Oecologia

, Volume 186, Issue 3, pp 883–893 | Cite as

A positive relationship between spring temperature and productivity in 20 songbird species in the boreal zone

  • Kalle Meller
  • Markus Piha
  • Anssi V. Vähätalo
  • Aleksi Lehikoinen
Global change ecology – original research

Abstract

Anthropogenic climate warming has already affected the population dynamics of numerous species and is predicted to do so also in the future. To predict the effects of climate change, it is important to know whether productivity is linked to temperature, and whether species’ traits affect responses to climate change. To address these objectives, we analysed monitoring data from the Finnish constant effort site ringing scheme collected in 1987–2013 for 20 common songbird species together with climatic data. Warm spring temperature had a positive linear relationship with productivity across the community of 20 species independent of species’ traits (realized thermal niche or migration behaviour), suggesting that even the warmest spring temperatures remained below the thermal optimum for reproduction, possibly due to our boreal study area being closer to the cold edge of all study species’ distributions. The result also suggests a lack of mismatch between the timing of breeding and peak availability of invertebrate food of the study species. Productivity was positively related to annual growth rates in long-distance migrants, but not in short-distance migrants. Across the 27-year study period, temporal trends in productivity were mostly absent. The population sizes of species with colder thermal niches had decreasing trends, which were not related to temperature responses or temporal trends in productivity. The positive connection between spring temperature and productivity suggests that climate warming has potential to increase the productivity in bird species in the boreal zone, at least in the short term.

Keywords

Birth rate Breeding success Global warming Reproductive success Species trait Climatic niche 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank David N. Koons, Robert A. Robinson, and an anonymous referee for their comments and suggestions which improved the manuscript significantly. We also thank Andrea Santangeli for helping with the STI calculations. KM received funding from Jenny and Antti Wihuri Foundation and Ella and Georg Ehrnrooth Foundation. AL has received funding from the Academy of Finland (Grant number 275606). Special thanks to all volunteers participating the CES and staff from the Finnish Museum of Natural History who helped in either collecting or maintaining data.

Author contribution statement

KM, MP, AV and AL originally formulated the idea, KM and MP performed the statistical analyses, KM, MP, AV and AL wrote the manuscript

Supplementary material

442_2017_4053_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (163 kb)
Fig. S1. Map showing the locations of the Finnish CES sites used in the study. (PDF 163 kb)
442_2017_4053_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (25 kb)
Fig. S2 The interannual variation in a) productivity and b) population size across the study species. The black lines in the boxplots show the median of annual productivity, inside the boxes lies 50 % of the observations, and whiskers show the range of the observations. Productivities and population sizes of the species were first detrended and then centered and scaled to have a mean of zero and standard deviation of one. (PDF 25 kb)
442_2017_4053_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (42 kb)
Fig. S3. The most parsimonious models for trends in productivity (black line) and population size (red line) during the study period selected from the analysis shown in Table S3. For the annual values shown in dots, the first year (1987) was set to value of 0.5 for productivity and 1 for population size, and other values are relative to these values. (PDF 42 kb)
442_2017_4053_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (21 kb)
Fig. S4. Spring temperatures during the study period (1987–2013). (PDF 20 kb)
442_2017_4053_MOESM5_ESM.pdf (56 kb)
Fig. S5. The species-specific effects of spring temperature on productivity with 95 % confidence intervals. Significant slopes (p < 0.05) are marked with a solid line and others (p > 0.05) with a dashed line. The effects of population size were removed and both variables were scaled to have mean of zero and standard deviation of one. (PDF 55 kb)
442_2017_4053_MOESM6_ESM.pdf (9 kb)
Fig. S6. The species-specific effects of productivity on the population growth rate with 95 % confidence intervals. Significant slopes (p < 0.05) are marked with a solid line and others (p > 0.05) with a dashed line. The effects of population size were removed and both variables were scaled to have mean of zero and standard deviation of one. (PDF 8 kb)
442_2017_4053_MOESM7_ESM.pdf (28 kb)
Supplementary material 7 (PDF 27 kb)
442_2017_4053_MOESM8_ESM.pdf (5 kb)
Supplementary material 8 (PDF 4 kb)
442_2017_4053_MOESM9_ESM.pdf (19 kb)
Supplementary material 9 (PDF 19 kb)
442_2017_4053_MOESM10_ESM.pdf (19 kb)
Supplementary material 10 (PDF 19 kb)
442_2017_4053_MOESM11_ESM.pdf (49 kb)
Supplementary material 11 (PDF 49 kb)
442_2017_4053_MOESM12_ESM.pdf (34 kb)
Supplementary material 12 (PDF 33 kb)
442_2017_4053_MOESM13_ESM.pdf (52 kb)
Supplementary material 13 (PDF 51 kb)

