Abstract
Context
Temperate grasslands and their dependent species are exposed to high variability in weather and climate due to the lack of natural buffers such as forests. Grassland birds are particularly vulnerable to this variability, yet have failed to shift poleward in response to recent climate change like other bird species in North America. However, there have been few studies examining the effect of weather on grassland bird demography and consequent influence of climate change on population persistence and distributional shifts.
Objectives
The goal of this study was to estimate the vulnerability of Henslow’s Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii), an obligate grassland bird that has been declining throughout much of its range, to past and future climatic variability.
Methods
We conducted a demographic meta-analysis from published studies and quantified the relationship between nest success rates and variability in breeding season climate. We projected the climate-demography relationships spatially, throughout the breeding range, and temporally, from 1981 to 2050. These projections were used to evaluate population dynamics by implementing a spatially explicit population model.
Results
We uncovered a climate-demography linkage for Henslow’s Sparrow with summer precipitation, and to a lesser degree, temperature positively affecting nest success. We found that future climatic conditions—primarily changes in precipitation—will likely contribute to reduced population persistence and a southwestward range contraction.
Conclusions
Future distributional shifts in response to climate change may not always be poleward and assessing projected changes in precipitation is critical for grassland bird conservation and climate change adaptation.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Grassland ecosystems dominated central North America previous to European settlement, but are now one of the most extensively human-altered ecosystems (Samson et al. 2004). The conversion of prairies to agriculture and rangeland has affected native fauna, including grassland birds, which have declined more than any other bird group over the past 35–40 years (Sauer et al. 2014). While issues surrounding land-use and grassland management related to bird conservation have received considerable attention (Askins et al. 2007), less work has investigated the effect of climate variability on grassland bird populations. A range-wide assessment of grassland birds found a high probability that population declines of grassland bird species will be exacerbated by modern climate change, with more than half of North America’s grassland birds facing additional pressures due to climate change (North American Bird Conservation Initiative 2010). Analyses of Christmas Bird Count data found that grassland birds were the only group of birds failing to shift north during the past 40 years in response to warmer winters (Niven et al. 2010). It is unknown whether this lack of a systematic northward shift is due to a lack of available grassland habitat in northerly regions or whether grassland birds are simply less sensitive to climate variability compared to other bird species (VanDerWal et al. 2013; Gillings et al. 2015).
Grassland ecosystems are characterized by treeless expanses and occur in regions of low topographic complexity where the rate of climate change is greatest (Dobrowski et al. 2013). Compared to other biomes, the velocity of temperature change has been highest in temperate grasslands and savannas (Loarie et al. 2009), and future climate projections suggest a higher likelihood of drought and elevated summer temperatures in many prairie systems (Meehl et al. 2007). Understanding the demographic sensitivity of grassland birds to historic and future climate variability is critical for understanding the potential implications of future climate change for these species.
At regional scales, climate variables such as mean precipitation and temperature have been found to be important predictors of grassland bird abundance and occurrence throughout the upper Midwestern United States (Thogmartin et al. 2006). However, the effects of weather on reproductive parameters of grassland birds appear to vary by species. Lark Bunting (Calamospiza melanocorys) clutch size, nest survival, and productivity were found to be sensitive to precipitation (Skagen and Yackel Adams 2012). In contrast, Henslow’s Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii) nest success was sensitive to breeding season temperature while Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis) and Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) nest success showed little response to weather (Stauffer et al. 2011). Conrey et al. (2016) found lower nest success after hot, dry, or stormy days within a season and across years in drier and warmer breeding seasons for five grassland bird species. Despite these findings, few of these studies evaluated the sensitivity of grassland bird demography to long-term climate variability or assessed the vulnerability of species to future climate change at range-wide scales.
Climate change vulnerability assessments (CCVA) represent an approach for gauging historical and predicting future responses of species and populations to climate change, with a primary goal of interpreting ecological responses in a way that can inform management strategies and reduce vulnerability (Williams et al. 2008; Pacifici et al. 2015). Whether a species is directly vulnerable to climate change is a combination of intrinsic sensitivity to climate variability—often defined in terms of physiological or demographic limits—and exposure to region-specific changes in climatic means and extremes (Moritz and Agudo 2013). To date, most CCVA approaches have relied on species distribution models (Franklin 2010) based primarily on occurrence data, and although these approaches are critical for capturing changes in future bioclimatic space, they are limited by a lack of inference on species demography. The goal of this study was to conduct a CCVA for Henslow’s Sparrow, a grassland bird of high conservation concern, with the goal of estimating both demographic sensitivity to past climate variability and exposure to future climate conditions. As an obligate grassland bird (Vickery et al. 1999), Henslow’s Sparrow is an exemplary species for evaluating demographic sensitivity and regional exposure of grassland birds to historic and future climate change. Our objectives were to conduct a demographic meta-analysis to quantify nest success sensitivity to historical patterns of temperature and precipitation and develop a spatially explicit and range-wide assessment of the influence of future climate variability on population persistence.
