Looking for an optimal hierarchical approach for ecologically meaningful niche modelling

Abstract Ecological niche models are powerful tools in ecology. Factors operating at different spatial scales are known to jointly influence species distributions, but their integration in meaningful and reliable niche models is still methodologically complex and requires further research and validation. Here, we compare six different hierarchical niche models (HNMs): two ensemble, two Bayesian, and two penalized logistic regression approaches. The six HNMs were applied to produce high-resolution (25 m) predictions for five tree species in a Biosphere Reserve in Central Spain, combining information from two spatial scales. At the regional scale (mainland Spain) climatic variables were used as predictors, and presence/absence data were derived from the Spanish Forest Inventory (76,347 plots). At the landscape scale (Biosphere Reserve) environmental variables were used as predictors while presence/absence data were derived from a local vegetation sampling (346 plots). We compared and evaluated the six HNMs using the AUC, MaxKappa, and MaxTSS statistics and the Pearson’s correlation coefficient. We obtained reliable high-resolution HNMs at the landscape scale (AUC values were greater than 0.8), although with variable performance and scope of application. Ensemble approaches delivered reliable models particularly when the sample size was not a limiting modelling factor. However, Bayesian modelling allowed considering a spatially correlated random effect that outperformed the results of all other approaches for species with a low sample size, possibly derived from a strong spatial structure in their distribution. HNMs succeeded in generating high-resolution predictions and manage to identify a significantly greater part of the climatic niche of the species than non-hierarchical models. This allows more accurate projections both in space and time, which is essential in climate change and invasive species modelling projections. The usefulness of these models for decision support in local conservation programs is therefore highlighted. Our methodological comparison is valuable to inform modellers and decision makers of the performance and implications of these approaches regarding the support they can provide for the implementation of conservation management measures at the landscape scale.

[1]  Nick Golding,et al.  Fast and flexible Bayesian species distribution modelling using Gaussian processes , 2016 .

[2]  Walter Jetz,et al.  Downscaling of species distribution models: a hierarchical approach , 2013 .

[3]  Walter Jetz,et al.  Using coarse-grained occurrence data to predict species distributions at finer spatial resolutions—possibilities and limitations , 2006 .

[4]  J. Wiens.  Spatial Scaling in Ecology , 1989 .

[5]  R. G. Davies,et al.  Methods to account for spatial autocorrelation in the analysis of species distributional data : a review , 2007 .

[6]  Trevor H. Booth,et al.  bioclim: the first species distribution modelling package, its early applications and relevance to most current MaxEnt studies , 2014 .

[7]  M. D’Amen,et al.  Scaling down distribution maps from atlas data: a test of different approaches with virtual species , 2012 .

[8]  P. Pagano,et al.  Forecasting the ongoing invasion of Lagocephalus sceleratus in the Mediterranean Sea , 2018 .

[9]  Pierre Legendre,et al.  Estimating and controlling for spatial structure in the study of ecological communities , 2010 .

[10]  Mathieu Marmion,et al.  Evaluation of consensus methods in predictive species distribution modelling , 2009 .

[11]  B. Huntley,et al.  Predicting the spatial distribution of non‐indigenous riparian weeds: issues of spatial scale and extent , 2000 .

[12]  Antoine Guisan,et al.  Will climate change increase the risk of plant invasions into mountains? , 2016, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[13]  Antoine Guisan,et al.  ecospat: an R package to support spatial analyses and modeling of species niches and distributions , 2017 .

[14]  H. Pulliam,et al.  Hierarchical analysis of species distributions and abundance across environmental gradients. , 2007, Ecology.

[15]  Finn Lindgren,et al.  Bayesian Spatial Modelling with R-INLA , 2015 .

[16]  N. Zimmermann,et al.  Habitat Suitability and Distribution Models: With Applications in R , 2017 .

[17]  Á. Felicísimo,et al.  Effects of the number of presences on reliability and stability of MARS species distribution models: the importance of regional niche variation and ecological heterogeneity , 2010 .

[18]  Mark New,et al.  Ensemble forecasting of species distributions. , 2007, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[19]  L. Maiorano,et al.  Improving spatial predictions of taxonomic, functional and phylogenetic diversity , 2018 .

