supplementary materials for · the effects of experimental warming and contemporary climate change...

advances.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/4/2/eaaq1819/DC1

Supplementary Materials for

Climate warming drives local extinction: Evidence from observation

and experimentation

Anne Marie Panetta, Maureen L. Stanton, John Harte

Published 21 February 2018, Sci. Adv. 4, eaaq1819 (2018)

DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aaq1819

This PDF file includes:

fig. S1. The initial distribution of A. septentrionalis across Warming Meadow

heated and control plots.

fig. S2. The initial distribution of A. septentrionalis across Warming Meadow

control plots with respect to snowmelt date.

table S1. The effects of experimental warming on snowpack and soil temperature.

table S2. The effects of experimental warming and contemporary climate change

on snowmelt date in the Warming Meadow.

table S3. The effects of experimental and contemporary warming on the

abundance and distribution of A. septentrionalis in Warming Meadow.

table S4. Mean abundance (±1 SE) of A. septentrionalis in control and heated

plots from 2013 to 2016.

table S5. The effects of experimental warming on emergence and post-emergence

survival of A. septentrionalis.

table S6. The emergence and post-emergence survival of A. septentrionalis in

control and heated plots.

table S7. Mean number of seeds produced per plant (±1 SE) by age in control and

heated control plots.

table S8. Components of A. septentrionalis mean reproductive success (±1 SE) in

control and heated plots.

table S9. The effects of experimental warming on the reproductive success of A.

septentrionalis in the Warming Meadow.

table S10. The ghosts of reproduction past: Relationships between seedling

abundance in yeart and the number of flowering stalks in yeart−1 and yeart−2.

fig. S1. The initial distribution of A. septentrionalis across Warming Meadow heated and

control plots. Presence/absence data, collected by Nick Waser and Mary Price prior to (1990)

and immediately after (1991-1992) the initiation of experimental warming, reveal that A.

septentrionalis was initially distributed evenly across heated and control plots (2 < 0.01, P =

0.964). Data indicate average frequency of A. septentrionalis per treatment (nheated = 5, ncontrol =

5), and error bars indicate ± 1SE. See main text, materials and methods, for details.

fig. S2. The initial distribution of A. septentrionalis across Warming Meadow control plots

with respect to snowmelt date. Presence/absence data collected by Drs. Nick Waser and Mary

Price from 1990-1992 indicate no relationship between abundance and average snowmelt date

(2 = 0.01 P = 0.904). Data indicate average frequency of A. septentrionalis in the 5 Warming

Meadow control plots (n=3 per plot), and error bars indicate ± 1SE. See main text, materials and

methods, for details.

table S1. The effects of experimental warming on snowpack and soil temperature.

Variable Treatment N Mean SE F Statistic P Value

Snowpack

Snowmelt

Date

C 5 126.50 4.76 38.60 <0.001

H 5 93.65 5.74

Snow Cover

Date

C 5 318.27 3.71 5.98 0.044

H 5 333.93 4.66

Snow-free

Duration

C 5 191.53 7.69 20.08 0.003

H 5 240.73 9.96

Annual

Temperature

Mean C 5 5.61 0.26

8.24 0.024 H 5 7.02 0.40

Min C 5 3.77 0.12

19.91 0.003 H 5 5.29 0.29

Max C 5 8.04 0.49

2.11 0.189 H 5 9.31 0.65

Spring

Temperature

Mean C 5 2.28 0.41

23.91 0.002 H 5 5.00 0.59

Min C 5 1.23 0.23

26.31 0.001 H 5 3.18 0.35

Max C 5 3.69 0.66

19.77 0.003 H 5 7.52 1.01

Summer

Temperature

Mean C 5 14.81 0.38

0.78 0.406 H 5 15.62 0.64

Min C 5 10.08 0.16

13.61 0.008 H 5 12.26 0.52

Max C 5 20.74 0.89

0.97 0.358 H 5 19.77 1.03

Fall

Temperature

Mean C 5 11.00 0.36

6.36 0.040 H 5 12.84 0.56

Min C 5 7.55 0.18

20.70 0.003 H 5 10.20 0.50

Max C 5 15.68 0.84

0.11 0.745 H 5 16.33 0.77

Winter

Temperature

Mean C 5 0.48 0.13

4.18 0.080 H 5 0.95 0.17

Min C 5 0.37 0.11

3.02 0.126 H 5 0.63 0.10

Max C 5 0.67 0.18

3.74 0.094 H 5 1.44 0.30

Seasons: Spring, March 1 – May 31; Summer: June 1 – July 31; Fall, August 1 – November 31; Winter, November

