The race is not to the swift: long-term data reveal pervasive declines in California's low-elevation butterfly fauna.
ABSTRACT Understanding the ecology of extinction is one of the primary challenges facing ecologists in the 21st century. Much of our current understanding of extinction, particularly for invertebrates, comes from studies with large geographic coverage but less temporal resolution, such as comparisons between historical collection records and contemporary surveys for geographic regions or political entities. We present a complementary approach involving a data set that is geographically restricted but temporally intensive: we focus on three sites in the Central Valley of California, and utilize 35 years of biweekly (every two weeks) surveys at our most long-sampled site. Previous analyses of these data revealed declines in richness over recent decades. Here, we take a more detailed approach to investigate the mode of decline for this fauna. We ask if all species are in decline, or only a subset. We also investigate traits commonly found to be predictors of extinction risk in other studies, such as body size, diet breadth, habitat association, and geographic range. We find that population declines are ubiquitous: the majority of species at our three focal sites (but not at a nearby site at higher elevation) are characterized by reductions in the fraction of days that they are observed per year. These declines are not readily predicted by ecological traits, with the possible exception of ruderal/non-ruderal status. Ruderal species, in slightly less precipitous decline than non-ruderal taxa, are more dispersive and more likely to be associated with disturbed habitats and exotic hosts. We conclude that population declines and extirpation, particularly in regions severely and recently impacted by anthropogenic alteration, might not be as predictable as has been suggested by other studies on the ecology of extinction.
- SourceAvailable from: Kayce L Casner[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Butterfly populations are naturally patchy and undergo extinctions and recolonizations. Analyses based on more than 2 decades of data on California's Central Valley butterfly fauna show a net loss in species richness through time. We analyzed 22 years of phenological and faunistic data for butterflies to investigate patterns of species richness over time. We then used 18-22 years of data on changes in regional land use and 37 years of seasonal climate data to develop an explanatory model. The model related the effects of changes in land-use patterns, from working landscapes (farm and ranchland) to urban and suburban landscapes, and of a changing climate on butterfly species richness. Additionally, we investigated local trends in land use and climate. A decline in the area of farmland and ranchland, an increase in minimum temperatures during the summer and maximum temperatures in the fall negatively affected net species richness, whereas increased minimum temperatures in the spring and greater precipitation in the previous summer positively affected species richness. According to the model, there was a threshold between 30% and 40% working-landscape area below which further loss of working-landscape area had a proportionally greater effect on butterfly richness. Some of the isolated effects of a warming climate acted in opposition to affect butterfly richness. Three of the 4 climate variables that most affected richness showed systematic trends (spring and summer mean minimum and fall mean maximum temperatures). Higher spring minimum temperatures were associated with greater species richness, whereas higher summer temperatures in the previous year and lower rainfall were linked to lower richness. Patterns of land use contributed to declines in species richness (although the pattern was not linear), but the net effect of a changing climate on butterfly richness was more difficult to discern. Contribución de la Expansión Urbana y un Clima Cambiante a la Declinación de la Fauna de Mariposas.Conservation Biology 02/2014; · 4.36 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Understanding recent biogeographic responses to climate change is fundamental for improving our predictions of likely future responses and guiding conservation planning at both local and global scales. Studies of observed biogeographic responses to 20th century climate change have principally examined effects related to ubiquitous increases in temperature - collectively termed a warming fingerprint. Although the importance of changes in other aspects of climate - particularly precipitation and water availability - is widely acknowledged from a theoretical standpoint and supported by paleontological evidence, we lack a practical understanding of how these changes interact with temperature to drive biogeographic responses. Further complicating matters, differences in life history and ecological attributes may lead species to respond differently to the same changes in climate. Here, we examine whether recent biogeographic patterns across California are consistent with a warming fingerprint. We describe how various components of climate have changed regionally in California during the 20th century and review empirical evidence of biogeographic responses to these changes, particularly elevational range shifts. Many responses to climate change do not appear to be consistent with a warming fingerprint, with downslope shifts in elevation being as common as upslope shifts across a number of taxa and many demographic and community responses being inconsistent with upslope shifts. We identify a number of potential direct and indirect mechanisms for these responses, including the influence of aspects of climate change other than temperature (e.g., the shifting seasonal balance of energy and water availability), differences in each taxon's sensitivity to climate change, trophic interactions, and land-use change. Finally, we highlight the need to move beyond a warming fingerprint in studies of biogeographic responses by considering a more multifaceted view of climate, emphasizing local-scale effects, and including a priori knowledge of relevant natural history for the taxa and regions under study.Global Change Biology 06/2014; · 8.22 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: An important and largely unaddressed issue in studies of biotic-abiotic relationships is the extent to which closely related species, or species living in similar habitats, have similar responses to weather. We addressed this by applying a hierarchical, Bayesian analytical framework to a long-term data set for butterflies which allowed us to simultaneously investigate responses of the entire fauna and individual species. A small number of variables had community-level effects. In particular, higher total annual snow depth had a positive effect on butterfly occurrences, while spring minimum temperature and El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) sea-surface variables for April-May had negative standardized coefficients. Our most important finding was that variables with large impacts at the community-level did not necessarily have a consistent response across all species. Species-level responses were much more similar to each other for snow depth compared to the other variables with strong community effects. This variation in species-level responses to weather variables raises important complications for the prediction of biotic responses to shifting climatic conditions. In addition, we found that clear associations with weather can be detected when considering ecologically delimited subsets of the community. For example, resident species and non-ruderal species had a much more unified response to weather variables compared to non-resident species and ruderal species, which suggests local adaptation to climate. These results highlight the complexity of biotic-abiotic interactions and confront that complexity with methodological advances that allow ecologists to understand communities and shifting climates while simultaneously revealing species-specific variation in response to climate.Ecology 08/2014; 95(8):2155-68. · 5.00 Impact Factor