Topographic, latitudinal and climatic distribution of Pinus coulteri: Geographic range limits are not at the edge of the climate envelope

Ecography

Volumn 38, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 590-601

  Chardon, Nathalie I ^a   Cornwell, William K ^b   Flint, Lorraine E ^c   Flint, Alan L ^c   Ackerly, David D ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^c U S GEOLOGICAL SURVEY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLIMATE CHANGE; CLIMATE PREDICTION; CONIFEROUS TREE; EDGE EFFECT; FIELD METHOD; HERBARIUM; INSOLATION; LATITUDINAL GRADIENT; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RANGE EXPANSION; TOPOGRAPHY; WARMING;

PINUS COULTERI;

EID: 84930175695     PISSN: 09067590     EISSN: 16000587     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/ecog.00780     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Ackerly, D. D. 2003. Community assembly, niche conservatism, and adaptive evolution in changing environments. - Int. J. Plant Sci. 164: S165-S184.
2. Araujo, M. B. and Peterson, A. T. 2012. Uses and misuses of bioclimatic envelope modeling. - Ecology 93: 1527-1539.
3. Baldwin, B. G. et al. 2012. The Jepson manual: vascular plants of California, 2nd ed. - Univ. of California Press.
4. Barbour, M. G. et al. 2007. Terrestrial vegetation of California. - Univ. of California Press.
5. Bay Area Open Space Council 2011. - The Conservation Lands Network: San Francisco Bay Area Upland Habitat Goals Project Report, Berkeley, CA.
6. Boyko, H. 1947. On the role of plants as quantitative climate indicators and the geo-ecological law of distribution. - J. Ecol. 35: 138-157.
7. CONAGUA 2010. Baja California. - Comisión Nacional del Agua, Servicio Meteorológico Nacional, < http://smn.cna.gob.mx/index.php?option = com_content&view = article&id = 161:baja-california&catid = 14:normales-por-estacion>.
8. Consortium of California Herbaria 2014. - Regents of the Univ. of California, < ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/>.
9. Critchfield, W. B. and Little, E. L. 1966. Geographic distribution of the pines of the World. - U.S. Government Printing Office.
10. Daly, C. et al. 2002. A knowledge-based approach to the statistical mapping of climate. - Clim. Res. 22: 99-113.
11. Daly, C. et al. 2008. Physiographically sensitive mapping of climatological temperature and precipitation across the conterminous United States. - Int. J. Climatol. 28: 2031-2064.
12. Das, A. J. et al. 2013. Climatic correlates of tree mortality in water- and energy-limited forests. - PLoS One 8: e69917.
13. Ehrlen, J. and Eriksson, O. 2000. Dispersal limitation and patch occupancy in forest herbs. - Ecology 81: 1667-1674.
14. Elith, J. et al. 2011. A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists. - Biodivers. Res. 17: 43-57.
15. Flint, L. E. and Flint, A. L. 2012. Downscaling future climate scenarios to fine scales for hydrologic and ecological modeling and analysis. - Ecol. Process. 1: 1-15.
16. Flint, L. E. et al. 2013. Fine-scale hydrologic modeling for regional landscape applications: the California Basin Characterization Model development and performance. - Ecol. Process. 2: 25.
17. Haller, J. R. and Vivrette, N. 2012. Pinus coulteri. - Jepson eFlora, Jepson Flora Project ver. 1.0, .
18. Hickling, R. et al. 2006. The distributions of a wide range of taxonomic groups are expanding polewards. - Global Change Biol. 12: 450-455.
19. Hijmans, R. J. and Graham, C. H. 2006. The ability of climate envelope models to predict the effect of climate change on species distributions. - Global Change Biol. 12: 2272-2281.
20. Hijmans, R. J. et al. 2005. Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. - Int. J. Climatol. 25: 1965-1978.
21. Holland, P. G. and Steyn, D. G. 1975. Vegetational responses to latitudinal variations in slope angle and aspect. - J. Biogeogr. 2: 179-183.
22. Hughes, L. 2000. Biological consequences of global warming: is the signal already apparent? - Trends Ecol. Evol. 15: 56-61.
23. iNaturalist.org 2014. - .
24. IPCC 2013. Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. - In: Stocker, T. F. et al. (eds), Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge Univ. Press, p. 131.
