Alternatives to genetic affinity as a context for within-species response to climate

Alternatives to genetic affinity as a context for within-species response to climate. Smith, A. B., Beever, E. A., Kessler, A. E., Johnston, A. N., Ray, C., Epps, C. W., Lanier, H. C., Klinger, R. C., Rodhouse, T. J., Varner, J., Perrine, J. D., Seglund, A., Hall, L. E., Galbreath, K., MacGlover, C., Billman, P., Blatz, G., Brewer, J., Castillo Vardaro, J., Chalfoun, A. D., Collins, G., Craighead, A., Curlis, C., Daly, C., Doak, D. F., East, M., Edwards, M., Erb, L., Ernest, K. A., Fauver, B., Foresman, K. R., Goehring, K., Hagar, J., Hayes, C. L., Henry, P., Hersey, K., Hilty, S. L., Jacobson, J., Jeffress, M. R., Manning, T., Masching, A., Maxell, B., McCollough, R., McFarland, C., Miskow, E., Morelli, T. L., Moyer-Horner, L., Mueller, M., Nugent, M., Pratt, B., Rasmussen-Flores, M., Rickman, T. H., Robison, H., Rodriguez, A., Rowe, K., Rowe, K., Russello, M. A., Saab, V., Schmidt, A., Stewart, J. A. E., Stuart, J. N., Svancara, L. K., Thompson, W., Timmins, J., Treinish, G., Waterhouse, M. D., Westover, M. L., Wilkening, J., & Yandow, L. Nature Climate Change, 9(10):787–794, October, 2019. Number: 10 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

Paper doi abstract bibtex

Accounting for within-species variability in the relationship between occurrence and climate is essential to forecasting species’ responses to climate change. Few climate-vulnerability assessments explicitly consider intraspecific variation, and those that do typically assume that variability is best explained by genetic affinity. Here, we evaluate how well heterogeneity in responses to climate by a cold-adapted mammal, the American pika (Ochotona princeps), aligns with subdivisions of the geographic range by phylogenetic lineage, physiography, elevation or ecoregion. We find that variability in climate responses is most consistently explained by an ecoregional subdivision paired with background sites selected from a broad spatial extent indicative of long-term (millennial-scale) responses to climate. Our work challenges the common assumption that intraspecific variation in climate responses aligns with genetic affinity. Accounting for the appropriate context and scale of heterogeneity in species’ responses to climate will be critical for informing climate-adaptation management strategies at the local (spatial) extents at which such actions are typically implemented.

@article{smith_alternatives_2019,
	title = {Alternatives to genetic affinity as a context for within-species response to climate},
	volume = {9},
	copyright = {2019 This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply},
	issn = {1758-6798},
	url = {https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0584-8},
	doi = {10.1038/s41558-019-0584-8},
	abstract = {Accounting for within-species variability in the relationship between occurrence and climate is essential to forecasting species’ responses to climate change. Few climate-vulnerability assessments explicitly consider intraspecific variation, and those that do typically assume that variability is best explained by genetic affinity. Here, we evaluate how well heterogeneity in responses to climate by a cold-adapted mammal, the American pika (Ochotona princeps), aligns with subdivisions of the geographic range by phylogenetic lineage, physiography, elevation or ecoregion. We find that variability in climate responses is most consistently explained by an ecoregional subdivision paired with background sites selected from a broad spatial extent indicative of long-term (millennial-scale) responses to climate. Our work challenges the common assumption that intraspecific variation in climate responses aligns with genetic affinity. Accounting for the appropriate context and scale of heterogeneity in species’ responses to climate will be critical for informing climate-adaptation management strategies at the local (spatial) extents at which such actions are typically implemented.},
	language = {en},
	number = {10},
	urldate = {2023-07-04},
	journal = {Nature Climate Change},
	author = {Smith, Adam B. and Beever, Erik A. and Kessler, Aimee E. and Johnston, Aaron N. and Ray, Chris and Epps, Clinton W. and Lanier, Hayley C. and Klinger, Rob C. and Rodhouse, Thomas J. and Varner, Johanna and Perrine, John D. and Seglund, Amy and Hall, L. Embere and Galbreath, Kurt and MacGlover, Chris and Billman, Peter and Blatz, Gretchen and Brewer, Jason and Castillo Vardaro, Jessica and Chalfoun, Anna D. and Collins, Gail and Craighead, April and Curlis, Chris and Daly, Christopher and Doak, Daniel F. and East, Mitch and Edwards, Mark and Erb, Liesl and Ernest, Kristina A. and Fauver, Brian and Foresman, Kerry R. and Goehring, Ken and Hagar, Joan and Hayes, Charles L. and Henry, Philippe and Hersey, Kimberly and Hilty, Shannon L. and Jacobson, Jim and Jeffress, Mackenzie R. and Manning, Tom and Masching, Amy and Maxell, Bryce and McCollough, Rayo and McFarland, Corrie and Miskow, Eric and Morelli, Toni Lyn and Moyer-Horner, Lucas and Mueller, Megan and Nugent, Martin and Pratt, Beth and Rasmussen-Flores, Mary and Rickman, Tom H. and Robison, Hillary and Rodriguez, Arthur and Rowe, Karen and Rowe, Kevin and Russello, Michael A. and Saab, Vicki and Schmidt, Angie and Stewart, Joseph A. E. and Stuart, James N. and Svancara, Leona K. and Thompson, Will and Timmins, Julie and Treinish, Gregg and Waterhouse, Matthew D. and Westover, Marie L. and Wilkening, Jennifer and Yandow, Leah},
	month = oct,
	year = {2019},
	note = {Number: 10
Publisher: Nature Publishing Group},
	keywords = {Terrestrial Ecoregions (CEC 1997)},
	pages = {787--794},
}

Downloads: 0