Methods
Study species
Henslow’s Sparrow is a short-distance migrant breeding in grasslands of the central United States and overwintering in the southern United States. Despite recent overall population increases from land enrollment in federal conservation programs (Cooper 2012), regional populations of Henslow’s Sparrow are still declining and several states have the species listed as endangered, threatened, or a species of concern (Cooper 2012). Henslow’s Sparrow historically bred in native prairie, but the species has been found to breed in surrogate grasslands that include hayfields, pastures, and agricultural lands in federal conservation programs (Cooper 2012). Henslow’s Sparrow is area-sensitive (Ribic et al. 2009b) and grasslands of ~100 ha or larger are most likely to sustain populations (Herkert et al. 1993) with density estimates at 20–90 birds per 100 ha (Cooper 2012).
Climate change vulnerability assessment
Our CCVA consisted of a series of steps for quantifying demographic sensitivity. First, we conducted a literature review of Henslow’s Sparrow demographic studies to identify available demographic rates. Second, we collected data for spatial environmental variables considered to be biologically relevant to demographic rates. Third, we created a statistical model to assess the relationship of the demographic rate with the environmental variables and projected the demographic rate spatially, throughout the breeding range of Henslow’s Sparrow, and temporally, from 1981 to 2050. The final step was to model the population dynamics of Henslow’s Sparrow through time and space by implementing a population model at annual time steps. The population model allowed us to incorporate the statistical projections of demographic rates and dispersal to estimate the persistence of Henslow’s Sparrow populations across their range and into the future.
Demographic meta-analysis
In our literature review, we considered both survival and nest success as demographic parameters, but studies on survival (adult and juvenile) were scarce. Therefore, we focused on estimates of nest success (Fig. 1). We used studies that had sample sizes of ≥10 nests (Benson et al. 2013) and provided daily survival rates (DSR) calculated using either the Mayfield method (Mayfield 1961) or the logistic-exposure method (Shaffer 2004). DSR was used to calculate overall nest success by raising DSR to the power of 24, the most common number of days in the nesting period found in the studies (Online Appendix 1). When studies only provided overall nest success, DSR was back-calculated using the nesting period provided in the study. When only the number of failures and the number of exposure days were provided, we calculated DSR using the Mayfield method (Mayfield 1961). For estimates of nest success that were calculated with covariates, we contacted authors to provide DSR calculated without covariates. We matched nest success studies spatially and temporally to environmental data sets; when specific study site locations were unavailable, we used county center-points. We found 26 studies of Henslow’s Sparrow nest success from across the breeding range (Fig. 1). Nest success values ranged from 0.10 to 0.57 with an average nest success of 0.25 ± 0.11 (SD) (Online Appendix 1).
Environmental variables
We focused on collecting environmental variables across the Henslow’s Sparrow breeding range. We defined the breeding range as the NatureServe boundary (BirdLife International and NatureServe 2014), buffered by 150 km to include all of the nest success studies (Fig. 1). We focused on five climate variables that we and our scientific advisory board considered a priori to be biologically relevant for grassland bird nest success (Table 1).
Body condition on arrival to the breeding grounds and reproductive success have been linked to weather and food resources on the wintering grounds for other migratory birds (e.g., Hostetler et al. 2015). Because there is no information connecting breeding populations to specific wintering ground locations for Henslow’s Sparrows, we averaged the climate variables across the entire winter range.
For assessing population-specific exposure to climatic variation, we quantified mean climate variables for the historical time period (1981–2011) using the 4-km resolution gridded climate surface for precipitation (mm) and maximum temperature (°C) developed from the Parameter-elevation Regression on Independent Slopes Model (PRISM; PRISM Climate Group-Oregon State University 2014). Breeding season variables were estimated from daily PRISM data (which goes back to 1981) and bioyear and wintering grounds precipitation were collected from monthly data. The Henslow’s Sparrow breeding season was defined as May 15–August 15 and the bioyear was defined as the year (July–June) preceding the breeding season in which the nest success data were collected. We also computed the number of extreme events across the breeding season at individual weather stations and then used the procedure outlined in Notaro et al. (2014) to interpolate the number of extreme events across the breeding range. We defined the extremes as the 90th percentile or above of daily precipitation and temperature for each location.
We hypothesized that the amount of grassland and/or the amount of urbanization around the breeding sites could affect overall nest success (Marzluff et al. 2001; Pidgeon et al. 2003). As such, we calculated the total amount of grassland (as defined by the NLCD grassland/herbaceous and pasture/hay categories; Fry et al. 2011) and housing density (Radeloff et al. 2010) within a 2.5 km buffer surrounding each site. The 2.5 km buffer size is comparable to the resolution of the population model (see below).
Statistical analysis
To evaluate the effect of weather and land cover variables on nest success and create annual time steps of projected nest success throughout the range, we used binomial generalized linear models (GLM) with a logit link function weighted by the number of nests (Shaffer 2004). The response variable was nest success taken from site/year combinations of studies in the literature (values given in Online Appendix 1). All environmental variables for each site and year were scaled and centered. We developed models for all possible combinations of a priori variables (Table 1) and used Akaike’s Information Criterion for small sample sizes (AIC c ) to rank models (Burnham and Anderson 2002). A variable was considered uninformative and removed from the top models if its 85% confidence interval overlapped zero (Arnold 2010). If there was more than one competing model, we used model-averaging to develop our parameter estimates (Burnham and Anderson 2002). There have been recent concerns about the practice of model-averaging (Cade 2015). However, multi-collinearity among our predictor variables was low, our variables were standardized, and we felt that the importance of including all potential climate variables into our demographic predictions outweighed the concerns about model-averaging. We used the final model to predict nest success means and variances across the breeding range at annual time steps from 1981 to 2050 as inputs in the population model (see below).
