Refine
Language
- English (6)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (6)
Keywords
- Environmental niche (1)
- biodiversity conservation (1)
- community dynamics (1)
- extrapolation (1)
- individual based modeling (1)
- inflated response curves (1)
- landscape genetics (1)
- long distance movement (1)
- mobile links (1)
- novel environment (1)
Institute
SDM performance varied for different range dynamics. Prediction accuracies decreased when abrupt range shifts occurred as species were outpaced by the rate of climate change, and increased again when a new equilibrium situation was realised. When ranges contracted, prediction accuracies increased as the absences were predicted well. Far- dispersing species were faster in tracking climate change, and were predicted more accurately by SDMs than short- dispersing species. BRTs mostly outperformed GLMs. The presence of a predator, and the inclusion of its incidence as an environmental predictor, made BRTs and GLMs perform similarly. Results are discussed in light of other studies dealing with effects of ecological traits and processes on SDM performance. Perspectives are given on further advancements of SDMs and for possible interfaces with more mechanistic approaches in order to improve predictions under environmental change.
Collinearity a review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance
(2013)
Collinearity refers to the non independence of predictor variables, usually in a regression-type analysis. It is a common feature of any descriptive ecological data set and can be a problem for parameter estimation because it inflates the variance of regression parameters and hence potentially leads to the wrong identification of relevant predictors in a statistical model. Collinearity is a severe problem when a model is trained on data from one region or time, and predicted to another with a different or unknown structure of collinearity. To demonstrate the reach of the problem of collinearity in ecology, we show how relationships among predictors differ between biomes, change over spatial scales and through time. Across disciplines, different approaches to addressing collinearity problems have been developed, ranging from clustering of predictors, threshold-based pre-selection, through latent variable methods, to shrinkage and regularisation. Using simulated data with five predictor-response relationships of increasing complexity and eight levels of collinearity we compared ways to address collinearity with standard multiple regression and machine-learning approaches. We assessed the performance of each approach by testing its impact on prediction to new data. In the extreme, we tested whether the methods were able to identify the true underlying relationship in a training dataset with strong collinearity by evaluating its performance on a test dataset without any collinearity. We found that methods specifically designed for collinearity, such as latent variable methods and tree based models, did not outperform the traditional GLM and threshold-based pre-selection. Our results highlight the value of GLM in combination with penalised methods (particularly ridge) and threshold-based pre-selection when omitted variables are considered in the final interpretation. However, all approaches tested yielded degraded predictions under change in collinearity structure and the folk lore'-thresholds of correlation coefficients between predictor variables of |r| >0.7 was an appropriate indicator for when collinearity begins to severely distort model estimation and subsequent prediction. The use of ecological understanding of the system in pre-analysis variable selection and the choice of the least sensitive statistical approaches reduce the problems of collinearity, but cannot ultimately solve them.
Data limitations can lead to unrealistic fits of predictive species distribution models (SDMs) and spurious extrapolation to novel environments. Here, we want to draw attention to novel combinations of environmental predictors that are within the sampled range of individual predictors but are nevertheless outside the sample space. These tend to be overlooked when visualizing model behaviour. They may be a cause of differing model transferability and environmental change predictions between methods, a problem described in some studies but generally not well understood. We here use a simple simulated data example to illustrate the problem and provide new and complementary visualization techniques to explore model behaviour and predictions to novel environments. We then apply these in a more complex real-world example. Our results underscore the necessity of scrutinizing model fits, ecological theory and environmental novelty.
Empirical species distribution models (SDMs) constitute often the tool of choice for the assessment of rapid climate change effects on species vulnerability. Conclusions regarding extinction risks might be misleading, however, because SDMs do not explicitly incorporate dispersal or other demographic processes. Here, we supplement SDMs with a dynamic population model 1) to predict climate-induced range dynamics for black grouse in Switzerland, 2) to compare direct and indirect measures of extinction risks, and 3) to quantify uncertainty in predictions as well as the sources of that uncertainty. To this end, we linked models of habitat suitability to a spatially explicit, individual-based model. In an extensive sensitivity analysis, we quantified uncertainty in various model outputs introduced by different SDM algorithms, by different climate scenarios and by demographic model parameters. Potentially suitable habitats were predicted to shift uphill and eastwards. By the end of the 21st century, abrupt habitat losses were predicted in the western Prealps for some climate scenarios. In contrast, population size and occupied area were primarily controlled by currently negative population growth and gradually declined from the beginning of the century across all climate scenarios and SDM algorithms. However, predictions of population dynamic features were highly variable across simulations. Results indicate that inferring extinction probabilities simply from the quantity of suitable habitat may underestimate extinction risks because this may ignore important interactions between life history traits and available habitat. Also, in dynamic range predictions uncertainty in SDM algorithms and climate scenarios can become secondary to uncertainty in dynamic model components. Our study emphasises the need for principal evaluation tools like sensitivity analysis in order to assess uncertainty and robustness in dynamic range predictions. A more direct benefit of such robustness analysis is an improved mechanistic understanding of dynamic species responses to climate change.
Movement of organisms is one of the key mechanisms shaping biodiversity, e.g. the distribution of genes, individuals and species in space and time. Recent technological and conceptual advances have improved our ability to assess the causes and consequences of individual movement, and led to the emergence of the new field of ‘movement ecology’. Here, we outline how movement ecology can contribute to the broad field of biodiversity research, i.e. the study of processes and patterns of life among and across different scales, from genes to ecosystems, and we propose a conceptual framework linking these hitherto largely separated fields of research. Our framework builds on the concept of movement ecology for individuals, and demonstrates its importance for linking individual organismal movement with biodiversity. First, organismal movements can provide ‘mobile links’ between habitats or ecosystems, thereby connecting resources, genes, and processes among otherwise separate locations. Understanding these mobile links and their impact on biodiversity will be facilitated by movement ecology, because mobile links can be created by different modes of movement (i.e., foraging, dispersal, migration) that relate to different spatiotemporal scales and have differential effects on biodiversity. Second, organismal movements can also mediate coexistence in communities, through ‘equalizing’ and ‘stabilizing’ mechanisms. This novel integrated framework provides a conceptual starting point for a better understanding of biodiversity dynamics in light of individual movement and space-use behavior across spatiotemporal scales. By illustrating this framework with examples, we argue that the integration of movement ecology and biodiversity research will also enhance our ability to conserve diversity at the genetic, species, and ecosystem levels.