[20]  B. Petitpierre,et al.  The mossy north: an inverse latitudinal diversity gradient in European bryophytes , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[21]  Ewout W Steyerberg,et al.  Validation and updating of predictive logistic regression models: a study on sample size and shrinkage , 2004, Statistics in medicine.

[22]  M. Hooten,et al.  Hierarchical Species Distribution Models , 2016 .

[23]  María José Aroca-Fernández,et al.  Hierarchical species distribution models in support of vegetation conservation at the landscape scale , 2019, Journal of Vegetation Science.

[24]  P. Diggle,et al.  Model‐based geostatistics , 2007 .

[25]  R. Tibshirani,et al.  Generalized additive models for medical research , 1986, Statistical methods in medical research.

[26]  P. Vittoz,et al.  Assessing and predicting shifts in mountain forest composition across 25 years of climate change , 2017 .

[27]  Jennifer A. Miller.  Species distribution models , 2012 .

[28]  D. Lindenmayer,et al.  Towards a hierarchical framework for modelling the spatial distribution of animals , 2001 .

[29]  Sw. Banerjee,et al.  Hierarchical Modeling and Analysis for Spatial Data , 2003 .

[30]  S. Lavorel,et al.  Effects of restricting environmental range of data to project current and future species distributions , 2004 .

[31]  T. Dawson,et al.  Modelling species distributions in Britain: a hierarchical integration of climate and land-cover data , 2004 .

[32]  Dylan Keon,et al.  Equations for potential annual direct incident radiation and heat load , 2002 .

[33]  A. Rodrigues,et al.  The value of coarse species range maps to inform local biodiversity conservation in a global context , 2017 .

[34]  T. Hastie,et al.  Generalized Additive Model Selection , 2015, 1506.03850.

[35]  Rui F. Fernandes,et al.  Effects of simulated observation errors on the performance of species distribution models , 2018, Diversity and Distributions.

[36]  Stephen E. Fick,et al.  WorldClim 2: new 1‐km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas , 2017 .

[37]  T. Dawson,et al.  Predicting the impacts of climate change on the distribution of species: are bioclimate envelope models useful? , 2003 .

[38]  Robert M. Dorazio,et al.  Accounting for imperfect detection and survey bias in statistical analysis of presence‐only data , 2014 .

[39]  David B. Dunson,et al.  A comprehensive evaluation of predictive performance of 33 species distribution models at species and community levels , 2019, Ecological Monographs.

[40]  Markus Neteler,et al.  Open data and open source for remote sensing training in ecology , 2017, Ecological Informatics.

[41]  E. Steyerberg.  Clinical Prediction Models , 2008, Statistics for Biology and Health.

[42]  Antoine Guisan,et al.  Overcoming limitations of modelling rare species by using ensembles of small models , 2015 .

[43]  María José Aroca-Fernández,et al.  Optimization of forest sampling strategies for woody plant species distribution modelling at the landscape scale , 2018 .

[44]  Paul H. Williams,et al.  Downscaling European species atlas distributions to a finer resolution: implications for conservation planning , 2005 .

[45]  J. Lenoir,et al.  Incorporating microclimate into species distribution models , 2018, Ecography.

[46]  Tarek Hattab,et al.  Climatic microrefugia under anthropogenic climate change: implications for species redistribution , 2017 .

[47]  Damaris Zurell,et al.  Collinearity: a review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance , 2013 .

[48]  S. Schmidtlein,et al.  Identification of high nature value grassland with remote sensing and minimal field data , 2017 .

[49]  T. Dawson,et al.  Integrating multiple modelling approaches to predict the potential impacts of climate change on species’ distributions in contrasting regions: comparison and implications for policy , 2006 .

[50]  Antoine Guisan,et al.  Overcoming the rare species modelling paradox: a novel hierarchical framework applied to an Iberian endemic plant. , 2010 .

[51]  C. Lortie,et al.  Rethinking plant community theory , 2004 .

[52]  R. Real,et al.  Use of Coarse‐Resolution Models of Species’ Distributions to Guide Local Conservation Inferences , 2010, Conservation Biology.

[53]  Wilfried Thuiller,et al.  Invasive species distribution models – how violating the equilibrium assumption can create new insights , 2012 .