Future climate variables from the top model were calculated for the years 2012–2050 from the World Climate Research Program’s (WCRP) Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) multimodel data set, downloaded as daily data for each year from the Bias Corrected and Downscaled WCRP CMIP5 Climate Projections archive at http://gdo-dcp.ucllnl.org/downscaled_cmip_projections/dcpInterface.html (Maurer et al. 2007; Brekke et al. 2013). The daily data from each year were used to calculate the breeding season variables. To ensure continuity between PRISM (historic years) and CMIP5 data (future years), we calculated future climate variables using the “delta method” (see Online Appendix 2 for methods).
Future nest success was predicted for each of 19 General Circulation Models (GCM) and in two Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP): RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 (Online Appendix 3). RCP 8.5 predicts increasing emissions while RCP 4.5 predicts stable or decreasing emissions throughout the century (Harris et al. 2014). Spatially explicit population models were run using the following models of future climate data: model-averaged data from all 19 GCMs for RCP 4.5 (results in Online Appendix 4); model-averaged data from all 19 GCMs for RCP 8.5; a GCM that represents low extremes of precipitation and temperature (INM-CM4 RCP 8.5; Hamann 2016; Wang et al. 2016); a GCM that represents high extremes of precipitation and temperature (GFDL-ESM2M RCP 8.5; Hamann 2016; Wang et al. 2016). To visualize climate conditions, nest success trends in each period were created (see Online Appendix 2 for methods). All statistical analyses and processing of environmental data were conducted using the R statistical platform v. 3.1.1 (R Development Core Team 2015).
Spatially explicit population model
We developed a spatially explicit population model (SEPM) using HexSim, an individual-based modeling platform operating on a hexagonal spatial grid (Schumaker 2015). HexSim allowed us to implement the SEPM through time, incorporating user-defined demographic parameters and habitat (Schumaker 2015). We used a grid of 5-km wide hexagons that covered the breeding range of Henslow’s Sparrow, where each hexagon represented a potential population of Henslow’s Sparrows. We considered each hexagon with a minimum 100 ha patch (Herkert et al. 1993) of grassland habitat (defined from NLCD, see above) as suitable for a potential population.
Our SEPM consisted of five life-cycle events in each annual time step (Fig. 2). The reproduction event used predicted nest success from the statistical model (above) and the number of births was estimated from the literature (Table 2). Post-fledging, adult breeding season, and over-winter/migration survival rates were estimated from the literature for Henslow’s Sparrow and other similar species (Table 2). The inter-annual movement event (Fig. 2) represented the distance an individual would move from one breeding season to the next and were estimated from limited banding data available.
Simulations were initiated in 1981 and continued in annual time steps to 2050. We calculated the probability of persistence for each hexagon and year as the proportion of 500 model iterations in which a population (i.e., 20 or more birds; Herkert 1994) was present. Probability of persistence values were calculated for mid-century projections by averaging values from 2040 through 2050. This time period was used to approximate mid-century populations without being strongly influenced by conditions in any single year. Specific and more detailed methods of the HexSim model are provided in Online Appendix 2.
Model validation
For purposes of model validation, we estimated probability of occurrence (as opposed to probability of persistence values calculated above) using model-derived predictions at the scale of the hexagon averaged for the contemporary time period (2001–2011). We calculated probability of occurrence values from the demographic model output as the proportion of 500 model iterations in which 1 or more bird(s) was present. We compared probability of occurrence values to independent presence points with Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) routes (Pardieck et al. 2014) using classification performance measures. We assumed presence on a BBS route if a Henslow’s Sparrow was detected in the years 2001–2011. BBS routes were buffered by 5 km, the resolution of the SEPM, and probability of occurrence values from the model output were averaged across buffered BBS routes. Model performance was assessed using the area under the curve (AUC) of the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC), classification sensitivity, classification specificity, and proportion of correctly classified routes (Mouton et al. 2010). We used a threshold for these measures that maximized the sum of sensitivity and specificity. AUC is threshold-independent and is expressed as a proportion with values >0.5 representing better than random classification. Model evaluation analyses were conducted in R (R Development Core Team 2015) using the SDMTools package (VanDerWal et al. 2015).
We recognized that BBS routes may not be the most accurate representation of Henslow’s Sparrow presence on the landscape because detection probability for the species is low and BBS categorizes the data as having “an important deficiency” (Sauer et al. 2014). Additionally, we expected that data showing species trends across years may be more comparable to outcomes from a population model than simple presence records. Thus, we also did a comparison of the SEPM output to BBS trends data (e.g., increasing vs. decreasing) from 1966 to 2013 (Sauer et al. 2014).
To separate the effects of habitat from the effects of climate, we also ran simulations of a null model that removed environmental variation due to climate. The null model allowed us to see if the patterns of population persistence were influenced by habitat availability versus climate. Instead of using nest success survival values predicted from the statistical model, we used only the mean and variation from the nest success studies (Online Appendix 1) to define a distribution and pulled nest success rates for each hexagon-year from that distribution. However, with just the average nest success, populations failed to stabilize after an initial burn-in period. As a result, we iteratively increased survival values in the null model until population growth was stable (λ ~ 1).
