Continent-wide tree fecundity driven by indirect climate effects

Indirect climate effects on tree fecundity that come through variation in size and growth (climate-condition interactions) are not currently part of models used to predict future forests. Trends in species abundances predicted from meta-analyses and species distribution models will be misleading if they depend on the conditions of individuals. Here we find from a synthesis of tree species in North America that climate-condition interactions dominate responses through two pathways, i) effects of growth that depend on climate, and ii) effects of climate that depend on tree size. Because tree fecundity first increases and then declines with size, climate change that stimulates growth promotes a shift of small trees to more fecund sizes, but the opposite can be true for large sizes. Change the depresses growth also affects fecundity. We find a biogeographic divide, with these interactions reducing fecundity in the West and increasing it in the East. Continental-scale responses of these forests are thus driven largely by indirect effects, recommending management for climate change that considers multiple demographic rates.

[1]  James S. Clark,et al.  Understanding the continuous phenological development at daily time step with a Bayesian hierarchical space-time model: impacts of climate change and extreme weather events , 2020 .

[2]  G. Hartman,et al.  No net insect abundance and diversity declines across US Long Term Ecological Research sites , 2020, Nature Ecology & Evolution.

[3]  James S. Clark,et al.  The emergent interactions that govern biodiversity change , 2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[4]  James S. Clark,et al.  Pervasive shifts in forest dynamics in a changing world , 2020, Science.

[5]  Jenica M. Allen,et al.  Adjusting the lens of invasion biology to focus on the impacts of climate-driven range shifts , 2020, Nature Climate Change.

[6]  A. Gentile,et al.  Meta-analysis reveals declines in terrestrial but increases in freshwater insect abundances , 2020, Science.

[7]  J. Peñuelas,et al.  Is forest fecundity resistant to drought? Results from an 18‐yr rainfall‐reduction experiment , 2020, The New phytologist.

[8]  K. Anchukaitis,et al.  A Framework for Determining Population-Level Vulnerability to Climate: Evidence for Growth Hysteresis in Chamaecyparis thyoides Along Its Contiguous Latitudinal Distribution , 2020, Frontiers in Genetics.

[9]  J. Abatzoglou,et al.  Agricultural risks from changing snowmelt , 2020, Nature Climate Change.

[10]  A. P. Williams,et al.  Large contribution from anthropogenic warming to an emerging North American megadrought , 2020, Science.

[11]  S. Hubbell,et al.  Demographic trade-offs predict tropical forest dynamics , 2020, Science.

[12]  P. Weisberg,et al.  Aridity drives spatiotemporal patterns of masting across the latitudinal range of a dryland conifer , 2020 .

[13]  P. Thomas,et al.  Climate warming disrupts mast seeding and its fitness benefits in European beech , 2020, Nature Plants.

[14]  Michał Bogdziewicz,et al.  Investigating the relationship between climate, stand age, and temporal trends in masting behavior of European forest trees , 2020, Global change biology.

[15]  A. Knohl,et al.  It is not just a 'trade-off' - indications for sink- and source-limitation to vegetative and regenerative growth in an old-growth beech forest. , 2020, The New phytologist.

[16]  James S. Clark,et al.  Foodwebs based on unreliable foundations: spatiotemporal masting merged with consumer movement, storage, and diet , 2019, Ecological Monographs.

[17]  Jessica C. Stanton,et al.  Decline of the North American avifauna , 2019, Science.

[18]  Christian Ammer,et al.  Arthropod decline in grasslands and forests is associated with landscape-level drivers , 2019, Nature.

[19]  Teresa B. Chapman,et al.  Limitations to recovery following wildfire in dry forests of southern Colorado and northern New Mexico, USA. , 2019, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[20]  Maurizio Mencuccini,et al.  Modelling water fluxes in plants: from tissues to biosphere. , 2019, The New phytologist.

[21]  D. Minor,et al.  Fruit production is influenced by tree size and size‐asymmetric crowding in a wet tropical forest , 2019, Ecology and evolution.

[22]  J. R. Pleban,et al.  Conifers depend on established roots during drought: results from a coupled model of carbon allocation and hydraulics. , 2019, The New phytologist.

[23]  Xiongwen Chen,et al.  Characterizing the dynamics of cone production for longleaf pine forests in the southeastern United States , 2018, Forest Ecology and Management.

[24]  Bradford C. Lister,et al.  Climate-driven declines in arthropod abundance restructure a rainforest food web , 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[25]  J. Guldin.  Silvicultural options in forests of the southern United States under changing climatic conditions , 2018, New Forests.

[26]  T. Sanders,et al.  Reproducing reproduction: how to simulate mast seeding in forest models , 2018 .

[27]  J. Lenoir,et al.  Land-use change interacts with climate to determine elevational species redistribution , 2018, Nature Communications.

[28]  Benjamin Smith,et al.  Vegetation demographics in Earth System Models: A review of progress and priorities , 2018, Global change biology.

[29]  Davide Ascoli,et al.  Inter-annual and decadal changes in teleconnections drive continental-scale synchronization of tree reproduction , 2017, Nature Communications.

[30]  J. Chave,et al.  An individual-based forest model to jointly simulate carbon and tree diversity in Amazonia: description and applications , 2017 .

[31]  B. Courbaud,et al.  Modelling the probability of microhabitat formation on trees using cross‐sectional data , 2017 .

