全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...
PLOS ONE  2013 

Assessing Community-Level and Single-Species Models Predictions of Species Distributions and Assemblage Composition after 25 Years of Land Cover Change

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054179

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

To predict the impact of environmental change on species distributions, it has been hypothesized that community-level models could give some benefits compared to species-level models. In this study we have assessed the performance of these two approaches. We surveyed 256 bird communities in an agricultural landscape in southwest France at the same locations in 1982 and 2007. We compared the ability of CQO (canonical quadratic ordination; a method of community-level GLM) and GLMs (generalized linear models) to i) explain species distributions in 1982 and ii) predict species distributions, community composition and species richness in 2007, after land cover change. Our results show that models accounting for shared patterns between species (CQO) slightly better explain the distribution of rare species than models that ignore them (GLMs). Conversely, the predictive performances were better for GLMs than for CQO. At the assemblage level, both CQO and GLMs overestimated species richness, compared with that actually observed in 2007, and projected community composition was only moderately similar to that observed in 2007. Species richness projections tended to be more accurate in sites where land cover change was more marked. In contrast, the composition projections tended to be less accurate in those sites. Both modelling approaches showed a similar but limited ability to predict species distribution and assemblage composition under conditions of land cover change. Our study supports the idea that our community-level model can improve understanding of rare species patterns but that species-level models can provide slightly more accurate predictions of species distributions. At the community level, the similar performance of both approaches for predicting patterns of assemblage variation suggests that species tend to respond individualistically or, alternatively, that our community model was unable to effectively account for the emergent community patterns.

