Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
Research Article

Experiment, monitoring, and gradient methods used to infer climate change effects on plant communities yield consistent patterns

Sarah C. Elmendorf, Gregory H. R. Henry, Robert D. Hollister, Anna Maria Fosaa, William A. Gould, Luise Hermanutz, Annika Hofgaard, Ingibjörg S. Jónsdóttir, Janet C. Jorgenson, Esther Lévesque, Borgþór Magnusson, Ulf Molau, Isla H. Myers-Smith, Steven F. Oberbauer, Christian Rixen, Craig E. Tweedie, and Marilyn D. Walker
  1. aNational Ecological Observatory Network, Boulder, CO 80301;
  2. bDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309;
  3. cDepartment of Geography, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z2;
  4. dBiology Department, Grand Valley State University, Allendale, MI 49401;
  5. eBotanical Department, Faroese Museum of Natural History, FO-110 Tórshavn, Faroe Islands;
  6. fInternational Institute of Tropical Forestry, US Forest Service, Rio Piedras, PR 00926;
  7. gDepartment of Biology, Memorial University, St. John’s, NL, Canada A1B 3X9;
  8. hTerrestrial Ecology Department, Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, NO-7034 Trondheim, Norway;
  9. iFaculty of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Iceland, 101 Reykjavík, Iceland;
  10. jDepartment of Biology, University Centre in Svalbard, 9171 Longyearbyen, Norway;
  11. kArctic National Wildlife Refuge, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks, AK 99701;
  12. lDépartement des Sciences de l’environnement et Centre d’études nordiques, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Trois-Rivières, QC, Canada G9A 5H7;
  13. mIcelandic Institute of Natural History, 212 Gardabaer, Iceland;
  14. nDepartment of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Gothenburg, SE 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden;
  15. oSchool of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3FF, United Kingdom;
  16. pDepartment of Biological Sciences, Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199;
  17. qCommunity Ecology Group, Swiss Federal Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research, CH-7260 Davos, Switzerland;
  18. rDepartment of Biology, University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX 79912; and
  19. sHOMER Energy, Boulder, CO 80301

See allHide authors and affiliations

PNAS January 13, 2015 112 (2) 448-452; first published December 29, 2014; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1410088112
Sarah C. Elmendorf
aNational Ecological Observatory Network, Boulder, CO 80301;
bDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: selmendorf@neoninc.org
Gregory H. R. Henry
cDepartment of Geography, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z2;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Robert D. Hollister
dBiology Department, Grand Valley State University, Allendale, MI 49401;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anna Maria Fosaa
eBotanical Department, Faroese Museum of Natural History, FO-110 Tórshavn, Faroe Islands;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
William A. Gould
fInternational Institute of Tropical Forestry, US Forest Service, Rio Piedras, PR 00926;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Luise Hermanutz
gDepartment of Biology, Memorial University, St. John’s, NL, Canada A1B 3X9;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Annika Hofgaard
hTerrestrial Ecology Department, Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, NO-7034 Trondheim, Norway;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ingibjörg S. Jónsdóttir
iFaculty of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Iceland, 101 Reykjavík, Iceland;
jDepartment of Biology, University Centre in Svalbard, 9171 Longyearbyen, Norway;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Janet C. Jorgenson
kArctic National Wildlife Refuge, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks, AK 99701;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Esther Lévesque
lDépartement des Sciences de l’environnement et Centre d’études nordiques, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Trois-Rivières, QC, Canada G9A 5H7;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Borgþór Magnusson
mIcelandic Institute of Natural History, 212 Gardabaer, Iceland;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ulf Molau
nDepartment of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Gothenburg, SE 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Isla H. Myers-Smith
oSchool of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3FF, United Kingdom;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Steven F. Oberbauer
pDepartment of Biological Sciences, Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christian Rixen
qCommunity Ecology Group, Swiss Federal Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research, CH-7260 Davos, Switzerland;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Craig E. Tweedie
rDepartment of Biology, University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX 79912; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marilyn D. Walker
sHOMER Energy, Boulder, CO 80301
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  1. Edited by William H. Schlesinger, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NY, and approved November 26, 2014 (received for review May 30, 2014)

  • Article
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

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.

  • thermophilization
  • space-for-time substitution
  • climate change
  • warming experiment
  • tundra

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.

View Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Experiment, monitoring, and gradient methods used to infer climate change effects on plant communities yield consistent patterns
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Consistent warming impacts from multiple methods
Sarah C. Elmendorf, Gregory H. R. Henry, Robert D. Hollister, Anna Maria Fosaa, William A. Gould, Luise Hermanutz, Annika Hofgaard, Ingibjörg S. Jónsdóttir, Janet C. Jorgenson, Esther Lévesque, Borgþór Magnusson, Ulf Molau, Isla H. Myers-Smith, Steven F. Oberbauer, Christian Rixen, Craig E. Tweedie, Marilyn D. Walker
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jan 2015, 112 (2) 448-452; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1410088112

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Consistent warming impacts from multiple methods
Sarah C. Elmendorf, Gregory H. R. Henry, Robert D. Hollister, Anna Maria Fosaa, William A. Gould, Luise Hermanutz, Annika Hofgaard, Ingibjörg S. Jónsdóttir, Janet C. Jorgenson, Esther Lévesque, Borgþór Magnusson, Ulf Molau, Isla H. Myers-Smith, Steven F. Oberbauer, Christian Rixen, Craig E. Tweedie, Marilyn D. Walker
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jan 2015, 112 (2) 448-452; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1410088112
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Article Classifications

  • Biological Sciences
  • Ecology
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 112 (2)
Table of Contents

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Materials and Methods
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

You May Also be Interested in

Smoke emanates from Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant a few days after tsunami damage
Core Concept: Muography offers a new way to see inside a multitude of objects
Muons penetrate much further than X-rays, they do essentially zero damage, and they are provided for free by the cosmos.
Image credit: Science Source/Digital Globe.
Water from a faucet fills a glass.
News Feature: How “forever chemicals” might impair the immune system
Researchers are exploring whether these ubiquitous fluorinated molecules might worsen infections or hamper vaccine effectiveness.
Image credit: Shutterstock/Dmitry Naumov.
Venus flytrap captures a fly.
Journal Club: Venus flytrap mechanism could shed light on how plants sense touch
One protein seems to play a key role in touch sensitivity for flytraps and other meat-eating plants.
Image credit: Shutterstock/Kuttelvaserova Stuchelova.
Illustration of groups of people chatting
Exploring the length of human conversations
Adam Mastroianni and Daniel Gilbert explore why conversations almost never end when people want them to.
Listen
Past PodcastsSubscribe
Panda bear hanging in a tree
How horse manure helps giant pandas tolerate cold
A study finds that giant pandas roll in horse manure to increase their cold tolerance.
Image credit: Fuwen Wei.

Similar Articles

Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Special Feature Articles – Most Recent
  • List of Issues

PNAS Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science
  • Teaching Resources

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Subscribers
  • Librarians
  • Press
  • Cozzarelli Prize
  • Site Map
  • PNAS Updates
  • FAQs
  • Accessibility Statement
  • Rights & Permissions
  • About
  • Contact

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490