1
|
Remmers S, Dausmann K, Schoroth M, Rabarison H, Reher S. Intraspecific variation in metabolic responses to diverse environmental conditions in the Malagasy bat Triaenops menamena. J Comp Physiol B 2025; 195:247-262. [PMID: 40111435 PMCID: PMC12069135 DOI: 10.1007/s00360-025-01608-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/06/2024] [Accepted: 02/04/2025] [Indexed: 03/22/2025]
Abstract
Widespread species often display traits of generalists, yet local adaptations may limit their ability to cope with diverse environmental conditions. With climate change being a pressing issue, distinguishing between the general ecological and physiological capacities of a species and those of individual populations is vital for assessing the capability to adapt rapidly to changing habitats. Despite its importance, physiological variation across broad range distributions, particularly among free-ranging bats in natural environments, has rarely been assessed. Studies focusing on physiological variation among different populations across seasons are even more limited. We investigated physiological variation in the Malagasy Trident Bat Triaenops menamena across three different roost types in Madagascar during the wet and dry season, examining aspects such as energy regimes, body temperature, and roost microclimates. We focused on patterns of torpor in relation to roosting conditions. We hypothesized that torpor occurrence would be higher during the colder, more demanding dry season. We predicted that populations roosting in more variable microclimates would expend less energy than those in mores stable ones due to more frequent use of torpor and greater metabolic rate reductions. Our findings highlight complex thermoregulatory strategies, with varying torpor expression across seasons and roosts. We observed an overall higher energy expenditure during the wet season but also greater energy savings during torpor in that season, regardless of roost type. We found that reductions in metabolic rate were positively correlated with greater fluctuations in ambient conditions, demonstrating these bats' adaptability to dynamic environments. Notably, we observed diverse torpor patterns, indicating the species' ability to use prolonged torpor under extreme conditions. This individual-level variation is crucial for adaptation to changing environmental conditions. Moreover, the flexibility in body temperature during torpor suggests caution in relying solely on it as an indicator for torpor use. Our study emphasizes the necessity to investigate thermoregulatory responses across different populations in their respective habitats to fully understand a species' adaptive potential.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sina Remmers
- Functional Ecology, Institute of Cell and Systems Biology of Animals, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
| | - K Dausmann
- Functional Ecology, Institute of Cell and Systems Biology of Animals, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
| | - M Schoroth
- Functional Ecology, Institute of Cell and Systems Biology of Animals, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
| | - H Rabarison
- Functional Ecology, Institute of Cell and Systems Biology of Animals, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
| | - S Reher
- Functional Ecology, Institute of Cell and Systems Biology of Animals, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Bennington S, Dillingham PW, Bourke SD, Dawson SM, Slooten E, Rayment WJ. Testing spatial transferability of species distribution models reveals differing habitat preferences for an endangered delphinid ( Cephalorhynchus hectori) in Aotearoa, New Zealand. Ecol Evol 2024; 14:e70074. [PMID: 39041012 PMCID: PMC11262828 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.70074] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/15/2024] [Revised: 06/28/2024] [Accepted: 07/11/2024] [Indexed: 07/24/2024] Open
Abstract
Species distribution models (SDMs) can be used to predict distributions in novel times or space (termed transferability) and fill knowledge gaps for areas that are data poor. In conservation, this can be used to determine the extent of spatial protection required. To understand how well a model transfers spatially, it needs to be independently tested, using data from novel habitats. Here, we test the transferability of SDMs for Hector's dolphin (Cephalorhynchus hectori), a culturally important (taonga) and endangered, coastal delphinid, endemic to Aotearoa New Zealand. We collected summer distribution data from three populations from 2021 to 2023. Using Generalised Additive Models, we built presence/absence SDMs for each population and validated the predictive ability of the top models (with TSS and AUC). Then, we tested the transferability of each top model by predicting the distribution of the remaining two populations. SDMs for two populations showed useful performance within their respective areas (Banks Peninsula and Otago), but when used to predict the two areas outside the models' source data, performance declined markedly. SDMs from the third area (Timaru) performed poorly, both for prediction within the source area and when transferred spatially. When data for model building were combined from two areas, results were mixed. Model interpolation was better when presence/absence data from Otago, an area of low density, were combined with data from areas of higher density, but was otherwise poor. The overall poor transferability of SDMs suggests that habitat preferences of Hector's dolphins vary between areas. For these dolphins, population-specific distribution data should be used for conservation planning. More generally, we demonstrate that a one model fits all approach is not always suitable. When SDMs are used to predict distribution in data-poor areas an assessment of performance in the new habitat is required, and results should be interpreted with caution.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Steph Bennington