1 – February 28. Years: Snowpack, 2013-16; Annual Temperature 2014-15; Spring Temperature, 2014-16; Summer

and Fall Temperature, 2014-15; Winter Temperature, 2013-15. Units: Snowmelt Date and Snow Cover Date, day of

year; Snow-free Duration, number of days; Temperature, oC. Statistical Analysis: Linear mixed effects models

were used to assess the effect of experimental warming on Warming Meadow microclimate. Treatment and plot

position along the glacial moraine were included as fixed effects. Year and plot number were included as random

effects. Reported F Statistics and P Values indicate the significance of the observed treatment effect.

table S2. The effects of experimental warming and contemporary climate change on snowmelt date in the Warming Meadow.

Observation Model

Type Error N

Response

Variable Fixed Effects

Significance of

Fixed Effects

(F, P Value)

Random

Effects

Significance

of Random

Effects

(χ2, P Value)

Experimental warming

affects the rate at which

snowmelt dates are

advancing in the Warming

Meadow (Fig. 2B)

LMM Gaussian 250 melt date

treatment 2.07, 0.156 plot 0.10, 0.752

year 12.94, < 0.001

position 50.02, < 0.001

treatment*year 15.19, < 0.001

Snowmelt dates are

advancing in heated plots

(Fig. 2B)


year 92.30, < 0.001 plot < 0.01, 1.000

position 69.18, 0.004

Snowmelt dates are

advancing in control plots

(Fig. 2B)


year 11.88, < 0.001 plot 0.01, 0.943

position 12.69, 0.038

Model Type: Linear mixed effects model (LMM). See main text, materials and methods, for further details.

table S3. The effects of experimental and contemporary warming on the abundance and distribution of A. septentrionalis in

Warming Meadow.

Field Method: presence/absence surveys (PAS; main text, materials and methods section III), longitudinal plant surveys (LPS; main text, materials and methods

section IV); Model Type: Generalized linear mixed effects model (GLMM). See main text, materials and methods, for further details.

Observation Field

Method

Model

Type Error

Link

Function N

Response

Variable

Fixed

Effects

Significance

of Fixed

Effects

(χ2, P Value)

Random

Effects

Significance of

Random Effects

(χ2, P Value)

A. septentrionalis was

initially evenly distributed

across heated and control

plots (fig. S1)

PAS GLMM Binomial Logit 330 presence,

absence

treatment < 0.01, 0.964 plot 29.72, < 0.001

position 5.19, 0.023 quad 57.69, < 0.001

year < 0.01, 1.000

Present-day population sizes

in heated plots are smaller

than they are in control plots

(Fig. 3B, table S4)

LPS GLMM Poisson Log 40 abundance

treatment 19.30, < 0.001 plot 45.45, < 0.001

position 5.30, 0.021 year 24.44, < 0.001

obs 3.54, 0.060

Heated plots have fewer

seedlings than control plots

(Fig. 3A, table S4)

LPS GLMM Poisson Log 40 # of

seedlings

treatment 19.19, < 0.001 plot 30.54, < 0.001

position 5.46, 0.019 year 12.85, < 0.001

obs 9.08, 0.003

Heated plots have fewer

established plants than

control plots (Fig. 3A, table

S4)

LPS GLMM Poisson Log 40

# of

established

plants

treatment 20.95, < 0.001 plot 13.89, < 0.001

position 4.62, 0.032 year 31.19, < 0.001

obs 6.59, 0.010

A. septentrionalis was

initially evenly distributed

across control plots (fig. S2)

PAS GLMM Binomial Logit 165 presence,

absence

melt date 0.01, 0.904 plot 0.87, 0.352

quad 32.53, < 0.001

year < 0.01, 1.000

Present-day population sizes

in control plots exhibit a

positive relationship with

snowmelt date (Fig. 3B)

LPS GLMM Poisson Log 20 abundance

melt date 3.15, 0.076 plot 625.98, < 0.001

year 176.51, < 0.001

table S4. Mean abundance (±1 SE) of A. septentrionalis in control and heated plots from

2013 to 2016.

