Although considerable research has been invested in disentangling the factors limiting species’ ranges at local and continental spatial scales, less attention has been granted to the relationship between species’ spatial distributions and landscape attributes at intermediate spatial scales. This research investigates the spatial relationship between avian species’ distributions (Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas [2001-2005] data) and landcover heterogeneity (Ontario Land Cover [1991-1998] data) in terms of their respective boundary locations (i.e., high rates of change in landcover composition and avian species turnover) in a vulnerable transitional zone in southern Ontario. Significant spatial overlap was found between landcover and avian boundaries. Given that land management decisions are most often made at the regional or landscape scales, this positive spatial relationship has important implications for conservation efforts. Future research should focus on assessing the spatial relationship between landcover heterogeneity and avian species’ distributions for different functional and taxonomic groups.

Although considerable research has been invested in disentangling the factors limiting species’ ranges at local and continental spatial scales, less attention has been granted to the relationship between species’ spatial distributions and landscape attributes at intermediate spatial scales. This research investigates the spatial relationship between avian species’ distributions (Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas [2001-2005] data) and landcover heterogeneity (Ontario Land Cover [1991-1998] data) in terms of their respective boundary locations (i.e., high rates of change in landcover composition and avian species turnover) in a vulnerable transitional zone in southern Ontario. Significant spatial overlap was found between landcover and avian boundaries. Given that land management decisions are most often made at the regional or landscape scales, this positive spatial relationship has important implications for conservation efforts. Future research should focus on assessing the spatial relationship between landcover heterogeneity and avian species’ distributions for different functional and taxonomic groups.

The tench Tinca tinca (Linnaeus, 1758) is a valued table fish native to Europe and Asia, but which is now widely distributed in many temperate freshwater regions of the world as the result of human-mediated translocations. Spatial genetic analysis applied to sequence data from four unlinked loci (introns of three nuclear genes and mitochondrial DNA) defined two groups of populations that were little structured geographically but were significantly differentiated from each other, and it identified locations of major genetic breaks, which were concordant across genes and were driven by distributions of two major phylogroups. This pattern most reasonably reflects isolation in two principal glacial refugia and subsequent range expansions, with the Eastern and Western phylogroups remaining largely allopatric throughout the tench range. However, this phylogeographic variation was also present in European cultured breeds and some populations at the western edge of the native range contained the Eastern phylogroup. Thus, natural processes have played an important role in structuring tench populations, but human-aided dispersal have also contributed significantly, with the admixed genetic composition of cultured breeds most likely contributing to the introgression. I have then designed novel PCR-RFLP assays...

Humans are generally having a strong, widespread, and negative impact on nature. Given the many ways we are impacting nature and the many ways nature is responding, it is useful to study responses in an integrative context. My thesis is focused largely (two out of the three data chapters) on butterfly species’ range shifts consistent with modern climate change in Canada. I employed a macroecological approach to my research, drawing on methods and findings from evolutionary biology, phylogenetics, conservation biology, and natural history. I answered three main research questions. First, is there a trade-off between population growth rate (rmax) and carrying capacity (K) at the mutation scale (Chapter 2)? I found rmax and K to not trade off, but in fact to positively co-vary at the mutation scale. This suggests trade-offs between these traits only emerge after selection removes mutants with low resource acquisition rates (i.e., unhealthy genotypes), revealing trade-offs between remaining genotypes with varied resource allocation strategies. Second, did butterfly species shift their northern range boundaries northward over the 1900s, consistent with climate warming (Chapter 3)? Leading a team of collaborators, we found that most butterfly species’ northern range boundaries did indeed shift northward over the 1900s. But range shift rates were slower than those documented in the literature for more recent time periods, likely reflecting the weaker warming experienced in the time period of my study. Third, were species’ rates of range shift related to their phylogeny (Chapter 3) or traits (Chapter 4)? I found no compelling relationships between rates of range shift and phylogeny or traits. If certain traits make some species more successful at northern boundary range expansion than others, their effect was not strong enough to emerge from the background noise inherent in the broad scale data set I used.

Humans are generally having a strong, widespread, and negative impact on nature. Given the many ways we are impacting nature and the many ways nature is responding, it is useful to study responses in an integrative context. My thesis is focused largely (two out of the three data chapters) on butterfly species’ range shifts consistent with modern climate change in Canada. I employed a macroecological approach to my research, drawing on methods and findings from evolutionary biology, phylogenetics, conservation biology, and natural history. I answered three main research questions. First, is there a trade-off between population growth rate (rmax) and carrying capacity (K) at the mutation scale (Chapter 2)? I found rmax and K to not trade off, but in fact to positively co-vary at the mutation scale. This suggests trade-offs between these traits only emerge after selection removes mutants with low resource acquisition rates (i.e., unhealthy genotypes), revealing trade-offs between remaining genotypes with varied resource allocation strategies. Second, did butterfly species shift their northern range boundaries northward over the 1900s, consistent with climate warming (Chapter 3)? Leading a team of collaborators, we found that most butterfly species’ northern range boundaries did indeed shift northward over the 1900s. But range shift rates were slower than those documented in the literature for more recent time periods, likely reflecting the weaker warming experienced in the time period of my study. Third, were species’ rates of range shift related to their phylogeny (Chapter 3) or traits (Chapter 4)? I found no compelling relationships between rates of range shift and phylogeny or traits. If certain traits make some species more successful at northern boundary range expansion than others, their effect was not strong enough to emerge from the background noise inherent in the broad scale data set I used.

Humans are generally having a strong, widespread, and negative impact on nature. Given the many ways we are impacting nature and the many ways nature is responding, it is useful to study responses in an integrative context. My thesis is focused largely (two out of the three data chapters) on butterfly species’ range shifts consistent with modern climate change in Canada. I employed a macroecological approach to my research, drawing on methods and findings from evolutionary biology, phylogenetics, conservation biology, and natural history. I answered three main research questions. First, is there a trade-off between population growth rate (rmax) and carrying capacity (K) at the mutation scale (Chapter 2)? I found rmax and K to not trade off, but in fact to positively co-vary at the mutation scale. This suggests trade-offs between these traits only emerge after selection removes mutants with low resource acquisition rates (i.e., unhealthy genotypes), revealing trade-offs between remaining genotypes with varied resource allocation strategies. Second, did butterfly species shift their northern range boundaries northward over the 1900s, consistent with climate warming (Chapter 3)? Leading a team of collaborators, we found that most butterfly species’ northern range boundaries did indeed shift northward over the 1900s. But range shift rates were slower than those documented in the literature for more recent time periods, likely reflecting the weaker warming experienced in the time period of my study. Third, were species’ rates of range shift related to their phylogeny (Chapter 3) or traits (Chapter 4)? I found no compelling relationships between rates of range shift and phylogeny or traits. If certain traits make some species more successful at northern boundary range expansion than others, their effect was not strong enough to emerge from the background noise inherent in the broad scale data set I used.

No description available.