Continent-wide tree fecundity driven by indirect climate effects.
Journal
Nature communications
ISSN: 2041-1723
Titre abrégé: Nat Commun
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101528555
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 02 2021
23 02 2021
Historique:
received:
06
08
2020
accepted:
01
12
2020
entrez:
24
2
2021
pubmed:
25
2
2021
medline:
4
3
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Indirect climate effects on tree fecundity that come through variation in size and growth (climate-condition interactions) are not currently part of models used to predict future forests. Trends in species abundances predicted from meta-analyses and species distribution models will be misleading if they depend on the conditions of individuals. Here we find from a synthesis of tree species in North America that climate-condition interactions dominate responses through two pathways, i) effects of growth that depend on climate, and ii) effects of climate that depend on tree size. Because tree fecundity first increases and then declines with size, climate change that stimulates growth promotes a shift of small trees to more fecund sizes, but the opposite can be true for large sizes. Change the depresses growth also affects fecundity. We find a biogeographic divide, with these interactions reducing fecundity in the West and increasing it in the East. Continental-scale responses of these forests are thus driven largely by indirect effects, recommending management for climate change that considers multiple demographic rates.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33623042
doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-20836-3
pii: 10.1038/s41467-020-20836-3
pmc: PMC7902660
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1242Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Références
Schwantes, A. M. et al. Measuring canopy loss and climatic thresholds from an extreme drought along a fivefold precipitation gradient across texas. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 5120–5135 (2017).
doi: 10.1111/gcb.13775
Seidl, R. et al. Forest disturbances under climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 395–402 (2017).
doi: 10.1038/nclimate3303
Williams, A. P. et al. Large contribution from anthropogenic warming to an emerging North American megadrought. Science 368, 314–318 (2020).
pubmed: 32299953
doi: 10.1126/science.aaz9600
Clark, J. S. et al. The impacts of increasing drought on forest dynamics, structure, and biodiversity in the united states. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 2329–2352 (2016).
doi: 10.1111/gcb.13160
McDowell, N. et al. Pervasive shifts in forest dynamics in a changing world. Science (in the press).
Ibanez, I., Clark, J. S. & Dietze, M. C. Evaluating the sources of potential migrant species: implications under climate change. Ecol. Appl. 18, 1664–1678 (2008).
pubmed: 18839762
doi: 10.1890/07-1594.1
Rogers, B. M., Jantz, P. & Goetz, S. J. Vulnerability of eastern us tree species to climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 3302–3320 (2017).
doi: 10.1111/gcb.13585
Ascoli, D. et al. Inter-annual and decadal changes in teleconnections drive continental-scale synchronization of tree reproduction. Nat. Commun. 8, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-02348-9 (2017).
Loarie, S. R. et al. The velocity of climate change. Nature 462, 1052–1055 (2009).
pubmed: 20033047
doi: 10.1038/nature08649
Zhu, K., Woodall, C. & Clark, J. Failure to migrate: lack of tree range expansion in response to climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 18, 1042–1052 (2011).
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02571.x
Dobrowski, S. Z. & Parks, S. A. Climate change velocity underestimates climate change exposure in mountainous regions. Nat. Commun. 7, 12349 (2016).
pubmed: 27476545
pmcid: 4974646
doi: 10.1038/ncomms12349
Ettinger, A. & Hillerislambers, J. Competition and facilitation may lead to asymmetric range shift dynamics with climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 3921–3933 (2017).
doi: 10.1111/gcb.13649
Fei, S. et al. Divergence of species responses to climate change. Sci. Adv. 3, e1603055 (2017).
pubmed: 28560343
pmcid: 5435420
doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1603055
Lister, B. C. & Garcia, A. Climate-driven declines in arthropod abundance restructure a rainforest food web. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, E10397–E10406 (2018).
pubmed: 30322922
pmcid: 6217376
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1722477115
Seibold, S. et al. Arthropod decline in grasslands and forests is associated with landscape-level drivers. Nature 574, 671–674 (2019).
pubmed: 31666721
doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1684-3
van Klink, R. et al. Meta-analysis reveals declines in terrestrial but increases in freshwater insect abundances. Science 368, 417–420 (2020).
