Review
Moving beyond assumptions to understand abundance distributions across the ranges of species

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2006.06.008Get rights and content

The assumption that species are most abundant in the center of their range and decline in abundance toward the range edges has a long history in the ecological literature. This assumption has driven basic and applied ecological and evolutionary hypotheses about the causes of species range limits and their responses to climate change. Here, we review recent studies that are taking biogeographical ecology beyond previously held assumptions by observing populations in the field across large parts of the species range. When these studies combine data on abundance, demographics, organismal physiology, genetics and physical factors, they provide a promising approach for teasing out ecological and evolutionary mechanisms of the patterns and processes underlying species ranges.

Section snippets

The importance of abundance

Geographical patterns of the abundance of species underlie some of the most fundamental issues in ecology, including the causes of species range limits, gene flow within populations, population dynamics and explanations for macroecological patterns such as the species-area relationship. Patterns of species abundance have also been used to develop hypotheses about applied issues such as how species will respond to climate change, how to identify probable locations of pest outbreaks and where to

Assumptions about abundance

A widespread biogeographical assumption is that species are most abundant in the center of their range and decline in abundance toward the range edges. This assumption, which we call the ‘abundant-center hypothesis’, has a long history in theoretical and applied ecology. It has even been called a ‘general rule’ of biogeography [1] and ‘a common feature shared by all species’ [2].

The abundant-center assumption is more than an observational curiosity, because it has also been used extensively in

Moving beyond assumptions

Recognizing both that species distributions do not always exhibit an assumed distribution, and that actual abundance distributions provide limited opportunities for inference, suggests that adding additional layers of data on a geographical scale (including basic population demographics, biophysical variables and genetic population structure) will be necessary to narrow the range of viable hypotheses to explain range boundaries and population distributions. Caughley et al. [20], for example,

Using data to test hypotheses

The growing list of studies like those above provides examples of key factors to address when developing more realistic hypotheses related to species distributions. The multitude of factors points to the need to layer multiple elements of range-scaled data sequentially in an ordered progression to rule out large classes of mechanistic hypotheses. These additional layers of data can be viewed as filters through which a clearer signal can be delivered from noisy abundance data. This new round of

The need for more large-scale descriptive ecology

After decades of advances in experimental ecology, observational approaches to hypothesis testing are not at the forefront of the field and are often considered ‘less rigorous’ than experimental approaches [51]. When addressing larger-scale problems, however, we are still ‘observation limited’. Moreover, as the studies of spatial variability reviewed here suggest, findings from even the most carefully controlled experiments conducted at a given site with a species range might not be relevant to

Acknowledgements

This paper benefited greatly from the support of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. This is contribution number 216 from PISCO, the Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceans funded primarily by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

References (67)

  • C.R. Herlihy et al.

    Evolution of self-fertilization at geographical range margins? A comparison of demographic, floral, and mating system variables in central vs. peripheral populations of Aquilegia canadensis (Ranunculaceae)

    Am. J. Bot.

    (2005)
  • C. Kluth et al.

    Central and peripheral Hornungia petraea populations: patterns and dynamics

    J. Ecol.

    (2005)
  • C. Bas

    Population structure of the South American estuarine crab, Chasmagnathus granulatus (Brachyura: Varunidae) near the southern limit of its geographical distribution: comparison with northern populations

    Hydrobiologia

    (2005)
  • O. Defeo et al.

    Latitudinal patterns in abundance and life-history traits of the mole crab Emerita brasiliensis on South American sandy beaches

    Div. Distrib.

    (2004)
  • S. Gilman

    A test of Brown's principle in the intertidal limpet Collisella scabra (Gould, 1846)

    J. Biogeogr.

    (2005)
  • H.T. Murphy

    Distribution of abundance across the range in eastern North American trees

    Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr.

    (2006)
  • A.S. Jump et al.

    Seed production and population density decline approaching the range-edge of Cirsium species

    New Phytol.

    (2003)
  • C.J.B. Sorte et al.

    Changes in latitudes, changes in aptitudes: Nucella canaliculata (Mollusca: Gastropoda) is more stressed at its range edge

    Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

    (2004)
  • C.K. Williams

    Population dynamics across geographical ranges: time-series analyses of three small game species

    Ecology

    (2003)
  • J.A. Vucetich et al.

    Spatial patterns of demography and genetic processes across the ‘species’ range: null hypotheses for landscape conservation genetics

    Cons. For. Genet.

    (2003)
  • A. Hampe et al.

    Conserving biodiversity under climate change: the rear edge matters

    Ecol. Lett.

    (2005)
  • B. Helmuth

    Biophysics, physiological ecology and climate change: does mechanism matter?

    Annu. Rev. Physiol.

    (2005)
  • D. Caughley

    The edge of the range

    J. Anim. Ecol.

    (1988)
  • B. Gaylord et al.

    Temperature or transport? Range limits in marine species mediated solely by flow

    Am. Nat.

    (2000)
  • R.N. Carter et al.

    Epidemic models used to explain biogeographical distribution limits

    Nature

    (1981)
  • D.W. Welch

    Upper thermal limits on the oceanic distribution of Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) in the spring

    Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.

    (1995)
  • T.M. Blackburn et al.

    Introduction: why macroecology?

  • B. Garrido

    Regional differences in land use affect population performance of the threatened insectivorous plant Drosophyllum lusitanicum (Droseraceae)

    Div. Distrib.

    (2003)
  • B. Helmuth

    Climate change and latitudinal patterns of intertidal thermal stress

    Science

    (2002)
  • C.D.G. Harley et al.

    Local- and regional-scale effects of wave exposure, thermal stress, and absolute versus effective shore level on patterns of intertidal zonation

    Limnol. Oceanog.

    (2003)
  • R.D. Sagarin et al.

    Complex patterns of heat-shock protein 70 expression across the southern biogeographic ranges of the intertidal mussel Mytilus californianus and snail Nucella ostrina

    J. Biogeog.

    (2006)
  • L. Santamaria

    Plant performance across latitude: the role of plasticity and local adaptation in an aquatic plant

    Ecology

    (2003)
  • J.W. Busch

    The evolution of self-compatibility in geographically peripheral populations of Leavenworthia alabamica (Brassicaceae)

    Am. J. Bot.

    (2005)
  • Cited by (383)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text