Search for: All records

ABSTRACT Species are distributed in predictable ways in geographic spaces. The three principal factors that determine geographic distributions of species are biotic interactions (B), abiotic conditions (A), and dispersal ability or mobility (M). A species is expected to be present in areas that are accessible to it and that contain suitable sets of abiotic and biotic conditions for it to persist. A species' probability of presence can be quantified as a combination of responses toB,A, andMviaecological niche modeling (ENM; also frequently referred to as species distribution modeling or SDM). This analytical approach has been used broadly in ecology and biogeography, as well as in conservation planning and decision‐making, but commonly in the context of ‘natural’ settings. However, it is increasingly recognized that human impacts, including changes in climate, land cover, and ecosystem function, greatly influence species' geographic ranges. In this light, historical distinctions between natural and anthropogenic factors have become blurred, and a coupled human–natural landscape is recognized as the new norm. Therefore,B,A, andM(BAM) factors need to be reconsidered to understand and quantify species' distributions in a world with a pervasive signature of human impacts. Here, we present a framework, termed human‐influenced BAM (Hi‐BAM, for distributional ecology that (i) conceptualizes human impacts in the form of six drivers, and (ii) synthesizes previous studies to show how each driver modifies the natural BAM and species' distributions. Given the importance and prevalence of human impacts on species distributions globally, we also discuss implications of this framework for ENM/SDM methods, and explore strategies by which to incorporate increasing human impacts in the methodology. Human impacts are redefining biogeographic patterns; as such, future studies should incorporate signals of human impacts integrally in modeling and forecasting species' distributions. 

Synopsis New biophysical theory and electronic databases raise the prospect of deriving fundamental rules of life, a conceptual framework for how the structures and functions of molecules, cells, and individual organisms give rise to emergent patterns and processes of ecology, evolution, and biodiversity. This framework is very general, applying across taxa of animals from 10–10 g protists to 108 g whales, and across environments from deserts and abyssal depths to rain forests and coral reefs. It has several hallmarks: (1) Energy is the ultimate limiting resource for organisms and the currency of biological fitness. (2) Most organisms are nearly equally fit, because in each generation at steady state they transfer an equal quantity of energy (˜22.4 kJ/g) and biomass (˜1 g/g) to surviving offspring. This is the equal fitness paradigm (EFP). (3) The enormous diversity of life histories is due largely to variation in metabolic rates (e.g., energy uptake and expenditure via assimilation, respiration, and production) and biological times (e.g., generation time). As in standard allometric and metabolic theory, most physiological and life history traits scale approximately as quarter-power functions of body mass, m (rates as ∼m–1/4 and times as ∼m1/4), and as exponential functions of temperature. (4) Time is the fourth dimension of life. Generation time is the pace of life. (5) There is, however, considerable variation not accounted for by the above scalings and existing theories. Much of this “unexplained” variation is due to natural selection on life history traits to adapt the biological times of generations to the clock times of geochronological environmental cycles. (6) Most work on biological scaling and metabolic ecology has focused on respiration rate. The emerging synthesis applies conceptual foundations of energetics and the EFP to shift the focus to production rate and generation time. 

Abstract Larger animals studied during ontogeny, across populations, or across species, usually have lower mass-specific metabolic rates than smaller animals (hypometric scaling). This pattern is usually observed regardless of physiological state (e.g., basal, resting, field, and maximally active). The scaling of metabolism is usually highly correlated with the scaling of many life-history traits, behaviors, physiological variables, and cellular/molecular properties, making determination of the causation of this pattern challenging. For across-species comparisons of resting and locomoting animals (but less so for across populations or during ontogeny), the mechanisms at the physiological and cellular level are becoming clear. Lower mass-specific metabolic rates of larger species at rest are due to (a) lower contents of expensive tissues (brains, liver, and kidneys), and (b) slower ion leak across membranes at least partially due to membrane composition, with lower ion pump ATPase activities. Lower mass-specific costs of larger species during locomotion are due to lower costs for lower-frequency muscle activity, with slower myosin and Ca++ ATPase activities, and likely more elastic energy storage. The evolutionary explanation(s) for hypometric scaling remain(s) highly controversial. One subset of evolutionary hypotheses relies on constraints on larger animals due to changes in geometry with size; for example, lower surface-to-volume ratios of exchange surfaces may constrain nutrient or heat exchange, or lower cross-sectional areas of muscles and tendons relative to body mass ratios would make larger animals more fragile without compensation. Another subset of hypotheses suggests that hypometric scaling arises from biotic interactions and correlated selection, with larger animals experiencing less selection for mass-specific growth or neurolocomotor performance. An additional third type of explanation comes from population genetics. Larger animals with their lower effective population sizes and subsequent less effective selection relative to drift may have more deleterious mutations, reducing maximal performance and metabolic rates. Resolving the evolutionary explanation for the hypometric scaling of metabolism and associated variables is a major challenge for organismal and evolutionary biology. To aid progress, we identify some variation in terminology use that has impeded cross-field conversations on scaling. We also suggest that promising directions for the field to move forward include (1) studies examining the linkages between ontogenetic, population-level, and cross-species allometries; (2) studies linking scaling to ecological or phylogenetic context; (3) studies that consider multiple, possibly interacting hypotheses; and (4) obtaining better field data for metabolic rates and the life history correlates of metabolic rate such as lifespan, growth rate, and reproduction. 