pubmed: 32327596
doi: 10.1126/science.aax9931
Koenig, W. D. & Knops, J. M. H. The mystery of masting in trees: some trees reproduce synchronously over large areas, with widespread ecological effects, but how and why? Am. Scientist 93, 340–347 (2005).
doi: 10.1511/2005.4.340
Berdanier, A. B. & Clark, J. S. Divergent reproductive allocation trade-offs with canopy exposure across tree species in temperate forests. Ecosphere 7, e01313 (2016).
doi: 10.1002/ecs2.1313
Davi, H. et al. Disentangling the factors driving tree reproduction. Ecosphere 7, e01389 (2016).
doi: 10.1002/ecs2.1389
Clark, J. S., Nunez, C. & Tomasek, B. Foodwebs based on unreliable foundations: spatiotemporal masting merged with consumer movement, storage, and diet. Ecol. Monogr. 89, e01381 (2019).
doi: 10.1002/ecm.1381
Fisher, R. A. et al. Vegetation demographics in earth system models: a review of progress and priorities. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 35–54 (2018).
doi: 10.1111/gcb.13910
Vacchiano, G. et al. Reproducing reproduction: How to simulate mast seeding in forest models. Ecol. Model. 376, 40–53 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2018.03.004
Pederson, N. et al. A framework for determining population-level vulnerability to climate: evidence for growth hysteresis in chamaecyparis thyoides along its contiguous latitudinal distribution. Front. For. Glob. Change 3, https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/ffgc.2020.00039 (2020).
Herrera, C. M., Jordano, P., Guitian, J. & Traveset, A. Annual variability in seed production by woody plants and the masting concept: reassessment of principles and relationship to pollination and seed dispersal. Am. Naturalist 152, 576–594 (1998).
doi: 10.1086/286191
Hacket-Pain, A. J., Friend, A. D., Lageard, J. G. & Thomas, P. A. The influence of masting phenomenon on growth-climate relationships in trees: explaining the influence of previous summers’ climate on ring width. Tree Physiol. 35, 319–330 (2015).
pubmed: 25721369
doi: 10.1093/treephys/tpv007
Bogdziewicz, M., Fernández-Martínez, M., Espelta, J., Ogaya, R. & Penuelas, J. Is forest fecundity resistant to drought? Results from an 18-yr rainfall-reduction experiment. N. Phytologist https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.16597 (2020).
Wion, A. P., Weisberg, P. J., Pearse, I. S. & Redmond, M. D. Aridity drives spatiotemporal patterns of masting across the latitudinal range of a dryland conifer. Ecography 43, 569–580 (2020).
doi: 10.1111/ecog.04856
Pacala, S. W. et al. Forest models defined by field measurements: estimation, error analysis and dynamics. Ecol. Monogr. 66, 1–43 (1996).
doi: 10.2307/2963479
Maréchaux, I. & Chave, J. An individual-based forest model to jointly simulate carbon and tree diversity in amazonia: description and applications. Ecol. Monogr. 87, 632–664 (2017).
doi: 10.1002/ecm.1271
Rüger, N. et al. Demographic trade-offs predict tropical forest dynamics. Science 368, 165–168 (2020).
pubmed: 32273463
doi: 10.1126/science.aaz4797
Grubb, P. J. The maintenance of species-richness in plant communities: the importance of the regeneration niche. Biol. Rev. 52, 107–145 (1977).
doi: 10.1111/j.1469-185X.1977.tb01347.x
Clark, J. S. et al. Interpreting recruitment limitation in forests. Am. J. Bot. 86, 1–16 (1999).
pubmed: 21680341
doi: 10.2307/2656950
Clark, C. J., Poulsen, J. R., Levey, D. J. & Osenberg, C. W. Are plant populations seed limited? A critique and meta analysis of seed addition experiments. Am. Naturalist 170, 128–142 (2007).
doi: 10.1086/518565
Mackay, D. S. et al. Conifers depend on established roots during drought: results from a coupled model of carbon allocation and hydraulics. N. Phytologist 225, 679–692 (2020).
doi: 10.1111/nph.16043
Clark, J. S., Bell, D. M., Kwit, M. C. & Zhu, K. Competition-interaction landscapes for the joint response of forests to climate change. Glob. Chang Biol. 20, 1979–91 (2014).
pubmed: 24932467
doi: 10.1111/gcb.12425
Qiu, T., Song, C., Clark, J., Seyednasrollah, B. & Rathnayaka, N. Understanding the continuous phenological development at daily time step with a bayesian hierarchical space-time model: impacts of climate change and extreme weather events. Remote Sens. Environ. (in the press).
