How comparable are species distributions along elevational and latitudinal climate gradients?

Abstract

Aim Because climatic factors, especially temperature, show similar trends with elevation and latitude, it is often assumed that elevational gradients can be used as a proxy for understanding ecological processes along latitudinal gradients. We investigated the validity of this assumption for herbaceous plants, testing the hypotheses that (1) species reach the same climate limits, and (2) exhibit similar distribution patterns along both types of gradient. Location Swiss Alps and Scandinavia. Methods We recorded the occurrence of 155 ruderal plant species along an elevational gradient in the Swiss Alps and a latitudinal gradient, both reaching beyond the distribution limit of most species. Principal components analysis was used to summarize climatic variation in temperature and precipitation across these gradients and assessed the relationship across species between climatic limits along the two gradients. We used logistic regressions to compare how the probability of occurrence of individual species changed with climate along the two gradients. Results We found no correlation of species principal components analysis (PCA) values (climate limit) along an elevational and latitudinal precipitation gradient (PC1) but a positive correlation along a temperature gradient (PC2). Species reached a colder climate limit (on average 244 growing degree days lower) and decreased in occurrence more gradually along the elevational compared to the latitudinal gradient. Main conclusions We suggest that the differences in distribution patterns and limits along similar climatic gradients are mainly due to the much shorter dispersal distances along elevational than latitudinal gradients, although other explanations are also possible. We can therefore expect plants in mountains and lowland regions to respond differently to rapid climate change, and so caution must be exercised when using elevation as a proxy for latitude in studies of species distribution. Nonetheless, comparative studies along such gradients can yield important insights into the factors that limit species distributions.

Where, why and how? Explaining the low‐temperature range limits of temperate tree species

“…A major limitation of these approaches is the assumption that weather station derived data reflect what plants actually experience, which is clearly not the case in low‐stature plants (Scherrer, Schmid & Körner ), thus leading to rather mislead conclusions, particularly when topography is considered (Halbritter et al . , see discussion in Austin & Van Niel ). Given their aerodynamic coupling to the free atmosphere, there is more hope that this assumption is valid in trees, as will be shown here.…”

Climate structures genetic variation across a species' elevation range: a test of range limits hypotheses

“…soils, habitats, ecological communities) may not be (Halbritter et al . ). Additionally, elevation‐based climate gradients are steeper (occurring across shorter distances).…”

Niche models do not predict experimental demography but both suggest dispersal limitation across the northern range limit of the scarlet monkeyflower (Erythranthe cardinalis)

“…Anecdotally, one naturalized population of E. cardinalis , introduced to a stream site 350 km north of its current range limit in the late 1800s, has neither spread to adjacent streams nor died off (Don Knoke and Dr. David Giblin, Collections Manager of University of Washington Herbaria, personal communication , 2014). Populations at the northern range limit do not experience more severe low temperatures than high‐elevation populations (Bayly, ), which is also a signature of dispersal limitation (Halbritter, Alexander, Edwards, & Billeter, ; Siefert, Lesser, & Fridley, ). Finally, increasing growth rates of natural populations with latitude (Sheth & Angert, ) and low occupancy of suitable habitat at the northern range edge (Angert et al, ) also implicate dispersal limitation.…”