Results
Nest success in relation to climate
Eight models with five variables were in the top model set: breeding season precipitation, breeding season maximum temperature, housing density, temperature on the overwinter grounds (April–September), and total grassland area (Table 3). However, only breeding season precipitation and breeding season maximum temperature had 85% confidence intervals that did not overlap zero and remained in the final model set. Adjusted R2 values for model 1 and model 2 are 0.27 and 0.34, respectively. We used model averaging across the top two models to develop parameter estimates for breeding season precipitation and maximum temperature (Table 3). The relative variable importance values in the final model were 0.88 for breeding season precipitation and 0.31 for breeding season maximum temperature. We found that nest success was positively associated with both breeding season precipitation (\(\overset{\lower0.5em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\frown}$}}{\beta }\) = 0.28, SE = 0.1; Fig. 3a) and maximum temperature (\(\overset{\lower0.5em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\frown}$}}{\beta }\) = 0.21, SE = 0.11; Fig. 3b). Predicted nest success in the contemporary period (2001–2011) was highest in the southwest part of the breeding range (Fig. 4; Online Appendix 5). Nest success trends for each cell in the hindcast and forecast periods can be found in Online Appendix 6.
Population model predictions
For the contemporary time period, Henslow’s Sparrow populations were more likely to occur in the southwestern portion of the range with lower occurrence in the northern and eastern parts of the range (Fig. 5a; Online Appendix 5). We found that the probability of persistence by mid-century was predicted to contract into the southwestern part of the range with populations in the rest of the range having low probabilities of persistence (Fig. 6; Online Appendix 5). Results from individual GCMs that represent the extremes of precipitation and temperature show similar geographic patterns to the model-averaged results, but the range of the probability of persistence varied across individual GCMs (Fig. 6; Online Appendix 5). Results from the null model indicate the importance of climate in the model; the model produced evenly distributed probabilities of persistence across the range, a pattern very different from the models that included climate.
To assess model performance, we used 165 BBS routes that detected Henslow’s Sparrows (presence) and 1095 routes that failed to document a detection (absence). The demographic model had an AUC score of 0.62 and the model correctly classified 75% of the routes. Classification sensitivity was 0.44 and specificity was 0.81 showing there was a higher proportion of correctly classified absences than presences. The average probability of occurrence in regions where BBS trends showed decreasing species presence was 0.1 while the average probability of occurrence in regions where BBS trends showed increasing species presence was 0.32 (Fig. 5; Online Appendix 5).
Discussion
Across a broad geographic region, we found that the Henslow’s Sparrow was sensitive to inter-annual variation in temperature and precipitation, resulting in elevated nest success rates during warmer and wetter breeding seasons with precipitation having the larger relative effect. Studies have examined the effect of anthropogenic warming on species ranges and extinctions (Thomas et al. 2004), but less is known about the potentially important role of precipitation (Beale et al. 2013; Illán et al. 2014). At a continental scale, grassland species have failed to shift northward with increasing temperatures like other groups of birds (Niven et al. 2010), and our results suggest that a greater sensitivity to heterogenous changes in precipitation could help account for this difference. By combining climate-demography sensitivities with model-based predictions of exposure to climate variability, we found that the range-wide vulnerability of Henslow’s Sparrow to future climate change will be potentially impacted by future changes in precipitation.
In many regions of the breeding range of Henslow’s Sparrow, climate models have predicted declines in summer precipitation (Melillo et al. 2014), and our vulnerability assessment suggests future changes in precipitation could lead to a range-wide decline in demographic suitability, with the exception of the southwestern portion of the range. Over geographic scales, changes in precipitation are highly variable and difficult to predict (Trenberth et al. 2014), but most climate model projections agree that drying will occur under increasing greenhouse gas concentrations, especially for arid regions (Burke et al. 2006; Sheffield and Wood 2008; Dai 2012). In grassland ecosystems, precipitation is a critical driver of vegetation productivity (Vicente-Serrano et al. 2013) and increased precipitation is associated with higher insect availability and biomass (Rotenberry and Wiens 1991; Skagen and Yackel Adams 2012). Biotic interactions could also be playing an important role in these predicted changes. For example, grassland bird nest depredation could be influenced by changes in precipitation that affect vegetation growth as predators might avoid moving through denser and taller grasses (Ribic et al. 2012) or have increased availability of alternative food sources (Chase et al. 2005; Stauffer 2008). Higher temperatures can lead to increased foraging success (Skagen and Yackel Adams 2012). Insects are more active in warmer temperatures meaning there is less time needed for foraging and more time can be spent nest guarding (Stauffer et al. 2011). Although our study does not provide a rigorous assessment of which of these mechanisms are more important, our results suggest that Henslow’s Sparrow nest success is influenced by climate, particularly precipitation, and future patterns of climate variability could promote a southwestward contraction in their demographic niche.
Climate models vary in their predictions of temperature and precipitation and thus, the magnitude of changes in future nest success varied among GCMs. In our models, projections of higher predicted precipitation and temperature led to higher predicted nest success and increased probability of persistence. The low-extreme GCM model resulted in the lowest probabilities of persistence and induced the strongest range contraction. Thus, the overall range of predicted persistence values varied among GCMs, and ensemble model averaging produced intermediate results. Under all future projections, the geographic pattern of population persistence remained similar among GCMs. Additionally, models based on the RCP 4.5 pathway showed a patchier pattern of probability of persistence, but with overall results similar to that of the models based on RCP 8.5. Our models consistently predicted a “hotspot” of persistence for populations of Henslow’s Sparrows in the southwest portion of the range, but the overall range of persistence probabilities proved sensitive to the uncertainty in future precipitation and temperature projections.
