Geology topics

Jonathan Lenoir

Publications and source records attributed to Jonathan Lenoir.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2026

BioShifts v2 and BioShiftR: Tools for navigating and analysing species range shift data

Species are redistributing their ranges globally in response to climate change, but the fragmented and complex nature of the documented responses make them challenging to track and analyze. Synthesis of species’ range shifts requires careful integration and consideration of varying methods and scales of study. Here, we present an updated database that combines two previous data repositories (BioShifts v1 and CoRE), complete with methodological information from original studies, spatial datasets of species and study locations, and associated climate exposure metrics calculated at multiple scales, together comprising a clean and interoperable relational database for future studies of range shifts. We make these data accessible through a companion open-source software tool, BioShiftR, that simplifies the navigation and analysis of estimated range shift rates in light of varying methods and hypothesized climate drivers. Together, these tools will facilitate tractable and robust downstream studies of range shifts, ultimately improving our understanding of species’ biogeographical responses to climate change.

EcoEvoRxiv↗

USGS2024

Bringing traits back in the equation: A roadmap to understand species redistribution

Ecological and evolutionary theories have proposed that species traits should be important in mediating species responses to contemporary climate change; yet, empirical evidence has so far provided mixed evidence for the role of behavioral, life history, or ecological characteristics in facilitating or hindering species range shifts. As such, the utility of trait-based approaches to predict species redistribution under climate change has been called into question. We develop the perspective, supported by evidence, that trait variation, if used carefully can have high potential utility, but that past analyses have in many cases failed to identify an explanatory value for traits by not fully embracing the complexity of species range shifts. First, we discuss the relevant theory linking species traits to range shift processes at the leading (expansion) and trailing (contraction) edges of species distributions and highlight the need to clarify the mechanistic basis of trait-based approaches. Second, we provide a brief overview of range shift–trait studies and identify new opportunities for trait integration that consider range-specific processes and intraspecific variability. Third, we explore the circumstances under which environmental and biotic context dependencies are likely to affect our ability to identify the contribution of species traits to range shift processes. Finally, we propose that revealing the role of traits in shaping species redistribution may likely require accounting for methodological variation arising from the range shift estimation process as well as addressing existing functional, geographical, and phylogenetic biases. We provide a series of considerations for more effectively integrating traits as well as extrinsic and methodological factors into species redistribution research. Together, these analytical approaches promise stronger mechanistic and predictive understanding that can help society mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change on biodiversity.

Global Change Biology↗

USGS2023

Climate change and the global redistribution of biodiversity: Substantial variation in empirical support for expected range shifts

Background Among the most widely predicted climate change-related impacts to biodiversity are geographic range shifts, whereby species shift their spatial distribution to track their climate niches. A series of commonly articulated hypotheses have emerged in the scientific literature suggesting species are expected to shift their distributions to higher latitudes, greater elevations, and deeper depths in response to rising temperatures associated with climate change. Yet, many species are not demonstrating range shifts consistent with these expectations. Here, we evaluate the impact of anthropogenic climate change (specifically, changes in temperature and precipitation) on species’ ranges, and assess whether expected range shifts are supported by the body of empirical evidence. Methods We conducted a Systematic Review, searching online databases and search engines in English. Studies were screened in a two-stage process (title/abstract review, followed by full-text review) to evaluate whether they met a list of eligibility criteria. Data coding, extraction, and study validity assessment was completed by a team of trained reviewers and each entry was validated by at least one secondary reviewer. We used logistic regression models to assess whether the direction of shift supported common range-shift expectations (i.e., shifts to higher latitudes and elevations, and deeper depths). We also estimated the magnitude of shifts for the subset of available range-shift data expressed in distance per time (i.e., km/decade). We accounted for methodological attributes at the study level as potential sources of variation. This allowed us to answer two questions: (1) are most species shifting in the direction we expect (i.e., each observation is assessed as support/fail to support our expectation); and (2) what is the average speed of range shifts? Review findings We found that less than half of all range-shift observations (46.60%) documented shifts towards higher latitudes, higher elevations, and greater marine depths, demonstrating significant variation in the empirical evidence for general range shift expectations. For the subset of studies looking at range shift rates, we found that species demonstrated significant average shifts towards higher latitudes (average = 11.8 km/dec) and higher elevations (average = 9 m/dec), although we failed to find significant evidence for shifts to greater marine depths. We found that methodological factors in individual range-shift studies had a significant impact on the reported direction and magnitude of shifts. Finally, we identified important variation across dimensions of range shifts (e.g., greater support for latitude and elevation shifts than depth), parameters (e.g., leading edge shifts faster than trailing edge for latitude), and taxonomic groups (e.g., faster latitudinal shifts for insects than plants). Conclusions Despite growing evidence that species are shifting their ranges in response to climate change, substantial variation exists in the extent to which definitively empirical observations confirm these expectations. Even though on average, rates of shift show significant movement to higher elevations and latitudes for many taxa, most species are not shifting in expected directions. Variation across dimensions and parameters of range shifts, as well as differences across taxonomic groups and variation driven by methodological factors, should be considered when assessing overall confidence in range-shift hypotheses. In order for managers to effectively plan for species redistribution, we need to better account for and predict which species will shift and by how much. The dataset produced for this analysis can be used for future research to explore additional hypotheses to better understand species range shifts.

