Challenges in Identifying Sites Climatically Matched to the Native Ranges of Animal Invaders

Background Species distribution models are often used to characterize a species' native range climate, so as to identify sites elsewhere in the world that may be climatically similar and therefore at risk of invasion by the species. This endeavor provoked intense public controversy over recent attempts to model areas at risk of invasion by the Indian Python (Python molurus). We evaluated a number of MaxEnt models on this species to assess MaxEnt's utility for vertebrate climate matching. Methodology/Principal Findings Overall, we found MaxEnt models to be very sensitive to modeling choices and selection of input localities and background regions. As used, MaxEnt invoked minimal protections against data dredging, multi-collinearity of explanatory axes, and overfitting. As used, MaxEnt endeavored to identify a single ideal climate, whereas different climatic considerations may determine range boundaries in different parts of the native range. MaxEnt was extremely sensitive to both the choice of background locations for the python, and to selection of presence points: inclusion of just four erroneous localities was responsible for Pyron et al.'s conclusion that no additional portions of the U.S. mainland were at risk of python invasion. When used with default settings, MaxEnt overfit the realized climate space, identifying models with about 60 parameters, about five times the number of parameters justifiable when optimized on the basis of Akaike's Information Criterion. Conclusions/Significance When used with default settings, MaxEnt may not be an appropriate vehicle for identifying all sites at risk of colonization. Model instability and dearth of protections against overfitting, multi-collinearity, and data dredging may combine with a failure to distinguish fundamental from realized climate envelopes to produce models of limited utility. A priori identification of biologically realistic model structure, combined with computational protections against these statistical problems, may produce more robust models of invasion risk.

[1]  Antoine Guisan,et al.  Are niche-based species distribution models transferable in space? , 2006 .

[2]  D. Simberloff R.N. Reed and G.H. Rodda (eds): Giant constrictors: biological and management profiles and an establishment risk assessment for nine large species of pythons, anacondas, and the boa constrictor , 2010, Biological Invasions.

[3]  Miroslav Dudík,et al.  A maximum entropy approach to species distribution modeling , 2004, ICML.

[4]  S. E. Loo,et al.  Forecasting New Zealand Mudsnail invasion range: model comparisons using native and invaded ranges. , 2007, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[5]  Steven J. Phillips,et al.  The art of modelling range‐shifting species , 2010 .

[6]  A. Peterson,et al.  Predicting Species Invasions Using Ecological Niche Modeling: New Approaches from Bioinformatics Attack a Pressing Problem , 2001 .

[7]  Miroslav Dudík,et al.  Modeling of species distributions with Maxent: new extensions and a comprehensive evaluation , 2008 .

[8]  James Taylor,et al.  Questionable multivariate statistical inference in wildlife habitat and community studies (a comment) , 1990 .

[9]  C. Graham,et al.  Selecting pseudo-absence data for presence-only distribution modeling: How far should you stray from what you know? , 2009 .

[10]  Jorge Soberón,et al.  Niches and distributional areas: Concepts, methods, and assumptions , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[11]  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 .

[12]  R. A. Pyron,et al.  Claims of Potential Expansion throughout the U.S. by Invasive Python Species Are Contradicted by Ecological Niche Models , 2008, PloS one.

[13]  M. Solé,et al.  Predicting the potential distributions of two alien invasive Housegeckos (Gekkonidae: Hemidactylus frenatus, Hemidactylus mabouia) , 2008 .

[14]  S. Minton A contribution to the herpetology of West Pakistan. Bulletin of the AMNH ; v. 134, article 2 , 2016 .

[15]  A. Peterson,et al.  INTERPRETATION OF MODELS OF FUNDAMENTAL ECOLOGICAL NICHES AND SPECIES' DISTRIBUTIONAL AREAS , 2005 .

[16]  Alberto Jiménez-Valverde,et al.  Not as good as they seem: the importance of concepts in species distribution modelling , 2008 .

[17]  Antoine Guisan,et al.  Predicting current and future biological invasions: both native and invaded ranges matter , 2008, Biology Letters.

[18]  D. Rödder,et al.  Potential Distribution of the Alien Invasive Brown Tree Snake, Boiga irregularis (Reptilia: Colubridae)1 , 2010 .

[19]  M. Kearney,et al.  The toad ahead: challenges of modelling the range and spread of an invasive species , 2008 .

[20]  Dan L Warren,et al.  Ecological niche modeling in Maxent: the importance of model complexity and the performance of model selection criteria. , 2011, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[21]  David R. Anderson,et al.  Model Selection and Multimodel Inference , 2003 .

[22]  V. Sánchez‐Cordero,et al.  Conservatism of ecological niches in evolutionary time , 1999, Science.

[23]  A. Peterson Uses and requirements of ecological niche models and related distributional models , 2006 .

[24]  Steven J. Phillips,et al.  WHAT MATTERS FOR PREDICTING THE OCCURRENCES OF TREES: TECHNIQUES, DATA, OR SPECIES' CHARACTERISTICS? , 2007 .

