Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 183, Issue 1, pp 291–301 | Cite as

Seasonal fecundity is not related to geographic position across a species’ global range despite a central peak in abundance

  • Katharine J. Ruskin
  • Matthew A. Etterson
  • Thomas P. Hodgman
  • Alyssa C. Borowske
  • Jonathan B. Cohen
  • Chris S. Elphick
  • Christopher R. Field
  • Rebecca A. Kern
  • Erin King
  • Alison R. Kocek
  • Adrienne I. Kovach
  • Kathleen M. O’Brien
  • Nancy Pau
  • W. Gregory Shriver
  • Jennifer Walsh
  • Brian J. Olsen
Global change ecology – original research
First Online:

Abstract

The range of a species is determined by the balance of its demographic rates across space. Population growth rates are widely hypothesized to be greatest at the geographic center of the species range, but indirect empirical support for this pattern using abundance as a proxy has been mixed, and demographic rates are rarely quantified on a large spatial scale. Therefore, the texture of how demographic rates of a species vary over its range remains an open question. We quantified seasonal fecundity of populations spanning the majority of the global range of a single species, the saltmarsh sparrow (Ammodramus caudacutus), which demonstrates a peak of abundance at the geographic center of its range. We used a novel, population projection method to estimate seasonal fecundity inclusive of seasonal and spatial variation in life history traits that contribute to seasonal fecundity. We replicated our study over 3 years, and compared seasonal fecundity to latitude and distance among plots. We observed large-scale patterns in some life history traits that contribute to seasonal fecundity, such as an increase in clutch size with latitude. However, we observed no relationship between latitude and seasonal fecundity. Instead, fecundity varied greatly among plots separated by as little as 1 km. Our results do not support the hypothesis that demographic rates are highest at the geographic and abundance center of a species range, but rather they suggest that local drivers strongly influence saltmarsh sparrow fecundity across their global range.

Keywords

Latitudinal gradients Fecundity Species range Biogeography Ammodramus caudacutus 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was primarily funded by a Competitive State Wildlife Grant (U2-5-R-1) via the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Aid in Sportfish and Wildlife Restoration to the states of Delaware, Maryland, Connecticut, and Maine. We received additional funding from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Region 5, Division of Natural Resources, National Wildlife Refuge System), the United States Department of Agriculture (National Institute of Food and Agriculture NH McIntire-Stennis Project 225,575), the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (AM08634), and the National Science Foundation (DEB-1340008). This project was supported by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, project number #ME0-H-6-00492-12. This is Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station Publication Number 3501. Graduate students were also funded in part by the National Science Foundation, the National Park Service Gateway Learning Center Fellowship, the University of Maine, the University of New Hampshire, and the University of Connecticut. Thank you to our many collaborators, land owners who allowed access to the plots, and to the dozens of field technicians who helped to collect these data. We also thank BJ McGill for his help at various stages of writing this manuscript and MD Correll for the use of her map. Appropriate animal care was ensured by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of the University of Maine under approval A2011-04-02, University of New Hampshire under approvals 100605 and 130604, State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry under approval 120101, University of Connecticut under approval A11-013, and the University of Delaware under approval AUP1157-2015-2. The findings and conclusions of this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the USFWS or any other funding agency.

Author contribution statement

KJR wrote the paper with comments from all authors, particularly MAE, TPH, and BJO; MAE developed the models MCestimate and MCnest that were used in this analysis; all authors participated in data collection; BJO, TPH, CSE, WGS, AIK, and JBC obtained funding for this project.