- Department of Marine ScienceUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand
| | - Peter W. Dillingham
- Department of Mathematics and StatisticsUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand
- Coastal People Southern Skies Centre of Research ExcellenceUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand
| | | | | | | | - William J. Rayment
- Department of Marine ScienceUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand
- Coastal People Southern Skies Centre of Research ExcellenceUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Wyver C, Potts SG, Edwards M, Edwards R, Senapathi D. Spatio-temporal shifts in British wild bees in response to changing climate. Ecol Evol 2023; 13:e10705. [PMID: 38020698 PMCID: PMC10654479 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.10705] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/09/2023] [Revised: 10/05/2023] [Accepted: 10/22/2023] [Indexed: 12/01/2023] Open
Abstract
Climate plays a major role in determining where species occur, and when they are active throughout the year. In the face of a changing climate, many species are shifting their ranges poleward. Many species are also shifting their emergence phenology. Wild bees in Great Britain are susceptible to changes in climatic conditions but little is known about historic or potential future spatio-temporal trends of many species. This study utilized a sliding window approach to assess the impacts of climate on bee emergence dates, estimating the best temperature window for predicting emergence dates for 88 species of wild bees. Using a 'middle-of-the-road' (RCP 4.5) and 'worst-case' (RCP 8.5) climate scenario for the period 2070-2079, predictions of future emergence dates were made. In general, the best predicting climate window occurred in the 0-3 months preceding emergence. Across the 40 species that showed a shift in emergence dates in response to a climate window, the mean advance was 13.4 days under RCP 4.5 and 24.9 days under RCP 8.5. Species distribution models (SDMs) were used to predict suitable climate envelopes under historic (1980-1989), current (2010-2019) and future (2070-2079 under RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 scenarios) climate conditions. These models predict that the climate envelope for 92% of studied species has increased since the 1980s, and for 97% and 93% of species under RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 respectively, this is predicted to continue, due to extension of the northern range boundary. While any range changes will be moderated by habitat availability, it highlights that Great Britain will likely experience northward shifts of bee populations in the future. By combining spatial and temporal trends, this work provides an important step towards informing conservation measures suitable for future climates, directing how interventions can be provided in the right place at the right time.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chris Wyver
- Centre for Agri‐Environmental Research, School of Agriculture, Policy and DevelopmentUniversity of ReadingReadingUK
| | - Simon G. Potts
- Centre for Agri‐Environmental Research, School of Agriculture, Policy and DevelopmentUniversity of ReadingReadingUK
| | - Mike Edwards
- Bees, Wasps and Ants Recording Society, Leaside, Carron LaneWest SussexUK
| | - Rowan Edwards
- Bees, Wasps and Ants Recording Society, Leaside, Carron LaneWest SussexUK
| | - Deepa Senapathi
- Centre for Agri‐Environmental Research, School of Agriculture, Policy and DevelopmentUniversity of ReadingReadingUK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Rocchini D, Tordoni E, Marchetto E, Marcantonio M, Barbosa AM, Bazzichetto M, Beierkuhnlein C, Castelnuovo E, Gatti RC, Chiarucci A, Chieffallo L, Da Re D, Di Musciano M, Foody GM, Gabor L, Garzon-Lopez CX, Guisan A, Hattab T, Hortal J, Kunin WE, Jordán F, Lenoir J, Mirri S, Moudrý V, Naimi B, Nowosad J, Sabatini FM, Schweiger AH, Šímová P, Tessarolo G, Zannini P, Malavasi M. A quixotic view of spatial bias in modelling the distribution of species and their diversity. NPJ BIODIVERSITY 2023; 2:10. [PMID: 39242713 PMCID: PMC11332097 DOI: 10.1038/s44185-023-00014-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/08/2022] [Accepted: 03/23/2023] [Indexed: 09/09/2024]
Abstract
Ecological processes are often spatially and temporally structured, potentially leading to autocorrelation either in environmental variables or species distribution data. Because of that, spatially-biased in-situ samples or predictors might affect the outcomes of ecological models used to infer the geographic distribution of species and diversity. There is a vast heterogeneity of methods and approaches to assess and measure spatial bias; this paper aims at addressing the spatial component of data-driven biases in species distribution modelling, and to propose potential solutions to explicitly test and account for them. Our major goal is not to propose methods to remove spatial bias from the modelling procedure, which would be impossible without proper knowledge of all the processes generating it, but rather to propose alternatives to explore and handle it. In particular, we propose and describe three main strategies that may provide a fair account of spatial bias, namely: (i) how to represent spatial bias; (ii) how to simulate null models based on virtual species for testing biogeographical and species distribution hypotheses; and (iii) how to make use of spatial bias - in particular related to sampling effort - as a leverage instead of a hindrance in species distribution modelling. We link these strategies with good practice in accounting for spatial bias in species distribution modelling.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Duccio Rocchini
- BIOME Lab, Department of Biological, Geological and Environmental Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, via Irnerio 42, 40126, Bologna, Italy.
- Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Department of Spatial Sciences, Kamýcka 129, Praha - Suchdol, 16500, Czech Republic.
| | - Enrico Tordoni
- Department of Botany, Institute of Ecology and Earth Science, University of Tartu, J. Liivi 2, 50409, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Elisa Marchetto
- BIOME Lab, Department of Biological, Geological and Environmental Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, via Irnerio 42, 40126, Bologna, Italy
| | - Matteo Marcantonio
- Evolutionary Ecology and Genetics Group, Earth and Life Institute, UCLouvain, 1348, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
| | - A Márcia Barbosa
- CICGE (Centro de Investigação em Ciências Geo-Espaciais), Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal
| | - Manuele Bazzichetto
- Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Department of Spatial Sciences, Kamýcka 129, Praha - Suchdol, 16500, Czech Republic
| | - Carl Beierkuhnlein
- Biogeography, BayCEER, University of Bayreuth, Universitaetsstraße 30, 95440, Bayreuth, Germany
| | - Elisa Castelnuovo
- BIOME Lab, Department of Biological, Geological and Environmental Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, via Irnerio 42, 40126, Bologna, Italy
| | - Roberto Cazzolla Gatti
- BIOME Lab, Department of Biological, Geological and Environmental Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, via Irnerio 42, 40126, Bologna, Italy
| | - Alessandro Chiarucci
- BIOME Lab, Department of Biological, Geological and Environmental Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, via Irnerio 42, 40126, Bologna, Italy
| | - Ludovico Chieffallo
- BIOME Lab, Department of Biological, Geological and Environmental Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, via Irnerio 42, 40126, Bologna, Italy
| | - Daniele Da Re
- Georges Lemaître Center for Earth and Climate Research, Earth and Life Institute, UCLouvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
| | - Michele Di Musciano
- BIOME Lab, Department of Biological, Geological and Environmental Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, via Irnerio 42, 40126, Bologna, Italy
- Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, Piazzale Salvatore Tommasi 1, 67100, L'Aquila, Italy
| | - Giles M Foody
- School of Geography, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Lukas Gabor
- Dept of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA
- Center for Biodiversity and Global Change, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA
| | - Carol X Garzon-Lopez
- Knowledge Infrastructures, Campus Fryslan University of Groningen, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands
| | - Antoine Guisan
- Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Lausanne, 1015, Lausanne, Switzerland
- Institute of Earth Surface Dynamics, University of Lausanne, 1015, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Tarek Hattab
- MARBEC, Univ Montpellier, CNRS, Ifremer, IRD, Sète, France
| | - Joaquin Hortal
- Department of Biogeography and Global Change, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales (MNCN-CSIC), Madrid, Spain
| | | | | | - Jonathan Lenoir
- UMR CNRS 7058 "Ecologie et Dynamique des Systèmes Anthropisés" (EDYSAN), Université de Picardie Jules Verne, 1 Rue des Louvels, 80000, Amiens, France
| | - Silvia Mirri
- Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, via Irnerio 42, 40126, Bologna, Italy
| | - Vítězslav Moudrý
- Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Department of Spatial Sciences, Kamýcka 129, Praha - Suchdol, 16500, Czech Republic
| | - Babak Naimi
- Rui Nabeiro Biodiversity Chair, MED Institute, University of Évora, Évora, Portugal
| | - Jakub Nowosad
- Institute of Geoecology and Geoinformation, Adam Mickiewicz University, Krygowskiego 10, 61-680, Poznan, Poland
| | - Francesco Maria Sabatini
- BIOME Lab, Department of Biological, Geological and Environmental Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, via Irnerio 42, 40126, Bologna, Italy
- Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague - Suchdol, Czech Republic
| | - Andreas H Schweiger
- Department of Plant Ecology, Institute of Landscape and Plant Ecology, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany
| | - Petra Šímová
- Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Department of Spatial Sciences, Kamýcka 129, Praha - Suchdol, 16500, Czech Republic
| | | | - Piero Zannini
- BIOME Lab, Department of Biological, Geological and Environmental Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, via Irnerio 42, 40126, Bologna, Italy
| | - Marco Malavasi
- University of Sassari, Department of Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Sassari, Italy
| |
Collapse
|