Uncertainty of bioclimate envelope models based on the geographical distribution of species

Aim We explored the effects of prevalence, latitudinal range and spatial autocorrelation of species distribution patterns on the accuracy of bioclimate envelope models of butterflies. Location  Finland, northern Europe. Methods  The data of a national butterfly atlas survey (NAFI) carried out in 1991–2003 with a resolution of 10 × 10 km were used in the analyses. Generalized additive models (GAM) were constructed, for each of 98 species, to estimate the probability of occurrence as a function of climate variables. Model performance was measured using the area under the curve (AUC) of a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) plot. Observed differences in modelling accuracy among species were related to the species’ geographical attributes using multivariate GAM. Results  Accuracies of the climate–butterfly models varied from low to very high (AUC values 0.59–0.99), with a mean of 0.79. The modelling performance was related negatively to the latitudinal range and prevalence, and positively to the spatial autocorrelation of the species distribution. These three factors accounted for 75.2% of the variation in the modelling accuracy. Species at the margin of their range or with low prevalence were better predicted than widespread species, and species with clumped distributions better than scattered dispersed species. Main conclusions  The results from this study indicate that species’ geographical attributes highly influence the behaviour and uncertainty of species–climate models, which should be taken into account in biogeographical modelling studies and assessments of climate change impacts.

[1]  Miska Luoto,et al.  PREDICTING BIRD SPECIES RICHNESS USING REMOTE SENSING IN BOREAL AGRICULTURAL‐FOREST MOSAICS , 2004 .

[2]  W. Thuiller.  Patterns and uncertainties of species' range shifts under climate change , 2004 .

[3]  Richard Fox,et al.  Spatial patterns in species distributions reveal biodiversity change , 2004, Nature.

[4]  D. Rogers,et al.  The effects of species’ range sizes on the accuracy of distribution models: ecological phenomenon or statistical artefact? , 2004 .

[5]  M. Araújo,et al.  An evaluation of methods for modelling species distributions , 2004 .

[6]  S. Rushton,et al.  Predicting the distribution of ground beetle species (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in Britain using land cover variables. , 2004, Journal of environmental management.

[7]  A. Hampe.  Bioclimate envelope models: what they detect and what they hide , 2004 .

[8]  M. Araújo,et al.  Presence-absence versus presence-only modelling methods for predicting bird habitat suitability , 2004 .

[9]  S. Lavorel,et al.  Biodiversity conservation: Uncertainty in predictions of extinction risk , 2004, Nature.

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

[11]  D. Wascher,et al.  Climate change meets habitat fragmentation: linking landscape and biogeographical scale levels in research and conservation , 2004 .

[12]  J. S. Kotiaho,et al.  The role of niche breadth, resource availability and range position on the life history of butterflies , 2004 .

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

[14]  S. Lavorel,et al.  Do we need land‐cover data to model species distributions in Europe? , 2004 .

[15]  O. Phillips,et al.  Extinction risk from climate change , 2004, Nature.

[16]  K. Saarinen,et al.  Population trends of Finnish butterflies (Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea, Papilionoidea) in 1991–2000 , 2003, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[17]  R. Dennis,et al.  Bias in Butterfly Distribution Maps: The Effects of Sampling Effort , 1999, Journal of Insect Conservation.

[18]  W. Thuiller.  BIOMOD – optimizing predictions of species distributions and projecting potential future shifts under global change , 2003 .

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

[20]  A. Guisan,et al.  Predicting reptile distributions at the mesoscale: relation to climate and topography , 2003 .

[21]  S. Lavorel,et al.  Large-scale environmental correlates of forest tree distributions in Catalonia (NE Spain) , 2003 .

[22]  Patrick E. Osborne,et al.  Should data be partitioned spatially before building large-scale distribution models? , 2002 .

[23]  Anthony Lehmann,et al.  GRASP: generalized regression analysis and spatial prediction , 2002 .

[24]  M. Austin.  Spatial prediction of species distribution: an interface between ecological theory and statistical modelling , 2002 .

[25]  A. Lehmann,et al.  Predicting species spatial distributions using presence-only data: a case study of native New Zealand ferns , 2002 .

[26]  Trevor Hastie,et al.  Generalized linear and generalized additive models in studies of species distributions: setting the scene , 2002 .

[27]  S. Wood,et al.  GAMs with integrated model selection using penalized regression splines and applications to environmental modelling , 2002 .

[28]  T. Dawson,et al.  Modelling potential impacts of climate change on the bioclimatic envelope of species in Britain and Ireland , 2002 .

[29]  Jessica Gurevitch,et al.  Ecography 25: 601 -- 615, 2002 , 2022 .

[30]  R. Leemans,et al.  Assessing effects of forecasted climate change on the diversity and distribution of European higher plants for 2050 , 2002 .

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

[32]  David R. B. Stockwell,et al.  Effects of sample size on accuracy of species distribution models , 2002 .

[33]  Ari Venäläinen,et al.  Meteorological data for agricultural applications , 2002 .

[34]  J. K. Hill,et al.  Rapid responses of British butterflies to opposing forces of climate and habitat change , 2001, Nature.

[35]  S. Manel,et al.  Evaluating presence-absence models in ecology: the need to account for prevalence , 2001 .

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

[37]  Jason W. Karl,et al.  SENSITIVITY OF SPECIES HABITAT-RELATIONSHIP MODEL PERFORMANCE TO FACTORS OF SCALE , 2000 .

[38]  Miguel B. Araújo,et al.  Selecting areas for species persistence using occurrence data , 2000 .

[39]  A. Guisan,et al.  Equilibrium modeling of alpine plant distribution: how far can we go? , 2000 .

[40]  G. Meehl,et al.  Climate extremes: observations, modeling, and impacts. , 2000, Science.

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

[42]  R. Dennis,et al.  Targeting squares for survey: predicting species richness and incidence of species for a butterfly atlas , 1999 .

[43]  R. Boone,et al.  MODELING THE OCCURRENCE OF BIRD SPECIES: ARE THE ERRORS PREDICTABLE? , 1999 .

[44]  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.

[45]  C. Parmesan,et al.  Poleward shifts in geographical ranges of butterfly species associated with regional warming , 1999, Nature.

[46]  Daniel W. McKenney,et al.  Models of large‐scale breeding‐bird distribution as a function of macro‐climate in Ontario, Canada , 1999 .

[47]  John Bell,et al.  A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models , 1997, Environmental Conservation.

[48]  Martin T. Sykes,et al.  Climate change, tree species distributions and forest dynamics: A case study in the mixed conifer/northern hardwoods zone of northern Europe , 1996 .

[49]  S. T. Buckland,et al.  An autologistic model for the spatial distribution of wildlife , 1996 .

[50]  Camille Parmesan,et al.  Climate and species' range , 1996, Nature.

[51]  W. Cramer,et al.  Special Paper: Modelling Present and Potential Future Ranges of Some European Higher Plants Using Climate Response Surfaces , 1995 .

[52]  M. Nowak,et al.  Habitat destruction and the extinction debt , 1994, Nature.

[53]  J. Thomas.  Holocene climate changes and warm man‐made refugia may explain why a sixth of British butterflies possess unnatural early‐successional habitats , 1993 .

[54]  T. Yee,et al.  Generalized additive models in plant ecology , 1991 .

[55]  D. Currie.  Energy and Large-Scale Patterns of Animal- and Plant-Species Richness , 1991, The American Naturalist.

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

[57]  Robert H. Whittaker,et al.  Vegetation of the Great Smoky Mountains , 1956 .