Spatial match–mismatch between predators and prey under climate change - Nature.com

Spatial match-mismatch between predators and prey under climate change | Nature Ecology & Evolution

Abstract

Climate change is driving a rapid redistribution of life on Earth. Variability in the rates, magnitudes and directions of species’ shifts can alter spatial overlap between predators and prey, with the potential to decouple trophic interactions. Although phenological mismatches between predator requirements and prey availability under climate change are well-established, ‘spatial match–mismatch’ dynamics remain poorly understood. We synthesize global evidence for climate-driven changes in spatial predator–prey overlap resulting from species redistribution across marine and terrestrial domains. We show that spatial mismatches can have vastly different outcomes for predator populations depending on their diet specialization and role within the wider ecosystem. We illustrate ecosystem-level consequences of climate-driven changes in spatial predator–prey overlap, from restructuring food webs to altering socio-ecological interactions. It remains unclear how predator–prey overlap at the landscape scale relates to prey encounter and consumption rates at local scales, or how the spatial reorganization of food webs affects ecosystem function. We identify key research directions necessary to resolve the scale of ecological impacts caused by species redistribution under climate change.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

$29.99 / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

$119.00 per year

only $9.92 per issue

Buy this article

- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

1.
Pecl, G. T. et al. Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. Science 355, eaai9214 (2017).
2.
Ockendon, N. et al. Mechanisms underpinning climatic impacts on natural populations: altered species interactions are more important than direct effects. Glob. Change Biol. 20, 2221–2229 (2014).
3.
Chen, I. C., Hill, J. K., Ohlemüller, R., Roy, D. B. & Thomas, C. D. Rapid range shifts of species associated with high levels of climate warming. Science 333, 1024–1026 (2011).
4.
VanDerWal, J. et al. Focus on poleward shifts in species’ distribution underestimates the fingerprint of climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 239–243 (2013).
5.
Sales, L. P., Galetti, M. & Pires, M. M. Climate and land‐use change will lead to a faunal ‘savannization’ on tropical rainforests. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 7036–7044 (2020).
6.
Schmitz, O. J., Miller, J. R., Trainor, A. M. & Abrahms, B. Toward a community ecology of landscapes: predicting multiple predator–prey interactions across geographic space. Ecology 98, 2281–2292 (2017).
7.
García Molinos, J. et al. Climate velocity and the future global redistribution of marine biodiversity. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 83–88 (2016).
8.
Koenig, W. D. & Liebhold, A. M. Temporally increasing spatial synchrony of North American temperature and bird populations. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 614–617 (2016).
9.
Paquette, A. & Hargreaves, A. L. Biotic interactions are more often important at species’ warm versus cool range edges. Ecol. Lett. 24, 2427–2438 (2021).
10.
Tekwa, E. W., Watson, J. R. & Pinsky, M. L. Body size and food-web interactions mediate species range shifts under warming. Proc. R. Soc. B 289, 20212755 (2022).
11.
Durant, J. M., Holt, R. E., Ono, K. & Langangen, Ø. Predatory walls may impair climate warming associated population expansion. Ecology 104, e4130 (2023).
12.
Wisz, M. S. et al. The role of biotic interactions in shaping distributions and realised assemblages of species: implications for species distribution modelling. Biol. Rev. 88, 15–30 (2013).
13.
Tylianakis, J. M., Didham, R. K., Bascompte, J. & Wardle, D. A. Global change and species interactions in terrestrial ecosystems. Ecol. Lett. 11, 1351–1363 (2008).
14.