Regions of high persistence, as defined by our modeling approach, could be considered to be more demographically suitable. However, in comparison with independent occurrence data from the BBS, we were not able to predict contemporary presences accurately. A possible reason for this incongruence could be that in areas where Henslow’s Sparrows are present, but have been declining, our models predicted a more rapid demographic decline than is actually occurring. Additionally, the null model results demonstrated that the average nest success across the range was not sufficient to maintain populations and that patches of relatively high nest success, promoted by suitable climate conditions, were required for population persistence. The results from the null model also verified that the patterns of high population persistence in the southwest portion of the range were driven by optimal climate conditions in that region and not simply due to the availability of more habitat in that portion of the range.
Limited data availability for certain parts of the Henslow’s Sparrow life cycle affected our ability to include those aspects in our statistical and demographic models. No relationship was found to suggest that a carryover effect of wintering climate on nest success exists, but wintering climate was averaged each year across the entire wintering range. Linking breeding populations to corresponding overwintering locations may improve statistical models and predictions of nest success. Similarly, we were unable to model the effect of climate on post-fledging or adult overwinter/migration survival because empirical data were limited; only a few studies of adult survival over the wintering period were available (Thatcher et al. 2006; Johnson et al. 2011). There is also little data available on inter-annual movement distances and while our dispersal distances represent the best available data, the lack of long-distance inter-annual movement events prevent populations from tracking climate shifts. Many of these parameters with limited data should be sensitive to climatic variability and extreme weather, and including those relationships in our models could improve model predictions.
Predicted spatial distributions of high nest success and population persistence were similar over broad geographic scales, but also showed important regional differences, highlighting the importance of the SEPM to assess population-level outcomes even when complete demographic information is missing for key vital rates. The SEPM allowed us to incorporate existing knowledge about habitat, current population size, range extent, dispersal, local extinction/colonization, and estimates of other demographic parameters to gain a better understanding of the consequences of climate variability for population persistence, through its influence on nest success.
While Henslow’s Sparrow nest success was shown to be sensitive to climate, land cover was not identified as an important variable in our model selection. A lack of response by Henslow’s Sparrow to landscape context has been found in other studies (Bajema and Lima 2001; Ribic et al. 2009a); Henslow’s Sparrow are more likely to use patches so large that the patches themselves are considered a “landscape” and thus a response to surrounding land use may be less influential (Bajema and Lima 2001). However, a potential issue for modeling grassland bird habitat is that grassland habitat quality is difficult to quantify using remote-sensing derived land cover products at the spatial scales required to study range-wide species distributions. NLCD may be a high-resolution dataset at this geographic extent, but is limited in its ability to distinguish appropriate grassland habitat (Thogmartin et al. 2004). As such, the generalized land cover categories (e.g., grassland/herbaceous and pasture/hay) may not accurately represent Henslow’s Sparrow habitat throughout the range, even with focusing on hexagons having large patches of grasslands. Improved data sets on grassland habitat quality could enhance modeling efforts for many grassland species and better match species’ perception of available habitats (Sample et al. 2003). Additionally, future projections of grassland cover are unavailable or unreliable and were not incorporated into our future projections, allowing for individuals in the model to only move among current grassland habitat. While this limitation led to conservative estimates of the future spatial extent of demographically suitable habitat, large increases in grassland habitat in the future are unrealistic given regional land use trends of declining grassland that are likely to continue or remain static (Samson et al. 2004).
It has been assumed that environmental conditions along the periphery of a species’ range are less favorable than conditions at the core of the range (Gaston 1990; Brown et al. 1995), with range boundary populations being smaller, more variable, and less likely to receive immigrants from the core (Channell and Lomolino 2000). As a result, it has been assumed that as a species’ range contracts, it will contract toward the center with peripheral populations going extinct and core populations remaining (Brown 1995; Lawton 1995). However, Channell and Lomolino (2000) found that many species persist at the periphery of their range following range collapses. Our results support this prediction, showing the climatic conditions at the southwestern range edge of Henslow’s Sparrows to be more demographically suitable now and into the future, provided no new grassland habitat becomes available. Although changing climate conditions have produced broad expectations of poleward range shifts for many species (Parmesan and Yohe 2003; Bateman et al. 2016), recent studies have suggested that range shifts can be geographically complex (VanDerWal et al. 2013; Gillings et al. 2015; Bateman et al. 2016). Using a CCVA, our study suggests that a possible reason for a lack of poleward shift for grassland birds is a result of heterogeneous changes in precipitation and their influence on demographic processes. Incorporating future changes in climate, especially the role of changing precipitation, is important for assessing the future vulnerability of grassland-dependent species.
