The ‘Hutchinsonian niche’ as an assemblage of demographic niches: implications for species geographic ranges

Hutchinson (1957) defined the ecological niche as a hypervolume shaped by the environmental conditions under which a species can “exist indefinitely”. Although several authors further discussed the need to adopt a demographic perspective of the ecological niche theory, very few have investigated the environmental requirements of different components of species’ life cycles (i.e. vital rates) in order to examine their internal niche structures. It therefore remains unclear how species’ demography, niches and distributions are interrelated. Using comprehensive demographic data for two well-studied, short-lived plants (Plantago coronopus, Clarkia xantiana), we show that the arrangement of species’ demographic niches reveals key features of their environmental niches and geographic distributions. In Plantago coronopus, opposing geographic trends in some individual vital rates, through different responses to environmental gradients (demographic compensation), stabilize population growth across the range. In Clarkia xantiana, a lack of demographic compensation underlies a gradient in population growth, which could translate in a directional geographic range shift. Overall, our results highlight that occurrence and performance niches cannot be assumed to be the same, and that studying their relationship is essential for a better understanding of species’ ecological niches. Finally, we argue for the value of considering the assemblage of species’ demographic niches when studying ecological systems, and predicting the dynamics of species geographical ranges. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

[1]  María B. García,et al.  Geographic variation in genetic and demographic performance: new insights from an old biogeographical paradigm , 2017, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[2]  Antoine Guisan,et al.  Less favourable climates constrain demographic strategies in plants , 2017, Ecology letters.

[3]  Jenica M. Allen,et al.  Climate change both facilitates and inhibits invasive plant ranges in New England , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[4]  A. Angert,et al.  Demographic compensation does not rescue populations at a trailing range edge , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[5]  Jorge Soberón,et al.  Sobre la relación entre idoneidad del hábitat y la abundancia poblacional bajo diferentes escenarios de dispersión , 2016 .

[6]  William F Morris,et al.  Demographic compensation among populations: what is it, how does it arise and what are its implications? , 2015, Ecology letters.

[7]  D. Doak,et al.  Do geographic, climatic or historical ranges differentiate the performance of central versus peripheral populations? , 2015 .

[8]  H. H. Bruun,et al.  The role of demography, intra-species variation, and species distribution models in species' projections under climate change , 2015 .

[9]  J. C. de Almeida,et al.  Concluding Remarks , 2015, Clinical practice and epidemiology in mental health : CP & EMH.

[10]  Johan Ehrlén,et al.  Predicting changes in the distribution and abundance of species under environmental change , 2015, Ecology letters.

[11]  Damaris Zurell,et al.  Does probability of occurrence relate to population dynamics? , 2014, Ecography.

[12]  Niklaus E. Zimmermann,et al.  Demography as the basis for understanding and predicting range dynamics , 2014 .

[13]  Sean M. McMahon,et al.  On using integral projection models to generate demographically driven predictions of species' distributions: development and validation using sparse data , 2014 .

[14]  Mao Ning Tuanmu,et al.  A global 1‐km consensus land‐cover product for biodiversity and ecosystem modelling , 2014 .

[15]  H. Pulliam,et al.  Probabilistic and spatially variable niches inferred from demography , 2014 .

[16]  D. Bell,et al.  Early indicators of change: divergent climate envelopes between tree life stages imply range shifts in the western United States , 2014 .

[17]  Peter B. Adler,et al.  Functional traits explain variation in plant life history strategies , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[18]  Kris Verheyen,et al.  Can species distribution models be used to describe plant abundance patterns , 2013 .

[19]  W. Morris,et al.  Variation in stochastic demography between and within central and peripheral regions in a widespread short-lived herb. , 2013, Ecology.

[20]  A. Townsend Peterson,et al.  Ecological niche structure and rangewide abundance patterns of species , 2013, Biology Letters.

[21]  J. Olesen,et al.  Plant performance in central and northern peripheral populations of the widespread Plantago coronopus , 2013 .

[22]  Greg J. McInerny,et al.  Ditch the niche – is the niche a useful concept in ecology or species distribution modelling? , 2012 .

[23]  Boris Schröder,et al.  How to understand species’ niches and range dynamics: a demographic research agenda for biogeography , 2012 .

[24]  S. Higgins,et al.  Special Issue: The ecological niche as a window to biodiversity , 2012 .

[25]  S. Higgins,et al.  Temperature dependence of the reproduction niche and its relevance for plant species distributions , 2012 .

[26]  F. Micheli,et al.  Geographic variation in demography of a temperate reef snail: importance of multiple life-history traits , 2012 .

[27]  V. Eckhart,et al.  Reduced pollinator service and elevated pollen limitation at the geographic range limit of an annual plant. , 2012, Ecology.