Cushing, D. H. in Sea Fisheries Research (ed. Harden Jones, F. R.) 399–412 (Elek Science, 1974).
15.
Cushing, D. H. Plankton production and year-class strength in fish populations: an update of the match/mismatch hypothesis. Adv. Marine Biol. 26, 249–293 (1990).
16.
Visser, M. E. & Gienapp, P. Evolutionary and demographic consequences of phenological mismatches. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 879–885 (2019).
17.
Both, C., Bouwhuis, S., Lessells, C. M. & Visser, M. E. Climate change and population declines in a long-distance migratory bird. Nature 441, 81–83 (2006).
18.
Plard, F. et al. Mismatch between birth date and vegetation phenology slows the demography of roe deer. PLoS Biol. 12, e1001828 (2014).
19.
Durant, J. M. et al. Contrasting effects of rising temperatures on trophic interactions in marine ecosystems. Sci. Rep. 9, 15213 (2019).
20.
Ferreira, A. S. A., Neuheimer, A. B. & Durant, J. M. Impacts of the match–mismatch hypothesis across three trophic levels—a case study in the North Sea. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 80, 308–316 (2023).
21.
Youngflesh, C. et al. Demographic consequences of phenological asynchrony for North American songbirds. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 120, e2221961120 (2023).
22.
Samplonius, J. M. et al. Strengthening the evidence base for temperature-mediated phenological asynchrony and its impacts. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 155–164 (2021).
23.
Zhemchuzhnikov, M. K. et al. Exploring the drivers of variation in trophic mismatches: a systematic review of long‐term avian studies. Ecol. Evol. 11, 3710–3725 (2021).
24.
Kharouba, H. M. & Wolkovich, E. M. Lack of evidence for the match‐mismatch hypothesis across terrestrial trophic interactions. Ecol. Lett. 26, 955–964 (2023).
25.
Durant, J. M., Hjermann, D. Ø., Ottersen, G. & Stenseth, N. C. Climate and the match or mismatch between predator requirements and prey availability. Clim. Res. 33, 271–283 (2007).
26.
Hamilton, C. D. et al. Spatial overlap among an Arctic predator, prey and scavenger in the marginal ice zone. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 573, 45–59 (2017).
27.
Lemoine, N. P. Climate change may alter breeding ground distributions of eastern migratory monarchs (Danaus plexippus) via range expansion of Asclepias host plants. PLoS ONE 10, e0118614 (2015).
28.
Schweiger, O., Settele, J., Kudrna, O., Klotz, S. & Kühn, I. Climate change can cause spatial mismatch of trophically interacting species. Ecology 89, 3472–3479 (2008).
29.
Selden, R. L., Batt, R. D., Saba, V. S. & Pinsky, M. L. Diversity in thermal affinity among key piscivores buffers impacts of ocean warming on predator–prey interactions. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 117–131 (2017).
30.
Castro, L. C. et al. Combined mechanistic modelling predicts changes in species distribution and increased co‐occurrence of a tropical urchin herbivore and a habitat‐forming temperate kelp. Divers. Distrib. 26, 1211–1226 (2020).
31.
Pintor, L. M. & Byers, J. E. Do native predators benefit from non‐native prey? Ecol. Lett. 18, 1174–1180 (2015).
32.
LaPoint, S. D., Belant, J. L. & Kays, R. W. Mesopredator release facilitates range expansion in fisher. Anim. Conserv. 18, 50–61 (2015).
33.
Siddon, E. C. et al. Spatial match–mismatch between juvenile fish and prey provides a mechanism for recruitment variability across contrasting climate conditions in the eastern Bering Sea. PLoS ONE 8, e84526 (2013).
34.
Thorson, J. T. et al. Forecasting community reassembly using climate‐linked spatio‐temporal ecosystem models. Ecography 44, 612–625 (2021).
35.
Thorne, L. H. & Nye, J. A. Trait-mediated shifts and climate velocity decouple an endothermic marine predator and its ectothermic prey. Sci. Rep. 11, 18507 (2021).
36.
Booms, T., Lindgren, M. & Huettmann, F. in Gyrfalcons and Ptarmigan in a Changing World Vol. 1 (eds Watson, R. T. et al.) 177–190 (The Peregrine Fund, 2011).
37.
