4.1 Article

Local experimental growth rates respond to macroclimate for the lichen epiphyte Lobaria pulmonaria

Journal

PLANT ECOLOGY & DIVERSITY
Volume 5, Issue 3, Pages 365-372

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/17550874.2012.728640

Keywords

bioclimatic modelling; epiphyte; growth rates; Lobaria pulmonaria; macroclimate; North America

Categories

Funding

  1. NERC

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Bioclimatic models are widely applied in biogeography and conservation biology; however, the functional relevance of macroclimate as an explanation for species performance (e.g. establishment, growth and survival, fecundity) has been challenged. Aims: In this study, we aimed to determine whether the ecological performance of an epiphytic lichen is related to coarse-grained macroclimate. Methods: A meta-analysis was carried out to compare local growth rates for a lichen epiphyte, Lobaria pulmonaria, to coarse-grained interpolated climate surfaces. Growth rates were sampled from small-scale experiments conducted within different forest settings and for different regions of the world. Generalised linear mixed models were used to compare thallus growth (response) to a suite of climatic variables derived from the WorldClim dataset. Results: A significant relationship between thallus growth measured for experimental forest microhabitats and macroclimatic variables (total precipitation and annual mean temperature) was found. This relationship was validated through a comparison with L. pulmonaria's North American range for which projected growth rates were higher and lower where the species tended to be present and absent, respectively. Conclusions: The ecological relevance of coarse-grained macroclimate applied in bioclimatic modelling has been challenged. We show that the use of macroclimatic data may be functionally defensible where correlated with independent measures of local ecological success.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available