Guo, F., Lenoir, J. & Bonebrake, T. C. Land-use change interacts with climate to determine elevational species redistribution. Nat. Commun. 9, 1315 (2018).
pubmed: 29615626
pmcid: 5883048
doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-03786-9
Wallingford, P. D. et al. Adjusting the lens of invasion biology to focus on the impacts of climate-driven range shifts. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 398–405 (2020).
doi: 10.1038/s41558-020-0768-2
Rosenberg, K. V. et al. Decline of the North American avifauna. Science 366, 120–124 (2019).
doi: 10.1126/science.aaw1313
Clark, J. S., Scher, C. L. & Swift, M. The emergent interactions that govern biodiversity change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2020/07/02/2003852117.full.pdf (2020).
Clark, J. S., LaDeau, S. & Ibanez, I. Fecundity of trees and the colonization-competition hypothesis. Ecol. Monogr. 74, 415–442 (2004).
doi: 10.1890/02-4093
Bogdziewicz, M., Kelly, D., Thomas, P. A., Lageard, J. G. A. & Hacket-Pain, A. Climate warming disrupts mast seeding and its fitness benefits in European beech. Nat. Plants 6, 88–94 (2020).
pubmed: 32042155
doi: 10.1038/s41477-020-0592-8
Chen, X., Brockway, D. G. & Guo, Q. Characterizing the dynamics of cone production for longleaf pine forests in the southeastern United States. For. Ecol. Manag. 429, 1–6 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2018.06.014
LaDeau, S. L. & Clark, J. S. Rising CO
pubmed: 11292871
doi: 10.1126/science.1057547
Clark, J. S., Silman, M., Kern, R., Macklin, E. & HilleRisLambers, J. Seed dispersal near and far: patterns across temperate and tropical forests. Ecology 80, 1475–1494 (1999).
doi: 10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[1475:SDNAFP]2.0.CO;2
LePage, P. T., Canham, C. D., Coates, K. D. & Bartemucci, P. Seed abundance versus substrate limitation of seedling recruitment in northern temperate forests of British Columbia. Can. J. For. Res. 30, 415–427 (2000).
doi: 10.1139/x99-223
Moles, A., Falster, D., Leishman, M. & Westoby, M. Small-seeded species produce more seeds per square metre of canopy per year, but not per individual per lifetime. J. Ecol. 92, 384–396 (2004).
doi: 10.1111/j.0022-0477.2004.00880.x
Petit, R. J. & Hampe, A. Some evolutionary consequences of being a tree. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 37, 187–214 (2006).
doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.37.091305.110215
Muller-Landau, H. C., Wright, S. J., Calderon, O., Condit, R. & Hubbell, S. P. Interspecific variation in primary seed dispersal in a tropical forest. J. Ecol. 96, 653–667 (2008).
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2008.01399.x
Department of the Treasury. Report to Congress on the Depreciation of Fruit and Nut Trees [Microform] (Dept. of the Treasury, Washington, 1990).
Downs, A. & McQuilkin, W. Seed production of southern Appalachian oaks. J. For. 42, 913–920 (1944).
