SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Table S1 Five predictions stemming from the hypothesis that variation in recent leading-edge range shifts is driven by differences in species’ traits. For each taxonomic group, we list traits used to test each prediction. Except for traits followed by ‘‘(–)’’, traits are coded so that positive regression coefficients are consistent with predictions.

Table S2 Pearson correlation coefficients for correlations among continuous predictor variables.

Table S3 Univariate relationships between traits and range shifts. For continuous response variables, we used linear regressions (continuous predictors) or t-tests (binary predictors, ‘‘bin’’). For binary range shifts (shift vs. no-shift), we used logistic regressions or contingency tests. ‘‘Pred.’’ lists whether effects were numerically in the predicted direction. Data are not mean-standardized.

Table S4 Results of model selection and model averaging for linear regressions of shifts in North American bird centers of abundance (La Sorte & Thompson 2007) versus species’ traits. Table arrangement and variables are as explained in Table 1.

Table S5 Results of model selection and model averaging for linear regressions of shifts in North American Passeriformes centres of abundance (La Sorte & Thompson 2007) versus species’ traits. Table arrangement and variables are as explained in Table 1.

Table S6 Results of model selection and model averaging for logistic regressions of recent shifts (shift vs. no-shift) for North American bird northern range margins (La Sorte & Thompson 2007) versus species’ traits. Table arrangement and variables are as explained in Table 1.

Table S7 Results of model selection and model averaging for logistic regressions of recent shifts (shift vs. no-shift) of North American Passeriformes northern range margins (La Sorte & Thompson 2007) versus species’ traits. Table arrangement and variables are as explained in Table 1.

Table S8 Results of model selection and model averaging for logistic regressions of recent shifts (shift vs. no-shift) of British Odonata northern range margins (Hickling et al. 2005) versus species’ traits. Habitat breadth 1 = number of water body types, habitat breadth 2 = number of different water flow regimes. Table arrangement and variables are as explained in Table 1.

Table S9 Results of model selection and model averaging for logistic regressions of recent shifts (shift vs. no-shift) of Swiss alpine plant upper elevation range margins (Holzinger et al. 2008) versus species’ traits. Table arrangement and variables are as explained in Table 1.

Table S10 Results of model selection and model averaging for logistic regressions of recent shifts (shift vs. no-shift) of western North American small mammal upper elevation range margins (Moritz et al. 2008) versus species’ traits. Table arrangement and variables are as explained in Table 1.

As a service to our authors and readers, this journal provides supporting information supplied by the authors. Such materials are peer-reviewed and may be re-organized for online delivery, but are not copy-edited or typeset. Technical support issues arising from supporting information (other than missing files) should be addressed to the authors.

FilenameFormatSizeDescription
ELE_1620_sm_tables1-s10.pdf396KSupporting info item

Please note: Wiley Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.