Supplementary material

442_2016_3745_MOESM1_ESM.docx (714 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 713 kb)

References

  1. Bayard TS, Elphick CS (2010) Using spatial point-pattern assessment to understand the social and environmental mechanisms that drive avian habitat selection. Auk 127:485–494. doi: 10.1525/auk.2010.09089 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bayard TS, Elphick CS (2011) Planning for sea-level rise: quantifying patterns of saltmarsh sparrow (Ammodramus caudacutus) nest flooding under current sea-level conditions. Auk 128:393–403. doi: 10.1525/auk.2011.10178 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett RS, Etterson MA (2007) Incorporating results of avian toxicity tests into a model of annual reproductive success. Integr Environ Assess Manag 3:498–507CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Blackburn TM, Gaston KJ, Quinn RM, Gregory RD (1999) Do local abundances of British birds change with proximity to range edge? J Biogeogr 26:493–505. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2699.1999.00298.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradford MJ, Taylor GC, Allan JA (1997) Empirical review of coho salmon smolt abundance and the prediction of smolt production at the regional level. Trans Am Fish Soc 126:49–64. doi: 10.1577/1548-8659(1997)126 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brewer AM, Gaston KJ (2003) The geographical range structure of the holly leaf-miner. II. Demographic rates. J Anim Ecol 72:82–93. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2656.2003.00682.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown JH (1984) On the relationship between abundance and distribution of species. Am Soc Nat 124:255–279. doi: 10.1086/284267 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown JH (1995) Macroecology. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown JH, Mehlman DW, Stevens GC (1997) Spatial variation in abundance. Ecology 76:2028–2043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brussard PF (1984) Geographic patterns and environmental gradients: the central-marginal model in Drosophila revisited. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 15:25–64. doi: 10.1146/annurev.es.15.110184.000325 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Emlen JT, Dejong MJ, Jaeger MJ et al (1986) Density trends and range boundary constraints of forest birds along a latitudinal gradient. Auk 103:791–803Google Scholar
  12. Enquist BJ, Jordan MA, Brown JH (1995) Connections between ecology biogeography and paleobiology: relationship between local abundance and geographic-distribution in fossil and recent molluscs. Evol Ecol 9:586–604. doi: 10.1007/BF01237657 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Erwin RM, Sanders GM, Prosser DJ, et al (2006) High tides and rising seas: potential effects on estuarine waterbirds. Terr Vertebr tidal marshes. Evol Ecol Conserv:214–228Google Scholar
  14. Etterson MA, Bennett RS (2013) Quantifying the effects of pesticide exposure on annual reproductive success of birds. Integr Environ Assess Manag 9:590–599. doi: 10.1002/ieam.1450 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Field CR (2016) A threatened ecosystem in a human-dominated landscape: tidal marsh conservation in the face of sea-level rise. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Connecticut, Storrs, CTGoogle Scholar
  16. Gaston KJ (2003) The structure and dynamics of geographic ranges. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Gaston KJ (2009) Geographic range limits: achieving synthesis. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 276:1395–1406. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2008.1480 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ghalambor CK, Martin TE (2001) Fecundity-survival trade-offs and parental risk-taking in birds. Science 292(80):494–497. doi: 10.1126/science.1059379 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Gibbons DW, Reid JB, Chapman RA (1993) A new atlas of breeding birds in Britain and Ireland, 1988–1991. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Gjerdrum C, Elphick CS, Rubega M (2005) Nest site selection and nesting success in saltmarsh breeding sparrows: the importance of nest habitat, timing, and study site differences. Condor 107:849–862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gjerdrum C, Sullivan-Wiley K, King E (2008) Egg and chick fates during tidal flooding of Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed Sparrow nests. Condor 110:579–584. doi: 10.1525/cond.2008.8559 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Greenlaw JS, Rising JD (1994) Saltmarsh Sparrow (Ammodramus caudacutus). Birds N Am Online. doi: 10.2173/bna.112 Google Scholar
