During the duration of the project, we have:
W1. Compiled the species data and selected the environmental data in terms of climatic variables (temperature, precipitation or aridity) and of landscape (e.g. altitude, slope) most relevant to each species’ population dynamics.
W2. Modelled population dynamics in relation to the best selected climatic anomalies and assessed the degree of local adaptation to of the species to the climatic events.
W3. Estimated if/how mobility, voltinism (i.e. number of reproductions per year), and phylogeny define the species degree of local adaptation. This has been done by modelling the degree of local adaptation against the species traits while accounting per the phylogenetic relationships.
W4. Modelled how the degree of local adaptation and the population location within their overall species specific distribution produce different population responses to the climatic anomalies.
W5. Assessed how landscape heterogeneity can buffer the negative of the species populations, accounting per the different population responses as per the species local adaptation and their location in their distribution (W4).
Contrary to expectations, the degree of local adaptation showed no associations with species mobility or reproductive rate; i.e. that a species was not better adapted to the local conditions in relation to these traits. However, we found a strong phylogenetic signal, which suggest a dominant effect of evolutionary constraints. We also observed highly locally adapted species respond similarly to climatic anomalies irrespectively of the location within their range, with maximum population growth tending to occur at the local average temperature. However, globally adapted species show different responses depending on their location within their range. As such, populations at the range center also show best performance at average temperatures. Yet, global adapted species at their margin show positive or negative responses to the increase of the anomalies of the climatic variable most affecting them. Overall, this means that for global adapted species there is no a unique response that explains their declines all over their range. Hence, management needs to account for the different responses of the populations of the species in relation to (a) their degree of local adaptation, and (b) the location of their populations within their distribution. Finally, while we tested the effect of topographic heterogeneity on population responses but this was not significant. Hence, altitude did not appear to significantly buffer species responses to the climatic anomalies. Further analyses related to habitat (vegetation) heterogeneity cold be perform to advance these results.