Treatment Plot Total Abundance (SE) Established Plants (SE) Seedlings (SE)

Control

1 171.5 (29.3) 50.0 (20.9) 121.8 (25.7)

3 244.8 (35.8) 57.8 (22.2) 187.0 (35.7)

5 41.5 (5.4) 13.8 (7.1) 27.8 (5.1)

7 137.5 (27.6) 31.0 (12.4) 106.5 (19.5)

9 30.8 (7.7) 7.5 (4.1) 23.3 (6.2)

2 22.5 (0.3) 6.5 (3.5) 16.0 (3.6)

Heated 4 20.0 (6.1) 2.5 (2.2) 17.5 (4.1)

6 3.5 (2.5) 0.3 (0.3) 3.3 (2.3)

8 0.5 (0.3) 0.0 (0.0) 0.5 (0.3)

10 10.5 (3.8) 3.0 (1.6) 7.5 (2.3)

table S5. The effects of experimental warming on emergence and post-emergence survival of A. septentrionalis.

Field Method: seed introduction experiment (SIE; main text, materials and methods section V), longitudinal plant surveys (LPS; main text, materials and

methods section IV); Model Type: Generalized linear mixed effects model (GLMM). See main text, materials and methods section, for further details.

Observation Field

Method

Model

Type Error

Link

Function N

Response

Variable

Fixed

Effects

Significance of

Fixed Effects

(χ2, P Value)

Random

Effects

Significance of

Random Effects

(χ2, P Value)


increases emergence

(Fig. 4B, table S6)

SIE GLMM Binomial Logit 1,499

emerged,

did not

emerge

treatment 12.10, < 0.001 plot 0.17, 0.919

position 3.13, 0.077 block 20.04, < 0.001

pop. 0.17, 0.681

lineage 35.30, < 0.001


reduces seedling survival to

the fall seedling stage (Fig.

4B, table S6)

SIE GLMM Binomial Logit 537 alive,

dead

treatment 9.27, 0.002 plot < 0.01, 1.000

position 3.25, 0.071 block 1.03, 0.310

pop. < 0.01, 1.000

lineage 3.99, 0.046

Experimental warming has no

effect on survival from the

fall seedling stage to age 1

(Fig. 4B, table S6)

LPS GLMM Binomial Logit 1638 alive,

dead

treatment 0.04, 0.835 plot 4.73, 0.030

position 0.32, 0.574 year 338.36, < 0.001


reduces the probability that

established plants will

survive from age 1 to age 2

(Fig. 4B, table S6)

LPS GLMM Binomial Logit 454 alive,

dead

treatment 7.17, 0.007 plot < 0.01, 1.000

position 2.15, 0.143 year 67.53, < 0.001

table S6. The emergence and post-emergence survival of A. septentrionalis in control and heated plots.

Transition: corresponds to life-stage transitions illustrated in Fig. 4A; Method: seed introduction experiment (SIE), longitudinal plant surveys (LPS). See main

text, materials and methods, for further details..

Transition Method Treatment (N)

Total # of

Individuals that

Began Transition

Total # of

Individuals that

Survived Transition

p(Survival) ± SE

E : seed emergent seedling SIE C (5) 753 226 0.300 (0.028)

H (5) 746 315 0.422 (0.030)

LE : emergent seedling fall seedling SIE C (5) 226 29 0.146 (0.028)

H (5) 315 17 0.064 (0.016)

L1 : fall seedling age 1 LPS C (5) 1493 440 0.310 (0.036)

H (5) 145 44 0.233 (0.100)

L2 : age 1 age 2 LPS C (5) 412 154 0.375 (0.009)

H (4) 42 5 0.075 (0.046)

L3 : age 2 age 3 LPS C (5) 140 14 0.125 (0.040)

H (1) 4 0 0.000 (NA)

L4 : age 3 age 4 LPS C (3) 15 2 0.063 (0.063)

H (0) 0 - -

L5 : age 4 age 5 LPS C (1) 2 0 0 (NA)

H (0) 0 - -

table S7. Mean number of seeds produced per plant (±1 SE) by age in control and heated

control plots.

