Incorporating model complexity and spatial sampling bias into ecological niche models of climate change risks faced by 90 California vertebrate species of concern

Diversity and Distributions

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 334-343

  Warren, Dan L ^a   Wright, Amber N ^b   Seifert, Stephanie N ^c   Shaffer, H Bradley ^d  

^a AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Climate change; Conservation; Maximum entropy; Model complexity; Niche modelling; Sampling bias; Species distribution modelling

Indexed keywords

EID: 84893954125     PISSN: 13669516     EISSN: 14724642     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/ddi.12160     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Anderson, R.P. & Raza, A. (2010) The effect of the extent of the study region on GIS models of species geographic distributions and estimates of niche evolution: preliminary tests with montane rodents (genus Nephelomys) in Venezuela. Journal of Biogeography, 37, 1378-1393.
2. Araújo, M.B., Thuiller, W. & Pearson, R. (2006) Climate warming and the decline of amphibians and reptiles in Europe. Journal of Biogeography, 33, 1712-1728.
3. Barbet-Massin, M., Thuiller, W. & Jiguet, F. (2010) How much do we overestimate future local extinction rates when restricting the range of occurrence data in climate suitability models? Ecography, 33, 878-886.
4. Bean, W.T., Stafford, R. & Brashares, J.S. (2011) The effects of small sample size and sample bias on threshold selection and accuracy assessment of species distribution models. Ecography, 34, 001-009.
5. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) (2011) Special Animals List. Available at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/plants_and_animals.asp (accessed 8 December 2011).
6. Cao, Y., DeWalt, R.E., Robinson, J.L., Tweddale, T., Hinz, L. & Pessino, M. (2013) Using Maxent to model the historic distributions of stonefly species in Illinois streams: the effects of regularization and threshold selections. Ecological Modelling, 259, 30-39.
7. Comrack, L., Bolster, B., Gustafson, J., Steele, D. & Burket, E. (2008) Species of special concern: a brief description of an important California Department of Fish and Game designation. California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Branch, Nongame wildlife program, Sacramento, CA.
8. Efron, B. & Tibshirani, R. (1994) An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman & Hall/CRC, New York.
9. Elith, J. & Leathwick, J.R. (2009) Species distribution models: ecological explanation and prediction across space and time. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 40, 677-697.
10. ESRI (2006) ArcGIS 9.2. Environmental Research Institute. Redlands, CA.
11. Gardali, T., Seavy, N.E., DiGaudio, R.T. & Comrack, L.A. (2012) A climate change vulnerability assessment of California's at-risk birds. PLoS ONE, 7, e29507.
12. Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R. & Friedman, J.H. (2009) The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and prediction, 2nd edn. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.
13. Hijmans, R.J. (2012) Cross-validation of species distribution models: removing spatial sorting bias and calibration with a null model. Ecology, 93, 679-688.
14. Hijmans, R.J., Cameron, S.E., Parra, J.L., Jones, P.G. & Jarvis, A. (2005) Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. International Journal of Climatology, 25, 1965-1978.
15. Jiménez-Valverde, A. (2011) Insights into the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) as a discrimination measure in species distribution modelling. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 21, 498-507.
16. Kearney, M., Phillips, B.L., Tracy, C.R., Christian, K.A., Betts, G. & Porter, W.P. (2008) Modelling species distributions without using species distributions: the cane toad in Australia under current and future climates. Ecography, 31, 423-434.
17. Lawler, J.J., Shafer, S.L., White, D., Kareiva, P., Maurer, E.P., Blaustein, A.R. & Bartlein, P.J. (2009) Projected climate-induced faunal change in the Western Hemisphere. Ecology, 90, 588-597.
18. Levins, R. (1968) Evolution in changing environments. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
19. Lobo, J.M., Jiménez-Valverde, A. & Real, R. (2008) AUC: a misleading measure of the performance of predictive distribution models. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 17, 145-151.
20. Machado, E.A., Stoms, D.M. & Davis, F.W. (2003) A systematic framework for prioritizing farmland preservation: report to the resource agencies of California. Available at http://www.biogeog.ucsb.edu/data (accessed 13 September 2013).
21. Mandle, L., Warren, D.L., Hoffmann, M.H., Peterson, A.T., Schmitt, J. & von Wettberg, E.J. (2010) Conclusions about niche expansion in introduced Impatiens walleriana populations depend on method of analysis. PLoS ONE, 5, e15297.
22. Meynard, C.N. & Kaplan, D.M. (2011) The effect of a gradual response to the environment on species distribution modelling performance. Ecography, 34, 1-11.
23. Nenzen, H.K. & Araujo, M.B. (2011) Choice of threshold alters projections of species range shifts under climate change. Ecological Modelling, 222, 3346-3354.
24. Parisi, M. (ed.) (2003) Atlas of the Biodiversity of California. CDFG, Sacramento, CA.
25. Peterson, A.T., Papeş, M. & Soberón, J. (2008) Rethinking receiver operating characteristic analysis applications in ecological niche modelling. Ecological Modelling, 213, 63-72.
26. Phillips, S.J. & Dudík, M. (2008) Modeling of species distributions with Maxent: new extensions and a comprehensive evaluation. Ecography, 31, 161-175.
27. Phillips, S.J., Anderson, R.P. & Schapire, R.E. (2006) Maximum entropy modelling of species geographic distributions. Ecological Modelling, 190, 231-259.
28. Phillips, S.J., Dudík, M., Elith, J., Graham, C.H., Lehmann, A., Leathwick, J. & Ferrier, S. (2009) Sample selection bias and presence-only distribution models: implications for background and pseudo-absence data. Ecological Applications, 19, 181-197.
29. PRBO Conservation Science (PRBO) (2011) Projected effects of climate change in California: ecoregional summaries emphasizing consequences for wildlife. Version 1.0. Available at: http://data.prbo.org/apps/bssc/ climatechange (accessed 22 February 2011).
30. Rodda, G.H., Jarnevich, C.S. & Reed, R.N. (2011) Challenges in identifying sites climatically matched to the native ranges of animal invaders. PLoS ONE, 6, e14670.
31. Rödder, D., Schmidtlein, S., Veith, M. & Lötters, S. (2009) Alien invasive slider turtle in unpredicted habitat: a matter of niche shift or of predictors studied? PLoS ONE, 4, e7843.
32. Shuford, W.D. & Gardali, T. (2008) California Bird Species of Special Concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, CA, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.
33. Synes, N.W. & Osborne, P.E. (2011) Choice of predictor variables as a source of uncertainty in continental-scale species distribution modelling under climate change. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 20, 904-914.
34. Veloz, S.D. (2009) Spatially autocorrelated sampling falsely inflates measures of accuracy for presence-only niche models. Journal of Biogeography, 36, 2290-2299.
35. Warren, D. & Seifert, S. (2011) Environmental niche modelling in Maxent: the importance of model complexity and the performance of model selection criteria. Ecological Applications, 21, 335-342.
36. Warren, D.L., Glor, R.E. & Turelli, M. (2010) ENMTools: a toolbox for comparative studies of environmental niche models. Ecography, 33, 607-611.