References

  1. Arcese P, Smith JNM, Hochachka WM et al (1992) Stability, regulation, and the determination of abundance in an insular Song Sparrow population. Ecology 73:805–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baillie SR, Green RE, Boddy M, Buckland ST (1986) An evaluation of the Constant Effort Site Scheme. Norfolk, UKGoogle Scholar
  3. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67:1–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brommer JE, Lehikoinen A, Valkama J (2012) The breeding ranges of central european and arctic bird species move poleward. PLoS One 7:e43648.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043648 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, USAGoogle Scholar
  6. Devictor V, Julliard R, Couvet D, Jiguet F (2008) Birds are tracking climate warming, but not fast enough. Proc Biol Sci 275:2743–2748.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2008.0878 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Dhondt AA (2010) Effects of competition on great and blue tit reproduction: intensity and importance in relation to habitat quality. J Anim Ecol 79:257–265.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2009.01624.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Diamond SE, Frame AM, Martin RA, Buckley LB (2011) Species’ traits predict phenological responses to climate change in butterflies. Ecology 92:1005–1012.  https://doi.org/10.1890/i0012-9658-92-5-1005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Dormann CF, Schymanski SJ, Cabral J et al (2012) Correlation and process in species distribution models: bridging a dichotomy. J Biogeogr 39:2119–2131.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2011.02659.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eeva T, Veistola S, Lehikoinen E (2000) Timing of breeding in subarctic passerines in relation to food availability. Can J Zool 78:67–78.  https://doi.org/10.1139/z99-182 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eeva T, Lehikoinen E, Rönkä M et al (2002) Different responses to cold weather in two pied flycatcher populations. Ecography 25:705–713.  https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0587.2002.250606.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eglington SM, Julliard R, Gargallo G et al (2015) Latitudinal gradients in the productivity of European migrant warblers have not shifted northwards during a period of climate change. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 24:427–436.  https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12267 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Estrada A, Morales-Castilla I, Caplat P, Early R (2016) Usefulness of Species traits in predicting range shifts. Trends Ecol Evol 31:190–203.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2015.12.014 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Gilman SE, Urban MC, Tewksbury J et al (2010) A framework for community interactions under climate change. Trends Ecol Evol 25:325–331.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2010.03.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Gyurácz J, Bánhidi P, Góczán J et al (2016) Temperature and precipitation effects on breeding productivity of some passerines—a multivariate analysis of constant effort mist-netting data. Biologia (Bratisl) 11:1298–1303.  https://doi.org/10.1515/biolog-2016-0149 Google Scholar
  16. Halupka L, Dyrcz A, Borowiec M (2008) Climate change affects breeding of reed warblers Acrocephalus scirpaceus. J Avian Biol 39:95–100.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2008.0908-8857.04047.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huey RB, Deutsch CA, Tewksbury JJ et al (2009) Why tropical forest lizards are vulnerable to climate warming. Proc Biol Sci 276:1939–1948.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2008.1957 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Jiguet F, Gadot AS, Julliard R et al (2007) Climate envelope, life history traits and the resilience of birds facing global change. Glob Chang Biol 13:1672–1684.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01386.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jiguet F, Devictor V, Ottvall R et al (2010a) Bird population trends are linearly affected by climate change along species thermal ranges. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 277:3601–3608.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.0796 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jiguet F, Gregory RD, Devictor V et al (2010b) Population trends of European common birds are predicted by characteristics of their climatic niche. Glob Chang Biol 16:497–505.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01963.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jørgensen PS, Böhning-Gaese K, Thorup K et al (2016) Continent-scale global change attribution in European birds—combining annual and decadal time scales. Glob Chang Biol 22:530–543.