Defining and observing stages of climate-mediated range shifts in marine systems

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.03.009Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Range shifts are increasingly influencing marine biodiversity and resources.

  • Here we define range extensions and contractions as stages.

  • Range shifts can be staged with multiple evidence types and applied to diverse species.

  • Relative range extension and contraction rates should be calculated for equivalent stages.

  • Assigning confidence to shifts with a stage-based framework may underpin ecological insights.

Abstract

Climate change is transforming the structure of biological communities through the geographic extension and contraction of species’ ranges. Range edges are naturally dynamic, and shifts in the location of range edges occur at different rates and are driven by different mechanisms. This leads to challenges when seeking to generalize responses among taxa and across systems. We focus on warming-related range shifts in marine systems to describe extensions and contractions as stages. Range extensions occur as a sequence of (1) arrival, (2) population increase, and (3) persistence. By contrast, range contractions occur progressively as (1) performance decline, (2) population decrease and (3) local extinction. This stage-based framework can be broadly applied to geographic shifts in any species, life-history stage, or population subset. Ideally the probability of transitioning through progressive range shift stages could be estimated from empirical understanding of the various factors influencing range shift rates. Nevertheless, abundance and occupancy data at the spatial resolution required to quantify range shifts are often unavailable and we suggest the pragmatic solution of considering observations of range shifts within a confidence framework incorporating the type, amount and quality of data. We use case studies to illustrate how diverse evidence sources can be used to stage range extensions and contractions and assign confidence that an observed range shift stage has been reached. We then evaluate the utility of trait-based risk (invasion) and vulnerability (extinction) frameworks for application in a range shift context and find inadequacies, indicating an important area for development. We further consider factors that influence rates of extension and contraction of range edges in marine habitats. Finally, we suggest approaches required to increase our capacity to observe and predict geographic range shifts under climate change.

Introduction

In order to persist in the face of environmental change, species cope, adjust in situ or shift their geographical distribution (Maggini et al., 2011). Understanding this trade-off has inspired decades of research addressing the implications of long-term responses of populations, communities and biodiversity to global change, with species redistribution receiving significant research effort (Root et al., 2003, Hickling et al., 2006, Hawkins et al., 2008, Hawkins et al., 2009, Wernberg et al., 2011, Bellard et al., 2012, Cahill et al., 2012, La Sorte and Jetz, 2012, Parmesan and Yohe, 2003). Climate change has altered the spatial distributions of species by changing the balance between colonization and extinction, leading to geographic shifts in the location of species’ range edges (Gaston, 2003, Sinervo et al., 2010, Cheung et al., 2013, Poloczanska et al., 2013). The rapid pace of climate change means that range shifts are expected to be the dominant impact on ecosystem function and structure (Dawson et al., 2011, Doney et al., 2012), and thus range shifts are the focus of this contribution.

Geographic shifts have been well documented at range peripheries, and in particular, at the leading edges of latitudinal and elevational ranges (Hickling et al., 2006, Sunday et al., 2012). For example, when range edges are limited by a species’ cold tolerance, warming is expected to increase organismal performance (e.g., activity, growth and immune response), survivorship and fecundity (Pörtner and Farrell, 2008), and ultimately lead to population increase. With ongoing warming, locations that were historically too cold for survival will become increasingly suitable for colonists. Range extension can be a direct response to physical parameters, such as temperature, and on land, precipitation and soil moisture (Bonebrake and Mastrandrea, 2010, Chen et al., 2011a). Extension can also be facilitated by indirect processes, for instance the arrival of a critical habitat-forming species that subsequently facilitates colonization by individuals of a dependent species (Yamano et al., 2011). By contrast, range contractions at trailing range edges are driven by population decline from areas of a species’ historical range (Helmuth et al., 2006). Sub-lethal and lethal effects of high temperature in populations at range edges occur when physiological thresholds are exceeded as environmental temperature increases, and are well-documented (e.g., Beukema et al., 2009, Jones et al., 2010, Smale and Wernberg, 2013). Indirect drivers (although less studied), such as declining food availability, have also been implicated in geographic contractions, but do not appear to be more important than temperature (Cahill et al., 2012, Cahill et al., 2014).