[28]  F. Schurr,et al.  Forecasting species ranges by statistical estimation of ecological niches and spatial population dynamics , 2012 .

[29]  W. Morris,et al.  The Geography of Demography: Long-Term Demographic Studies and Species Distribution Models Reveal a Species Border Limited by Adaptation , 2011, The American Naturalist.

[30]  H. Kramer,et al.  Environmental and dispersal controls of an annual plant’s distribution: how similar are patterns and apparent processes at two spatial scales? , 2011, Plant Ecology.

[31]  D. Doak,et al.  Demographic compensation and tipping points in climate-induced range shifts , 2010, Nature.

[32]  R. Whittaker,et al.  Beyond scarcity: citizen science programmes as useful tools for conservation biogeography , 2010 .

[33]  R. H. Johnson.  Determinate Evolution in the Color-Pattern of the Lady-Beetles , 2009 .

[34]  D. Wake,et al.  Biogeography, changing climates, and niche evolution , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[35]  R. Holt.  Bringing the Hutchinsonian niche into the 21st century: Ecological and evolutionary perspectives , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[36]  M. Pärtel,et al.  Extinction debt: a challenge for biodiversity conservation. , 2009, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[37]  Patrick J. McIntyre,et al.  Evolution and Ecology of Species Range Limits , 2009 .

[38]  T. Rangel,et al.  Conservation biogeography of mammals in the Cerrado biome under the unified theory of macroecology. , 2009 .

[39]  Christopher N. Johnson,et al.  Abundance and the Environmental Niche: Environmental Suitability Estimated from Niche Models Predicts the Upper Limit of Local Abundance , 2009, The American Naturalist.

[40]  D. Purves.  The demography of range boundaries versus range cores in eastern US tree species , 2009, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[41]  J. Elith,et al.  Species Distribution Models: Ecological Explanation and Prediction Across Space and Time , 2009 .

[42]  R. Petit,et al.  Conserving biodiversity under climate change: the rear edge matters. , 2005, Ecology letters.

[43]  D. Doak,et al.  HOW GENERAL ARE THE DETERMINANTS OF THE STOCHASTIC POPULATION GROWTH RATE ACROSS NEARBY SITES , 2005 .

[44]  D. O. Logofet.  Matrix Population Models: Construction, Analysis, and Interpretation , 2002 .

[45]  S. Dolédec,et al.  NICHE SEPARATION IN COMMUNITY ANALYSIS: A NEW METHOD , 2000 .

[46]  M. Geber,et al.  Evolution of the self-pollinating flower in Clarkia xantiana (Onagraceae). I. Size and development of floral organs. , 2000, American journal of botany.

[47]  H. Pulliam.  On the relationship between niche and distribution , 2000 .

[48]  Eric S. Menges,et al.  Interpretation of elasticity matrices as an aid to the management of plant populations for conservation , 1996 .

[49]  Hal Caswell,et al.  Elasticity: The Relative Contribution of Demographic Parameters to Population Growth Rate , 1986 .

[50]  Rob Hengeveld,et al.  The distribution of abundance. I. Measurements , 1982 .

[51]  P. Grubb.  THE MAINTENANCE OF SPECIES‐RICHNESS IN PLANT COMMUNITIES: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE REGENERATION NICHE , 1977 .

[52]  Bassett Maguire,,et al.  Niche Response Structure and the Analytical Potentials of Its Relationship to the Habitat , 1973, The American Naturalist.

[53]  R. Monroe,et al.  THE EFFECT OF SALINITY AND TEMPERATURE ON LARVAL DEVELOPMENT OF SESARMA CINEREUM (BOSC) REARED IN THE LABORATORY , 1960 .

[54]  E. Salisbury,et al.  The Geographical Distribution of Plants in Relation to Climatic Factors , 1926 .

[55]  J. Grinnell.  The Niche-Relationships of the California Thrasher , 1917 .

[56]  Gemma L. Hoyle,et al.  Will among‐population variation in seed traits improve the chance of species persistence under climate change? , 2015 .

[57]  P. Reich,et al.  Frontiers inEcology and the Environment Coordinated distributed experiments : an emerging tool for testing global hypotheses in ecology and environmental science , 2012 .

[58]  J. Emlen,et al.  ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ABUNDANCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIES , 2008 .

[59]  L. Rockwood.  Introduction to population ecology , 2006 .

[60]  Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/joc.1276 VERY HIGH RESOLUTION INTERPOLATED CLIMATE SURFACES FOR GLOBAL LAND AREAS , 2005 .

[61]  D. A. Moeller.  Pollinator community structure and sources of spatial variation in plant–pollinator interactions in Clarkia xantiana ssp. xantiana , 2004, Oecologia.

[62]  Charles C. Elton.  Animal Ecology , 1927, Nature.