Interactive range‐limit theory (iRLT): An extension for predicting range shifts

• Published in: Journal of Animal Ecology
• Main Authors: Sirén, Alexej P. K., Morelli, Toni Lyn
• Format: Text
• Language: English
• Published: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019
• Subjects: Reviews; Tundra
• Online Access: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7187220/; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31758805; https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.13150

1. A central theme of range‐limit theory (RLT) posits that abiotic factors form high‐latitude/altitude limits, whereas biotic interactions create lower limits. This hypothesis, often credited to Charles Darwin, is a pattern widely assumed to occur in nature. However, abiotic factors can impose constraints on both limits and there is scant evidence to support the latter prediction. Deviations from these predictions may arise from correlations between abiotic factors and biotic interactions, as a lack of data to evaluate the hypothesis, or be an artifact of scale. Combining two tenets of ecology—niche theory and predator–prey theory—provides an opportunity to understand how biotic interactions influence range limits and how this varies by trophic level. 2. We propose an expansion of RLT, interactive RLT (iRLT), to understand the causes of range limits and predict range shifts. Incorporating the main predictions of Darwin's hypothesis, iRLT hypothesizes that abiotic and biotic factors can interact to impact both limits of a species’ range. We summarize current thinking on range limits and perform an integrative review to evaluate support for iRLT and trophic differences along range margins, surveying the mammal community along the boreal‐temperate and forest‐tundra ecotones of North America. 3. Our review suggests that range‐limit dynamics are more nuanced and interactive than classically predicted by RLT. Many (57 of 70) studies indicate that biotic factors can ameliorate harsh climatic conditions along high‐latitude/altitude limits. Conversely, abiotic factors can also mediate biotic interactions along low‐latitude/altitude limits (44 of 68 studies). Both scenarios facilitate range expansion, contraction or stability depending on the strength and the direction of the abiotic or biotic factors. As predicted, biotic interactions most often occurred along lower limits, yet there were trophic differences. Carnivores were only limited by competitive interactions (n = 25), whereas herbivores were more influenced by ...