Cargando…

Validating Predictions from Climate Envelope Models

Climate envelope models are a potentially important conservation tool, but their ability to accurately forecast species’ distributional shifts using independent survey data has not been fully evaluated. We created climate envelope models for 12 species of North American breeding birds previously sho...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Watling, James I., Bucklin, David N., Speroterra, Carolina, Brandt, Laura A., Mazzotti, Frank J., Romañach, Stephanie S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662712/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23717452
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0063600
_version_ 1782270872627707904
author Watling, James I.
Bucklin, David N.
Speroterra, Carolina
Brandt, Laura A.
Mazzotti, Frank J.
Romañach, Stephanie S.
author_facet Watling, James I.
Bucklin, David N.
Speroterra, Carolina
Brandt, Laura A.
Mazzotti, Frank J.
Romañach, Stephanie S.
author_sort Watling, James I.
collection PubMed
description Climate envelope models are a potentially important conservation tool, but their ability to accurately forecast species’ distributional shifts using independent survey data has not been fully evaluated. We created climate envelope models for 12 species of North American breeding birds previously shown to have experienced poleward range shifts. For each species, we evaluated three different approaches to climate envelope modeling that differed in the way they treated climate-induced range expansion and contraction, using random forests and maximum entropy modeling algorithms. All models were calibrated using occurrence data from 1967–1971 (t(1)) and evaluated using occurrence data from 1998–2002 (t(2)). Model sensitivity (the ability to correctly classify species presences) was greater using the maximum entropy algorithm than the random forest algorithm. Although sensitivity did not differ significantly among approaches, for many species, sensitivity was maximized using a hybrid approach that assumed range expansion, but not contraction, in t(2). Species for which the hybrid approach resulted in the greatest improvement in sensitivity have been reported from more land cover types than species for which there was little difference in sensitivity between hybrid and dynamic approaches, suggesting that habitat generalists may be buffered somewhat against climate-induced range contractions. Specificity (the ability to correctly classify species absences) was maximized using the random forest algorithm and was lowest using the hybrid approach. Overall, our results suggest cautious optimism for the use of climate envelope models to forecast range shifts, but also underscore the importance of considering non-climate drivers of species range limits. The use of alternative climate envelope models that make different assumptions about range expansion and contraction is a new and potentially useful way to help inform our understanding of climate change effects on species.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3662712
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-36627122013-05-28 Validating Predictions from Climate Envelope Models Watling, James I. Bucklin, David N. Speroterra, Carolina Brandt, Laura A. Mazzotti, Frank J. Romañach, Stephanie S. PLoS One Research Article Climate envelope models are a potentially important conservation tool, but their ability to accurately forecast species’ distributional shifts using independent survey data has not been fully evaluated. We created climate envelope models for 12 species of North American breeding birds previously shown to have experienced poleward range shifts. For each species, we evaluated three different approaches to climate envelope modeling that differed in the way they treated climate-induced range expansion and contraction, using random forests and maximum entropy modeling algorithms. All models were calibrated using occurrence data from 1967–1971 (t(1)) and evaluated using occurrence data from 1998–2002 (t(2)). Model sensitivity (the ability to correctly classify species presences) was greater using the maximum entropy algorithm than the random forest algorithm. Although sensitivity did not differ significantly among approaches, for many species, sensitivity was maximized using a hybrid approach that assumed range expansion, but not contraction, in t(2). Species for which the hybrid approach resulted in the greatest improvement in sensitivity have been reported from more land cover types than species for which there was little difference in sensitivity between hybrid and dynamic approaches, suggesting that habitat generalists may be buffered somewhat against climate-induced range contractions. Specificity (the ability to correctly classify species absences) was maximized using the random forest algorithm and was lowest using the hybrid approach. Overall, our results suggest cautious optimism for the use of climate envelope models to forecast range shifts, but also underscore the importance of considering non-climate drivers of species range limits. The use of alternative climate envelope models that make different assumptions about range expansion and contraction is a new and potentially useful way to help inform our understanding of climate change effects on species. Public Library of Science 2013-05-23 /pmc/articles/PMC3662712/ /pubmed/23717452 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0063600 Text en https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Public Domain declaration, which stipulates that, once placed in the public domain, this work may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose.
spellingShingle Research Article
Watling, James I.
Bucklin, David N.
Speroterra, Carolina
Brandt, Laura A.
Mazzotti, Frank J.
Romañach, Stephanie S.
Validating Predictions from Climate Envelope Models
title Validating Predictions from Climate Envelope Models
title_full Validating Predictions from Climate Envelope Models
title_fullStr Validating Predictions from Climate Envelope Models
title_full_unstemmed Validating Predictions from Climate Envelope Models
title_short Validating Predictions from Climate Envelope Models
title_sort validating predictions from climate envelope models
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662712/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23717452
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0063600
work_keys_str_mv AT watlingjamesi validatingpredictionsfromclimateenvelopemodels
AT bucklindavidn validatingpredictionsfromclimateenvelopemodels
AT speroterracarolina validatingpredictionsfromclimateenvelopemodels
AT brandtlauraa validatingpredictionsfromclimateenvelopemodels
AT mazzottifrankj validatingpredictionsfromclimateenvelopemodels
AT romanachstephanies validatingpredictionsfromclimateenvelopemodels