Schloss, C. A., Nuñez, T. A. & Lawler, J. J. Dispersal will limit ability of mammals to track climate change in the Western Hemisphere. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 8606–8611 (2012).
38.
Sunday, J. M., Bates, A. E. & Dulvy, N. K. Thermal tolerance and the global redistribution of animals. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 686–690 (2012).
39.
Lenoir, J. et al. Species better track climate warming in the oceans than on land. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1044–1059 (2020).
40.
Pinsky, M. L., Worm, B., Fogarty, M. J., Sarmiento, J. L. & Levin, S. A. Marine taxa track local climate velocities. Science 341, 1239–1242 (2013).
41.
Bennett, S., Duarte, C. M., Marbà, N. & Wernberg, T. Integrating within-species variation in thermal physiology into climate change ecology. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 374, 20180550 (2019).
42.
Hunsicker, M. E., Ciannelli, L., Bailey, K. M., Zador, S. & Stige, L. C. Climate and demography dictate the strength of predator–prey overlap in a subarctic marine ecosystem. PLoS ONE 8, e66025 (2013).
43.
Carroll, G. et al. A review of methods for quantifying spatial predator–prey overlap. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 28, 1561–1577 (2019).
44.
Subba, B., Sen, S., Ravikanth, G. & Nobis, M. P. Direct modelling of limited migration improves projected distributions of Himalayan amphibians under climate change. Biol. Conserv. 227, 352–360 (2018).
45.
Pinsky, M. L., Eikeset, A. M., McCauley, D. J., Payne, J. L. & Sunday, J. M. Greater vulnerability to warming of marine versus terrestrial ectotherms. Nature 569, 108–111 (2019).
46.
Tamburello, N., Côté, I. M. & Dulvy, N. K. Energy and the scaling of animal space use. Am. Nat. 186, 196–211 (2015).
47.
Carroll, G. et al. Flexible use of a dynamic energy landscape buffers a marine predator against extreme climate variability. Proc. R. Soc. B 288, 20210671 (2021).
48.
Abrahms, B. et al. Memory and resource tracking drive blue whale migrations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 5582–5587 (2019).
49.
Straus, S. et al. Macroecological constraints on species' ‘movement profiles’: body mass does not explain it all. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 33, 227–243 (2024).
50.
Tucker, M. A. et al. Moving in the Anthropocene: global reductions in terrestrial mammalian movements. Science 359, 466–469 (2018).
51.
Sales, L. P., Rodrigues, L. & Masiero, R. Climate change drives spatial mismatch and threatens the biotic interactions of the Brazil nut. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 30, 117–127 (2021).
52.
Aryal, A. et al. Predicting the distributions of predator (snow leopard) and prey (blue sheep) under climate change in the Himalaya. Ecol. Evol. 6, 4065–4075 (2016).
53.
Bulleri, F. et al. Harnessing positive species interactions as a tool against climate-driven loss of coastal biodiversity. PLoS Biol. 16, e2006852 (2018).
54.
Sales, L. P., Ribeiro, B. R., Pires, M. M., Chapman, C. A. & Loyola, R. Recalculating route: dispersal constraints will drive the redistribution of Amazon primates in the Anthropocene. Ecography 42, 1789–1801 (2019).
55.
Graham, C., Pakhomov, E. A. & Hunt, B. P. Meta-analysis of salmon trophic ecology reveals spatial and interspecies dynamics across the North Pacific Ocean. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 224 (2021).
56.
Falkegård, M. et al. Consumption of Atlantic salmon across ontogenetic stages and impacts on populations. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 80, 1696–1713 (2023).
57.
Fall, J., Ciannelli, L., Skaret, G. & Johannesen, E. Seasonal dynamics of spatial distributions and overlap between Northeast Arctic cod (Gadus morhua) and capelin (Mallotus villosus) in the Barents Sea. PLoS ONE 13, e0205921 (2018).
58.
Orio, A., Bergström, U., Florin, A. B., Šics, I. & Casini, M. Long-term changes in spatial overlap between interacting cod and flounder in the Baltic Sea. Hydrobiologia 847, 2541–2553 (2020).
59.
