2015
DOI: 10.1111/ddi.12356
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Conservation of future boreal forest bird communities considering lags in vegetation response to climate change: a modified refugia approach

Abstract: Aim Species and ecosystems may be unable to keep pace with rapid climate change projected for the 21st century. We evaluated an underexplored dimension of the mismatch between climate and biota: limitations to forest growth and succession affecting habitat suitability. Our objective was to inform continental-scale conservation for boreal songbirds under disequilibria between climate, vegetation and fauna.Location Boreal and southern arctic ecoregions of North America.Methods We used forest inventory and avian … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

3
64
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 62 publications
(69 citation statements)
references
References 93 publications
3
64
1
Order By: Relevance
“…As a comprehensive indicator, vegetation reflects the changes of the ecological environment, and studying its response to climate change has become one of the main contents of the current global change research [4][5][6]. The enhanced vegetation index (EVI) is an important quantitative index, reflecting the growth status of the surface vegetation and is also one of the most important basic data in ecosystems research.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As a comprehensive indicator, vegetation reflects the changes of the ecological environment, and studying its response to climate change has become one of the main contents of the current global change research [4][5][6]. The enhanced vegetation index (EVI) is an important quantitative index, reflecting the growth status of the surface vegetation and is also one of the most important basic data in ecosystems research.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Inclusion of vegetation and land‐use covariates may also be sources of error. First, vegetation projections were not mechanistic and therefore do not reflect the dynamics of plant range expansion and contraction, likely overestimating future range gains and under‐estimating vulnerability (Stralberg et al, ). Furthermore, vegetation projections were based on CMIP3 climate projections, which differ from the CMIP5 projections used for climate covariates.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The fact that the vegetation classifications were consensus projections across multiple GCMs and emissions scenarios may result in under‐estimation of vegetation change under the 3°C increase scenario and over‐estimating vegetation change under the 1.5°C increase scenario. The challenge of finding vegetation projections at broad spatial scales lead many to exclude vegetation from distribution projections (Langham et al, ; Lawler et al, ; Stralberg et al, ), to use general assumptions about vegetation lag‐times (Stralberg, Bayne, et al, ), or to work with regional projections (Matthews, Iverson, Prasad, & Peters, ). We opted to include vegetation despite the limitations of available data.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Distributional modeling using occurrence or abundance data has been widely adopted as a way of predicting wildlife responses to future environmental change (Seoane et al 2004, 2015). Most of these models have been built independently of demographic mechanisms that can drive distributional shifts.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%