The most common approach to predicting how species ranges and ecological functions will shift with climate change is to construct correlative species distribution models (SDMs). These models use a species’ climatic distribution to determine currently suitable areas for the species and project its potential distribution under future climate scenarios. A core, rarely tested, assumption of SDMs is that all populations will respond equivalently to climate. Few studies have examined this assumption, and those that have rarely dissect the reasons for intraspecific differences. Focusing on the arctic‐alpine cushion plant Silene acaulis, we compared predictive accuracy from SDMs constructed using the species’ full global distribution with composite predictions from separate SDMs constructed using subpopulations defined either by genetic or habitat differences. This is one of the first studies to compare multiple ways of constructing intraspecific‐level SDMs with a species‐level SDM. We also examine the contested relationship between relative probability of occurrence and species performance or ecological function, testing if SDM output can predict individual performance (plant size) and biotic interactions (facilitation). We found that both genetic‐ and habitat‐informed SDMs are considerably more accurate than a species‐level SDM, and that the genetic model substantially differs from and outperforms the habitat model. While SDMs have been used to infer population performance and possibly even biotic interactions, in our system these relationships were extremely weak. Our results indicate that individual subpopulations may respond differently to climate, although we discuss and explore several alternative explanations for the superior performance of intraspecific‐level SDMs. We emphasize the need to carefully examine how to best define intraspecific‐level SDMs as well as how potential genetic, environmental, or sampling variation within species ranges can critically affect SDM predictions. We urge caution in inferring population performance or biotic interactions from SDM predictions, as these often‐assumed relationships are not supported in our study.

With changing climate, many species are projected to move poleward or to higher elevations to track suitable climates. The prediction that species will move poleward assumes that geographically marginal populations are at the edge of the species' climatic range. We studied Pinus coulteri from the center to the northern (poleward) edge of its range, and examined three scenarios regarding the relationship between the geographic and climatic margins of a species' range. We used herbarium and http://iNaturalist.org records to identify P. coulteri sites, generated a species distribution model based on temperature, precipitation, climatic water deficit, and actual evapotranspiration, and projected suitability under future climate scenarios. In fourteen populations from the central to northern portions of the range, we conducted field studies and recorded elevation, slope and aspect (to estimate solar insolation) to examine relationships between local and regional distributions. We found that northern populations of P. coulteri do not occupy the cold or wet edge of the species' climatic range; mid‐latitude, high elevation populations occupy the cold margin. Aspect and insolation of P. coulteri populations changed significantly across latitudes and elevations. Unexpectedly, northern, low‐elevation stands occupy north‐facing aspects and receive low insolation, while central, high‐elevation stands grow on more south‐facing aspects that receive higher insolation. Modeled future climate suitability is projected to be highest in the central, high elevation portion of the species range, and in low‐lying coastal regions under some scenarios, with declining suitability in northern areas under most future scenarios. For P. coulteri, the lack of high elevation habitat combined with a major dispersal barrier may limit northward movement in response to a warming climate. Our analyses demonstrate the importance of distinguishing geographically vs. climatically marginal populations, and the importance of quantitative analysis of the realized climate space to understand species range limits.

2021. A critical comparison of integral projection and matrix projection models for demographic analysis. Ecological Monographs 91(2):e01447.

1. Shifts in species geographic distributions in response to climate change have spurred numerous studies to determine which abiotic (e.g. climatic) and, less commonly, biotic (e.g. competitive) processes determine range limits. However, the impact of disturbances on range limits and their interactions with climatic and biotic effects is not well understood, despite their potential to alter competitive relationships between species or override climatic effects. Disturbance might have | 1391Journal of Applied Ecology CHARDON et Al.

Global change is modifying species communities from local to landscape scales, with alterations in the abiotic and biotic determinants of geographic range limits causing species range shifts along both latitudinal and elevational gradients. An important but often overlooked component of global change is the effect of anthropogenic disturbance, and how it interacts with the effects of climate to affect both species and communities, as well as interspecies interactions, such as facilitation and competition. We examined the effects of frequent human trampling disturbances on alpine plant communities in Switzerland, focusing on the elevational range of the widely distributed cushion plant Silene acaulis and the interactions of this facilitator species with other plants. Examining size distributions and densities, we found that disturbance appears to favor individual Silene growth at middle elevations. However, it has negative effects at the population level, as evidenced by a reduction in population density and reproductive indices. Disturbance synergistically interacts with the effects of elevation to reduce species richness at low and high elevations, an effect not mitigated by Silene. In fact, we find predominantly competitive interactions, both by Silene on its hosted and neighboring species and by neighboring (but not hosted) species on Silene. Our results indicate that disturbance can be beneficial for Silene individual performance, potentially through changes in its neighboring species community. However, possible reduced recruitment in disturbed areas could eventually lead to population declines. While other studies have shown that light to moderate disturbances can maintain high species diversity, our results emphasize that heavier disturbance reduces species richness, diversity, as well as percent cover, and adversely affects cushion plants and that these effects are not substantially reduced by plant–plant interactions. Heavily disturbed alpine systems could therefore be at greater risk for upward encroachment of lower elevation species in a warming world.