References
Arnold TW (2010) Uninformative parameters and model selection using Akaike’s Information Criterion. J Wildl Manag 74:1175–1178
Askins RA, Chavez-Ramirez F, Dale BC, Haas CA, Herkert JR, Knopff FL, Vickery PD (2007) Conservation of grassland birds in North America: understanding ecological processes in different regions: “Report of the AOU Committee on Conservation”. Ornithol Monogr 64:1–46
Bajema RA, Lima SL (2001) Landscape-level analyses of Henslow’s sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii) abundance in reclaimed coal mine grasslands. Am Midl Nat 145:288–298
Bateman BL, Pidgeon AM, Radeloff VC, Vanderwal J, Thogmartin WE, Vavrus SJ, Heglund PJ (2016) The pace of past climate change vs. potential bird distributions and land use in the United States. Glob Chang Biol 22:1130–1144
Beale CM, Baker NE, Brewer MJ, Lennon JJ (2013) Protected area networks and savannah bird biodiversity in the face of climate change and land degradation. Ecol Lett 16:1061–1068
Benson TJ, Chiavacci SJ, Ward MP (2013) Patch size and edge proximity are useful predictors of brood parasitism but not nest survival of grassland birds. Ecol Appl 23:879–887
Berkeley LI, McCarty JP, Wolfenbarger LL (2007) Postfledging survival and movement in Dickcissels (Spiza americana): implications for habitat management and conservation. Auk 124:396–409
BirdLife International, NatureServe (2014) Bird species distribution maps of the world. BirdLife International, Cambridge
Brekke L, Thrasher BL, Maurer EP, Pruitt T (2013) Downscaled CMIP3 and CMIP5 climate and hydrology projections: release of downscaled CMIP5 climate projections, comparison with preceding information, and summary of user needs
Brown JH (1995) Macroecology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Brown JH, Mehlman DW, Stevens GC (1995) Spatial variation in abundance. Ecology 76:2028–2043
Burke EJ, Brown SJ, Christidis N (2006) Modeling the recent evolution of global drought and projections for the twenty-first century with the Hadley Centre Climate Model. J Hydrometeorol 7:1113–1125
Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New York
Cade BS (2015) Model averaging and muddled multimodel inference. Ecology 96(9):2370–2382
Channell R, Lomolino MV (2000) Dynamic biogeography and conservation of endangered species. Nature 403:84–86
Chase MK, Nur N, Geupel GR (2005) Effects of weather and population density on reproductive success and population dynamics in a Song Sparrow (Melospiza Melodia) population: a long-term study. Auk 122:571
Conrey RY, Skagen SK, Yackel Adams AA, Panjabi AO (2016) Extremes of heat, drought and precipitation depress reproductive performance in shortgrass prairie passerines. Ibis (Lond 1859) 158:614–629
Cooper T (2012) Status assessment and conservation plan for the Henslow’s Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii). Version 1.0. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Minnesota
Cox WA, Thompson FR, Reidy JL, Faaborg J (2013) Temperature can interact with landscape factors to affect songbird productivity. Glob Chang Biol 19:1064–1074. doi:10.1111/gcb.12117
Dai A (2012) Increasing drought under global warming in observations and models. Nat Clim Chang 3:52–58. doi:10.1038/nclimate1633
Dobrowski SZ, Abatzoglou J, Swanson AK, Greenberg JA, Mynsberge AR, Holden ZA, Schwartz MK (2013) The climate velocity of the contiguous United States during the 20th century. Glob Chang Biol 19:241–251
Franklin J (2010) Mapping species distributions: spatial inference and prediction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Fry JA, Xian G, Jin S, Dewitz JA, Homer CG, Yang L, Barnes CA, Herold ND, Wickham JD (2011) Completion of the 2006 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 77:858–864
Gaston KJ (1990) Patterns in the geographical ranges of species. Biol Rev 65:105–129
Gillings S, Balmer DE, Fuller RJ (2015) Directionality of recent bird distribution shifts and climate change in Great Britain. Glob Chang Biol 21:2155–2168
Hamann A (2016) Historical and projected climate data for North America (Climate NA). https://sites.ualberta.ca/~ahamann/data/climatena.html. Accessed 9 Aug 2016
Harris RMB, Grose MR, Lee G, Bindoff NL, Porfirio LL, Fox-Hughes P (2014) Climate projections for ecologists. WIREs Clim Chang 5:621–637
Herkert JR (1994) The effects of habitat fragmentation on midwestern grassland bird communities. Ecol Appl 4:461–471
Herkert JR, Szafoni RE, Kleen VM, Schwegman JE (1993) Habitat establishment, enhancement and management for forest and grassland birds in Illinois. Natural Heritage Technical Publication #1. Division of Natural Heritage, Illinois Department of Conservation, Springfield, Illinois
Hostetler JA, Sillett TS, Marra PP (2015) Full-annual-cycle population models for migratory birds. Auk 132:433–449
Hovick TJ, Miller JR, Koford RR, Engle DM, Debinski DM (2011) Postfledging survival of Grasshopper Sparrows in grasslands managed with fire and grazing. Condor 113:429–437
Illán JG, Thomas CD, Jones JA, Wong W-K, Shirley SM, Betts MG (2014) Precipitation and winter temperature predict long-term range-scale abundance changes in western North American birds. Glob Chang Biol 20:3351–3364
Johnson EI, Dimiceli JK, Stouffer PC, Brooks ME, Stoufferi P (2011) Habitat use does not reflect habitat quality for Henslow’s Sparrows (Ammodramus henslowii) wintering in fire-managed Longleaf Pine savannas. Auk 128:564–576
