4.2 Article

Intraspecific consistency and geographic variability in temporal trends of spring migration phenology among European bird species

期刊

CLIMATE RESEARCH
卷 35, 期 1-2, 页码 135-146

出版社

INTER-RESEARCH
DOI: 10.3354/cr00720

关键词

first arrival date; long-distance migrants; median arrival date; repeatability; short-distance migrants

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the course of the 20th century, migratory birds have shown rapid phenological changes in response to climate change. However, the spatial variability of phenological changes, as well as their intraspecific consistency, remains largely unexplored. Here we analysed 672 estimates of change in first arrival dates of migratory birds and 289 estimates of mean/median arrival dates, based on time series with a minimum duration of 15 yr, collected across Europe from 1960 to 2006. There were highly significant advances in arrival date, significantly more so for first than mean arrival date. Change in arrival dates significantly varied among species, implying that response to climate change is a species-specific feature, and showed substantial phylogenetic effects, since ca. 50% of the variation in the observed trends was attributable to differences among species. The advance in first arrival date was weaker at extreme latitudes and stronger at intermediate latitudes, while geographic variation in mean arrival dates was less pronounced. Both first and mean arrival dates advanced the most for short-compared to long-distance migrants. These findings emphasize the reliability of estimates of phenological trends of avian species, which are therefore suitable to be included in comparative analyses aimed at identifying species-specific traits that favour adaptation to climatic changes. In addition, our results suggest that analyses of factors that have affected phenological responses to climate change should take into account spatial variation in the response, which could be due to spatial differences in the strength of climate change.

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

4.2
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