USGS ScienceSearch

Geology topics

Ambarish V. Karmalkar

Publications and source records attributed to Ambarish V. Karmalkar.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Forecasting species distributions: Correlation does not equal causation

Aim Identifying the mechanisms influencing species' distributions is critical for accurate climate change forecasts. However, current approaches are limited by correlative models that cannot distinguish between direct and indirect effects. Location New Hampshire and Vermont, USA. Methods Using causal and correlational models and new theory on range limits, we compared current (2014–2019) and future (2080s) distributions of ecologically important mammalian carnivores and competitors along range limits in the northeastern US under two global climate models (GCMs) and a high-emission scenario (RCP8.5) of projected snow and forest biomass change. Results Our hypothesis that causal models of climate-mediated competition would result in different distribution predictions than correlational models, both in the current and future periods, was well-supported by our results; however, these patterns were prominent only for species pairs that exhibited strong interactions. The causal model predicted the current distribution of Canada lynx ( Lynx canadensis ) more accurately, likely because it incorporated the influence of competitive interactions mediated by snow with the closely related bobcat ( Lynx rufus ). Both modeling frameworks predicted an overall decline in lynx occurrence in the central high-elevation regions and increased occurrence in the northeastern region in the 2080s due to changes in land use that provided optimal habitat. However, these losses and gains were less substantial in the causal model due to the inclusion of an indirect buffering effect of snow on lynx. Main conclusions Our comparative analysis indicates that a causal framework, steeped in ecological theory, can be used to generate spatially explicit predictions of species distributions. This approach can be used to disentangle correlated predictors that have previously hampered understanding of range limits and species' response to climate change.

New Hampshire, Vermont

Identifying credible and diverse GCMs for regional climate change studies—case study: Northeastern United States

Climate data obtained from global climate models (GCMs) form the basis of most studies of regional climate change and its impacts. Using the northeastern US as a test case, we develop a framework to systematically sub-select reliable models for use in climate change studies in the region. We retain 14 of 36 CMIP5 GCMs that (a) have satisfactory historical performance, and (b) provide diverse climate scenarios consistent with uncertainties in the multi-model ensemble (MME). The historical performance is evaluated for a wide variety of standard and process metrics including large-scale atmospheric circulation features that drive regional climate variability. Model performance is then used in conjunction with the assessment of diversity and redundancy in model projections to eliminate models without underrepresenting the uncertainty in the MME. Overall, the models show significant variations in their performance across metrics and seasons with none emerging as the best model. This combined with a lack of a strong relationship between model biases and future projections together highlight the importance of maintaining diversity in projections for risk assessment. The summer mean precipitation projections, in particular, are uncertain but also have considerable redundancy in their spatial patterns within the ensemble, which we use effectively to eliminate models. The better performing models in the retained set do suggest a potential to narrow the ranges in temperature and precipitation projections. But any further refinement should be based on a detailed analysis of the physical processes that drive regional climate variability and extremes to avoid providing overconfident projections.

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,