Anthropogenic climate change is predicted to be a major cause of species extinctions in the next 100 years. But what will actually cause these extinctions? For example, will it be limited physiological tolerance to high temperatures, changing biotic interactions or other factors? Here, we systematically review the proximate causes of climate-change related extinctions and their empirical support. We find 136 case studies of climatic impacts that are potentially relevant to this topic. However, only seven identified proximate causes of demonstrated local extinctions due to anthropogenic climate change. Among these seven studies, the proximate causes vary widely. Surprisingly, none show a straightforward relationship between local extinction and limited tolerances to high temperature. Instead, many studies implicate species interactions as an important proximate cause, especially decreases in food availability. We find very similar patterns in studies showing decreases in abundance associated with climate change, and in those studies showing impacts of climatic oscillations. Collectively, these results highlight our disturbingly limited knowledge of this crucial issue but also support the idea that changing species interactions are an important cause of documented population declines and extinctions related to climate change. Finally, we briefly outline general research strategies for identifying these proximate causes in future studies.

Interdisciplinary research is widely considered a hothouse for innovation, and the only plausible approach to complex problems such as climate change. One barrier to interdisciplinary research is the widespread perception that interdisciplinary projects are less likely to be funded than those with a narrower focus. However, this commonly held belief has been difficult to evaluate objectively, partly because of lack of a comparable, quantitative measure of degree of interdisciplinarity that can be applied to funding application data. Here we compare the degree to which research proposals span disparate fields by using a biodiversity metric that captures the relative representation of different fields (balance) and their degree of difference (disparity). The Australian Research Council's Discovery Programme provides an ideal test case, because a single annual nationwide competitive grants scheme covers fundamental research in all disciplines, including arts, humanities and sciences. Using data on all 18,476 proposals submitted to the scheme over 5 consecutive years, including successful and unsuccessful applications, we show that the greater the degree of interdisciplinarity, the lower the probability of being funded. The negative impact of interdisciplinarity is significant even when number of collaborators, primary research field and type of institution are taken into account. This is the first broad-scale quantitative assessment of success rates of interdisciplinary research proposals. The interdisciplinary distance metric allows efficient evaluation of trends in research funding, and could be used to identify proposals that require assessment strategies appropriate to interdisciplinary research.

Aim The factors that set species range limits underlie many patterns in ecology, evolution, biogeography and conservation. These factors have been the subject of several reviews, but there has been no systematic review of the causes of warm-edge limits (low elevations and latitudes). Understanding these causes is urgent, given that the factors that set these limits might also drive extinction at warm edges as global climate changes. Many authors have suggested that warm-edge limits are set by biotic factors (particularly competition) whereas others have stressed abiotic factors (particularly temperature). We synthesize the known causes of species' warm-edge range limits, with emphasis on the underlying mechanisms (proximate causes).Location Global.Methods We systematically searched the literature for studies testing the causes of warm-edge range limits.Results We found 125 studies that address the causes of warm-edge limits, from a search including > 4000 studies. Among the species in these studies, abiotic factors are supported more often than biotic factors in setting species range limits at warm edges, in contrast to the widely held view that biotic factors are more important. Studies that test both types of factors support abiotic factors significantly more frequently. In addition, only 23 studies (61 species) identified proximate causes of these limits, and these overwhelmingly support physiological tolerances to abiotic factors (primarily temperature). Only eight species with identified proximate causes were tested for both biotic and abiotic factors, but the majority support abiotic factors.Main conclusions Although it is often assumed that warm-edge limits are set by biotic factors, our review shows that abiotic factors are supported more often among the species in these 125 studies. However, few studies both identify proximate causes and test alternative mechanisms, or examine the interaction between biotic and abiotic factors. Filling these gaps should be a high priority as warm-edge populations are increasingly driven to extinction by climate change.

The treefrogs (Hylidae) make up one of the most species-rich families of amphibians. With 885 species currently described, they contain >13% of all amphibian species. In recent years, there has been considerable progress in resolving hylid phylogeny. However, the most comprehensive phylogeny to date (Wiens et al., 2006) included only 292 species, was based only on parsimony, provided only poor support for most higher-level relationships, and conflicted with previous hypotheses in several parts (including the monophyly and relationships of major clades of Hylinae). Here, we present an expanded phylogeny for hylid frogs, including data for 362 hylid taxa for up to 11 genes (4 mitochondrial, 7 nuclear), including 70 additional taxa and >270 sequences not included in the previously most comprehensive analysis. The new tree from maximum likelihood analysis is more well-resolved, strongly supported, and concordant with previous hypotheses, and provides a framework for future systematic, biogeographic, ecological, and evolutionary studies.