Do climate envelope models transfer? A manipulative test using dung beetle introductions

Climate envelope models (CEMs) are widely used to forecast future shifts in species ranges under climate change, but these models are rarely validated against independent data, and their fundamental assumption that climate limits species distributions is rarely tested. Here, we use the data on the introduction of five South African dung beetle species to Australia to test whether CEMs developed in the native range can predict distribution in the introduced range, where the confounding effects of dispersal limitation, resource limitation and the impact of natural enemies have been removed, leaving climate as the dominant constraint. For two of the five species, models developed in the native range predict distribution in the introduced range about as well as models developed in the introduced range where we know climate limits distribution. For the remaining three species, models developed in the native range perform poorly, implying that non-climatic factors limit the native distribution of these species and need to be accounted for in species distribution models. Quantifying relevant non-climatic factors and their likely interactions with climatic variables for forecasting range shifts under climate change remains a challenging task.

[1]  S. Barry,et al.  Are there any consistent predictors of invasion success? , 2008, Biological Invasions.

[2]  Brian Huntley,et al.  Climate and habitat availability determine 20th century changes in a butterfly's range margin , 1999, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[3]  M. Hulme,et al.  A high-resolution data set of surface climate over global land areas , 2002 .

[4]  Brian Huntley,et al.  Climate and the distribution of Fallopia japonica: use of an introduced species to test the predictive capacity of response surfaces , 1995 .

[5]  M. Tyndale-biscoe Australia's introduced dung beetles: original releases and redistributions. , 1996 .

[6]  Kurt Hornik,et al.  THE R ENVIRONMENT FOR STATISTICAL COMPUTING , 2001 .

[7]  T. Ridsdill‐Smith,et al.  CHAPTER 15. Native and Introduced Dung Beetles in Australia , 1991 .

[8]  H. MacIsaac,et al.  Propagule pressure: a null model for biological invasions , 2006, Biological Invasions.

[9]  A. Peterson Predicting the Geography of Species’ Invasions via Ecological Niche Modeling , 2003, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[10]  G. Yohe,et al.  A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems , 2003, Nature.

[11]  Ken W. Smith,et al.  Performance of climate envelope models in retrodicting recent changes in bird population size from observed climatic change , 2008, Biology Letters.

[12]  J. Svenning,et al.  Limited filling of the potential range in European tree species , 2004 .

[13]  A. Peterson,et al.  Evidence of climatic niche shift during biological invasion. , 2007, Ecology letters.

[14]  J. Reynolds,et al.  Climate Change and Distribution Shifts in Marine Fishes , 2005, Science.

[15]  G. Bornemissza Australian dung beetle project, 1965-1975 , 1976 .

[16]  Karl Vernes,et al.  Seasonality, dung specificity and competition in dung beetle assemblages in the Australian Wet Tropics, north-eastern Australia , 2005, Journal of Tropical Ecology.

[17]  John F. McLaughlin,et al.  Climate change hastens population extinctions , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[18]  C. Scholtz,et al.  Multi‐scale determinants of dung beetle assemblage structure across abiotic gradients of the Kalahari–Nama Karoo ecotone, South Africa , 2008 .

[19]  S. Cherry,et al.  USE AND INTERPRETATION OF LOGISTIC REGRESSION IN HABITAT-SELECTION STUDIES , 2004 .

[20]  Glenn De ' ath BOOSTED TREES FOR ECOLOGICAL MODELING AND PREDICTION , 2007 .

[21]  A. Townsend Peterson,et al.  Novel methods improve prediction of species' distributions from occurrence data , 2006 .

[22]  J Elith,et al.  A working guide to boosted regression trees. , 2008, The Journal of animal ecology.

[23]  Philip E. Hulme,et al.  Biological invasions: winning the science battles but losing the conservation war? , 2003, Oryx.

[24]  T. Root,et al.  Environmental Factors Associated with Avian Distributional Boundaries , 1988 .

[25]  David R. B. Stockwell,et al.  Forecasting the Effects of Global Warming on Biodiversity , 2007 .

[26]  C. Thomas,et al.  Birds extend their ranges northwards , 1999, Nature.

[27]  John H. Campbell,et al.  Biological response to climate change on a tropical mountain , 1999, Nature.

[28]  H. Gregory McDonald,et al.  Spatial Response of Mammals to Late Quaternary Environmental Fluctuations , 1996, Science.

[29]  C. Parmesan Ecological and Evolutionary Responses to Recent Climate Change , 2006 .

[30]  David L. Thomson,et al.  UK birds are laying eggs earlier , 1997, Nature.

[31]  E. Matthews A revision of ths Scarabaeine dung beetles of Australia. III. Tribe Coprini , 1976 .

[32]  Jake F. Weltzin,et al.  The biogeography of prediction error: why does the introduced range of the fire ant over-predict its native range? , 2006 .

[33]  A. Gimona,et al.  Opening the climate envelope reveals no macroscale associations with climate in European birds , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[34]  T. Blackburn,et al.  The role of propagule pressure in explaining species invasions. , 2005, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[35]  Jane Elith,et al.  Error and uncertainty in habitat models , 2006 .

[36]  D. Richardson,et al.  Niche‐based modelling as a tool for predicting the risk of alien plant invasions at a global scale , 2005, Global change biology.

[37]  M. Araújo,et al.  Validation of species–climate impact models under climate change , 2005 .

[38]  David W. Hosmer,et al.  Applied Logistic Regression , 1991 .

[39]  O. Hoegh‐Guldberg,et al.  Ecological responses to recent climate change , 2002, Nature.

[40]  Mark S. Boyce,et al.  Modelling distribution and abundance with presence‐only data , 2006 .

[41]  David W. Hosmer,et al.  Best subsets logistic regression , 1989 .

[42]  E. Matthews A revision of the Scarabaeine Dung Beetles of Australia. I. Tribe Onthophagini , 1971 .

[43]  Kevin J. Gaston,et al.  The structure and dynamics of geographic ranges , 2003 .

[44]  M. Willig,et al.  Impacts of extreme weather and climate on terrestrial biota , 2000 .

[45]  S. Chown,et al.  Conservation strategies for poorly surveyed taxa: a dung beetle (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae) case study from southern Africa , 2004, Journal of Insect Conservation.

[46]  M. Araújo,et al.  Five (or so) challenges for species distribution modelling , 2006 .

[47]  I. Newton,et al.  Relationship between migration and latitude among west European birds , 1996 .

[48]  M. Araújo,et al.  The importance of biotic interactions for modelling species distributions under climate change , 2007 .

[49]  Theresa M. Mau-Crimmins,et al.  Can the invaded range of a species be predicted sufficiently using only native-range data? Lehmann lovegrass (Eragrostis lehmanniana) in the southwestern United States , 2006 .

[50]  R. Real,et al.  AUC: a misleading measure of the performance of predictive distribution models , 2008 .

[51]  Michael E. Mann,et al.  Climate over past millennia , 2004 .

[52]  R. Shine,et al.  The cane toad's (Chaunus [Bufo] marinus) increasing ability to invade Australia is revealed by a dynamically updated range model , 2007, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[53]  E. Matthews A revision of the Scarabaeine dung beetles of Australia. II. Tribe Scarabaeini , 1974 .

[54]  W. Thuiller,et al.  Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. , 2005, Ecology letters.

[55]  C. Hill,et al.  Habitat specificity and food preferences of an assemblage of tropical Australian dung beetles , 1996, Journal of Tropical Ecology.

[56]  M. Sykes,et al.  Methods and uncertainties in bioclimatic envelope modelling under climate change , 2006 .