[25]  F. Burbrink,et al.  Lineage diversification in a widespread species: roles for niche divergence and conservatism in the common kingsnake, Lampropeltis getula , 2009, Molecular ecology.

[26]  M. Araújo,et al.  Consequences of spatial autocorrelation for niche‐based models , 2006 .

[27]  David R. Anderson,et al.  Model selection and multimodel inference : a practical information-theoretic approach , 2003 .

[28]  David R. Anderson,et al.  Questionable multivariate statistical inference in wildlife habitat and community studies (a reply) , 1988 .

[29]  A. Townsend Peterson,et al.  Transferability and model evaluation in ecological niche modeling: a comparison of GARP and Maxent , 2007 .

[30]  W. Pitt,et al.  MANAGING VERTEBRATE INVASIVE SPECIES: PROCEEDINGS OF AN INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM , 2007 .

[31]  M. S. Khan Amphibians and Reptiles of Pakistan , 2006 .

[32]  Gordon H. Rodda,et al.  Giant Constrictors: Biological and Management Profiles and an Establishment Risk Assessment for Nine Large Species of Pythons, Anacondas, and the Boa Constrictor , 2009 .

[33]  Alberto Jiménez-Valverde,et al.  The uncertain nature of absences and their importance in species distribution modelling , 2010 .

[34]  R. Mertens Die Amphibien und Reptilien West-Pakistans , 1969 .

[35]  L. Beaumont,et al.  Predicting species distributions: use of climatic parameters in BIOCLIM and its impact on predictions of species’ current and future distributions , 2005 .

[36]  H. MacIsaac,et al.  Is invasion success explained by the enemy release hypothesis , 2004 .

[37]  M. Araújo,et al.  Equilibrium of species’ distributions with climate , 2005 .

[38]  Tim M. Blackburn,et al.  Do climate envelope models transfer? A manipulative test using dung beetle introductions , 2009, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[39]  J. L. Parra,et al.  Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas , 2005 .

[40]  Steven J. Phillips Transferability, sample selection bias and background data in presence‐only modelling: a response to Peterson et al. (2007) , 2008 .

[41]  A. Townsend Peterson,et al.  Invasive potential of common carp (*Cyprinus carpio*) and Nile tilapia (*Oreochromis niloticus*) in American freshwater systems , 2006 .

[42]  M. Leishman,et al.  Different climatic envelopes among invasive populations may lead to underestimations of current and future biological invasions , 2009 .

[43]  Steven J. Phillips,et al.  Sample selection bias and presence-only distribution models: implications for background and pseudo-absence data. , 2009, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[44]  D. Strayer,et al.  Usefulness of Bioclimatic Models for Studying Climate Change and Invasive Species , 2008, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

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

[46]  C. Haddad,et al.  Predicting the potential distribution of the alien invasive American bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus) in Brazil , 2008, Biological Invasions.

[47]  Robert P. Anderson,et al.  Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions , 2006 .

[48]  Antoine Guisan,et al.  Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology , 2000 .

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

[50]  J. Lobo More complex distribution models or more representative data , 2008 .

[51]  Jorge Soberón Grinnellian and Eltonian niches and geographic distributions of species. , 2007, Ecology letters.

[52]  Antoine Guisan,et al.  Do pseudo-absence selection strategies influence species distribution models and their predictions? An information-theoretic approach based on simulated data , 2009, BMC Ecology.

[53]  Sam Veloz,et al.  Spatially autocorrelated sampling falsely inflates measures of accuracy for presence‐only niche models , 2009 .

[54]  N. Pierce Origin of Species , 1914, Nature.

[55]  Dennis Rödder,et al.  Niche shift versus niche conservatism? Climatic characteristics of the native and invasive ranges of the Mediterranean house gecko (Hemidactylus turcicus) , 2009 .

[56]  Gordon H. Rodda,et al.  What parts of the US mainland are climatically suitable for invasive alien pythons spreading from Everglades National Park? , 2009, Biological Invasions.

[57]  D. Freedman A Note on Screening Regression Equations , 1983 .

[58]  Dawn M. Kaufman,et al.  THE GEOGRAPHIC RANGE: Size, Shape, Boundaries, and Internal Structure , 1996 .

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

[60]  M. Kearney,et al.  Habitat, environment and niche: what are we modelling? , 2006 .

[61]  Catherine S. Jarnevich,et al.  CLIMATE MATCHING AS A TOOL FOR PREDICTING POTENTIAL NORTH AMERICAN SPREAD OF BROWN TREESNAKES , 2007 .

[62]  M. Kearney,et al.  Modelling species distributions without using species distributions: the cane toad in Australia under current and future climates , 2008 .

[63]  W. Martin,et al.  The Current and Potential Distribution of the Common Myna Acridotheres tristis in Australia , 1996 .

[64]  Peter E. Thornton,et al.  Generating surfaces of daily meteorological variables over large regions of complex terrain , 1997 .

[65]  S. Harney,et al.  Policy and Planning , 2009 .

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

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

[68]  M. S. Khan A Guide to The snakes of Pakistan , 2002 .