Biodiversity contributes to the ecological and climatic stability of the Amazon Basin1,2, but is increasingly threatened by deforestation and fire3,4. Here we quantify these impacts over the past two decades using remote-sensing estimates of fire and deforestation and comprehensive range estimates of 11,514 plant species and 3,079 vertebrate species in the Amazon. Deforestation has led to large amounts of habitat loss, and fires further exacerbate this already substantial impact on Amazonian biodiversity. Since 2001, 103,079–189,755 km2 of Amazon rainforest has been impacted by fires, potentially impacting the ranges of 77.3–85.2% of species that are listed as threatened in this region5. The impacts of fire on the ranges of species in Amazonia could be as high as 64%, and greater impacts are typically associated with species that have restricted ranges. We find close associations between forest policy, fire-impacted forest area and their potential impacts on biodiversity. In Brazil, forest policies that were initiated in the mid-2000s corresponded to reduced rates of burning. However, relaxed enforcement of these policies in 2019 has seemingly begun to reverse this trend: approximately 4,253–10,343 km2 of forest has been impacted by fire, leading to some of the most severe potential impacts on biodiversity since 2009. These results highlight the critical role of policy enforcement in the preservation of biodiversity in the Amazon. 

A key feature of life’s diversity is that some species are common but many more are rare. Nonetheless, at global scales, we do not know what fraction of biodiversity consists of rare species. Here, we present the largest compilation of global plant diversity to quantify the fraction of Earth’s plant biodiversity that are rare. A large fraction, ~36.5% of Earth’s ~435,000 plant species, are exceedingly rare. Sampling biases and prominent models, such as neutral theory and the k-niche model, cannot account for the observed prevalence of rarity. Our results indicate that (i) climatically more stable regions have harbored rare species and hence a large fraction of Earth’s plant species via reduced extinction risk but that (ii) climate change and human land use are now disproportionately impacting rare species. Estimates of global species abundance distributions have important implications for risk assessments and conservation planning in this era of rapid global change. 

To meet the ambitious objectives of biodiversity and climate conventions, the international community requires clarity on how these objectives can be operationalized spatially and how multiple targets can be pursued concurrently. To support goal setting and the implementation of international strategies and action plans, spatial guidance is needed to identify which land areas have the potential to generate the greatest synergies between conserving biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people. Here we present results from a joint optimization that minimizes the number of threatened species, maximizes carbon retention and water quality regulation, and ranks terrestrial conservation priorities globally. We found that selecting the top-ranked 30% and 50% of terrestrial land area would conserve respectively 60.7% and 85.3% of the estimated total carbon stock and 66% and 89.8% of all clean water, in addition to meeting conservation targets for 57.9% and 79% of all species considered. Our data and prioritization further suggest that adequately conserving all species considered (vertebrates and plants) would require giving conservation attention to ~70% of the terrestrial land surface. If priority was given to biodiversity only, managing 30% of optimally located land area for conservation may be sufficient to meet conservation targets for 81.3% of the terrestrial plant and vertebrate species considered. Our results provide a global assessment of where land could be optimally managed for conservation. We discuss how such a spatial prioritization framework can support the implementation of the biodiversity and climate conventions. 

Summary With climate change, heat waves are becoming increasingly frequent, intense and broader in spatial extent. However, while the lethal effects of heat waves on humans are well documented, the impacts on flora are less well understood, perhaps except for crops. We summarize recent findings related to heat wave impacts including: sublethal and lethal effects at leaf and plant scales, secondary ecosystem effects, and more complex impacts such as increased heat wave frequency across all seasons, and interactions with other disturbances. We propose generalizable practical trials to quantify the critical bounding conditions of vulnerability to heat waves. Collectively, plant vulnerabilities to heat waves appear to be underappreciated and understudied, particularly with respect to understanding heat wave driven plant die‐off and ecosystem tipping points. 

Abstract AimAddressing global environmental challenges requires access to biodiversity data across wide spatial, temporal and taxonomic scales. Availability of such data has increased exponentially recently with the proliferation of biodiversity databases. However, heterogeneous coverage, protocols, and standards have hampered integration among these databases. To stimulate the next stage of data integration, here we present a synthesis of major databases, and investigate (a) how the coverage of databases varies across taxonomy, space, and record type; (b) what degree of integration is present among databases; (c) how integration of databases can increase biodiversity knowledge; and (d) the barriers to database integration. LocationGlobal. Time periodContemporary. Major taxa studiedPlants and vertebrates. MethodsWe reviewed 12 established biodiversity databases that mainly focus on geographic distributions and functional traits at global scale. We synthesized information from these databases to assess the status of their integration and major knowledge gaps and barriers to full integration. We estimated how improved integration can increase the data coverage for terrestrial plants and vertebrates. ResultsEvery database reviewed had a unique focus of data coverage. Exchanges of biodiversity information were common among databases, although not always clearly documented. Functional trait databases were more isolated than those pertaining to species distributions. Variation and potential incompatibility of taxonomic systems used by different databases posed a major barrier to data integration. We found that integration of distribution databases could lead to increased taxonomic coverage that corresponds to 23 years’ advancement in data accumulation, and improvement in taxonomic coverage could be as high as 22.4% for trait databases. Main conclusionsRapid increases in biodiversity knowledge can be achieved through the integration of databases, providing the data necessary to address critical environmental challenges. Full integration across databases will require tackling the major impediments to data integration: taxonomic incompatibility, lags in data exchange, barriers to effective data synchronization, and isolation of individual initiatives.