Species with cold range edges that are presently limited by habitat availability will be particularly vulnerable to reductions in their environmental niche caused by climate change (Burrows et al., 2011, Burrows et al., 2014, Mair et al., 2014). Examples include species that are currently threatened or constrained by habitat availability, including species from polar or alpine habitats, isolated islands or the edges of continents (Pörtner et al., 2009, Wernberg et al., 2011, Cahill et al., 2012). However, for many species, climate change will lead to both positive and negative population-level effects, as determined by local climate across their range, presenting complexities at community scales that are challenging to anticipate.

Predicting how species’ ranges will respond to climate variability is limited by our capacity to observe and establish mechanisms for both geographic extensions and contractions. This is in part because evaluating range shifts comes with at least four practical challenges. First, preliminary stages of range shifts occur as a progressive sequence that can resemble or be confounded by the stochastic dynamics of range edges (Sexton et al., 2009). Attributing shifts to long-term climate trends is difficult if historical data are inadequate to quantify the portion of variability in the observed location of the range edge due to processes unrelated to climate change. Second, what constitutes a range shift can be difficult to define – range shifts can occur for different life history stages, such as larvae or adults, and new or remnant peripheral populations may represent viable self-recruiting or immigration-dependent populations. Third, the mechanisms setting range edge boundaries differ among species and therefore rates of range shift responses will also vary among species (Brown et al., 1996, Gaston, 2003, Sexton et al., 2009, Doak and Morris, 2010). Fourth, extension and contraction processes are underpinned by evolutionary, physiological, and demographic processes (Lenoir and Svenning, 2013). Such detailed biological information is rarely available at the community level and tracking distributions through time remains elusive for many species, limiting our power to predict range shifts from climate data alone.

Theoretical understanding of biological responses to climate change has been developed for terrestrial systems (e.g., Bellard et al., 2012, Lenoir and Svenning, 2013). We seek to translate this understanding to develop a framework for categorizing marine range shifts into discrete stages. We focus primarily on warming-related range shifts because the distributions of marine species generally correspond more closely to their environmental niche and have been directly responsive to climate warming (Sunday et al., 2012). In fact, the primary role of temperature in setting distributional limits has long been recognized for marine species (Hutchins, 1947). A notable example comes from 70 years of abundance data from intertidal invertebrates and plankton from the western English Channel. Periods of range extension by warm-water species corresponded with periods with warmer ocean temperatures, and contraction in these same species occurred during cooler periods, while the reverse occurred for cold affinity species (Southward et al., 1995). Indeed, temperature has been implicated as a pervasive driver of geographic range extension and contraction in diverse marine fauna and flora, e.g., seaweeds (e.g., Root et al., 2003, Tanaka et al., 2012, Smale and Wernberg, 2013, Nicastro et al., 2013), invertebrates (e.g., Sagarin et al., 1999, Helmuth et al., 2006, Mieszkowska et al., 2006), and fishes (e.g., Perry et al., 2005, Dulvy et al., 2008, Last et al., 2011). For these reasons, marine systems provide the opportunity to examine the progression of range shifts in species that span large-scale environmental gradients, where many species have been, and will continue to be, highly responsive to ocean warming (Cheung et al., 2013).

Here, we present a generalized framework for defining successive stages of geographic extension and contraction at range edges. We next consider differences in our capacity to observe these stages, and how limitations may be influencing our understanding of climate-mediated range shifts. Each range extension and contraction stage can be integrated within a confidence framework that considers the type and amount of evidence, and consensus among diverse lines of evidence, to provide an overall confidence score. We also explore how different biological traits and extrinsic factors can influence how quickly populations at range edges may transition through extension and contraction stages. Finally, we identify pragmatic directions for testing, observing and predicting range shift mechanisms and dynamics in marine systems.

Formulating range extensions and contractions as a series of well-defined stages facilitates: (1) the use of different types of data, (2) application across diverse species, (3) appropriate quantification of range shift rates so that early extension stages are not compared to late contraction stages, and (4) data objectives for monitoring programmes that will improve the capacity to make globally comparable assessments of community changes in response to warming.