[32]  J. HilleRisLambers,et al.  Competition and facilitation may lead to asymmetric range shift dynamics with climate change , 2017, Global change biology.

[33]  S. Goetz,et al.  Vulnerability of eastern US tree species to climate change , 2017, Global change biology.

[34]  Daniel M. Johnson,et al.  Measuring canopy loss and climatic thresholds from an extreme drought along a fivefold precipitation gradient across Texas , 2017, Global change biology.

[35]  Miroslav Svoboda,et al.  Forest disturbances under climate change. , 2017, Nature climate change.

[36]  R. Alfaro‐Sánchez,et al.  Growth and reproduction respond differently to climate in three Neotropical tree species , 2017, Oecologia.

[37]  S. Fei,et al.  Divergence of species responses to climate change , 2017, Science Advances.

[38]  Olaf Conrad,et al.  Climatologies at high resolution for the earth’s land surface areas , 2016, Scientific Data.

[39]  C. Pichot,et al.  Disentangling the factors driving tree reproduction , 2016 .

[40]  S. Dobrowski,et al.  Climate change velocity underestimates climate change exposure in mountainous regions , 2016, Nature Communications.

[41]  James S. Clark,et al.  The impacts of increasing drought on forest dynamics, structure, and biodiversity in the United States , 2016, Global change biology.

[42]  A. B. Berdanier,et al.  Divergent reproductive allocation trade‐offs with canopy exposure across tree species in temperate forests , 2016 .

[43]  Erin M. Schliep,et al.  Stochastic Modeling for Velocity of Climate Change , 2015, Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics.

[44]  A. Friend,et al.  The influence of masting phenomenon on growth-climate relationships in trees: explaining the influence of previous summers' climate on ring width. , 2015, Tree physiology.

[45]  James S. Clark,et al.  Competition‐interaction landscapes for the joint response of forests to climate change , 2014, Global change biology.

[46]  C. Justice,et al.  High-Resolution Global Maps of 21st-Century Forest Cover Change , 2013, Science.

[47]  J. Knops,et al.  Sex Allocation in California Oaks: Trade-Offs or Resource Tracking? , 2012, PloS one.

[48]  T. Fearer,et al.  Acorn production prediction models for five common oak species of the eastern United States , 2012 .

[49]  James S. Clark,et al.  Failure to migrate: lack of tree range expansion in response to climate change , 2012 .

[50]  Janneke HilleRisLambers,et al.  High‐dimensional coexistence based on individual variation: a synthesis of evidence , 2010 .

[51]  C. Field,et al.  The velocity of climate change , 2009, Nature.

[52]  James S. Clark,et al.  Evaluating the sources of potential migrant species: implications under climate change. , 2008, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[53]  S. Hubbell,et al.  Interspecific variation in primary seed dispersal in a tropical forest , 2008 .

[54]  C. Clark,et al.  Are Plant Populations Seed Limited? A Critique and Meta‐Analysis of Seed Addition Experiments , 2007, The American Naturalist.

[55]  Hugo Asselin,et al.  Reproductive potential of balsam fir (Abies balsamea), white spruce (Picea glauca), and black spruce (P. mariana) at the ecotone between mixedwood and coniferous forests in the boreal zone of western Quebec. , 2007, American journal of botany.

[56]  R. Petit,et al.  Some Evolutionary Consequences of Being a Tree , 2006 .

[57]  M. Westoby,et al.  Small‐seeded species produce more seeds per square metre of canopy per year, but not per individual per lifetime , 2004 .

[58]  James S. Clark,et al.  FECUNDITY OF TREES AND THE COLONIZATION–COMPETITION HYPOTHESIS , 2004 .

[59]  Christopher K. Wikle,et al.  Hierarchical Bayesian Models for Predicting The Spread of Ecological Processes , 2003 .

[60]  Kaoru Kitajima,et al.  Cloud cover limits net CO2 uptake and growth of a rainforest tree during tropical rainy seasons , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[61]  S. LaDeau,et al.  Rising CO2 Levels and the Fecundity of Forest Trees , 2001, Science.

[62]  C. H. Greenberg,et al.  Individual variation in acorn production by five species of southern Appalachian oaks , 2000 .

[63]  Charles D. Canham,et al.  Seed abundance versus substrate limitation of seedling recruitment in northern temperate forests of British Columbia , 2000 .

[64]  Janneke HilleRisLambers,et al.  Seed Dispersal Near and Far: Patterns Across Temperate and Tropical Forests , 1999 .

[65]  J. Clark,et al.  Interpreting recruitment limitation in forests. , 1999, American journal of botany.

[66]  P. Jordano,et al.  Annual Variability in Seed Production by Woody Plants and the Masting Concept: Reassessment of Principles and Relationship to Pollination and Seed Dispersal , 1998, The American Naturalist.

[67]  S. Pacala,et al.  Forest models defined by field measurements : Estimation, error analysis and dynamics , 1996 .

[68]  S. Davis,et al.  Lack of niche differentiation in adult shrubs implicates the importance of the regeneration niche. , 1991, Trends in ecology & evolution.

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

[70]  A. A. Downs,et al.  Seed Production of Southern Appalachian Oaks , 1944 .

[71]  J. Knops,et al.  The Mystery of Masting in Trees Some trees reproduce synchronously over large areas , with widespread ecological effects , but how and why ? , 2022 .