References

[1]  Sala OE, Chapin FS, Armesto JJ, Berlow E, Bloomfield J, et al. (2000) Biodiversity - Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287: 1770–1774.
[2]  Thomas CD, Cameron A, Green RE, Bakkenes M, Beaumont LJ, et al. (2004) Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427 145–148.
[3]  Thuiller W, Lavorel S, Araùjo MB, Sykes MT, Prentice IC (2005) Climate change threats to plant diversity in Europe. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102 8245–8250.
[4]  Jetz W, Wilcove DS, Dobson AP (2007) Projected impacts of climate and land-use change on the global diversity of birds. Plos Biology 5 1211–1219.
[5]  Guisan A, Thuiller W (2005) Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol Lett 8 993–1009.
[6]  Elith J, Leathwick JR (2009) Species Distribution Models: Ecological Explanation and Prediction Across Space and Time. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 40 677–697.
[7]  Guisan A, Zimmermann NE (2000) Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecol Model 135 147–186.
[8]  Gotelli NJ, Graves GR, Rahbek C (2010) Macroecological signals of species interactions in the Danish avifauna. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107 5030–5035.
[9]  Ferrier S, Guisan A (2006) Spatial modelling of biodiversity at the community level. J Appl Ecol 43 393–404.
[10]  Elith J, Leathwick J (2007) Predicting species distributions from museum and herbarium records using multiresponse models fitted with multivariate adaptive regression splines. Divers Distrib 13 265–275.
[11]  Baselga A, Araùjo MB (2009) Individualistic vs community modelling of species distributions under climate change. Ecography 32 55–65.
[12]  Chapman DS, Purse BV (2011) Community versus single-species distribution models for British plants. J Biogeogr 38: 1524–1535.
[13]  Lavergne S, Mouquet N, Thuiller W, Ronce O (2010) Biodiversity and Climate Change: Integrating Evolutionary and Ecological Responses of Species and Communities. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 41: 321–350.
[14]  Vaughan IP, Ormerod SJ (2005) The continuing challenges of testing species distribution models. J Appl Ecol 42 720–730.
[15]  Araùjo MB, Guisan A (2006) Five (or so) challenges for species distribution modelling. J Biogeogr 33 1677–1688.
[16]  Heikkinen RK, Luoto M, Araujo MB, Virkkala R, Thuiller W, et al. (2006) Methods and uncertainties in bioclimatic envelope modelling under climate change. Prog Phys Geog 30 751–777.
[17]  Araùjo MB, Pearson RG, Thuiller W, Erhard M (2005) Validation of species-climate impact models under climate change. Global Change Biol 11 1504–1513.
[18]  Heikkinen RK, Luoto M, Virkkala R, Pearson RG, Korber JH (2007) Biotic interactions improve prediction of boreal bird distributions at macro-scales. Global Ecol Biogeogr 16 754–763.
[19]  Newbold T, Reader T, El-Gabbas A, Berg W, Shohdi WM, et al. (2010) Testing the accuracy of species distribution models using species records from a new field survey. Oikos 119 1326–1334.
[20]  Luoto M, Virkkala R, Heikkinen RK (2007) The role of land cover in bioclimatic models depends on spatial resolution. Global Ecol Biogeogr 16 34–42.
[21]  Tingley R, Herman TB (2009) Land-cover data improve bioclimatic models for anurans and turtles at a regional scale. J Biogeogr 36 1656–1672.
[22]  Benton TG, Vickery JA, Wilson JD (2003) Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? TREE 18 182–188.
[23]  Tscharntke T, Klein AM, Kruess A, Steffan-Dewenter I, Thies C (2005) Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity - ecosystem service management. Ecol Lett 8 857–874.
[24]  Vallecillo S, Brotons L, Thuiller W (2009) Dangers of predicting bird species distributions in response to land-cover changes. Ecol Appl 19 538–549.
[25]  Ficetola G, Maiorano L, Falcucci A, Dendoncker N, Boitani L, et al. (2010) Knowing the past to predict the future: land-use change and the distribution of invasive bullfrogs. Global Change Biol 16: 528–537.
[26]  Orians GH, Willson MF (1964) Interspecific territories of birds. Ecology 45: 736–745.
[27]  Cody ML (1974) Competition and the Structure of Bird Communities. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
[28]  Robinson SK, Terborg J (1995) Interspecific aggression and habitat selection by Amazonian birds. J Anim Ecol 64: 1–11.
[29]  Gotelli NJ, Graves GR, Rahbek C (2010) Macroecological signals of species interactions in the Danish avifauna. P Natl Acad Sci USA 107: 5030–5035.
[30]  Morales MB, Guerrero I, Oňate JJ, Meléndez L (2012) Inter-specific association and habitat use in a farmland passerine assemblage. Ecol Res 27: 691–700.
[31]  S?derstr?m B, P?rt T (2000) Influence of landscape scale on farmland birds breeding in semi-natural pastures. Conserv Biol 14 522–533.
