@article{RadchukKramerSchadtFickeletal.2019, author = {Radchuk, Viktoriia and Kramer-Schadt, Stephanie and Fickel, J{\"o}rns and Wilting, Andreas}, title = {Distributions of mammals in Southeast Asia: The role of the legacy of climate and species body mass}, series = {Journal of biogeography}, volume = {46}, journal = {Journal of biogeography}, number = {10}, publisher = {Wiley}, address = {Hoboken}, issn = {0305-0270}, doi = {10.1111/jbi.13675}, pages = {2350 -- 2362}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Aim Current species distributions are shaped by present and past biotic and abiotic factors. Here, we assessed whether abiotic factors (habitat availability) in combination with past connectivity and a biotic factor (body mass) can explain the unique distribution pattern of Southeast Asian mammals, which are separated by the enigmatic biogeographic transition zone, the Isthmus of Kra (IoK), for which no strong geophysical barrier exists. Location Southeast Asia. Taxon Mammals. Methods We projected habitat suitability for 125 mammal species using climate data for the present period and for two historic periods: mid-Holocene (6 ka) and last glacial maximum (LGM 21 ka). Next, we employed a phylogenetic linear model to assess how present species distributions were affected by the suitability of areas in these different periods, habitat connectivity during LGM and species body mass. Results Our results show that cooler climate during LGM provided suitable habitat south of IoK for species presently distributed north of IoK (in mainland Indochina). However, the potentially suitable habitat for these Indochinese species did not stretch very far southwards onto the exposed Sunda Shelf. Instead, we found that the emerged landmasses connecting Borneo and Sumatra provided suitable habitat for forest dependent Sundaic species. We show that for species whose current distribution ranges are mainly located in Indochina, the area of the distribution range that is located south of IoK is explained by the suitability of habitat in the past and present in combination with the species body mass. Main conclusions We demonstrate that a strong geophysical barrier may not be necessary for maintaining a biogeographic transition zone for mammals, but that instead a combination of abiotic and biotic factors may suffice.}, language = {en} } @article{SchererRadchukStaubachetal.2019, author = {Scherer, Cedric and Radchuk, Viktoriia and Staubach, Christoph and Mueller, Sophie and Blaum, Niels and Thulke, Hans-Hermann and Kramer-Schadt, Stephanie}, title = {Seasonal host life-history processes fuel disease dynamics at different spatial scales}, series = {Journal of animal ecology : a journal of the British Ecological Society}, volume = {88}, journal = {Journal of animal ecology : a journal of the British Ecological Society}, number = {11}, publisher = {Wiley}, address = {Hoboken}, issn = {0021-8790}, doi = {10.1111/1365-2656.13070}, pages = {1812 -- 1824}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Understanding the drivers underlying disease dynamics is still a major challenge in disease ecology, especially in the case of long-term disease persistence. Even though there is a strong consensus that density-dependent factors play an important role for the spread of diseases, the main drivers are still discussed and, more importantly, might differ between invasion and persistence periods. Here, we analysed long-term outbreak data of classical swine fever, an important disease in both wild boar and livestock, prevalent in the wild boar population from 1993 to 2000 in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany. We report outbreak characteristics and results from generalized linear mixed models to reveal what factors affected infection risk on both the landscape and the individual level. Spatiotemporal outbreak dynamics showed an initial wave-like spread with high incidence during the invasion period followed by a drop of incidence and an increase in seroprevalence during the persistence period. Velocity of spread increased with time during the first year of outbreak and decreased linearly afterwards, being on average 7.6 km per quarter. Landscape- and individual-level analyses of infection risk indicate contrasting seasonal patterns. During the persistence period, infection risk on the landscape level was highest during autumn and winter seasons, probably related to spatial behaviour such as increased long-distance movements and contacts induced by rutting and escaping movements. In contrast, individual-level infection risk peaked in spring, probably related to the concurrent birth season leading to higher densities, and was significantly higher in piglets than in reproductive animals. Our findings highlight that it is important to investigate both individual- and landscape-level patterns of infection risk to understand long-term persistence of wildlife diseases and to guide respective management actions. Furthermore, we highlight that exploring different temporal aggregation of the data helps to reveal important seasonal patterns, which might be masked otherwise.}, language = {en} } @article{RadchukReedTeplitskyetal.2019, author = {Radchuk, Viktoriia and Reed, Thomas and Teplitsky, Celine and van de Pol, Martijn and Charmantier, Anne and Hassall, Christopher and Adamik, Peter and Adriaensen, Frank and Ahola, Markus P. and Arcese, Peter and Miguel Aviles, Jesus and Balbontin, Javier and Berg, Karl S. and Borras, Antoni and Burthe, Sarah and Clobert, Jean and Dehnhard, Nina and de Lope, Florentino and Dhondt, Andre A. and Dingemanse, Niels J. and Doi, Hideyuki and Eeva, Tapio and Fickel, J{\"o}rns and Filella, Iolanda and Fossoy, Frode and Goodenough, Anne E. and Hall, Stephen J. G. and Hansson, Bengt and Harris, Michael and Hasselquist, Dennis and Hickler, Thomas and Jasmin Radha, Jasmin and Kharouba, Heather and Gabriel Martinez, Juan and Mihoub, Jean-Baptiste and Mills, James A. and Molina-Morales, Mercedes and Moksnes, Arne and Ozgul, Arpat and Parejo, Deseada and Pilard, Philippe and Poisbleau, Maud and Rousset, Francois and R{\"o}del, Mark-Oliver and