Lawton JH (1995) Population dynamic principles. Extinction rates. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 147–163
Loarie SR, Duffy PB, Hamilton H, Asner GP, Field CB, Ackerly DD (2009) The velocity of climate change. Nature 462:1052–1055. doi:10.1038/nature08649
Marzluff JM, Bowman R, Donnelly R (2001) Avian ecology and conservation in an urbanizing world. Springer, New York
Maurer EP, Brekke L, Pruitt T, Duffy PB (2007) Fine-resolution climate projections enhance regional climate change impact studies. EOS Trans Am Geophys Union 88:504
Mayfield H (1961) Nesting success calculated from exposure. Wilson Bull 73:255–261
McKechnie AE, Wolf BO (2010) Climate change increases the likelihood of catastrophic avian mortality events during extreme heat waves. Biol Lett 6:253–256. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2009.0702
Meehl GA, Stocker TF, Collins WD, Friedlingstein P, Gaye A, Gregory JM, Kitoh A, Knutti R, Murphy JM, Noda A, Raper SC, Watterson IG, Weaver AJ, Zhao Z (2007) Global climate projections. In: Climate change 2007: Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, pp. 747–846. doi: 10.1080/07341510601092191
Melillo JM, Richmond TC, Yohe GW (2014) Climate change impacts in the United States: third national climate assessment. http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report. Accessed 1 Nov 2015
Michel N, DeSante DF, Kaschube DR, Nott MP (2011) The Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) program annual reports, 1989–2006. NBII/MAPS avian demographics query interface. http://www.birdpop.org/nbii2006/NBIIHome.asp. Accessed Jan 2011
Moritz C, Agudo R (2013) The future of species under climate change: resilience or decline? Science 341:504–508. doi:10.1126/science.1237190
Mouton AM, De Baets B, Goethals PLM (2010) Ecological relevance of performance criteria for species distribution models. Ecol Model 221:1995–2002
Niven D, Butcher G, Bancroft G (2010) Northward shifts in early winter abundance. Am Birds 63:10–15
North American Bird Conservation Initiative (2010) The state of the birds; 2010 Report on Climate Change. http://www.stateofthebirds.org/2010. Accessed 1 July 2015
Notaro M, Lorenz D, Hoving C, Schummer M (2014) Twenty-first-century projections of snowfall and winter severity across central-eastern North America. J Clim 27:6526–6550
Pacifici M, Foden WB, Visconti P, Watson JEM, Butchart SHM, Kovacs KM, Scheffers BR, Hole DG, Martin TG, Akçakaya HR, Corlett RT, Huntley B, Bickford D, Carr JA, Hoffmann AA, Midgley GF, Pearce-Kelly P, Pearson RG, Williams SE, Willis SG, Young B, Rondinini C (2015) Assessing species vulnerability to climate change. Nat Clim Chang 5:215–225
Pardieck KL, Ziolkowski DJ, Hudson MAR (2014) North American Breeding Bird Survey Dataset 1966–2014, version 2014.0. U.S Geological Survey. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center
Parmesan C, Yohe G (2003) A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421:37–42. doi:10.1038/nature01286
Perlut NG, Strong AM (2011) Grassland birds and rotational-grazing in the northeast: breeding ecology, survival and management opportunities. J Wildl Manag 75:715–720
Perlut NG, Strong AM, Donovan TM, Buckley NJ (2008) Grassland songbird survival and recruitment in agricultural landscapes: implications for source-sink demography. Ecology 89:1941–1952
Pidgeon AM, Radeloff VC, Mathews NE (2003) Landscape-scale patterns of black-throated sparrow (Amphispiza bilineata) abundance and nest success. Ecol Appl 13:530–542
PRISM Climate Group-Oregon State University (2014) PRISM Climate Group. http://www.prism.oregonstate.edu/. Accessed 1 Aug 2014
Pulliam HR (1988) Sources, sinks, and population regulation. Am Nat 132:652–661
Radeloff VC, Stewart SI, Hawbaker TJ, Gimmi U, Pidgeon AM, Flather CH, Hammer RB, Helmers DP (2010) Housing growth in and near United States protected areas limits their conservation value. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:940–945
Ribic CA, Guzy MJ, Anderson TJ, Sample DW, Nack JL (2012) Bird productivity and nest predation in agricultural grasslands. In: Ribic C, Thompson FR, Pietz PJ (eds) Video surveillance of nesting birds, vol 43. Studies in avian biology. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 119–134
Ribic CA, Guzy MJ, Sample DW (2009a) Grassland bird use of remnant prairie and Conservation Reserve Program fields in an agricultural landscape in Wisconsin. Am Midl Nat 161:110–122
Ribic CA, Koford RR, Herkert JR, Johnson DH, Niemuth ND, Naugle DE, Bakker KK, Sample DW, Renfrew RB (2009b) Area sensitivity in North American grassland birds: patterns and processes. Auk 126:233–244
Rotenberry J, Wiens J (1991) Weather and reproductive variation in shrubsteppe sparrows: a hierarchical analysis. Ecology 72:1325–1335
Sample DW, Ribic CA, Renfrew RB (2003) Linking landscape management with the conservation of grassland birds in Wisconsin. In: Bissonette JA, Storch I (eds) Landscape ecology and resource management: linking theory with practice. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 359–385
Samson F, Knopf F, Ostlie W (2004) Great Plains ecosystems: past, present, and future. Wildl Soc Bull 32:6–15