Journal of Environmental Evidence↗

USGS2023

2022 drought in New England

Introduction During April through September 2022, much of New England experienced a short but extreme hydrologic drought that was similar to the drought of 2020. By August 2022, Providence, Rhode Island, was declared a Federal disaster area, and New London and Windham counties in Connecticut were declared natural disaster areas. Mandatory water use restrictions were put in place in communities in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island (Mecray and Borisoff, 2022). Precipitation in many areas of New England fell below normal levels in November 2021 and continued to decline until September 2022, contributing to low streamflows and groundwater levels in the region. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) streamflow and groundwater conditions from April to September 2022 were used to characterize the hydrologic component of this short-duration drought. Several record low streamflows and groundwater levels were observed across New England, even falling below 2020 levels in parts of southern New England. The severity of this drought varied across New England, and regional and statewide perspectives are presented in this report. Highlights May through August in 2022 ranked as the driest for those 4 months in 138 years of record at Boston, Massachusetts, with only 5.74 inches of rain (average of 13.26 inches). Water levels at 95 USGS groundwater monitoring wells across New England were below normal in August; 16 of these wells recorded their lowest August water level in 25 years. Flows at 54 USGS streamgages across New England were below normal in August, and 10 of those streamgages recorded their lowest August flows in 30 years. Two USGS streamgages in Massachusetts (stations 01105600 and 01171500 with 56 and 83 years of record, respectively) had record 7-day average low flows on August 21, 2022, and August 22, 2022, respectively.

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, ↗

USGS2022

Global environmental changes more frequently offset than intensify detrimental effects of biological invasions

Human-induced abiotic global environmental changes (GECs) and the spread of nonnative invasive species are rapidly altering ecosystems. Understanding the relative and interactive effects of invasion and GECs is critical for informing ecosystem adaptation and management, but this information has not been synthesized. We conducted a meta-analysis to investigate effects of invasions, GECs, and their combined influences on native ecosystems. We found 458 cases from 95 published studies that reported individual and combined effects of invasions and a GEC stressor, which was most commonly warming, drought, or nitrogen addition. We calculated standardized effect sizes (Hedges’ d ) for individual and combined treatments and classified interactions as additive (sum of individual treatment effects), antagonistic (smaller than expected), or synergistic (outside the expected range). The ecological effects of GECs varied, with detrimental effects more likely with drought than the other GECs. Invasions were more strongly detrimental, on average, than GECs. Invasion and GEC interactions were mostly antagonistic, but synergistic interactions occurred in >25% of cases and mostly led to more detrimental outcomes for ecosystems. While interactive effects were most often smaller than expected from individual invasion and GEC effects, synergisms were not rare and occurred across ecological responses from the individual to the ecosystem scale. Overall, interactions between invasions and GECs were typically no worse than the effects of invasions alone, highlighting the importance of managing invasions locally as a crucial step toward reducing harm from multiple global changes.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences↗

USGS2015

Non-native and native organisms moving into high elevation and high latitude ecosystems in an era of climate change: new challenges for ecology and conservation

Cold environments at high elevation and high latitude are often viewed as resistant to biological invasions. However, climate warming, land use change and associated increased connectivity all increase the risk of biological invasions in these environments. Here we present a summary of the key discussions of the workshop ‘Biosecurity in Mountains and Northern Ecosystems: Current Status and Future Challenges’ (Flen, Sweden, 1–3 June 2015). The aims of the workshop were to (1) increase awareness about the growing importance of species expansion—both non-native and native—at high elevation and high latitude with climate change, (2) review existing knowledge about invasion risks in these areas, and (3) encourage more research on how species will move and interact in cold environments, the consequences for biodiversity, and animal and human health and wellbeing. The diversity of potential and actual invaders reported at the workshop and the likely interactions between them create major challenges for managers of cold environments. However, since these cold environments have experienced fewer invasions when compared with many warmer, more populated environments, prevention has a real chance of success, especially if it is coupled with prioritisation schemes for targeting invaders likely to have greatest impact. Communication and co-operation between cold environment regions will facilitate rapid response, and maximise the use of limited research and management resources.

Biological Invasions↗