[54]  J. Franklin,et al.  High and dry: high elevations disproportionately exposed to regional climate change in Mediterranean-climate landscapes , 2015, Landscape Ecology.

[55]  S. Somot,et al.  Towards a better understanding of potential impacts of climate change on marine species distribution: a multiscale modelling approach , 2014 .

[56]  A. Gastón,et al.  Updating coarse-scale species distribution models using small fine-scale samples , 2010 .

[57]  Francis K. C. Hui,et al.  So Many Variables: Joint Modeling in Community Ecology. , 2015, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[58]  Rubén G. Mateo,et al.  Modelos de distribución de especies: Una revisión sintética , 2011 .

[59]  Stefan Krause,et al.  A multiscale statistical method to identify potential areas of hyporheic exchange for river restoration planning , 2019, Environ. Model. Softw..

[60]  Leo Breiman,et al.  Random Forests , 2001, Machine Learning.

[61]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[62]  R. Tibshirani.  Regression Shrinkage and Selection via the Lasso , 1996 .

[63]  Trevor Hastie,et al.  The Elements of Statistical Learning , 2001 .

[64]  Monica Papeş,et al.  Modelling ecological niches from low numbers of occurrences: assessment of the conservation status of poorly known viverrids (Mammalia, Carnivora) across two continents , 2007 .

[65]  B. McGill.  Matters of Scale , 2010, Science.

[66]  Carsten F Dormann,et al.  Wrong, but useful: regional species distribution models may not be improved by range‐wide data under biased sampling , 2018, Ecology and evolution.

[67]  Wilfried Thuiller,et al.  Hierarchical effects of environmental filters on the functional structure of plant communities: a case study in the French Alps , 2013 .

[68]  Jiqiang Guo,et al.  Stan: A Probabilistic Programming Language. , 2017, Journal of statistical software.

[69]  David J. Currie,et al.  A Globally Consistent Richness‐Climate Relationship for Angiosperms , 2003, The American Naturalist.

[70]  F. Jiguet,et al.  How much do we overestimate future local extinction rates when restricting the range of occurrence data in climate suitability models , 2010 .

[71]  Wilfried Thuiller,et al.  Cross-scale integration of knowledge for predicting species ranges: a metamodeling framework. , 2016, Global ecology and biogeography : a journal of macroecology.

[72]  P. Peres‐Neto,et al.  A quantitative framework to estimate the relative importance of environment, spatial variation and patch connectivity in driving community composition , 2017, The Journal of animal ecology.

[73]  Rubén G. Mateo,et al.  Impact of model complexity on cross-temporal transferability in Maxent species distribution models: An assessment using paleobotanical data , 2015 .

[74]  A. Peterson,et al.  Effects of sample size on the performance of species distribution models , 2008 .

[75]  D. Gutiérrez,et al.  The contributions of topoclimate and land cover to species distributions and abundance: fine-resolution tests for a mountain butterfly fauna , 2010 .

[76]  A. Guisan,et al.  Biodiversity Models: What If Unsaturation Is the Rule? , 2017, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[77]  H. Rue,et al.  An explicit link between Gaussian fields and Gaussian Markov random fields: the stochastic partial differential equation approach , 2011 .

[78]  J A Swets,et al.  Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. , 1988, Science.

[79]  P. McCullagh,et al.  Generalized Linear Models , 1984 .

[80]  Finn Lindgren,et al.  Advanced Spatial Modeling with Stochastic Partial Differential Equations Using R and INLA , 2018 .

[81]  Frank E. Harrell,et al.  Regression Modeling Strategies: With Applications to Linear Models, Logistic Regression, and Survival Analysis , 2001 .

[82]  A. Ellison,et al.  Should species distribution models account for spatial autocorrelation? A test of model projections across eight millennia of climate change , 2013 .

[83]  B. Laenen,et al.  What is the potential of spread in invasive bryophytes , 2015 .

[84]  Marc Kéry,et al.  Hierarchical modelling and estimation of abundance and population trends in metapopulation designs. , 2010, The Journal of animal ecology.

[85]  J. Friedman.  Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine. , 2001 .

[86]  M. Araújo,et al.  BIOMOD – a platform for ensemble forecasting of species distributions , 2009 .