Can niche-based distribution models outperform spatial interpolation?

Aim  Distribution modelling relates sparse data on species occurrence or abundance to environmental information to predict the population of a species at any point in space. Recently, the importance of spatial autocorrelation in distributions has been recognized. Spatial autocorrelation can be categorized as exogenous (stemming from autocorrelation in the underlying variables) or endogenous (stemming from activities of the organism itself, such as dispersal). Typically, one asks whether spatial models explain additional variability (endogenous) in comparison to a fully specified habitat model. We turned this question around and asked: can habitat models explain additional variation when spatial structure is accounted for in a fully specified spatially explicit model? The aim was to find out to what degree habitat models may be inadvertently capturing spatial structure rather than true explanatory mechanisms. Location  We used data from 190 species of the North American Breeding Bird Survey covering the conterminous United States and southern Canada. Methods  We built 13 different models on 190 bird species using regression trees. Our habitat-based models used climate and landcover variables as independent variables. We also used random variables and simulated ranges to validate our results. The two spatially explicit models included only geographical coordinates or a contagion term as independent variables. As another angle on the question of mechanism vs. spatial structure we pitted a model using related bird species as predictors against a model using randomly selected bird species. Results  The spatially explicit models outperformed the traditional habitat models and the random predictor species outperformed the related predictor species. In addition, environmental variables produced a substantial R2 in predicting artificial ranges. Main conclusions  We conclude that many explanatory variables with suitable spatial structure can work well in species distribution models. The predictive power of environmental variables is not necessarily mechanistic, and spatial interpolation can outperform environmental explanatory variables.

[1]  Louis Legendre,et al.  The Importance of Being Digital , 1963 .

[2]  A. Prasad,et al.  PREDICTING ABUNDANCE OF 80 TREE SPECIES FOLLOWING CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE EASTERN UNITED STATES , 1998 .

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

[4]  H. G. Andrewartha,et al.  The distribution and abundance of animals. , 1954 .

[5]  P. Legendre,et al.  Partialling out the spatial component of ecological variation , 1992 .

[6]  N. Gotelli.  Predicting Species Occurrences: Issues of Accuracy and Scale , 2003 .

[7]  Edward O. Wilson,et al.  Biodiversity II: understanding and protecting our biological resources , 1997 .

[8]  A. Peterson,et al.  New developments in museum-based informatics and applications in biodiversity analysis. , 2004, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[9]  S. Ferrier.  Mapping spatial pattern in biodiversity for regional conservation planning: where to from here? , 2002, Systematic biology.

[10]  C. Graham,et al.  The ability of climate envelope models to predict the effect of climate change on species distributions , 2006 .

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

[12]  B. Ripley,et al.  Finding the edge of a Poisson forest , 1977, Journal of Applied Probability.

[13]  N. Wermuth,et al.  A Comment on the Coefficient of Determination for Binary Responses , 1992 .

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

[15]  H. Shaffer,et al.  SPATIALLY AUTOCORRELATED DEMOGRAPHY AND INTERPOND DISPERSAL IN THE SALAMANDER AMBYSTOMA CALIFORNIENSE , 2001 .

[16]  J. Svenning,et al.  Potential impact of climatic change on the distribution of forest herbs in Europe , 2004 .

[17]  R. G. Wright,et al.  GAP ANALYSIS: A GEOGRAPHIC APPROACH TO PROTECTION OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY , 1993 .

[18]  A. O. Nicholls,et al.  Measurement of the realized qualitative niche: environmental niches of five Eucalyptus species , 1990 .

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

[20]  Jack J. Lennon,et al.  Red-shifts and red herrings in geographical ecology , 2000 .

[21]  Robert Costanza,et al.  Dynamic systems modeling , 2000 .

[22]  S. Lavorel,et al.  Generalized models vs. classification tree analysis: Predicting spatial distributions of plant species at different scales , 2003 .

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

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

[25]  William B. Krohn,et al.  Importance of spatial autocorrelation in modeling bird distributions at a continental scale , 2006 .

[26]  T. Boulinier,et al.  Ecological Biogeography of Southern Ocean Islands: The Importance of Considering Spatial Issues , 2001, The American Naturalist.

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

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

[29]  T. Simons,et al.  Spatial autocorrelation and autoregressive models in ecology , 2002 .

[30]  Leo Breiman,et al.  Classification and Regression Trees , 1984 .

[31]  P. Jones,et al.  Representing Twentieth-Century Space–Time Climate Variability. Part I: Development of a 1961–90 Mean Monthly Terrestrial Climatology , 1999 .

[32]  José Alexandre Felizola Diniz-Filho,et al.  PRODUCTIVITY AND HISTORY AS PREDICTORS OF THE LATITUDINAL DIVERSITY GRADIENT OF TERRESTRIAL BIRDS , 2003 .

[33]  P. Parsons,et al.  Geographical ecology. Patterns in the distribution of species: By Robert H. MacArthur. Pp. 269. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. 1984. Paperback £13.90 (Original hardback edition Harpes & Row, 1972) , 1985 .

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

[35]  Patrick J. Bartlein,et al.  Climatic response surfaces from pollen data for some eastern North American taxa , 1986 .

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

[37]  G. C. Stevens,et al.  Spatial Variation in Abundance , 1995 .

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

[39]  R. Itami,et al.  GIS-based habitat modeling using logistic multiple regression : a study of the Mt. Graham red squirrel , 1991 .

[40]  P. Dixon,et al.  Accounting for Spatial Pattern When Modeling Organism- Environment Interactions , 2022 .

[41]  J. H. Zar,et al.  Biostatistical Analysis, 3rd edn. , 1996 .

[42]  J. Diniz‐Filho,et al.  Spatial autocorrelation and red herrings in geographical ecology , 2003 .