Testing species distribution models across space and time: high latitude butterflies and recent warming

Aim To quantify whether species distribution models (SDMs) can reliably forecast species distributions under observed climate change. In particular, to test whether the predictive ability of SDMs depends on species traits or the inclusion of land cover and soil type, and whether distributional changes at expanding range margins can be predicted accurately. Location Finland Methods Using 10-km resolution butterfly atlas data from two periods, 1992–99 (t1) and 2002–09 (t2), with a significant between-period temperature increase, we modelled the effects of climatic warming on butterfly distributions with boosted regression trees (BRTs) and generalized additive models (GAMs). We evaluated model performance by using the split-sample approach with data from t1 (‘nonindependent validation’), and then compared model projections based on data from t1 with species’ observed distributions in t2 (‘independent validation’). We compared climate-only SDMs to SDMs including land cover, soil type, or both. Finally, we related model performance to species traits and compared observed and predicted distributional shifts at northern range margins.

[1]  D. Roy,et al.  Species richness changes lag behind climate change , 2006, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[2]  M. White,et al.  How Useful Are Species Distribution Models for Managing Biodiversity under Future Climates , 2010 .

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

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

[5]  M. Luoto,et al.  Uncertainty of bioclimate envelope models based on the geographical distribution of species , 2005 .

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

[7]  G. Hewitt.  The genetic legacy of the Quaternary ice ages , 2000, Nature.

[8]  M. Luoto,et al.  Biotic interactions improve prediction of boreal bird distributions at macro‐scales , 2007 .

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

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

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

[12]  J. Elith,et al.  Projecting climate change impacts on species distributions in megadiverse South African Cape and Southwest Australian Floristic Regions: Opportunities and challenges , 2009 .

[13]  M. Luoto,et al.  Determinants of the biogeographical distribution of butterflies in boreal regions , 2006 .

[14]  G. Sharp,et al.  Projecting Climate Changes and Ecological Responses , 2015 .

[15]  Mathieu Marmion,et al.  Inclusion of soil data improves the performance of bioclimatic envelope models for insect species distributions in temperate Europe , 2009 .

[16]  Boris Schröder,et al.  How to understand species’ niches and range dynamics: a demographic research agenda for biogeography , 2012 .

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

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

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

[20]  Xavier Raynaud,et al.  SOIL CHARACTERISTICS PLAY A KEY ROLE IN MODELING NUTRIENT COMPETITION IN PLANT COMMUNITIES , 2004 .

[21]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

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

[23]  Jesper Heile Christensen,et al.  Future climate change: Modeling and scenarios for the Arctic , 2005 .

[24]  M. Araújo,et al.  Predicting range expansion of the map butterfly in Northern Europe using bioclimatic models , 2008, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[25]  J. Kerr,et al.  Contrasting spatial and temporal global change impacts on butterfly species richness during the 20th century , 2006 .

[26]  Omri Allouche,et al.  Assessing the accuracy of species distribution models: prevalence, kappa and the true skill statistic (TSS) , 2006 .

[27]  Gary Gereffi,et al.  Sustainable Product Indexing: Navigating the Challenge of Ecolabeling , 2010 .

[28]  Mathieu Marmion,et al.  Does the interpolation accuracy of species distribution models come at the expense of transferability , 2012 .

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

[30]  M. Luoto,et al.  Species traits are associated with the quality of bioclimatic models , 2008 .

[31]  C. Piedallu,et al.  Soil nutritional factors improve models of plant species distribution: an illustration with Acer campestre (L.) in France , 2006 .

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

[33]  Patrick J. Bartlein,et al.  VEGETATION AND CLIMATE CHANGE IN EASTERN NORTH AMERICA SINCE THE LAST GLACIAL MAXIMUM , 1991 .

[34]  S. Wood.  Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R , 2006 .

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

[36]  M. Araújo,et al.  How Does Climate Change Affect Biodiversity? , 2006, Science.

[37]  W. Hargrove,et al.  The projection of species distribution models and the problem of non-analog climate , 2009, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[38]  Eric Young,et al.  Predicting the future of species diversity: macroecological theory, climate change, and direct tests of alternative forecasting methods , 2009 .

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

[40]  H. Tuomenvirta,et al.  Annual and seasonal mean temperatures in Finland during the last 160 years based on gridded temperature data , 2010 .

[41]  M. Luoto,et al.  The role of land cover in bioclimatic models depends on spatial resolution , 2006 .

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

[43]  J. Kerr,et al.  Historically calibrated predictions of butterfly species' range shift using global change as a pseudo-experiment. , 2009, Ecology.

[44]  A. Hamann,et al.  Method selection for species distribution modelling: are temporally or spatially independent evaluations necessary? , 2012 .

[45]  F. Jiguet,et al.  Differences in the climatic debts of birds and butterflies at a continental scale , 2012 .

[46]  Jeremy T. Kerr,et al.  Human impacts on environment–diversity relationships: evidence for biotic homogenization from butterfly species richness patterns , 2007 .

[47]  M. Luoto,et al.  Species traits explain recent range shifts of Finnish butterflies , 2009 .

[48]  J. Tewksbury,et al.  Do species' traits predict recent shifts at expanding range edges? , 2011, Ecology letters.

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

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