1. EFFECTS OF CHANGING CLIMATE ON THE DEMOGRAPHY OF THE KARNER BLUE BUTTERFLY: PROGRESS SUMMARY NPS Climate change response grant A joint collaboration between NPS, USGS, University of Notre Dame

2. PROJECT OVERVIEW  Temp treatments  Snow cover treatments  Predation/parasitism  Lupine phenology  Range-wide  Population-specific DEMOGRAPHYNICHE MODELING MICROCLIMATE POP. GENETICS  Map Kbb, lupine, and microclimate at INDU  Genetic diversity and variation  What is a “population”?

3. PROJECT OVERVIEW  Temp treatments  Snow cover treatments  Predation/parasitism  Lupine phenology  Range-wide  Population-specific DEMOGRAPHYNICHE MODELING MICROCLIMATE POP. GENETICS  Map Kbb, lupine, and microclimate at INDU  Genetic diversity and variation  What is a “population”?

4. DEMOGRAPHY TEMPERATURE TREATMENTS CLIMATE SIMULATION TEMP (DEG C) HISTORICINDU 1960-90 AVERAGE ~2040+2 ~2070+4 ~2100+6 ~160 diapausing Kbb eggs (2010 2 nd flight) per treatment

7. Treatment Cohort Demography Treatment 1st Flight2nd Flight3rd Flight4th Flight "+0"Y (175) Y (268) N (0) "+2"Y (158) Y (232) Y (85) N (0) "+4"Y (168) Y (331) Y (63) N (0) "+6"Y (165) Y (221) Y (67) Y* (5) *Did not reach pupation

8. 9C Degree Day Model

9. 12C Degree Day Model

10. First Flight Second Flight Adult Mass vs. 9C DD Scatter plot

11. Adult Mass vs. 12C DD Scatter plot First FlightSecond Flight

12. Adult Mass by Sex ANOVA First FlightSecond Flight

13. Days to Pupation ANOVA First FlightSecond Flight

14. Days to Pupation ANOVA First FlightSecond Flight

15. .Ecological Niche Modeling. Occurrence Data Current Environmental Layers Current Output Map Land cover Temperature Precipitation

16. .Ecological Niche Modeling. Occurrence Data Current and Future Environmental Layers Future Output Map Land cover Temperature Precipitation

17. .Historic Range.  Historic range: NH/ME to MN  Since extirpated:  IL, MA, NJ, PA, ME, and Ontario

18. .Occurrence Data.

19. .Environmental Layers.  BIOCLIM variables  Canadian Centre for Climate Modeling Analysis (CCCMA). Current and A2 scenario (2080)  Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) land cover  Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) vegetation continuous fields  IPCC Major Soil Classifications

20. .Algorithm Comparisons..OM-GARP (Current).

21. GARP depicts more complete historic range GARP depicts more complete historic range MaxEnt probability threshhold lower MaxEnt probability threshhold lower.Algorithm Comparisons..MaxEnt (Current)..OM-GARP (Current).

22. .Algorithm Comparisons. OM-GARP (2080)

23. .Algorithm Comparisons. OM-GARP (2080).OM-GARP (Current)..MaxEnt (Current)..MaxEnt (2080).

24. .Algorithm Comparisons. OM-GARP (2080).MaxEnt (2080). 1. Similar complete displacement 2. Working on sub-pupulation GARP models a. NY/IN complete suitability issues

25. .Research Questions.  1. Assessing the potential of local adaptation-do different Karner sub-populations fill different climatic niches? Sub-population-specific approach to modeling  2. Are ecological niche models capable of capturing local adaptation within a range-wide data set?

26. .Cluster Analysis.  Obtained values for each BIOCLIM variable at each occurrence point  PCA scatter plot-cluster?

27. .PCA Scatter. PC1=65.3% PC2=14.6% PC1: (Mean Temp of Driest Quarter, Temp Seasonality) PC2: (Max Temp of Warmest Quarter, Mean Temp of Wettest Quarter)

28. .Preliminary Conclusions.  Question 1: Do different Karner sub-populations fill different climatic niches? Different Optimal ConditionsDifferent Response Variables Lack of Geographic OverlapClimatic Variation

29. .Preliminary Conclusions.  Question 2: Are ecological niche models capable of capturing local adaptation within a range-wide data set? LimitationYes

30. .Implications.  Ecological niche range-wide outputs for fragmented ranges analyzed with caution  Management efforts: Need for sub-population specific management plans Placement of recovery units in areas with similar to origin climate envelopes