  23. Grinnell J (1904) The origin and distribution of the Chest-Nut-Backed Chickadee. Auk 21:364–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Guo Q, Taper M, Schoenberger M, Brandle J (2005) Spatial-temporal population dynamics across species range: from centre to margin. Oikos 108:47–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haldane JBS (1956) The relation between density regulation and natural selection. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 145:306–308. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1979.0086 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hengeveld R, Haeck J (1982) The distribution of abundance. J Biogeogr 9:303–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hodgman TP, Shriver WG, Vickery PD (2002) Redefining range overlap between the sharp-tailed sparrows of coastal New England. Wilson Bull 114:38–43. doi:10.1676/0043-5643(2002)114[0038:RROBTS]2.0.CO;2Google Scholar
  28. Hodgman TP, Elphick CS, Olsen BJ et al (2015) The conservation of tidal marsh birds: guiding action at the intersection of our changing land and seascapesGoogle Scholar
  29. Jackson WB (1965) Litter size in relation to latitude in two murid rodents. Am Midl Nat 73:245–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kluth C, Bruelheide H (2005) Effects of range position, inter-annual variation and density on demographic transition rates of Hornungia petraea populations. Oecologia 145:382–393. doi: 10.1007/s00442-005-0141-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Lack D (1947) Significance of clutch size. Ibis (Lond 1859) 89:302–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lawton J (1993) Range, population abundance and conservation. 8:409–413Google Scholar
  33. Leisnham PT, Sala LM, Juliano SA (2008) Geographic variation in adult survival and reproductive tactics of the mosquito Aedes albopictus. J Med Entomol 45:210–221. doi: 10.1093/jmedent/45.2.210 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Litzgus JD, Mousseau TA (2003) Multiple clutching in southern spotted turtles, Clemmys guttata. J Herpetol 37:17–23. doi: 10.1670/0022-1511(2003)037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lord RD (1960) Litter size and latitude in North American mammals. Am Midl Nat 64:488–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mantel N (1967) The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. Cancer Res 27:209–220PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Martin TE (1996) Life history evolution in tropical and south temperate birds: what do we really know? J Avian Biol 27:263–272. doi: 10.2307/3677257 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Oksanen AJ, Blanchet FG, Kindt R et al (2016) Package “vegan”Google Scholar
  39. Olsen BJ, Felch JM, Greenberg R, Walters JR (2008) Causes of reduced clutch size in a tidal marsh endemic. Oecologia 158:421–435. doi: 10.1007/s00442-008-1148-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Pianka ER (1970) Comparative autecology of the lizard Cnemidophorus tigris in different pards of its geographic range. Ecology 51:703–720. doi: 10.2307/1934053 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pulliam H (1988) Sources, sinks, and population regulation. Am Nat 132:652–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Purves DW (2009) The demography of range boundaries versus range cores in eastern US tree species. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 276:1477–1484. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2008.1241 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. R Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computingGoogle Scholar
  44. Rapoport EH (1982) Areography. Pergamon Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. Rhainds M, Fagan WF (2010) Broad-scale latitudinal variation in female reproductive success contributes to the maintenance of a geographic range boundary in bagworms (Lepidoptera: Psychidae). PLoS One 5:e14166. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0014166 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Ripley B, Venables W (2015) Package “nnet”. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/nnet/index.html
