Trait-Based Assessments of Climate-Change Impacts on Interacting Species

Schleuning, Matthias; Neuschulz, Eike Lena; Albrecht, Jörg; Bender, Irene M. A.; Bowler, Diana E.; Dehling, D. Matthias; Fritz, Susanne A.; Hof, Christian; Mueller, Thomas; Nowak, Larissa; Sorensen, Marjorie C.; Böhning‐Gaese, Katrin; Kissling, W. Daniel

doi:10.1016/j.tree.2019.12.010

Cited by 112 publications

(97 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…None of the functional traits we analysed, and that have proven to be important for the nestedness of frugivore‐seed dispersal networks, had a significant effect in waterbird networks. This suggests that predicting how global change will influence waterbird–plant dispersal networks will be more difficult than has been proposed for frugivore–plant networks (Schleuning et al., 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Waterbird seed‐dispersal networks are similarly nested but less modular than those of frugivorous birds, and not driven by functional traits

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Frugivory is widely recognized as vital for the dispersal of many plants. Moreover, plant species and their frugivorous dispersers form seed‐dispersal assemblages whose structure has important implications for the persistence and stability of the community. However, dispersal interactions between plants and non‐frugivorous animal groups such as waterbirds remain largely understudied. We aimed to characterize the structure of waterbird seed‐dispersal networks, assess if this structure is similar to that of networks formed between frugivorous birds and fleshy‐fruited plants, and identify bird or plant functional traits important for the maintenance of network structure. We used network analyses and data from four community‐level studies on waterbird gut contents, including 12 bird and 88 plant species. We compared the network structure of waterbirds to those from previous studies of frugivorous birds. We also related the contribution of each species to the network structure with functional traits (e.g. size, habitat requirements, diet). Waterbird seed‐dispersal networks are similarly nested (i.e. specialists interact with a subset of those species that interact with generalists) but less modular (i.e. fewer semi‐independent groups of highly interacting species) than those of frugivores. Dabbling ducks, diving ducks and rallids did not separate into modules. The contribution of bird or plant species to network structure was not related to any functional trait. Seed‐dispersal networks of waterbirds share some organizational patterns with those of frugivores, but the underlying processes are not related to functional traits. This is probably related to fundamental differences between waterbirds and frugivores in how seeds are ingested. Differences in the functional role of waterbirds for seed dispersal are likely driven by other processes such as differences in population size, movement, ecology or gut processing of seeds. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Waterbird seed‐dispersal networks are similarly nested but less modular than those of frugivorous birds, and not driven by functional traits

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted June 2, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.01.127779 doi: bioRxiv preprint species interactions may structure novel assemblages under climate change is a key avenue for future research (Araújo & Luoto, 2007;Lavergne et al, 2010;Pigot & Tobias, 2013;Schleuning et al, 2016Schleuning et al, , 2020.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Pigot et al, 2020), and these data provide excellent opportunities for furthering our understanding of the likely impacts of climate change. A particularly important avenue for future research is the consideration of species interactions (Schleuning et al, 2020). This can be accomplished by combining functional trait and phylogenetic data, as functionally similar and closely-related species are less likely to coexist (Pigot et al, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global Impacts of Climate Change on Avian Functional Diversity

Stewart

Voskamp

Biber

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change is predicted to drive geographical range shifts in many taxa, leading to the formation of novel species assemblages and fluctuations in species richness worldwide. However, the effect of these changes on functional diversity is not yet fully understood, in part because comprehensive species-level trait data are generally lacking at global scales. Here we use morphometric and ecological trait data for 8269 terrestrial bird species to compare functional diversity (FD) of current and future bird assemblages under a medium emissions scenario. We show that future assemblages are likely to undergo substantial shifts in trait structure, with the direction and magnitude of these shifts varying with geographical location and trophic guild. Specifically, invertivore FD is projected to increase at higher latitudes with concurrent losses at mid-latitudes, reflecting poleward shifts in range, whereas frugivore FD is projected to fluctuate in many tropical regions with major declines in much of South America and New Guinea. We show that these projected changes in FD are generally greater than expected from changing species richness alone, indicating that projected FD changes are primarily driven by the loss or gain of functionally distinct species. Our findings suggest that climate change will drive continental-scale shifts in avian functional diversity, with potentially far-reaching implications for ecosystem functions and resilience.

show abstract

“…the ability to reproduce vegetatively reduces the dependence of plant species on seed dispersers). Trait‐based approaches remain a solid foundation for predicting potentially important species interactions (Bond 1994, Brodie et al 2014, Spitz et al 2014, Schleuning et al 2020), though there are some limitations (Jordán et al 2006), such as the high complexity and species diversity in some systems, and limitations in the current knowledge of network structure and dependency on interactions (Jordán et al 2006, McConkey and O'Farrill 2015, Moreno‐Mateos et al 2020). In case of particularly vulnerable interactions, some follow‐up while taking this approach is needed.…”

Section: Prioritizing Obligate Interactions For Conservationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conservation of species interactions to achieve self‐sustaining ecosystems

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A desirable goal of nature management is to re‐establish self‐sustaining ecosystems that ensure the persistence of natural habitats and species without requiring active management. Such self‐sustainability relies on functional species interactions; yet, species interactions are often overlooked in the conservation literature, and when designing species‐specific management efforts. Some interactions may not be restored under general management (e.g. land protection), and may require additional specific management interventions. Interventions targeting these specific interactions fall in a gap between general and species‐specific management, effectively bridging community‐ and population‐level approaches to conservation management. We propose that managers should explicitly identify cases where active management of specific interaction partners is required to achieve population self‐sustainability. In addition, they should ensure that general management interventions do not inadvertently conflict with naturally occurring interactions, potentially thwarting conservation targets. Interaction functionality may be restored by relying on native species and by identifying the spatial context in which interactions are most likely to re‐establish, considering distributional range overlap of interaction partners, local variation in individual encounter rate or even spatial variation in the expected success rate (efficiency) of the focal interaction.

show abstract

Trait-Based Assessments of Climate-Change Impacts on Interacting Species

Cited by 112 publications

References 64 publications

Waterbird seed‐dispersal networks are similarly nested but less modular than those of frugivorous birds, and not driven by functional traits

Waterbird seed‐dispersal networks are similarly nested but less modular than those of frugivorous birds, and not driven by functional traits

Global Impacts of Climate Change on Avian Functional Diversity

Conservation of species interactions to achieve self‐sustaining ecosystems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About