25. Jackson, S. T. and Weng, C. Y. 1999. Late quaternary extinction of a tree species in eastern North America. - Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96: 13847-13852.
26. Jackson, S. T. and Overpeck, J. T. 2000. Responses of plant populations and communities to environmental changes of the late Quaternary. - Paleobiology 26: 194-220.
27. Johnson, M. et al. 2003. A comparative analysis of seed and cone characteristics and seed-dispersal strategies of three pines in the subsection Sabinianae. - Plant Ecol. 168: 69-84.
28. Kueppers, L. M. et al. 2005. Modeled regional climate change and California endemic oak ranges. - Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102: 16281-16286.
29. La Sorte, F. A. and Thompson, F. R. 2007. Poleward shifts in winter ranges of North American birds. - Ecology 88: 1803-1812.
30. Ledig, F. T. 2000. Founder effects and the genetic structure of Coulter pine. - Am. Genet. Assoc. 91: 307-315.
31. Liu, C. et al. 2013. Selecting thresholds for the prediction of species occurrence with presence-only data. - J. Biogeogr. 40: 778-789.
32. Loarie, S. R. et al. 2008. Climate change and the future of California's endemic flora. - PLoS One 3: e2502.
33. McCarty, J. P. 2001. Ecological consequences of recent climate change. - Conserv. Biol. 15: 320-331.
34. McCune, B. and Keon, D. 2002. Equations for potential annual direct incident radiation and heat load. - J. Veg. Sci. 13: 603-606.
35. Meehl, G. A. et al. 2007. The WCRP3 multi-model dataset: a new era in climate change research. - Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 88: 1383-1394.
36. Minnich, R. A. and Everett, R. G. 2001. Conifer tree distributions in southern California. - Madrono 48: 177-197.
37. Moran, R. 1977. Plant notes from the Sierra Juarez of Baja-California Mexico. - Phytologia 35: 205-215.
38. Parmesan, C. 2006. Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. - Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 37: 637-669.
39. Peterson, A. T. et al. 2011. Ecological niches and geographic distributions. - Princeton Univ. Press.
40. Phillips, S. J. et al. 2004. A maximum entropy approach to species distribution modeling. - Proc. 21st Int. Conf. Machine learning.
41. Poulos, et al. 2012. Differential stress tolerance of four pines (Pinaceae) across the elevation gradient of the San Bernardino Mountains, southern California, USA. - J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 139: 96-108.
42. Rodda, G. H. et al. 2011. Challenges in identifying sites climatically matched to the native ranges of animal invaders. - PLoS One 6: e14670.
43. Serra-Diaz, J. M. et al. 2013. Bioclimatic velocity: the pace of species exposure to climate change. - Divers. Distrib. doi: 10.1111/ddi.12131
44. Stephenson, N. L. 1998. Actual evapotranspiration and deficit: biologically meaningful correlates of vegetation distribution across spatial scales. - J. Biogeogr. 25: 855-870.
45. Taylor, K. E. et al. 2012. An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. - Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 93: 485-498.
46. Thorne, J. H. et al. 2012. Development and application of downscaled hydroclimatic predictor variables for use in climate vulnerability and assessment studies. - California Energy Commission, CEC-500-2012-010.
47. USGS 2010. U.S. Geological Survey. - .
48. Warren, II R. J. 2008. Mechanisms driving understory evergreen herb distributions across slope aspects: as derived from landscape position. - Plant Ecol. 198: 297-308.
49. Wiens, J. A. et al. 2009. Niches, models, and climate change: assessing the assumptions and uncertainties. - Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106: 19729-19736.
50. Wood, A. W. et al. 2002. Long-range experimental hydrologic forecasting for the eastern United States. - J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 107: D20.
51. Wood, A. W. et al. 2004. Hydrologic implications of dynamical and statistical approaches to downscaling climate model outputs. - Clim. Change 62: 189-216.
52. 2 exchange in the field as related to lower elevational limits of pines. - Am. Midl. Nat. 83: 321-329.