Soft Range Limits Shape Sensitivity to Forest Cover More Strongly Than Hard Range Limits

Granville, Natasha R. and Pigot, Alex L. and Howes, Benjamin and dos Anjos, Luiz and Arroyo‐Rodriguez, Victor and Barbaro, Luc and Barlow, Jos and Betts, Matthew G. and Cerezo, Alexis and Develey, Pedro F. and Hatfield, Jack H. and Jactel, Hervé and Karubian, Jordan and Kormann, Urs G. and Lasky, Jesse R. and Marsh, Charles J. and Mestre, Luiz A. M. and Morante‐Filho, José Carlos and Olivier, Pieter and Pidgeon, Anna M. and Possingham, Hugh and Proença, Vânia and Terraube, Julien and Uezu, Alexandre and Wood, Eric M. and Banks‐Leite, Cristina (2025) Soft Range Limits Shape Sensitivity to Forest Cover More Strongly Than Hard Range Limits. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 34 (11): e70146. ISSN 1466-822X

Text (geb.70146.pdf)
geb.70146.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (784kB)

Abstract

Aim: Land‐use change is a major threat to biodiversity, yet there remains considerable unexplained variation in how it affects different populations of the same species. Here, we examine how sensitivity to forest cover changes depending on proximity to different limits of a species' range. By comparing responses as species approach their coastal (‘hard’) and inland (‘soft’) range limits, we aim to provide insight into the relative influence of mass effects, as compared to abiotic and biotic environmental suitability in shaping population sensitivity. Location: Global. Time Period: 1996–2019. Major Taxa Studied: Birds. Methods: We combined data from several large databases to obtain a dataset of 2543 bird species surveyed across 116 studies, spanning six continents. Using expert‐verified range maps, we calculated the position of populations relative to their species' nearest inland (‘soft’) and coastal (‘hard’) range limits and categorised the inland limits as equatorward‐ or poleward‐ facing. We investigated how distance to range limits and forest cover, derived from a 30 m‐resolution global dataset, affect the probability of species' incidence. Results: We found that bird populations are more sensitive to forest cover when located closer to their species' inland (‘soft’) range limits, whereas this was not the case at coastal (‘hard’) range limits. The heightened sensitivity to forest cover at soft range limits was similar regardless of whether the range limit faced equatorward or poleward. Main Conclusions: These results highlight how populations close to the soft limits of their species' ranges are at higher risk of extirpation resulting from loss of forest cover. This suggests that environmental conditions (e.g., climate), which become more challenging away from the core of the species' range, drive variability in sensitivity to forest cover.