Clark, J. S. et al. High-dimensional coexistence based on individual variation: a synthesis of evidence. Ecol. Monogr. 80, 569–608 (2010).
doi: 10.1890/09-1541.1
Minor, D. M. & Kobe, R. K. Fruit production is influenced by tree size and size-asymmetric crowding in a wet tropical forest. Ecol. Evol. 9, 1458–1472 (2019).
pubmed: 30805174
pmcid: 6374663
doi: 10.1002/ece3.4867
Schliep, E. M., Gelfand, A. E. & Clark, J. S. Stochastic modeling for velocity of climate change. J. Agric. Biol. Environ. Stat. 20, 323–342 (2015).
doi: 10.1007/s13253-015-0210-9
Alfaro-Sánchez, R., Muller-Landau, H. C., Wright, S. J. & Camarero, J. J. Growth and reproduction respond differently to climate in three neotropical tree species. Oecologia 184, 531–541 (2017).
pubmed: 28477048
doi: 10.1007/s00442-017-3879-3
Mund, M. et al. It is not just a ‘trade-off’: indications for sink- and source-limitation to vegetative and regenerative growth in an old-growth beech forest. N. Phytologist 226, 111–125 (2020).
doi: 10.1111/nph.16408
Mencuccini, M., Manzoni, S. & Christoffersen, B. Modelling water fluxes in plants: from tissues to biosphere. N. Phytologist 222, 1207–1222 (2019).
doi: 10.1111/nph.15681
Crossley, M. S. et al. No net insect abundance and diversity declines across US Long Term Ecological Research sites. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1368–1376 (2020).
pubmed: 32778751
doi: 10.1038/s41559-020-1269-4
Graham, E. A., Mulkey, S. S., Kitajima, K., Phillips, N. G. & Wright, S. J. Cloud cover limits net CO
pubmed: 12518044
pmcid: 141037
doi: 10.1073/pnas.0133045100
Hannah, L. et al. Thirty percent land conservation and climate action reduces tropical extinction risk by more than fifty percent. Ecography https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ecog.05166 (2020).
Courbaud, B., Pupin, C., Letort, A., Cabanettes, A. & Larrieu, L. Modelling the probability of microhabitat formation on trees using cross-sectional data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 8, 1347–1359 (2017).
doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12773
Guldin, J. Silvicultural options in forests of the southern united states under changing climatic conditions. N. For. 50, 1–17 (2018).
Hansen, M. C. et al. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 342, 850–853 (2013).
doi: 10.1126/science.1244693
Pesendorfer, M. B. et al. Investigating the relationship between climate, stand age, and temporal trends in masting behavior of european forest trees. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 1654–1667 (2020).
doi: 10.1111/gcb.14945
Greenberg, C. H. Individual variation in acorn production by five species of southern appalachian oaks. For. Ecol. Manag. 132, 199–210 (2000).
doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(99)00226-1
Wikle, C. K. Hierarchical Bayesian models for predicting the spread of ecological processes. Ecology 84, 1382–1394 (2003).
doi: 10.1890/0012-9658(2003)084[1382:HBMFPT]2.0.CO;2
Knops, J. M. H. & Koenig, W. D. Sex allocation in California oaks: trade-offs or resource tracking? PLoS ONE 7, e43492 (2012).
pubmed: 22952692
pmcid: 3428368
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043492
Rose, A. K., Greenberg, C. H. & Fearer, T. M. Acorn production prediction models for five common oak species of the eastern United States. J. Wildl. Manag. 76, 750–758 (2012).
doi: 10.1002/jwmg.291
Messaoud, Y., Bergeron, Y. & Asselin, H. Reproductive potential of balsam fir (Abies balsamea), white spruce (Picea glauca), and black spruce (P. mariana) at the ecotone between mixedwood and coniferous forests in the boreal zone of western Quebec. Am. J. Bot. 94, 746–754 (2007).
pubmed: 21636443
doi: 10.3732/ajb.94.5.746
Rodman, K. C. et al. Limitations to recovery following wildfire in dry forests of southern Colorado and northern New Mexico, USA. Ecol. Appl. 30, e02001 (2020).
pubmed: 31518473
doi: 10.1002/eap.2001
Qin, Y. et al. Agricultural risks from changing snowmelt. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 459–465 (2020).
doi: 10.1038/s41558-020-0746-8
Karger, D. N. et al. Climatologies at high resolution for the earth’s land surface areas. Scientific Data 4, 170122 (2017).
pubmed: 28872642
pmcid: 5584396
doi: 10.1038/sdata.2017.122