Cargando…

Testing projected wild bee distributions in agricultural habitats: predictive power depends on species traits and habitat type

Species distribution models (SDM) are increasingly used to understand the factors that regulate variation in biodiversity patterns and to help plan conservation strategies. However, these models are rarely validated with independently collected data and it is unclear whether SDM performance is maint...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Marshall, Leon, Carvalheiro, Luísa G., Aguirre‐Gutiérrez, Jesús, Bos, Merijn, de Groot, G. Arjen, Kleijn, David, Potts, Simon G., Reemer, Menno, Roberts, Stuart, Scheper, Jeroen, Biesmeijer, Jacobus C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4667819/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26664689
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1579
_version_ 1782403885712801792
author Marshall, Leon
Carvalheiro, Luísa G.
Aguirre‐Gutiérrez, Jesús
Bos, Merijn
de Groot, G. Arjen
Kleijn, David
Potts, Simon G.
Reemer, Menno
Roberts, Stuart
Scheper, Jeroen
Biesmeijer, Jacobus C.
author_facet Marshall, Leon
Carvalheiro, Luísa G.
Aguirre‐Gutiérrez, Jesús
Bos, Merijn
de Groot, G. Arjen
Kleijn, David
Potts, Simon G.
Reemer, Menno
Roberts, Stuart
Scheper, Jeroen
Biesmeijer, Jacobus C.
author_sort Marshall, Leon
collection PubMed
description Species distribution models (SDM) are increasingly used to understand the factors that regulate variation in biodiversity patterns and to help plan conservation strategies. However, these models are rarely validated with independently collected data and it is unclear whether SDM performance is maintained across distinct habitats and for species with different functional traits. Highly mobile species, such as bees, can be particularly challenging to model. Here, we use independent sets of occurrence data collected systematically in several agricultural habitats to test how the predictive performance of SDMs for wild bee species depends on species traits, habitat type, and sampling technique. We used a species distribution modeling approach parametrized for the Netherlands, with presence records from 1990 to 2010 for 193 Dutch wild bees. For each species, we built a Maxent model based on 13 climate and landscape variables. We tested the predictive performance of the SDMs with independent datasets collected from orchards and arable fields across the Netherlands from 2010 to 2013, using transect surveys or pan traps. Model predictive performance depended on species traits and habitat type. Occurrence of bee species specialized in habitat and diet was better predicted than generalist bees. Predictions of habitat suitability were also more precise for habitats that are temporally more stable (orchards) than for habitats that suffer regular alterations (arable), particularly for small, solitary bees. As a conservation tool, SDMs are best suited to modeling rarer, specialist species than more generalist and will work best in long‐term stable habitats. The variability of complex, short‐term habitats is difficult to capture in such models and historical land use generally has low thematic resolution. To improve SDMs’ usefulness, models require explanatory variables and collection data that include detailed landscape characteristics, for example, variability of crops and flower availability. Additionally, testing SDMs with field surveys should involve multiple collection techniques.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4667819
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46678192015-12-10 Testing projected wild bee distributions in agricultural habitats: predictive power depends on species traits and habitat type Marshall, Leon Carvalheiro, Luísa G. Aguirre‐Gutiérrez, Jesús Bos, Merijn de Groot, G. Arjen Kleijn, David Potts, Simon G. Reemer, Menno Roberts, Stuart Scheper, Jeroen Biesmeijer, Jacobus C. Ecol Evol Original Research Species distribution models (SDM) are increasingly used to understand the factors that regulate variation in biodiversity patterns and to help plan conservation strategies. However, these models are rarely validated with independently collected data and it is unclear whether SDM performance is maintained across distinct habitats and for species with different functional traits. Highly mobile species, such as bees, can be particularly challenging to model. Here, we use independent sets of occurrence data collected systematically in several agricultural habitats to