Section snippets

Stages of range extension and contraction

Identification of range extension and contraction stages can be used to advance comparative analyses so that rates of change across systems and regions are standardized. A large body of research on range dynamics indicates that range extension can be compared to the final three stages of an invasion pathway, where non-native species move long distances to a novel geographic location, colonize, establish and spread (Theoharides and Dukes, 2007, Sorte et al., 2010). Similarly, range extensions

Variability in range edge locations

A key challenge to classifying species and events with this extension and contraction framework is the risk of misclassifying events due to background variability in distribution and abundance patterns that arise, for example, in species with vagrant individuals or species undergoing distribution change due to confounding human activities (Helmuth et al., 2006, Sexton et al., 2009, Fenberg and Rivadeneira, 2011). Moreover, in cases where species range boundaries are at equilibrium with climate,

Multiple sources of evidence for range shifts and confidence classification

The pragmatic use of multiple evidence sources for assessing range shifts generally represents the best approach, at least until biological monitoring programmes are implemented at the spatial resolution and sampling frequency to accurately capture range dynamics. For example, changes in a range boundary over two or more time points may provide information on the distance a range boundary has shifted; but even greater understanding can be gleaned from information on the life-history stages

Observing range shifts

One of the key complicating factors in climate change ecology is that many species have not undergone range changes or have moved in the opposite direction to isotherm shifts. Some of these non-shifting species may be falsely classified as responding to climate change while other shifting species may appear stable. Here we discuss three general issues of detectability that may result in misclassifications of range shift stages and may hinder recognition of patterns of change that are important

Are range extending and contracting species distinguished by their traits?

Some marine species have displayed stable distributions or shifted in a direction opposite to isotherms (Lima et al., 2007, Przeslawski et al., 2012), even in ocean warming hotspots (Last et al., 2011, Pitt et al., 2010, Poloczanska et al., 2011, Poloczanska et al., 2013). While this lack of range shift may be due in part to the challenges associated with accurately measuring changes in geographic location of range edges, as discussed earlier, an open question is whether species displaying

Why have so few species responded in the same direction as isotherms?

While biological traits of species will presumably shape the sensitivity of species to environmental change, in some cases extrinsic factors may exacerbate or constrain extension or contraction processes (Helmuth et al., 2006).

Here we highlight, among many, four mechanisms that are commonly explored in the literature (e.g., Gaston, 2003, Svenning and Skov, 2004, Sunday et al., 2012).

First, in many species, the current range edge may not be at equilibrium with climate and may even temporarily

Recommendations for a future in which range shifts can be observed and predicted with high confidence

Increasing our power to identify the underlying drivers of distribution change will advance our forecasting capacity. Given the potential impacts of range shifts, including significant changes to global resources and ecosystem services, identifying mechanisms for distribution change and developing predictive capacity are vital for conservation and management. Here, we identify approaches for monitoring, assigning confidence, and modelling range shifts that will contribute to a future with a

Conclusions

The underlying mechanisms of range shift processes are multi-layered, but can be classified into sequential steps. Species’ responsiveness to climate change involves all levels of biological organization and interactions with various biotic and abiotic factors (Cahill et al., 2012, Grigaltchik et al., 2012, Kordas et al., 2011). A consistent framework to define and assess range shifts will therefore facilitate global comparisons of species at each stage of range change and should advance

Acknowledgements

The Australian National Network in Marine Science, a collaborative funding initiative between James Cook University, The University of Tasmania, and The University of Western Australia, supported this study. T.W. was supported by an Australian Research Council (ARC) Future Fellowship (FT110100174), J.S. was supported by the NSERC Michael Smith Foreign Study Supplements Program, and G.J.E. by ARC Grant LP100200122. We thank T.J. Bird for comments on manuscript drafts and to A. Cooper, R.

References (132)

  • R. Przeslawski et al.

    Using rigorous selection criteria to investigate marine range shifts

    Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci.

    (2012)
  • C.M. Aiken et al.

    Potential changes in larval dispersal and alongshore connectivity on the central Chilean coast due to an altered wind climate

    J. Geophys. Res.

    (2011)
  • A.L. Angert et al.

    Do species’ traits predict recent shifts at expanding range edges?

    Ecol. Lett.

    (2011)
  • A.E. Bates et al.

    Geographical range, heat tolerance, and invasion success of aquatic species

    Proc. R. Soc. B

    (2013)
  • C. Bellard et al.

    Impacts of climate change on the future of biodiversity

    Ecol. Lett.

    (2012)
  • J. Berge et al.

    Ocean temperature oscillations enable reappearance of blue mussels Mytilus edulis in Svalbard after a 1000 year absence

    Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

    (2005)
  • P.E. Betzholtz et al.

    With that diet, you will go far: trait-based analysis reveals a link between rapid range expansion and a nitrogen-favoured diet

    Proc. R. Soc. B

    (2013)
  • J.J. Beukema et al.

    Some like it cold: populations of the tellinid bivalve Macoma balthica (L.) suffer in various ways from a warming climate

    Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

    (2009)
  • T.J. Bird et al.

