Refine
Document Type
- Article (1)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
Language
- English (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (2)
Keywords
- hybrid model (2) (remove)
Resilience is a major research focus covering a wide range of topics from biodiversity conservation to ecosystem (service) management. Model simulations can assess the resilience of, for example, plant species, measured as the return time to conditions prior to a disturbance. This requires process-based models (PBM) that implement relevant processes such as regeneration and reproduction and thus successfully reproduce transient dynamics after disturbances. Such models are often complex and thus limited to either short-term or small-scale applications, whereas many research questions require species predictions across larger spatial and temporal scales. We suggest a framework to couple a PBM and a statistical species distribution model (SDM), which transfers the results of a resilience analysis by the PBM to SDM predictions. The resulting hybrid model combines the advantages of both approaches: the convenient applicability of SDMs and the relevant process detail of PBMs in abrupt environmental change situations. First, we simulate dynamic responses of species communities to a disturbance event with a PBM. We aggregate the response behavior in two resilience metrics: return time and amplitude of the response peak. These metrics are then used to complement long-term SDM projections with dynamic short-term responses to disturbance. To illustrate our framework, we investigate the effect of abrupt short-term groundwater level and salinity changes on coastal vegetation at the German Baltic Sea. We found two example species to be largely resilient, and, consequently, modifications of SDM predictions consisted mostly of smoothing out peaks in the occurrence probability that were not confirmed by the PBM. Discrepancies between SDM- and PBM-predicted species responses were caused by community dynamics simulated in the PBM and absent from the SDM. Although demonstrated with boosted regression trees (SDM) and an existing individual-based model, IBC-grass (PBM), our flexible framework can easily be applied to other PBM and SDM types, as well as other definitions of short-term disturbances or long-term trends of environmental change. Thus, our framework allows accounting for biological feedbacks in the response to short- and long-term environmental changes as a major advancement in predictive vegetation modeling.
Understanding the distribution of species is fundamental for biodiversity conservation, ecosystem management, and increasingly also for climate impact assessment. The presence of a species in a given site depends on physiological limitations (abiotic factors), interactions with other species (biotic factors), migratory or dispersal processes (site accessibility) as well as the continuing
effects of past events, e.g. disturbances (site legacy). Existing approaches to predict species distributions either (i) correlate observed species occurrences with environmental variables describing abiotic limitations, thus ignoring biotic interactions, dispersal and legacy effects (statistical species distribution model, SDM); or (ii) mechanistically model the variety of processes determining species distributions (process-based model, PBM). SDMs are widely used due to their easy applicability and ability to handle varied data qualities. But they fail to reproduce the dynamic response of species distributions to changing conditions. PBMs are expected to be superior in this respect, but they need very specific data unavailable for many species, and are often more complex and require more computational effort. More recently, hybrid models link the two approaches to combine their respective strengths.
In this thesis, I apply and compare statistical and process-based approaches to predict species distributions, and I discuss their respective limitations, specifically for applications in changing environments. Detailed analyses of SDMs for boreal tree species in Finland reveal that nonclimatic predictors - edaphic properties and biotic interactions - are important limitations at the treeline, contesting the assumption of unrestricted, climatically induced range expansion. While the estimated SDMs are successful within their training data range, spatial and temporal model transfer fails. Mapping and comparing sampled predictor space among data subsets identifies spurious extrapolation as the plausible explanation for limited model transferability. Using these findings, I analyze the limited success of an established PBM (LPJ-GUESS) applied to the same problem. Examination of process representation and parameterization in the PBM identifies implemented processes to adjust (competition between species, disturbance) and missing processes that are crucial in boreal forests (nutrient limitation, forest management). Based on climatic correlations shifting over time, I stress the restricted temporal transferability of bioclimatic limits used in LPJ-GUESS and similar PBMs. By critically assessing the performance of SDM and PBM in this application, I demonstrate the importance of understanding the limitations of the
applied methods.
As a potential solution, I add a novel approach to the repertoire of existing hybrid models. By simulation experiments with an individual-based PBM which reproduces community dynamics resulting from biotic factors, dispersal and legacy effects, I assess the resilience of coastal vegetation to abrupt hydrological changes. According to the results of the resilience analysis, I then modify temporal SDM predictions, thereby transferring relevant process detail from PBM to
SDM. The direction of knowledge transfer from PBM to SDM avoids disadvantages of current hybrid models and increases the applicability of the resulting model in long-term, large-scale applications. A further advantage of the proposed framework is its flexibility, as it is readily extended to other model types, disturbance definitions and response characteristics.
Concluding, I argue that we already have a diverse range of promising modelling tools at hand, which can be refined further. But most importantly, they need to be applied more thoughtfully. Bearing their limitations in mind, combining their strengths and openly reporting underlying assumptions and uncertainties is the way forward.