Abiotic stress and biotic factors mediate range dynamics on opposing edges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim In the face of global change, understanding causes of range limits are one of the most pressing needs in biogeography and ecology. A prevailing hypothesis is that abiotic stress forms cold (upper latitude/altitude) limits, whereas biotic interactions create warm (lower) limits. A new framework – Interactive Range‐Limit Theory (iRLT) – asserts that positive biotic factors such as food availability can ameliorate abiotic stress along cold edges, whereas abiotic stress can have a positive effect and mediate biotic interactions (e.g., competition) along warm limits. Location Northeastern United States Taxon Carnivora Methods We evaluated two hypotheses of iRLT using occupancy and structural equation modeling (SEM) frameworks based on data collected over a 6‐year period (2014–2019) of six carnivore species across a broad latitudinal (42.8–45.3°N) and altitudinal (3–1451 m) gradient. Results We found that snow directly limits populations, but prey or habitat availability can influence range dynamics along cold edges. For example, bobcats ( Lynx rufus ) and coyotes ( Canis latrans ) were limited by deep snow and long winters, but the availability of prey had a strong positive effect. Conversely, snow had a strong positive effect on the warm limits of Canada lynx ( Lynx canadensis ), countering the negative effect of competition with the phylogenetically similar bobcat and with coyotes, highlighting how climate mediates competition between species. Main conclusions We used an integrated dataset that included competitors and prey species collected at the same spatial and temporal scale. As such, this design, along with a causal modeling framework (SEM), allowed us to evaluate community‐wide hypotheses at macroecological scales and identify coarse‐scale drivers of species' range limits. Our study supports iRLT and underscores the need to consider direct and indirect mechanisms for studying range dynamics and species' responses to global change.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".