What drives spatially varying ecological relationships in a wide‐ranging species?

Abstract

AbstractAimDecades of research on species distributions has revealed geographic variation in species‐environment relationships for a given species. That is, the way a species uses the local environment varies across geographic space. However, the drivers underlying this variation are contested and still largely unexplored. Niche traits that are conserved should reflect the evolutionary history of a species whereas more flexible ecological traits could vary at finer scales, reflecting local adaptation.LocationNorth America.MethodsWe used mammal observations during a 5‐year period from the iNaturalist biodiversity database and a local ensemble modelling approach to explore spatial variation in American black bear (Ursus americanus) relationships with eight ecological correlates. We tested four biologically driven hypotheses to explain the patterns of local adaptation. We evaluated non‐stationarity in ecological relationships using a Stationarity Index and tested predictive performance using an independent, national‐level animal occurrence data set.ResultsWe documented considerable spatial non‐stationarity in all eight environmental relationships, with the greatest spatial variation occurring in bear's relationship to climatic factors. Notably, the greatest variation in environmental relationships tended to occur along the current boundaries of the species' range, potentially representing the ecological limits to the species geographic range. We additionally documented that spatial variation in relationships with land cover and anthropogenic factors were best explained by niche conservatism at the subspecies level, whereas climatic relationships were better explained by local adaptation.Main ConclusionsBased on these results, we propose that the current distribution of American black bear is determined by an evolutionary legacy of habitat relationships unique to each subspecies combined with more fine‐scale local adaptation to climatic conditions. This result suggests that black bears should be adaptable to climatic changes over the 21st century and that management of habitat and human‐bear relationships could be considered at the subspecies level.