Scott, David and Carlos Senar, Juan and Stefanescu, Constanti and Stokke, Bard G. and Kusano, Tamotsu and Tarka, Maja and Tarwater, Corey E. and Thonicke, Kirsten and Thorley, Jack and Wilting, Andreas and Tryjanowski, Piotr and Merila, Juha and Sheldon, Ben C. and Moller, Anders Pape and Matthysen, Erik and Janzen, Fredric and Dobson, F. Stephen and Visser, Marcel E. and Beissinger, Steven R. and Courtiol, Alexandre and Kramer-Schadt, Stephanie}, title = {Adaptive responses of animals to climate change are most likely insufficient}, series = {Nature Communications}, volume = {10}, journal = {Nature Communications}, publisher = {Nature Publ. Group}, address = {London}, issn = {2041-1723}, doi = {10.1038/s41467-019-10924-4}, pages = {14}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Biological responses to climate change have been widely documented across taxa and regions, but it remains unclear whether species are maintaining a good match between phenotype and environment, i.e. whether observed trait changes are adaptive. Here we reviewed 10,090 abstracts and extracted data from 71 studies reported in 58 relevant publications, to assess quantitatively whether phenotypic trait changes associated with climate change are adaptive in animals. A meta-analysis focussing on birds, the taxon best represented in our dataset, suggests that global warming has not systematically affected morphological traits, but has advanced phenological traits. We demonstrate that these advances are adaptive for some species, but imperfect as evidenced by the observed consistent selection for earlier timing. Application of a theoretical model indicates that the evolutionary load imposed by incomplete adaptive responses to ongoing climate change may already be threatening the persistence of species.}, language = {en} } @article{EgliWeiseRadchuketal.2019, author = {Egli, Lukas and Weise, Hanna and Radchuk, Viktoriia and Seppelt, Ralf and Grimm, Volker}, title = {Exploring resilience with agent-based models: State of the art, knowledge gaps and recommendations for coping with multidimensionality}, series = {Ecological complexity}, volume = {40}, journal = {Ecological complexity}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Amsterdam}, issn = {1476-945X}, doi = {10.1016/j.ecocom.2018.06.008}, pages = {7}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Anthropogenic pressures increasingly alter natural systems. Therefore, understanding the resilience of agent-based complex systems such as ecosystems, i.e. their ability to absorb these pressures and sustain their functioning and services, is a major challenge. However, the mechanisms underlying resilience are still poorly understood. A main reason for this is the multidimensionality of both resilience, embracing the three fundamental stability properties recovery, resistance and persistence, and of the specific situations for which stability properties can be assessed. Agent-based models (ABM) complement empirical research which is, for logistic reasons, limited in coping with these multiple dimensions. Besides their ability to integrate multidimensionality through extensive manipulation in a fully controlled system, ABMs can capture the emergence of system resilience from individual interactions and feedbacks across different levels of organization. To assess the extent to which this potential of ABMs has already been exploited, we reviewed the state of the art in exploring resilience and its multidimensionality in ecological and socio-ecological systems with ABMs. We found that the potential of ABMs is not utilized in most models, as they typically focus on a single dimension of resilience by using variability as a proxy for persistence, and are limited to one reference state, disturbance type and scale. Moreover, only few studies explicitly test the ability of different mechanisms to support resilience. To overcome these limitations, we recommend to simultaneously assess multiple stability properties for different situations and under consideration of the mechanisms that are hypothesised to render a system resilient. This will help us to better exploit the potential of ABMs to understand and quantify resilience mechanisms, and hence support solving real-world problems related to the resilience of agent-based complex systems.}, language = {en} } @article{RadchukDeLaenderCabraletal.2019, author = {Radchuk, Viktoriia and De Laender, Frederik and Cabral, Juliano Sarmento and Boulangeat, Isabelle and Crawford, Michael Scott and Bohn, Friedrich and De Raedt, Jonathan and Scherer, Cedric and Svenning, Jens-Christian and Thonicke, Kirsten and Schurr, Frank M. and Grimm, Volker and Kramer-Schadt, Stephanie}, title = {The dimensionality of stability depends on disturbance type}, series = {Ecology letters}, volume = {22}, journal = {Ecology letters}, number = {4}, publisher = {Wiley}, address = {Hoboken}, issn = {1461-023X}, doi = {10.1111/ele.13226}, pages = {674 -- 684}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Ecosystems respond in various ways to disturbances. Quantifying ecological stability therefore requires inspecting multiple stability properties, such as resistance, recovery, persistence and invariability. Correlations among these properties can reduce the dimensionality of stability, simplifying the study of environmental effects on ecosystems. A key question is how the kind of disturbance affects these correlations. We here investigated the effect of three disturbance types (random, species-specific, local) applied at four intensity levels, on the dimensionality of stability at the population and community level. We used previously parameterized models that represent five natural communities, varying in species richness and the number of trophic levels. We found that disturbance type but not intensity affected the dimensionality of stability and only at the population level. The dimensionality of stability also varied greatly among species and communities. Therefore, studying stability cannot be simplified to using a single metric and multi-dimensional assessments are still to be recommended.}, language = {en} }