Sauer JR, Hines JE, Fallon JE, Pardieck KL, Ziolkowski DJ, Link WA (2014) The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966–2013. Version 01.30.2015. http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/. Accessed 8 Sept 2014
Schumaker NH (2015) HexSim version 3.2.1. U.S. Environamental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. http://www.hexsim.net
Shaffer TL (2004) A unified approach to analyzing nest success. Auk 121:526–540
Sheffield J, Wood EF (2008) Projected changes in drought occurrence under future global warming from multi-model, multi-scenario, IPCC AR4 simulations. Clim Dyn 31:79–105
Siikamaki P (1996) Nestling growth and mortality of Pied Flycatchers Ficedula hypoleuca in relation to weather and breeding effort. Ibis 138:471–478
Skagen SK, Yackel Adams AA (2012) Weather effects on avian breeding performance and implications of climate change. Ecol Appl 22:1131–1145
Stauffer GE (2008) Nesting ecology and site fidelity of grassland sparrows on reclaimed surface mines in Pennsylvania. Thesis, Pennsylvania State University
Stauffer GE, Diefenbach DR, Marshall MR, Brauning DW (2011) Nest success of grassland sparrows on reclaimed surface mines. J Wildl Manag 75:548–557
Suedkamp Wells KM, Ryan MR, Millspaugh JT, Thompson FR, Hubbard MW (2007) Survival of postfledging grassland birds in Missouri. Condor 109:781–794
R Development Core Team (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. v 3.1.1. http://www.r-project.org/. Accessed 1 Feb 2015
Thatcher BS, Krementz DG, Woodrey MS (2006) Henslow’s Sparrow winter-survival estimates and response to prescribed burning. J Wildl Manag 70:198–206
Thogmartin WE, Gallant A, Fox T, Knutson MG, Suarez M (2004) Commentary: a cautionary tale regarding use of the 1992 National Land Cover Dataset. Wildl Soc Bull 32:960–968
Thogmartin WE, Knutson MG, Sauer JR (2006) Predicting regional abundance of rare grassland birds with a hierarchical spatial count model. Condor 108:25–46
Thomas CD, Cameron A, Green RE, Bakkenes M, Beaumont LJ, Collingham YC, Erasmus BFN, Ferreira de Siqueira M, Grainger A, Hannah L, Hughes L, Huntley B, van Jaarsveld AS, Midgley GF, Miles L, Ortega-Huerta MA, Peterson AT, Phillips OL, Williams SE (2004) Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427:145–148
Trenberth KE, Dai A, van der Schrier G, Jones PD, Barichivich J, Briffa KR, Sheffield J (2014) Global warming and changes in drought. Nat Clim Chang 4:17–22
VanDerWal J, Falconi L, Januchowski S, Shoo L, Storlie C (2015) SDMTools: species distribution modelling tools: tools for processing data associated with species distribution modelling exercises. R package version 1.1–221
VanDerWal J, Murphy HT, Kutt AS, Perkins GC, Bateman BL, Perry JJ, Reside AE (2013) Focus on poleward shifts in species’ distribution underestimates the fingerprint of climate change. Nat Clim Chang 3:239–243
Vicente-Serrano SM, Gouveia C, Camarero JJ, Beguería S, Trigo R, López-Moreno JI, Azorín-Molina C, Pasho E, Lorenzo-Lacruz J, Revuelto J, Morán-Tejeda E, Sanchez-Lorenzo A (2013) Response of vegetation to drought time-scales across global land biomes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:52–57
Vickery PD, Tubaro PL, da Silva JMC, Peterjohn BG, Herkert JR, Cavalcanti RB (1999) Conservation of grassland birds in the western hemisphere. Stud Avian Biol 19:2–26
Wang T, Hamann A, Spittlehouse D, Carroll C (2016) Locally downscaled and spatially customizable climate data for historical and future periods for North America. PLoS ONE 11:e0156720
Williams SE, Shoo LP, Isaac JL, Hoffmann AA, Langham G (2008) Towards an integrated framework for assessing the vulnerability of species to climate change. PLoS Biol 6:2621–2626
Yackel Adams AA, Skagen SK, Adams RD (2001) Movements and survival of Lark Bunting fledglings. Condor 103:643
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by the Northeast Climate Science Center. We acknowledge the World Climate Research Programme’s Working Group on Coupled Modelling, which is responsible for CMIP, and we thank the climate modeling groups (listed in Online Appendix 3 of this paper) for producing and making available their model output. For CMIP, the U.S. Department of Energy’s Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison provides coordinating support and led development of software infrastructure in partnership with the Global Organization for Earth System Science Portals. We thank our scientific advisory board, J. Herkert, S. Hull, D. King, K Koch, M. Knutson, D. Lorenz, R. Renfrew, D. Rugg, D. Sample, S. Skagen, G. White, and T. Will, for their input as we developed our models. We thank W. Thogmartin, two anonymous reviewers, and Associate Editor C. Wilsey for their comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript. We thank N. Schumaker for guidance in developing the spatially explicit population models in HexSim. We thank the University of Wisconsin Madison Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology for help with publication expenses. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
McCauley, L.A., Ribic, C.A., Pomara, L.Y. et al. The future demographic niche of a declining grassland bird fails to shift poleward in response to climate change. Landscape Ecol 32, 807–821 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-017-0487-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-017-0487-x