Climate factors related to localized changes in snowshoe hare (<i>Lepus</i><i>americanus</i>) occupancy

Burt, David M.; Roloff, Gary J.; Etter, Dwayne R.

doi:10.1139/cjz-2016-0180

Cited by 15 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, recent studies indicate snowshoe hares experience higher predation rates and population declines when their white winter coats contrast with snowless environments (Wilson, Shipley, Zuckerberg, Peery, & Pauli, ; Zimova, Mills, & Nowak, ). Consequently, reduced snow duration over the past several decades is associated with range contraction along the snowshoe hare's southern limit (Burt, Roloff, & Etter, ; Sultaire et al, ) with future declines expected due to climate change (Zimova et al, ). These studies are in accordance with the iRLT prediction of range contraction along lower limits when the positive effect from an abiotic factor diminishes (Figure c).…”

Section: Review Of Evidence For Irltmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interactive range‐limit theory (iRLT): An extension for predicting range shifts

Sirén

Morelli

2019

Journal of Animal Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A central theme of range‐limit theory (RLT) posits that abiotic factors form high‐latitude/altitude limits, whereas biotic interactions create lower limits. This hypothesis, often credited to Charles Darwin, is a pattern widely assumed to occur in nature. However, abiotic factors can impose constraints on both limits and there is scant evidence to support the latter prediction. Deviations from these predictions may arise from correlations between abiotic factors and biotic interactions, as a lack of data to evaluate the hypothesis, or be an artifact of scale. Combining two tenets of ecology—niche theory and predator–prey theory—provides an opportunity to understand how biotic interactions influence range limits and how this varies by trophic level. We propose an expansion of RLT, interactive RLT (iRLT), to understand the causes of range limits and predict range shifts. Incorporating the main predictions of Darwin's hypothesis, iRLT hypothesizes that abiotic and biotic factors can interact to impact both limits of a species’ range. We summarize current thinking on range limits and perform an integrative review to evaluate support for iRLT and trophic differences along range margins, surveying the mammal community along the boreal‐temperate and forest‐tundra ecotones of North America. Our review suggests that range‐limit dynamics are more nuanced and interactive than classically predicted by RLT. Many (57 of 70) studies indicate that biotic factors can ameliorate harsh climatic conditions along high‐latitude/altitude limits. Conversely, abiotic factors can also mediate biotic interactions along low‐latitude/altitude limits (44 of 68 studies). Both scenarios facilitate range expansion, contraction or stability depending on the strength and the direction of the abiotic or biotic factors. As predicted, biotic interactions most often occurred along lower limits, yet there were trophic differences. Carnivores were only limited by competitive interactions (n = 25), whereas herbivores were more influenced by predation and parasitism (77%; 55 of 71 studies). We highlight how these differences may create divergent range patterns along lower limits. We conclude by (a) summarizing iRLT; (b) contrasting how our model system and others fit this hypothesis and (c) suggesting future directions for evaluating iRLT.

show abstract

Section: Review Of Evidence For Irltmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interactive range‐limit theory (iRLT): An extension for predicting range shifts

Sirén

Morelli

2019

Journal of Animal Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These fitness costs of camouflage mismatch are sufficient to cause severe population declines in absence of future adaptive responses (Zimova et al 2016 ). In fact, hares have already experienced range contractions linked to reduced snow duration and mismatch-related mortality (Burt et al 2017 ; Diefenbach et al 2016 ; Sultaire et al 2016 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Snow-mediated plasticity does not prevent camouflage mismatch

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global reduction in snow cover duration is one of the most consistent and widespread climate change outcomes. Declining snow duration has severe negative consequences for diverse taxa including seasonally color molting species, which rely on snow for camouflage. However, phenotypic plasticity may facilitate adaptation to reduced snow duration. Plastic responses could occur in the color molt phenology or through behavior that minimizes coat color mismatch or its consequences. We quantified molt phenology of 200 wild snowshoe hares (Lepus americanus), and measured microhabitat choice and local snow cover. Similar to other studies, we found that hares did not show behavioral plasticity to minimize coat color mismatch via background matching; instead they preferred colder, snow free areas regardless of their coat color. Furthermore, hares did not behaviorally mitigate the negative consequences of mismatch by choosing resting sites with denser vegetation cover when mismatched. Importantly, we demonstrated plasticity in the initiation and the rate of the molt and established the direct effect of snow on molt phenology; greater snow cover was associated with whiter hares and this association was not due to whiter hares preferring snowier areas. However, despite the observed snow-mediated plasticity in molt phenology, camouflage mismatch with white hares on brown snowless ground persisted and was more frequent during early snowmelt. Thus, we find no evidence that phenotypic plasticity in snowshoe hares is sufficient to facilitate adaptive rescue to camouflage mismatch under climate change.

show abstract

“…Snowshoe hares have experienced a recent northward range-shift along much of their trailing range boundary (Burt, Roloff, & Etter, 2016;Sultaire et al, 2016a). Repeated track surveys over a 70-year period in Wisconsin have documented an 8.7 km/decade range contraction since 1980 (Buehler & Keith, 1982;Leopold, 1945;Sultaire et al, 2016a).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An experimental translocation identifies habitat features that buffer camouflage mismatch in snowshoe hares

Wilson

Shipley

Zuckerberg

et al. 2018

CONSERVATION LETTERS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation for species impacted by climate change often occurs at scales impractical for local land managers. Snowshoe hares (Lepus americanus) are one of the most well‐documented species declining from climate change–specifically a reduction in snowcover–yet clear management strategies have yet to emerge. To test whether camouflage mismatch is reducing hare survival we translocated 96 hares to a site recently extirpated of snowshoe hares, and monitored coat color change, mismatch with snow, habitat use, and weekly survival in winter‐spring of 2017. Hare survival was low during periods of camouflage mismatch, and mismatched hares were 3.2 × less likely to survive, but this pattern varied by habitat. We found that aspen‐alder stands >5 hectares negated the mortality costs of mismatch. We provide experimental evidence that mismatch is driving the range contraction of snowshoe hares, and identify specific habitats to buffer the consequences of climate change on this declining winter specialist.

show abstract

Climate factors related to localized changes in snowshoe hare (Lepusamericanus) occupancy

Cited by 15 publications

References 49 publications

Interactive range‐limit theory (iRLT): An extension for predicting range shifts

Interactive range‐limit theory (iRLT): An extension for predicting range shifts

Snow-mediated plasticity does not prevent camouflage mismatch

An experimental translocation identifies habitat features that buffer camouflage mismatch in snowshoe hares

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About