Villén‐Peréz, S., Heikkinen, J., Salemaa, M. & Mäkipää, R. Global warming will affect the maximum potential abundance of boreal plant species. Ecography 43, 801–811 (2020).
60.
Ferreira, A. S. A. et al. Match–mismatch dynamics in the Norwegian–Barents Sea system. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 650, 81–94 (2020).
61.
Blanchet, F. G., Cazelles, K. & Gravel, D. Co‐occurrence is not evidence of ecological interactions. Ecol. Lett. 23, 1050–1063 (2020).
62.
Suraci, J. P. et al. Beyond spatial overlap: harnessing new technologies to resolve the complexities of predator–prey interactions. Oikos 2022, e09004 (2022).
63.
Schmitz, O. J. & Barton, B. T. Climate change effects on behavioral and physiological ecology of predator–prey interactions: implications for conservation biological control. Biol. Control 75, 87–96 (2014).
64.
Lembrechts, J. J., Nijs, I. & Lenoir, J. Incorporating microclimate into species distribution models. Ecography 42, 1267–1279 (2019).
65.
Fall, J., Johannesen, E., Englund, G., Johansen, G. O. & Fiksen, Ø. Predator–prey overlap in three dimensions: cod benefit from capelin coming near the seafloor. Ecography 44, 802–815 (2021).
66.
Ferrarini, A., Giglio, G., Pellegrino, S. C. & Gustin, M. Overlap and segregation among multiple 3D home ranges: a non-pairwise metric with demonstrative application to the lesser kestrel Falco naumanni. Biology 12, 77 (2023).
67.
Öhlund, G., Hedström, P., Norman, S., Hein, C. L. & Englund, G. Temperature dependence of predation depends on the relative performance of predators and prey. Proc. R. Soc. B 282, 20142254 (2015).
68.
Volkoff, H. & Rønnestad, I. Effects of temperature on feeding and digestive processes in fish. Temperature 7, 307–320 (2020).
69.
Goodman, M. C. et al. Shifting fish distributions impact predation intensity in a sub‐Arctic ecosystem. Ecography 2022, e06084 (2022).
70.
Pecuchet, L. et al. Novel feeding interactions amplify the impact of species redistribution on an Arctic food web. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 4894–4906 (2020).
71.
Hamilton, C. D., Kovacs, K. M., Ims, R. A., Aars, J. & Lydersen, C. An Arctic predator–prey system in flux: climate change impacts on coastal space use by polar bears and ringed seals. J. Anim. Ecol. 86, 1054–1064 (2017).
72.
Peers, M. J., Wehtje, M., Thornton, D. H. & Murray, D. L. Prey switching as a means of enhancing persistence in predators at the trailing southern edge. Glob. Change Biol. 20, 1126–1135 (2014).
73.
Livernois, M. C., Fujiwara, M., Fisher, M. & Wells, R. D. Seasonal patterns of habitat suitability and spatiotemporal overlap within an assemblage of estuarine predators and prey. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 668, 39–55 (2021).
74.
Thorson, J. T. et al. Joint dynamic species distribution models: a tool for community ordination and spatio‐temporal monitoring. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 25, 1144–1158 (2016).
75.
Marzloff, M. P. et al. Modelling marine community responses to climate‐driven species redistribution to guide monitoring and adaptive ecosystem‐based management. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 2462–2474 (2016).
76.
Petren, K. & Case, T. J. An experimental demonstration of exploitation competition in an ongoing invasion. Ecology 77, 118–132 (1996).
77.
Aryal, A., Brunton, D., Ji, W., Barraclough, R. K. & Raubenheimer, D. Human–carnivore conflict: ecological and economical sustainability of predation on livestock by snow leopard and other carnivores in the Himalaya. Sustain. Sci. 9, 321–329 (2014).
78.
Parsons, M. A., Newsome, T. M. & Young, J. K. The consequences of predators without prey. Front. Ecol. Environ. 20, 31–39 (2022).
79.
Shine, R. The ecological impact of invasive cane toads (Bufo marinus) in Australia. Q. Rev. Biol. 85, 253–291 (2010).
80.
Letnic, M., Webb, J. K. & Shine, R. Invasive cane toads (Bufo marinus) cause mass mortality of freshwater crocodiles (Crocodylus johnstoni) in tropical Australia. Biol. Conserv. 141, 1773–1782 (2008).
81.