Age Treatment (N) Mean Number of Seeds Produced per Plant (SE)

1 C (5) 6.3 (2.0)

H (4) 6.1 (3.4)

2 C (5) 407.4 (108.9)

H (1) 143.2 (NA)

3 C (4) 720.6 (201.8)

H (0) -

4 C (1) 468.5 (NA)

H (0) -

table S8. Components of A. septentrionalis mean reproductive success (±1 SE) in control

and heated plots.

*Probability that an established plant (≥ 1Y old) becomes reproductive † Stalks per reproductive plant ‡ Per capita seed production

Fitness Component Treatment (N) Mean (SE)

p(reproductive)* C (5) 0.234 (0.014)

H (5) 0.048 (0.022)

stalks/ plant† C (5) 7.1 (1.4)

H (3) 2.2 (0.6)

seeds/ fruit C (5) 8.6 (0.6)

H (5) 6.7 (0.4)

seeds/ plant‡ C (5) 26.1 (6.1)

H (5) 2.1 (1.2)

table S9. The effects of experimental warming on the reproductive success of A. septentrionalis in the Warming Meadow.

Observation Field

Method

Model

Type Error

Link

Function N

Response

Variable

Fixed

Effects

Significance of

Fixed Effects

(χ2, P Value)

Random

Effects

Significance of

Random Effects

(χ2, P Value)

Warming reduces the

probability that an

established plant will

become reproductive

(table 8)

LPS GLMM Binomial Logit 2,365

reproductive,

not

reproductive

treatment 9.64, 0.002 plot < 0.01, 1.000

position 0.37, 0.541 plant 12.20, < 0.001

year 133.04, < 0.001

Warming reduces the

number of stalks

produced per

reproductive plant

(table 8)


# of stalks

produced by

each

established

plant

treatment 4.20, 0.040 plot 1.49, 0.222

position 14.18, < 0.001 plant < 0.01, 1.000

year 32.79, < 0.001

obs 162.58, < 0.001

Warming reduces the

number of seeds

produced per fruit

(table 8)

LPS LMM Gaussian -- 96

average # of

seeds in

mature fruits

treatment 8.90, 0.022 plot < 0.01, 1.000

position 4.53, 0.075

zone 0.27, 0.763

Warming reduces per

capita seed production

(table 8)


average # of

seeds

produced per

individual

treatment 27.09, < 0.001 plot < 0.01, 1.000

position 1.51, 0.219 year 7.18, 0.007

obs 75.78, < 0.001

Warming reduces

annual deposits into

seed banks (Fig. 5A)


total # of

seeds

produced per

plot per year

treatment 27.31, < 0.001 plot < 0.01, 0.967

position 4.76, 0.029 year 1.69, 0.194

obs 13833, < 0.001

Field Method: longitudinal plant surveys (LPS; main text, materials and methods section IV); Model Type: Generalized linear mixed effects model (GLMM).

See main text, materials and methods, for further details.

table S10. The ghosts of reproduction past: Relationships between seedling abundance in yeart and the number of flowering

stalks in yeart−1 and yeart−2.

Observation Field

Method

Model

Type

Error

Distribution

Link

Function N

Response

Variable

Fixed

Effects

Significance of

Fixed Effects

(χ2, P Value)

Random

Effects

Significance of

Random Effects

(χ2, P Value)

The number of

seedlings in

control plots in

a given year is

explained by the

reproductive

success of

plants in the two

previous years


# of

seedlings

in yeart

# of stalks in

yeart-1 9.16, 0.002 plot 27.78, < 0.001

# of stalks in

yeart-2 4.09, 0.043 quadrat 18.78, < 0.001

position 2.68, 0.101 year 38.16, < 0.001

obs 326.04, < 0.001

The number of

seedlings in

heated plots in a

given year is

explained by the

reproductive

success of

plants in the

previous year

alone


# of

seedlings

in yeart

# of stalks in

yeart-1 17.51, < 0.001 plot 0.143, 0.706

# of stalks in

yeart-2 0.75, 0.385 quadrat 21.90, < 0.001

position 5.01, 0.025 year 5.20, 0.023

obs 6.23, 0.013

Field Method: longitudinal plant surveys (LPS; main text, materials and methods section IV); Model Type: Generalized linear mixed effects model (GLMM).

See main text, materials and methods, for further details.

supplementary materials for · the effects of experimental warming and contemporary climate change...

Documents