test how the predictive performance of SDMs for wild bee species depends on species traits, habitat type, and sampling technique. We used a species distribution modeling approach parametrized for the Netherlands, with presence records from 1990 to 2010 for 193 Dutch wild bees. For each species, we built a Maxent model based on 13 climate and landscape variables. We tested the predictive performance of the SDMs with independent datasets collected from orchards and arable fields across the Netherlands from 2010 to 2013, using transect surveys or pan traps. Model predictive performance depended on species traits and habitat type. Occurrence of bee species specialized in habitat and diet was better predicted than generalist bees. Predictions of habitat suitability were also more precise for habitats that are temporally more stable (orchards) than for habitats that suffer regular alterations (arable), particularly for small, solitary bees. As a conservation tool, SDMs are best suited to modeling rarer, specialist species than more generalist and will work best in long‐term stable habitats. The variability of complex, short‐term habitats is difficult to capture in such models and historical land use generally has low thematic resolution. To improve SDMs’ usefulness, models require explanatory variables and collection data that include detailed landscape characteristics, for example, variability of crops and flower availability. Additionally, testing SDMs with field surveys should involve multiple collection techniques. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2015-09-23 /pmc/articles/PMC4667819/ /pubmed/26664689 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1579 Text en © 2015 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Marshall, Leon
Carvalheiro, Luísa G.
Aguirre‐Gutiérrez, Jesús
Bos, Merijn
de Groot, G. Arjen
Kleijn, David
Potts, Simon G.
Reemer, Menno
Roberts, Stuart
Scheper, Jeroen
Biesmeijer, Jacobus C.
Testing projected wild bee distributions in agricultural habitats: predictive power depends on species traits and habitat type
title Testing projected wild bee distributions in agricultural habitats: predictive power depends on species traits and habitat type
title_full Testing projected wild bee distributions in agricultural habitats: predictive power depends on species traits and habitat type
title_fullStr Testing projected wild bee distributions in agricultural habitats: predictive power depends on species traits and habitat type
title_full_unstemmed Testing projected wild bee distributions in agricultural habitats: predictive power depends on species traits and habitat type
title_short Testing projected wild bee distributions in agricultural habitats: predictive power depends on species traits and habitat type
title_sort testing projected wild bee distributions in agricultural habitats: predictive power depends on species traits and habitat type
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4667819/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26664689
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1579
work_keys_str_mv AT marshallleon testingprojectedwildbeedistributionsinagriculturalhabitatspredictivepowerdependsonspeciestraitsandhabitattype
AT carvalheiroluisag testingprojectedwildbeedistributionsinagriculturalhabitatspredictivepowerdependsonspeciestraitsandhabitattype
AT aguirregutierrezjesus testingprojectedwildbeedistributionsinagriculturalhabitatspredictivepowerdependsonspeciestraitsandhabitattype
AT bosmerijn testingprojectedwildbeedistributionsinagriculturalhabitatspredictivepowerdependsonspeciestraitsandhabitattype
AT degrootgarjen testingprojectedwildbeedistributionsinagriculturalhabitatspredictivepowerdependsonspeciestraitsandhabitattype
AT kleijndavid testingprojectedwildbeedistributionsinagriculturalhabitatspredictivepowerdependsonspeciestraitsandhabitattype
AT pottssimong testingprojectedwildbeedistributionsinagriculturalhabitatspredictivepowerdependsonspeciestraitsandhabitattype
AT reemermenno testingprojectedwildbeedistributionsinagriculturalhabitatspredictivepowerdependsonspeciestraitsandhabitattype
AT robertsstuart testingprojectedwildbeedistributionsinagriculturalhabitatspredictivepowerdependsonspeciestraitsandhabitattype
AT scheperjeroen testingprojectedwildbeedistributionsinagriculturalhabitatspredictivepowerdependsonspeciestraitsandhabitattype
AT biesmeijerjacobusc testingprojectedwildbeedistributionsinagriculturalhabitatspredictivepowerdependsonspeciestraitsandhabitattype