Temperature‐related geographical shifts among passerines: contrasting processes along poleward and equatorward range margins

Abstract

Climate change is causing widespread geographical range shifts, which likely reflects different processes at leading and trailing range margins. Progressive warming is thought to relax thermal barriers at poleward range margins, enabling colonization of novel areas, but imposes increasingly unsuitable thermal conditions at equatorward margins, leading to range losses from those areas. Few tests of this process during recent climate change have been possible, but understanding determinants of species’ range limits will improve predictions of their geographical responses to climate change and variation in extinction risk. Here, we examine the relationship between poleward and equatorward range margin dynamics with respect to temperature‐related geographical limits observed for 34 breeding passerine species in North America between 1984–1988 and 2002–2006. We find that species’ equatorward range margins were closer to their upper realized thermal niche limits and proximity to those limits predicts equatorward population extinction risk through time. Conversely, the difference between breeding bird species’ poleward range margin temperatures and the coolest temperatures they tolerate elsewhere in their ranges was substantial and remained consistent through time: range expansion at species’ poleward range margins is unlikely to directly reflect lowered thermal barriers to colonization. The process of range expansion may reflect more complex factors operating across broader areas of species’ ranges. The latitudinal extent of breeding bird ranges is decreasing through time. Disparate responses observed at poleward versus equatorward margins arise due to differences in range margin placement within the realized thermal niche and suggest that climate‐induced geographical shift at equatorward range limits more strongly reflect abiotic conditions than at their poleward range limits. This further suggests that observed geographic responses to date may fail to demonstrate the true cost of climate change on the poleward portion of species’ distributions. Poleward range margins for North American breeding passerines are not presently in equilibrium with realized thermal limits.

Opposing responses to drought shape spatial population dynamics of declining grassland birds

“…An interesting result from the stronger declines in northern regions of the range is that the distribution centroid for Chestnutcollared Longspurs has shifted to the south. This southward shift is opposite to common expectations that species ranges will shift poleward with warmer temperatures (La Sorte & Jetz, 2012;Root et al, 2003), although relationships between climate change and range shifts are complex and species may not respond as expected (Coristine & Kerr, 2015;Currie & Venn, 2017). Plains.…”

Effect of the Long-Term Mean and the Temporal Stability of Water-Energy Dynamics on China’s Terrestrial Species Richness

“…However, species are likely to show different responses to changes in climate and habitat with respect to space use (geographical distribution) and individual traits (physiological, e.g., behavior transforming). Therefore, specialist species are more prone to extinction under the influence of these changes [1,39,40].…”

Informing Canada’s commitment to biodiversity conservation: A science-based framework to help guide protected areas designation through Target 1 and beyond

“…Extreme climatic events are linked to reproductive failure (Bolger et al 2005) and population loss (Williams et al 2013;Oliver et al 2015). Given Canada's large area, position as a polar country, and the number of species whose ranges have already shifted, from birds (Foden et al 2013;Coristine and Kerr 2015) to trees (Aitken et al 2008 Canada may well witness more biodiversity redistribution in the face of climate change than most other countries. Both protecting climate refugia (Coristine et al 2016) and ensuring habitat connectivity (see Principle 4) reduce the threat to biodiversity from climate change (Saura et al 2014;Saura et al 2017).…”

“…Climate change is a significant driver of current and future biodiversity decline (Urban 2015;Coristine and Kerr 2015). Although our fifth principle selects regions that are predicted to be relatively stable in the face of future climate change (Principle 5), this could be augmented through data on "pinch-points": areas that are predicted to provide limiting habitat or climate at some point in the future as species move from where they live today to where they are predicted to live under changing climatic conditions.…”