Webb, J. K. et al. A native dasyurid predator (common planigale, Planigale maculata) rapidly learns to avoid a toxic invader. Austral Ecol. 33, 821–829 (2008).
82.
Albouy, C. et al. From projected species distribution to food‐web structure under climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 20, 730–741 (2014).
83.
Wang, J., Grimm, N. B., Lawler, S. P. & Dong, X. Changing climate and reorganized species interactions modify community responses to climate variability. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 120, e2218501120 (2023).
84.
Vergés, A. et al. Long-term empirical evidence of ocean warming leading to tropicalization of fish communities, increased herbivory, and loss of kelp. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 13791–13796 (2016).
85.
Zarco‐Perello, S. et al. Range‐extending tropical herbivores increase diversity, intensity and extent of herbivory functions in temperate marine ecosystems. Funct. Ecol. 34, 2411–2421 (2020).
86.
Valiente‐Banuet, A. et al. Beyond species loss: the extinction of ecological interactions in a changing world. Funct. Ecol. 29, 299–307 (2015).
87.
Stewart, P. S. et al. Global impacts of climate change on avian functional diversity. Ecol. Lett. 25, 673–685 (2022).
88.
Taheri, S., Naimi, B., Rahbek, C. & Araújo, M. B. Improvements in reports of species redistribution under climate change are required. Sci. Adv. 7, eabe1110 (2021).
89.
Santini, L., Benítez‐López, A., Maiorano, L., Čengić, M. & Huijbregts, M. A. Assessing the reliability of species distribution projections in climate change research. Divers. Distrib. 27, 1035–1050 (2021).
90.
Waldock, C. et al. A quantitative review of abundance‐based species distribution models. Ecography 2022, e05694 (2022).
91.
Pichler, M. & Hartig, F. A new joint species distribution model for faster and more accurate inference of species associations from big community data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 12, 2159–2173 (2021).
92.
Trainor, A. M., Schmitz, O. J., Ivan, J. S. & Shenk, T. M. Enhancing species distribution modelling by characterizing predator–prey interactions. Ecol. Appl. 24, 204–216 (2014).
93.
Carroll, G., Everett, J. D., Harcourt, R., Slip, D. & Jonsen, I. High sea surface temperatures driven by a strengthening current reduce foraging success by penguins. Sci. Rep. 6, 22236 (2016).
94.
Bischof, R. et al. Estimating and forecasting spatial population dynamics of apex predators using transnational genetic monitoring. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 30531–30538 (2020).
95.
Abrahms, B. et al. Climate change as a global amplifier of human–wildlife conflict. Nat. Clim. Change 13, 224–234 (2023).
96.
Pickles, R. S., Thornton, D., Feldman, R., Marques, A. & Murray, D. L. Predicting shifts in parasite distribution with climate change: a multitrophic level approach. Glob. Change Biol. 19, 2645–2654 (2013).
97.
Rayfield, B., Moilanen, A. & Fortin, M. J. Incorporating consumer–resource spatial interactions in reserve design. Ecol. Model. 220, 725–733 (2009).
98.
Sadykova, D. et al. Ecological costs of climate change on marine predator–prey population distributions by 2050. Ecol. Evol. 10, 1069–1086 (2020).
99.
Bonebrake, T. C. et al. Managing consequences of climate‐driven species redistribution requires integration of ecology, conservation and social science. Biol. Rev. 93, 284–305 (2018).
100.
Rockwood, R. C., Elliott, M. L., Saenz, B., Nur, N. & Jahncke, J. Modeling predator and prey hotspots: management implications of baleen whale co-occurrence with krill in central California. PLoS ONE 15, e0235603 (2020).

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Ecology & Evolution thanks Albert Phillimore and Joel Durant for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

About this article

Cite this article

Carroll, G., Abrahms, B., Brodie, S. et al. Spatial match–mismatch between predators and prey under climate change. Nat Ecol Evol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02454-0

-
Received:
-
Accepted:
-
Published:
-
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02454-0