  47. Rogers DJ, Randolph SE (1986) Distribution and abundance of Tsetse flies (Glossina Spp.). J Anim Ecol 55:1007–1025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Root T (1988) Atlas of wintering North American birds: an analysis of Christmas Bird Count data. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  49. Rosenberg KV, Pashley D, Andres B et al (2014) The state of the birds 2014 watch list. Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  50. Saetre GP, Borge T, Lindell J et al (2001) Speciation, introgressive hybridization and nonlinear rate of molecular evolution in flycatchers. Mol Ecol 10:737–749CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Sagarin R, Gaines S (2002a) The “abundant centre”distribution: to what extent is it a biogeographical rule? Ecol Lett 5:137–147. doi: 10.1046/j.1461-0248.2002.00297.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sagarin RD, Gaines SD (2002b) Geographical abundance distributions of coastal invertebrates: using one-dimensional ranges to test biogeographic hypotheses. J Biogeogr 29:985–997. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2699.2002.00705.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sagarin RD, Gaines SD, Gaylord B (2006) Moving beyond assumptions to understand abundance distributions across the ranges of species. Trends Ecol Evol 21:524–530. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2006.06.008 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Samis KE, Eckert CG (2007) Testing the abundant center model using range-wide demographic surveys of two coastal dune plants. Ecology 88:1747–1758. doi: 10.2307/27651292 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Scott JM, Mountainspring S, Ramsey FL, Kepler CB (1986) Forest bird communities of the Hawaiian Islands: their dynamics, ecology, and conservation. Stud Avian Biol 9:1–431Google Scholar
  56. Shriver WG, Vickery PD, Hodgman TP (2007) Flood tides affect breeding ecology of two sympatric sharp-tailed sparrows. Auk 124:552–560. doi:10.1642/0004-8038(2007)124[552:FTABEO]2.0.CO;2Google Scholar
  57. Svensson BW (1992) Changes in occupancy, niche breadth and abundance of three Gyrinus species as their respective range limits are approached. Oikos 63:147–156. doi: 10.2307/3545524 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tiner RW (2013) Tidal wetlands primer: an introduction to their ecology, natural history, status, and conservation. University of Massachusetts Press, AmherstGoogle Scholar
  59. Walsh J, Kovach AI, Lane OP et al (2011) Genetic barcode RFLP analysis of the Nelson’s and Saltmarsh Sparrow hybrid zone. Wilson J Ornithol 123:316–322. doi: 10.1676/10-134.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Walsh J, Kovach A, Babbitt K, O’Brien K (2012) Fine-scale population structure and asymmetrical dispersal in an obligate salt-marsh passerine, the Saltmarsh Sparrow (Ammodramus caudacutus). Auk 129:247–258. doi: 10.1525/auk.2012.11153 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Walsh J, Rowe RJ, Olsen BJ et al (2015a) Genotype-environment associations support a mosaic hybrid zone between two tidal marsh birds. Ecol Evol 2:279–294. doi: 10.1002/ece3.1864 Google Scholar
  62. Walsh J, Shriver WG, Olsen BJ et al (2015b) Relationship of phenotypic variation and genetic admixture in the Saltmarsh–Nelson’s sparrow hybrid zone. Auk 132:704–716. doi: 10.1642/AUK-14-299.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wiens JA (1989) The ecology of bird communities, volume 1 foundations and patterns. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wiest WA, Correll MD, Olsen BJ et al (2016) Population estimates for tidal marsh birds of high conservation concern in the northeastern USA from a design-based survey. Condor 118:274–288. doi: 10.1650/CONDOR-15-30.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katharine J. Ruskin
    • 1
  • Matthew A. Etterson
    • 2
  • Thomas P. Hodgman
    • 3
  • Alyssa C. Borowske
    • 4
  • Jonathan B. Cohen
    • 5
  • Chris S. Elphick
    • 4
  • Christopher R. Field
    • 4
  • Rebecca A. Kern
    • 6
    • 7
  • Erin King
    • 8
  • Alison R. Kocek
    • 5
  • Adrienne I. Kovach
    • 9
  • Kathleen M. O’Brien
    • 10
  • Nancy Pau
    • 11
  • W. Gregory Shriver
    • 6
  • Jennifer Walsh
    • 9
  • Brian J. Olsen
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Biology and Ecology, Climate Change InstituteUniversity of MaineOronoUSA
  2. 2.Mid-Continent Ecology DivisionU. S. Environmental Protection AgencyDuluthUSA
  3. 3.Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Bird GroupBangorUSA
  4. 4.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Center for Conservation and BiodiversityUniversity of ConnecticutStorrsUSA
  5. 5.Department of Environmental and Forest BiologyState University of New York College of Environmental Science and ForestrySyracuseUSA
  6. 6.Department of Entomology and Wildlife EcologyUniversity of DelawareNewarkUSA
  7. 7.U. S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceEdwin B. Forsythe NWRGallowayUSA
  8. 8.U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 5 Division of Natural ResourcesStewart B. McKinney NWRWestbrookUSA
  9. 9.Department of Natural Resources and the EnvironmentUniversity of New HampshireDurhamUSA
  10. 10.U. S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceRachel Carson National Wildlife RefugeWellsUSA
  11. 11.U. S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceParker River National Wildlife RefugeNewburyportUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options