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13097 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Klady RA, Henry GHR, Lemay V (2011) Changes in high arctic tundra plant reproduction in response to long-term experimental warming. Glob Chang Biol 17:1611–1624.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02319.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kluen E, Nousiainen R, Lehikoinen A (2017) Breeding phenological response to spring weather conditions in common Finnish birds: resident species respond stronger than migratory species. J Avian Biol 48:611–619.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jav.01110 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Knudsen E, Lindén A, Both C et al (2011) Challenging claims in the study of migratory birds and climate change. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 86:928–946.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2011.00179.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Kuznetsova A, Brockhoff PB, Christensen RHB (2016) lmerTest: tests in linear mixed effects models. R package version 2.0-33. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lmerTest
  26. Laaksonen T, Lehikoinen A (2013) Population trends in boreal birds: continuing declines in agricultural, northern, and long-distance migrant species. Biol Conserv 168:99–107.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.09.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lehikoinen E, Sparks TH (2010) Changes in migration. In: Møller AP, Fiedler W, Berthold P (eds) Effects of climate change on birds. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  28. Lehikoinen A, Vähätalo AV (2000) Phenology of bird migration at the Hanko Bird Observatory, Finland, in 1979–1999 (in Finnish with English summary). Tringa 27:150–224Google Scholar
  29. Lehikoinen A, Virkkala R (2016) North by north-west: climate change and directions of density shifts in birds. Glob Chang Biol 22:1121–1129.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13150 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Lindström J, Forchhammer MC (2010) Time-series analyses. In: Møller AP, Fiedler W, Berthold P (eds) Effects of climate change on birds. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  31. Maclean SA, Beissinger SR (2017) Species’ traits as predictors of range shifts under contemporary climate change: A review and meta-analysis. Glob Chang Biol 4094–4105. doi:10.1111/gcb.13736Google Scholar
  32. Meller K, Lehikoinen A, Vähätalo AV (2013) The effects of hatching date on timing of autumn migration in partial migrants—an individual approach. J Avian Biol 44:272–280.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-048X.2012.00016.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Meller K, Vähätalo AV, Hokkanen T et al (2016) Interannual variation and long-term trends in proportions of resident individuals in partially migratory birds. J Anim Ecol 85:570–580.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12486 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Morrison CA, Robinson RA, Butler SJ et al (2016) Demographic drivers of decline and recovery in an Afro-Palaearctic migratory bird population. Proc R Soc B.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2016.1387 Google Scholar
  35. Pacifici M, Visconti P, Butchart SHM et al (2017) Species’ traits influenced their response to recent climate change. Nat Clim Chang 7:205–208.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3223 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Parmesan C (2006) Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 37:637–669.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.37.091305.110100 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Parmesan C, Ryrholm N, Stefanescu C et al (1999) Poleward shifts in geographical ranges of butterfly species associated with regional warming. Nature 399:579–583.  https://doi.org/10.1038/21181 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Peach WJ, Baillie SR, Balmer DE (1998) Long-term changes in the abundance of passerines in Britain and Ireland as measured by constant effort mist-netting. Bird Study 45:257–275.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00063659809461098 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pearce-Higgins JW, Green RE (2014) Birds and climate change: impacts and conservation responses. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Piha M (2014) Constant Effort Sites in Finland: population and productivity indices 1987–2013 (in Finnish with English summary). Linnut-vuosik 2013:108–115Google Scholar
  41. Piha M, Valkama J, Väisänen RA, Saurola P (2009) Comparison of population indices derived from the Finnish Constant Effort Site and National Bird Monitoring Scheme data. Avocetta 33:131–136Google Scholar
  42. Post E, Forchhammer MC, Adams LG et al (2008) Climate change reduces reproductive success of an Arctic herbivore through trophic mismatch. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 363:2369–2375.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2207 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. R Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