    Statistical solutions for error and bias in global citizen science datasets

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2014)
  • J.L. Blanchard et al.

    Do climate and fishing influence size-based indicators of Celtic Sea fish community structure

    ICES J. Mar. Sci.

    (2005)
  • J.L. Blanchard et al.

    Power of monitoring surveys to detect abundance trends in depleted fish populations: the effects of density-dependent habitat use, patchiness, and climate change

    ICES J. Mar. Sci.

    (2008)
  • T.C. Bonebrake et al.

    Tolerance adaptation and precipitation changes complicate latitudinal patterns of climate change impacts

    Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.

    (2010)
  • D.J. Booth et al.

    Detecting range shifts among Australian fishes in response to climate change

    Mar. Freshw. Res.

    (2011)
  • C. Both et al.

    Adjustment to climate change is constrained by arrival date in a long-distance migrant bird

    Nature

    (2001)
  • C.J. Brown et al.

    Quantitative approaches in climate change ecology

    Global Change Biol.

    (2011)
  • J.H. Brown et al.

    The geographic range: size, shape, boundaries, and internal structure

    Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst.

    (1996)
  • M.T. Burrows et al.

    The pace of shifting climate in marine and terrestrial ecosystems

    Science

    (2011)
  • M.T. Burrows et al.

    Geographical limits to species-range shifts are suggested by climate velocity

    Nature

    (2014)
  • S. Butchart

    Using the IUCN red list criteria to assess species with declining populations

    Conserv. Biol.

    (2003)
  • A.E. Cahill et al.

    How does climate change cause extinction?

    Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B

    (2012)
  • A.E. Cahill et al.

    Causes of warm-edge range limits: systematic review, proximate factors and implications for climate change

    J. Biogeogr.

    (2014)
  • I.-C. Chen et al.

    Rapid range shifts of species associated with high levels of climate warming

    Science

    (2011)
  • I.C. Chen et al.

    Asymmetric boundary shifts of tropical montane Lepidoptera over four decades of climate warming

    Global Ecol. Biogeogr.

    (2011)
  • W.W.L. Cheung et al.

    Large-scale redistribution of maximum fisheries catch potential in the global ocean under climate change

    Global Change Biol.

    (2010)
  • W.W.L. Cheung et al.

    Signature of ocean warming in global fisheries catch

    Nature

    (2013)
  • D.J. Crisp et al.

    The distribution of intertidal organisms along the coasts of the English Channel

    J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK

    (1958)
  • T.P. Dawson et al.

    Beyond predictions: biodiversity conservation in a changing climate

    Science

    (2011)
  • D.F. Doak et al.

    Demographic compensation and tipping points in climate-induced range shifts

    Nature

    (2010)
  • S.C. Doney et al.

    Climate change impacts on marine ecosystems

    Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci.

    (2012)
  • N.K. Dulvy et al.

    Climate change and deepening of the North Sea fish assemblage: a biotic indicator of warming seas

    J. Appl. Ecol.

    (2008)
  • R. Early et al.

    Analysis of climate paths reveals potential limitations on species range shifts

    Ecol. Lett.

    (2011)
  • P.B. Fenberg et al.

    Range limits and geographic patterns of abundance of the rocky intertidal owl limpet, Lottia gigantean

    J. Biogeogr.

    (2011)
  • M. Feng et al.

    Retention and dispersal of shelf waters influenced by interactions of ocean boundary current and coastal geography

    Mar. Freshw. Res.

    (2010)
  • F. Ferretti et al.

    Long-term change in a meso-predator community in response to prolonged and heterogeneous human impact

    Sci. Rep.

    (2013)
  • W.B. Foden et al.

    Species susceptibility to climate change impacts

  • S.A. Foo et al.

    Adaptive capacity of the habitat modifying sea urchin Centrostephanus rodgersii to ocean warming and ocean acidification: performance of early embryos

    PLoS ONE

    (2012)
  • G.E. Garrard et al.

    A general model of detectability using species traits

    Method Ecol. Evol.

    (2013)
  • K.J. Gaston

    The Structure and Dynamics of Geographic Ranges

    (2003)
  • K.J. Gaston et al.

    Macrophysiology: a conceptual reunification

    Am. Nat.

    (2009)
  • V.S. Grigaltchik et al.

    Thermal acclimation of interactions: differential responses to temperature change alter predator–prey relationship

    Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B

    (2012)
  • Cited by (204)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text