Experiment, monitoring, and gradient methods used to infer climate change effects on plant communities yield consistent patterns
- aNational Ecological Observatory Network, Boulder, CO 80301;
- bDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309;
- cDepartment of Geography, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z2;
- dBiology Department, Grand Valley State University, Allendale, MI 49401;
- eBotanical Department, Faroese Museum of Natural History, FO-110 Tórshavn, Faroe Islands;
- fInternational Institute of Tropical Forestry, US Forest Service, Rio Piedras, PR 00926;
- gDepartment of Biology, Memorial University, St. John’s, NL, Canada A1B 3X9;
- hTerrestrial Ecology Department, Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, NO-7034 Trondheim, Norway;
- iFaculty of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Iceland, 101 Reykjavík, Iceland;
- jDepartment of Biology, University Centre in Svalbard, 9171 Longyearbyen, Norway;
- kArctic National Wildlife Refuge, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks, AK 99701;
- lDépartement des Sciences de l’environnement et Centre d’études nordiques, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Trois-Rivières, QC, Canada G9A 5H7;
- mIcelandic Institute of Natural History, 212 Gardabaer, Iceland;
- nDepartment of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Gothenburg, SE 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden;
- oSchool of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3FF, United Kingdom;
- pDepartment of Biological Sciences, Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199;
- qCommunity Ecology Group, Swiss Federal Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research, CH-7260 Davos, Switzerland;
- rDepartment of Biology, University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX 79912; and
- sHOMER Energy, Boulder, CO 80301
See allHide authors and affiliations
Edited by William H. Schlesinger, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NY, and approved November 26, 2014 (received for review May 30, 2014)

Significance
Methodological constraints can limit our ability to quantify potential impacts of climate warming. We assessed the consistency of three approaches in estimating warming effects on plant community composition: manipulative warming experiments, repeat sampling under ambient temperature change (monitoring), and space-for-time substitution. The three approaches showed agreement in the direction of change (an increase in the relative abundance of species with a warmer thermal niche), but differed in the magnitude of change estimated. Experimental and monitoring approaches were similar in magnitude, whereas space-for-time comparisons indicated a much stronger response. These results suggest that all three approaches are valid, but experimental warming and long-term monitoring are best suited for forecasting impacts over the coming decades.
Abstract
Inference about future climate change impacts typically relies on one of three approaches: manipulative experiments, historical comparisons (broadly defined to include monitoring the response to ambient climate fluctuations using repeat sampling of plots, dendroecology, and paleoecology techniques), and space-for-time substitutions derived from sampling along environmental gradients. Potential limitations of all three approaches are recognized. Here we address the congruence among these three main approaches by comparing the degree to which tundra plant community composition changes (i) in response to in situ experimental warming, (ii) with interannual variability in summer temperature within sites, and (iii) over spatial gradients in summer temperature. We analyzed changes in plant community composition from repeat sampling (85 plant communities in 28 regions) and experimental warming studies (28 experiments in 14 regions) throughout arctic and alpine North America and Europe. Increases in the relative abundance of species with a warmer thermal niche were observed in response to warmer summer temperatures using all three methods; however, effect sizes were greater over broad-scale spatial gradients relative to either temporal variability in summer temperature within a site or summer temperature increases induced by experimental warming. The effect sizes for change over time within a site and with experimental warming were nearly identical. These results support the view that inferences based on space-for-time substitution overestimate the magnitude of responses to contemporary climate warming, because spatial gradients reflect long-term processes. In contrast, in situ experimental warming and monitoring approaches yield consistent estimates of the magnitude of response of plant communities to climate warming.
Footnotes
- ↵1To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: selmendorf{at}neoninc.org.
Author contributions: S.C.E. designed research; S.C.E., G.H.R.H., R.D.H., A.M.F., W.A.G., L.H., A.H., I.S.J., J.C.J., E.L., B.M., U.M., I.H.M.-S., S.F.O., C.R., C.E.T., and M.D.W. performed research; S.C.E. analyzed data; and S.C.E., G.H.R.H., and R.D.H. wrote the paper.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.
Data deposition: Plant abundance data from the unmanipulated and experimentally warmed plots have been deposited in the Polar Data Catalogue at www.polardata.ca (CCIN ref. no. 10786).
This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1410088112/-/DCSupplemental.
Citation Manager Formats
Article Classifications
- Biological Sciences
- Ecology