10.5061/DRYAD.P2P7J6G
Woods, H. Arthur
University of Montana
Kingsolver, Joel G.
University of North Carolina
Fey, Samuel B.
Reed College
Vasseur, David A.
Yale University
Data from: Uncertainty in geographic estimates of performance and fitness
Dryad
dataset
2019
climatic extremes
thermal performance curve
2019-05-31T00:00:00Z
2019-05-31T00:00:00Z
en
https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.13035
958113 bytes
1
CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication
1. Thermal performance curves (TPCs) have become key tools for predicting
geographic distributions of performance by ectotherms. Such TPC-based
predictions, however, may be sensitive to errors arising from diverse
sources. 2. We analyzed potential errors that arise from common choices
faced by biologists integrating TPCs with climate data by constructing
case studies focusing on experimental sets of TPCs and simulating
geographic patterns of mean performance. We first analyzed differences in
geographic patterns of performance derived from two pairs of commonly used
TPCs. Mean performance differed most (up to 30%) in regions with
relatively constant mean temperatures similar to those at which the TPCs
diverged the most. 3. We also analyzed the effects of thermal history by
comparing geographic estimates derived from (1) a broad TPC based on
short-term measurements of insect larvae (Manduca sexta) with a history of
exposure to thermal variation versus (2) a narrow TPC based on long-term
measurements of larvae held at constant temperatures. Estimated mean
performance diverged by up to 40%, and differences were magnified in
simulated future climates. 4. Finally, to quantify geographic error
arising from statistical error in fitted TPCs, we propose and illustrate a
bootstrapping technique for establishing 95% prediction intervals on mean
performance at each location (pixel). 5. Collectively, our analyses
indicate that error arising from several underappreciated sources can
significantly affect the mean performance values derived from TPCs, and we
suggest that the magnitudes of these errors should be estimated routinely
in future studies.
Figure2_a_rasterRaster layer of data presented in Figure 2a saved as
geotiff.Figure2_b_rasterRaster layer of data presented in Figure 2b saved
as a geotiffFigure2_d_rasterRaster layer of data presented in Figure 2d
saved as a geotiffFigure2_e_rasterRaster layer of data presented in Figure
2e saved as a geotiffFigure3_a_rasterRaster layer of data presented in
Figure 3a saved as a geotiffFigure3_b_rasterRaster layer of data presented
in Figure 3b saved as a geotiffFigure3_d_rasterRaster layer of data
presented in Figure 3d saved as a geotiffFigure3_e_rasterRaster layer of
data presented in Figure 3e saved as a geotiffFigure4_a_rasterRaster layer
of data presented in Figure 4a saved as a geotiffFigure4_b_rasterRaster
layer of data presented in Figure 4b saved as a
geotiffFigure4_d_rasterRaster layer of data presented in Figure 4d saved
as a geotiffFigure4_e_rasterRaster layer of data presented in Figure 4e
saved as a geotiff
North America