4.7 Article

A reversal of fortunes: climate change 'winners' and 'losers' in Antarctic Peninsula penguins

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 4, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep05024

关键词

-

资金

  1. Zoological Society of London
  2. Quark Expeditions
  3. Exodus Travels ltd
  4. Oceanites
  5. Holly Hill Charitable Trust
  6. Charities Advisory Trust
  7. U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) Office of Polar Programs [ANT-0739575]
  8. Natural Environment Research Council [1272500] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Climate change is a major threat to global biodiversity. Antarctic ecosystems are no exception. Investigating past species responses to climatic events can distinguish natural from anthropogenic impacts. Climate change produces 'winners', species that benefit from these events and 'losers', species that decline or become extinct. Using molecular techniques, we assess the demographic history and population structure of Pygoscelis penguins in the Scotia Arc related to climate warming after the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). All three pygoscelid penguins responded positively to post-LGM warming by expanding from glacial refugia, with those breeding at higher latitudes expanding most. Northern (Pygoscelis papua papua) and Southern (Pygoscelis papua ellsworthii) gentoo sub-species likely diverged during the LGM. Comparing historical responses with the literature on current trends, we see Southern gentoo penguins are responding to current warming as they did during post-LGM warming, expanding their range southwards. Conversely, Adelie and chinstrap penguins are experiencing a 'reversal of fortunes' as they are now declining in the Antarctic Peninsula, the opposite of their response to post-LGM warming. This suggests current climate warming has decoupled historic population responses in the Antarctic Peninsula, favoring generalist gentoo penguins as climate change 'winners', while Adelie and chinstrap penguins have become climate change 'losers'.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据