[32]  Bonthoux S, Balent G (2012) Point count duration: five minutes are usually sufficient to model the distribution of bird species and to study the structure of communities for a French landscape. J Ornithol 153 491–504.
[33]  Balent G, Courtiade B (1992) Modelling bird communities/landscape patterns relationships in a rural area of South-Western France. Landscape Ecol 6 195–211.
[34]  Choisis JP, Sourdril A, Deconchat M, Balent G, Gibon A (2010) Understanding regional dynamics of mixed crop-livestock agricultural systems to support rural development in South-western France uplands. Cah Agric 19 97–103.
[35]  Yee TW (2004) A new technique for maximum-likelihood canonical Gaussian ordination. Ecol Monogr 74 685–701.
[36]  Perkins AJ, Whittingham ML, Bradbury RB, Wilson JD, Morris AJ, et al. (2000) Habitat characteristics affecting use of lowland agricultural grassland by birds in winter. Biol Conserv 95: 279–294.
[37]  Siriwardena GM, Baillie SR, Crick HQP, Wilson JD (2000) Agricultural land-use and the spatial distribution of granivorous lowland farmland birds. Ecography 23: 702–719.
[38]  Dormann F, MacPherson M, Araùjo B, Bivand R, Bolliger J, et al. (2007) Methods to account for spatial autocorrelation in the analysis of species distributional data: a review. Ecography 30 609–628.
[39]  Swets JA (1988) Measuring the Accuracy of Diagnostic Systems. Science 240 1285–1293.
[40]  Liu C, Berry PM, Dawson TP, Pearson RG (2005) Selecting thresholds of occurrence in the prediction of species distributions. Ecography 28 385–393.
[41]  Dubuis A, Pottier J, Rion V, Pellissier L, Theurillat JP, et al. (2011) Predicting spatial patterns of plant species richness: a comparison of direct macroecological and species stacking modelling approaches. Divers Distrib 17 1122–1131.
[42]  Lennon JJ, Koleff P, Greenwood JJD, Gaston KJ (2001) The geographical structure of British bird distributions: diversity, spatial turnover and scale. J Anim Ecol 70 966–979.
[43]  Baselga A (2007) Disentangling distance decay of similarity from richness gradients: response to Soininen et al. 2007. Ecography 30 838–841.
[44]  Baselga A (2010) Partitioning the turnover and nestedness components of beta diversity. Global Ecol Biogeogr 19 134–143.
[45]  Leathwick JR, Elith J, Hastie T (2006) Comparative performance of generalized additive models and multivariate adaptive regression splines for statistical modelling of species distributions. Ecol Model 199 188–196.
[46]  Guisan A, Weiss SB, Weiss AD (1999) GLM versus CCA spatial modeling of plant species distribution. Plant Ecol 143 107–122.
[47]  Baselga A, Araùjo MB (2010) Do community-level models describe community variation effectively? J Biogeogr 37 1842–1850.
[48]  Guisan A, Rahbek C (2011) SESAM -a new framework integrating macroecological and species distribution models for predicting spatio-temporal patterns of species assemblages. J Biogeogr 38 1433–1444.
[49]  Svenning JC, Skov F (2004) Limited filling of the potential range in European tree species. Ecol Lett 7 565–573.
[50]  Araùjo MB, Pearson RG (2005) Equilibrium of species’ distributions with climate. Ecography 28 693–695.
[51]  Baselga A, Lobo JM, Svenning JC, Araùjo MB (2012) Global patterns in the shape of species geographical ranges reveal range determinants. J Biogeogr 39 760–771.
[52]  Berg A (2002) Composition and diversity of bird communities in Swedish farmland-forest mosaic landscapes. Bird Study 49 art–165.
[53]  Campbell SP, Witham JW, Hunter ML (2010) Stochasticity as an alternative to deterministic explanations for patterns of habitat use by birds. Ecol Monogr 80 287–302.
[54]  Kissling WD, Dormann CF, Groeneveld J, Hickler T, Kühn I, et al. (2011) Towards novel approaches to modelling biotic interactions in multispecies assemblages at large spatial extents. J Biogeogr doi:10.1111/j.1365–2699.2011.02663.x.
[55]  Ovaskainen O, Hottola J, Siitonen J (2010) Modeling species co-occurrence by multivariate logistic regression generates new hypotheses on fungal interactions. Ecology 91: 2514–2521.
[56]  Rodriguez JP, Brotons L, Bustamante J, Seoane J (2007) The application of predictive modelling of species distribution to biodiversity conservation. Divers Distrib 13 243–251.
[57]  Pelosi C, Goulard M, Balent G (2010) The spatial scale mismatch between ecological processes and agricultural management: Do difficulties come from underlying theoretical frameworks? Agr Ecosyst Environ 139 455–462.
[58]  Merckx T, Feber RE, Mclaughlan C, Bourn N, Parsons MS, et al. (2010) Shelter benefits less mobile moth species: The field-scale effect of hedgerow trees. Agr Ecosyst Environ 138 147–151.
[59]  Concepción ED, Diaz M (2011) Field, landscape and regional effects of farmland management on specialist open-land birds: Does body size matter? Agr Ecosyst Environ 142 303–310.

Full-Text

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133