4.4 Article

Are Species' Range Limits Simply Niche Limits Writ Large? A Review of Transplant Experiments beyond the Range

期刊

AMERICAN NATURALIST
卷 183, 期 2, 页码 157-173

出版社

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/674525

关键词

range limit; geographic distribution; transplant experiments; meta-analysis; local adaptation; dispersal limitation

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  2. Queen's University
  3. IODE Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Many species' range limits (RL) occur across continuous environmental gradients without obvious barriers imposing them. Such RL are expected to reflect niche limits (NL) and thus to occur where populations cease to be self-sustaining. Transplant experiments comparing fitness within and beyond species' ranges can test this hypothesis, but interpretive power depends strongly on experimental design. We first identify often overlooked aspects of transplant design that are critical to establishing the causes of RL, especially incorporating transplant sites at, and source populations from, the range edge. We then conduct a meta-analysis of published beyond-range transplant experiments (n = 111 tests). Most tests (75%) found that performance declined beyond the range, with the strongest declines detected when the measure of performance was lifetime fitness (83%), suggesting that RL commonly involve niche constraints (declining habitat quality). However, only 46% supported range limits occurring at NL; 26% (mostly geographic RL) fell short of NL with self-sustaining transplants beyond the range, and 23% (all elevational RL) exceeded NL with range-edge populations acting as demographic sinks. These data suggest an important but divergent role for dispersal, which may commonly constrain geographic distributions while extending elevational limits. Meta-analysis results also supported the importance of biotic interactions at RL, particularly the long-held assertion of their role in causing low-elevation and equatorial limits.

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

4.4
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