• Energy Research
• DK close

AbstractAimRange shifts are expected to occur when populations at one range margin perform better than those at the other margin, yet no global trend in population performances at range margins has been demonstrated empirically across a wide range of taxa and biomes. Here we test the prediction that, if impacts of ongoing climate change on performance in marginal populations are widespread, then populations from the high‐latitude margin (HLM) should perform as well as or better than central populations, whereas low‐latitude margin (LLM) populations should perform worse.LocationGlobal.Time period1995–2019.Major taxa studiedPlants and animals.MethodsTo test our prediction, we used a meta‐analysis to quantify empirical support for asymmetry in the performance of high‐ and low‐latitude margin populations compared to central populations. Performance estimates (survival, reproduction, or lifetime fitness) for populations occurring in their natural environment were derived from 51 papers involving 113 margin‐centre comparisons from 54 species and 705 populations from the Americas, Europe, Africa and Australia. We then related these performance differences to climatic differences among populations. We also tested whether patterns are consistent across taxonomic kingdoms (plants vs animals) and across realms (marine vs terrestrial).ResultsPopulations at margins performed significantly worse than central populations, and this trend was primarily driven by the low‐latitude margin. Although the difference was of small magnitude, it was largely consistent across biological kingdoms and realms. Differences in performance were weakly (p = .08) related to the difference in average temperatures between central and marginal populations.Main conclusionsThe observed asymmetry in performance in marginal populations is consistent with predictions about the effects of global climate change, though further research is needed to confirm the effect of climate. It indicates that changes in demographic rates in marginal populations can serve as early‐warning signals of impending range shifts.

Specialization can become detrimental to a discipline if it fosters intellectual isolation. A bibliographic analysis of several research areas in plant ecology (invasion biology, succession ecology, gap/patch dynamics, and global change effects on plants) revealed that plant ecologists do not regularly make use of the findings and insights of very similar studies being conducted in other research subdisciplines, nor do they try to make their findings and insights easily accessible to researchers in other areas. Invasion papers were least likely to be cross-linked (6%) with other fields, whereas gap/patch dynamics papers were most likely to be cross-linked (15%). This tendency toward intellectual isolation may be impeding efforts to achieve more powerful generalizations in ecology by reducing the number of potentially productive exchanges among researchers. In this paper, we illustrate this problem using the example of several speciality areas that study vegetation change. We argue that, rather than characterizing studies of vegetation change on the basis of what distinguishes them from one another, plant ecologists would benefit from concentrating on what such studies have in common. As an example, we propose that several speciality areas of plant ecology could be reunified under the term ecology of vegetation change. Individual researchers, journals, and ecological societies all can take specific steps to increase the useful exchange of ideas and information among research areas. Promoting rapid and more effective communication among diverse researchers may reduce the proliferation of narrow theories, concepts, and terminologies associated with particular research areas. In this way, we can expedite our understanding of the ecological mechanisms and consequences associated with plant communities. (c) 2004 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.