  44. Reed JM, Fefferman N, Averill-Murray RC (2009) Vital rate sensitivity analysis as a tool for assessing management actions for the desert tortoise. Biol Conserv 142:2710–2717.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.06.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rivas-Martínez S, Rivas-Sáenz S, Penas-Merino A (2011) Worldwide bioclimatic classification system. Glob Geobot 1:1–638.  https://doi.org/10.5616/gg110001 Google Scholar
  46. Robinson RA, Freeman SN, Balmer DE, Grantham MJ (2007) Cetti’s Warbler Cettia cetti: analysis of an expanding population. Bird Study 54:230–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Saether B-E, Bakke Ø et al (2000) Avian life history variation and contribution of demographic traits to the population growth rate. Ecology 81:642–653. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2000)081[0642:ALHVAC]2.0.CO;2Google Scholar
  48. Saether B-E, Grøtan V, Engen S, et al (2016) Demographic routes to variability and regulation in bird populations. Nat Commun 12001.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12001
  49. Saino N, Ambrosini R, Rubolini D et al (2011) Climate warming, ecological mismatch at arrival and population decline in migratory birds. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 278:835–842.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.1778 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sanderson FJ, Donald PF, Pain DJ et al (2006) Long-term population declines in Afro-Palearctic migrant birds. Biol Conserv 131:93–105.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.02.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Soberón J, Nakamura M (2009) Niches and distributional areas: concepts, methods, and assumptions. PNAS 106:19644–19650.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0901637106 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Suttle KB, Thomsen MA, Power ME (2007) Species interactions reverse grassland responses to changing climate. Science 80(315):640–642.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1136401 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Thomas CD, Lennon JJ (1999) Birds extend their ranges northwards. Nature 399:213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tietäväinen H, Tuomenvirta H, Venäläinen A (2010) Annual and seasonal mean temperatures in Finland during the last 160 years based on gridded temperature data. Int J Climatol 30:2247–2256.  https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.2046 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tinbergen JM, Dietz MW (1994) Parental energy expenditure during brood rearing in the great tit (Parus major) in relation to body mass, temperature, food availability and clutch size. Funct Ecol 8:563–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Valkama J, Saurola P, Lehikoinen A et al (2014) The finnish bird ringing atlas, vol II. Finnish Museum of Natural History and Ministry of Environment, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  57. Vatka E, Orell M, Rytkönen S (2011) Warming climate advances breeding and improves synchrony of food demand and food availability in a boreal passerine. Glob Chang Biol 17:3002–3009.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02430.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Vatka E, Rytkönen S, Orell M (2014) Does the temporal mismatch hypothesis match in boreal populations? Oecologia 176:595–605.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-014-3022-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Venäläinen A, Tuomenvirta H, Pirinen P, Drebs A (2005) A basic finnish climate data set 1961–2000—description and illustrations. Reports, Finnish Meteorological Institute, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  60. Verhulst S, Nilsson J-A (2008) The timing of birds’ breeding seasons: a review of experiments that manipulated timing of breeding. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 363:399–410.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2146 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Watanuki Y, Ito M, Deguchi T, Minobe S (2009) Climate-forced seasonal mismatch between the hatching of rhinoceros auklets and the availability of anchovy. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 393:259–271.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps08264 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wood SN (2011) Fast stable restricted maximum likelihood and marginal likelihood estimation of semiparametric generalized linear models. J R Stat Soc Ser B 73:3–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Helsinki Lab of Ornithology, The Finnish Museum of Natural HistoryUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Department of Biological and Environmental ScienceUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland

Personalised recommendations