol. Evol. 2, 2645–2658 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Wiens, J. A. On competition and variable environments: populations may experience “ecological crunches” in variable climates, nullifying the assumptions of competition theory and limiting the usefulness of short-term studies of population patterns. Am. Sci. 65, 590–597 (1977).

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Adler, P. B., HilleRisLambers, J., Kyriakidis, P. C., Guan, Q. F. & Levine, J. M. Climate variability has a stabilizing effect on the coexistence of prairie grasses. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 12793–12798 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Wellstein, C. et al. Effects of extreme drought on specific leaf area of grassland species: a meta-analysis of experimental studies in temperate and sub-Mediterranean systems. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 2473–2481 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Wiens, J. A., Crist, T. O., Day, R. H., Murphy, S. M. & Hayward, G. D. Effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on marine bird communities in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Ecol. Appl. 6, 828–841 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Deguines, N., Brashares, J. S. & Prugh, L. R. Precipitation alters interactions in a grassland ecological community. J. Anim. Ecol. 86, 262–272 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Gunderson, L. H. Ecological resilience—in theory and application. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 31, 425–439 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Germano, D. J., Rathbun, G. B. & Saslaw, L. R. Managing exotic grasses and conserving declining species. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 29, 551–559 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Beguería, S. & López-Moreno, J. I. A multiscalar drought index sensitive to global warming: the standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index. J. Clim. 23, 1696–1718 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Vicente-Serrano, S. M. et al. Response of vegetation to drought time-scales across global land biomes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 52–57 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Prugh, L. R. & Brashares, J. S. Partitioning the effects of an ecosystem engineer: kangaroo rats control community structure via multiple pathways. J. Anim. Ecol. 81, 667–678 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Bean, W. T. The Influence of Fall Supplemental Feeding on Giant Kangaroo Rats (Dipodomys ingens) and Associated Small Mammal Community Technical report (California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2016); https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=140826.

  36. 36.

    Cooper, L. D. & Randall, J. A. Seasonal changes in home ranges of the giant kangaroo rat (Dipodomys ingens): a study of flexible social structure. J. Mammal. 88, 1000–1008 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N., Walker, N. J., Saveliev, A. A. & Smith, G. M. Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R (Springer, New York, NY, 2009).

  38. 38.

    Jones, K. E. et al. PanTHERIA: a species-level database of life history, ecology, and geography of extant and recently extinct mammals. Ecology 90, 2648 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Dunning, J. B. Body Masses of North American Birds (International Wildlife Rehabilitator’s Council, Eugene, OR, 2018).

  40. 40.

    Grace, J. B. Structural Equation Modeling and Natural Systems (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2006).

  41. 41.

    Schwartz, C. J. Course Notes for Beginning and Intermediate Statistics Ch. 12 (Simon Fraser Univ., 2014); http://people.stat.sfu.ca/~cschwarz/CourseNotes/.

  42. 42.

    Pinheiro, J., Bates, D., DebRoy, S., Sarkar, D. & R Core Development Team. nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models R package version 3.1-131 (R Foundation, 2017); http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by a collaborative NSF grant to L.R.P. (DEB-1628754), J.S.B. (DEB-1354931) and K.N.S. (DEB-1355055). Additional funds were provided by grants from the USDA, BLM, USFWS and The Nature Conservancy to J.S.B., and a grant from the CDFW to W.T.B. Logistical and in-kind support was provided by the BLM and CDFW. Valuable assistance was provided by R. Endicott, J. Chesnut, L. Saslaw, K. Sharum, J. Hurl and S. Butterfield. We thank the numerous field assistants and volunteers who collected the data used in this study. Trapping and handling of rodents was conducted in accordance with permits provided by UC IACUC (R304), HSU IACUC (13.14.W.109-A), USFWS (TE1572210 and TE37418A-3) and CDFW (SC 9452). Christmas Bird Count data were compiled by R. Zackary and provided by the BLM.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

L.R.P. and J.S.B. designed the study. L.R.P., J.S.B., N.D., J.B.G., W.T.B. and R.S. collected the data. L.R.P., N.D. and J.B.G. conducted the statistical analyses. All authors wrote the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura R. Prugh.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary tables 1–4, Supplementary figures 1–4

Supplementary Data 1

Data file (csv format) containing taxonomic information, life history traits, pre-drought abundance (Npre) and results of linear regressions examining the effects of 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year droughts on abundance (DI1, DI2, DI3, respectively)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Prugh, L.R., Deguines, N., Grinath, J.B. et al. Ecological winners and losers of extreme drought in California. Nature Clim Change 8, 819–824 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0255-1

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing