Ecological niche shifts of understorey plants along a latitudinal gradient of temperate forests in north‐western Europe

Aim In response to environmental changes and to avoid extinction, species may either track suitable environmental conditions or adapt to the modified environment. However, whether and how species adapt to environmental changes remains unclear. By focusing on the realized niche (i.e. the actual space that a species inhabits and the resources it can access as a result of limiting biotic factors present in its habitat), we here examine shifts in the realized-niche width (i.e. ecological amplitude) and position (i.e. ecological optimum) of 26 common and widespread forest understorey plants across their distributional ranges. Location Temperate forests along a ca. 1800-km-long latitudinal gradient from northern France to central Sweden and Estonia. Methods We derived species' realized-niche width from a β-diversity metric, which increases if the focal species co-occurs with more species. Based on the concept that species' scores in a detrended correspondence analysis (DCA) represent the locations of their realized-niche positions, we developed a novel approach to run species-specific DCAs allowing the focal species to shift its realized-niche position along the studied latitudinal gradient while the realized-niche positions of other species were held constant. Results None of the 26 species maintained both their realized-niche width and position along the latitudinal gradient. Few species (9 of 26: 35%) shifted their realized-niche width, but all shifted their realized-niche position. With increasing latitude, most species (22 of 26: 85%) shifted their realized-niche position for soil nutrients and pH towards nutrient-poorer and more acidic soils. Main conclusions Forest understorey plants shifted their realized niche along the latitudinal gradient, suggesting local adaptation and/or plasticity. This macroecological pattern casts doubt on the idea that the realized niche is stable in space and time, which is a key assumption of species distribution models used to predict the future of biodiversity, hence raising concern about predicted extinction rates.

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

[2]  A. P. Schaffers,et al.  Too good to be true: pitfalls of using mean Ellenberg indicator values in vegetation analyses , 2012 .

[3]  P. Leadley,et al.  Impacts of climate change on the future of biodiversity. , 2012, Ecology letters.

[4]  M. Fortin,et al.  Measuring ecological niche overlap from occurrence and spatial environmental data , 2012 .

[5]  A. Peterson,et al.  Ecological niche shifts and environmental space anisotropy: a cautionary note , 2011 .

[6]  R. Bertrand,et al.  Changes in plant community composition lag behind climate warming in lowland forests , 2011, Nature.

[7]  B. Graae,et al.  Temperature effects on forest herbs assessed by warming and transplant experiments along a latitudinal gradient , 2011 .

[8]  M. Manthey,et al.  Niche expansion after competitor extinction? A comparative assessment of habitat generalists and specialists in the tree floras of south‐eastern North America and south‐eastern Europe , 2011 .

[9]  Jonathan M. Chase,et al.  Using null models to disentangle variation in community dissimilarity from variation in α‐diversity , 2011 .

[10]  E. Finnegan,et al.  Plant phenotypic plasticity in a changing climate. , 2010, Trends in plant science.

[11]  Antoine Guisan,et al.  Importance of abiotic stress as a range‐limit determinant for European plants: insights from species responses to climatic gradients , 2009 .

[12]  D. Zelený.  Co‐occurrence based assessment of species habitat specialization is affected by the size of species pool: reply to Fridley et al. (2007) , 2009 .

[13]  M. Manthey,et al.  Beta diversity metrics and the estimation of niche width via species co‐occurrence data: reply to Zeleny , 2009 .

[14]  J. Peñuelas,et al.  Environmental change and the option value of genetic diversity. , 2009, Trends in plant science.

[15]  R. Leimu,et al.  A Meta-Analysis of Local Adaptation in Plants , 2008, PloS one.

[16]  P. Marquet,et al.  A Significant Upward Shift in Plant Species Optimum Elevation During the 20th Century , 2008, Science.

[17]  C. Eckert,et al.  Genetic variation across species’ geographical ranges: the central–marginal hypothesis and beyond , 2008, Molecular ecology.

[18]  Antoine Guisan,et al.  Niche dynamics in space and time. , 2008, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[19]  P. Gienapp,et al.  Climate change and evolution: disentangling environmental and genetic responses , 2008, Molecular ecology.

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

[21]  M. Vellend,et al.  Using subsets of species in biodiversity surveys , 2007 .

[22]  Jason D. Fridley,et al.  Co‐occurrence based assessment of habitat generalists and specialists: a new approach for the measurement of niche width , 2007 .

[23]  David N. Reznick,et al.  Adaptive versus non‐adaptive phenotypic plasticity and the potential for contemporary adaptation in new environments , 2007 .

[24]  B. Graae,et al.  Homogenization of forest plant communities and weakening of species–environment relationships via agricultural land use , 2007 .

[25]  M. Diekmann,et al.  Shifts in ecological behaviour of herbaceous forest species along a transect from northern central to North Europe , 1999, Folia Geobotanica.

[26]  Paul R. Martin,et al.  Are mountain passes higher in the tropics? Janzen's hypothesis revisited. , 2006, Integrative and comparative biology.

[27]  Marcel E Visser,et al.  Shifts in phenology due to global climate change: the need for a yardstick , 2005, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[28]  C. Graham,et al.  Niche Conservatism: Integrating Evolution, Ecology, and Conservation Biology , 2005 .

[29]  J. Peñuelas,et al.  Running to stand still: adaptation and the response of plants to rapid climate change. , 2005, Ecology letters.

[30]  J. Gégout,et al.  Ecological behaviour of herbaceous forest species along a pH gradient: a comparison between oceanic and semicontinental regions in northern France , 2005 .

[31]  J. Lawesson.  Danish deciduous forest types , 2000, Plant Ecology.

[32]  M. Hill,et al.  Detrended correspondence analysis: An improved ordination technique , 2004, Vegetatio.

[33]  G. Yohe,et al.  A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems , 2003, Nature.

[34]  M. Diekmann.  Species indicator values as an important tool in applied plant ecology – a review , 2003 .

[35]  R. Brandl,et al.  Geographic variability of ecological niches of plant species: are competition and stress relevant? , 2002 .

[36]  Meelis Pärtel,et al.  LOCAL PLANT DIVERSITY PATTERNS AND EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY AT THE REGIONAL SCALE , 2002 .

[37]  Z. Dzwonko.  Assessment of light and soil conditions in ancient and recent woodlands by Ellenberg indicator values , 2002 .

[38]  A. Troumbis,et al.  Local adaptation enhances performance of common plant species , 2001 .

[39]  A. P. Schaffers,et al.  Reliability of Ellenberg indicator values for moisture, nitrogen and soil reaction: a comparison with field measurements , 2000 .

[40]  R. B. Jackson,et al.  Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. , 2000, Science.

[41]  D. Wilson,et al.  Costs and limits of phenotypic plasticity. , 1998, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[42]  M. Zobel,et al.  The relative of species pools in determining plant species richness: an alternative explanation of species coexistence? , 1997, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[43]  Ruprecht Düll,et al.  Zeigerwerte von Pflanzen in Mitteleuropa , 1992 .

[44]  J. Rameau,et al.  Flore forestière française, Plaines et collines , 1989 .

[45]  M. Hill,et al.  Data analysis in community and landscape ecology , 1987 .

[46]  P. Parsons,et al.  Geographical ecology. Patterns in the distribution of species: By Robert H. MacArthur. Pp. 269. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. 1984. Paperback £13.90 (Original hardback edition Harpes & Row, 1972) , 1985 .