Effects of restricting environmental range of data to project current and future species distributions

被引:448
|
作者
Thuiller, W
Brotons, L
Araújo, MB
Lavorel, S
机构
[1] CNRS, Ctr Ecol Fonct & Evolut, F-34293 Montpellier 5, France
[2] Univ Grenoble 1, CNRS, Lab Ecol Alpine, F-38041 Grenoble, France
关键词
D O I
10.1111/j.0906-7590.2004.03673.x
中图分类号
X176 [生物多样性保护];
学科分类号
090705 ;
摘要
We examine the consequences of restricting the range of environmental conditions over which niche-based models are developed to project potential future distributions of three selected European tree species to assess first, the importance of removing absences beyond species known distributions ("naughty noughts") and second the importance of capturing the full environmental range of species. We found that restricting the environmental range of data strongly influenced the estimation of response curves, especially towards upper and lower ends of environmental ranges. This induces changes in the probability values towards upper and lower environmental boundaries, leading to more conservative scenarios in terms of changes in distribution projections. Using restricted data analogous to not capturing the fun species' environmental range, reduces strongly the combinations of environmental conditions under which the models are calibrated, and reduces the applicability of the models for predictive purposes. This may generate unpredictable effects on the tails of the species response curves, yielding spurious projections into the future provided that probability of occurrence is not set to zero outside the environmental limits of the species. Indeed, as the restricted data does not capture the whole of the response curve, projections of future species distributions based of ecological niche modelling may be only valid if niche models are able to approach the complete response curve of environmental predictors.
引用
收藏
页码:165 / 172
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] The data void in modeling current and future distributions of tropical species
    Feeley, Kenneth J.
    Silman, Miles R.
    GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY, 2011, 17 (01) : 626 - 630
  • [2] Effects of sample size, data quality, and species response in environmental space on modeling species distributions
    Lifei Wang
    Donald A. Jackson
    Landscape Ecology, 2023, 38 : 4009 - 4031
  • [3] Effects of sample size, data quality, and species response in environmental space on modeling species distributions
    Wang, Lifei
    Jackson, Donald A.
    LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY, 2023, 38 (12) : 4009 - 4031
  • [4] Dating past colonization events to project future species distributions
    Singer, Alexander
    Bradter, Ute
    Fabritius, Henna
    Snall, Tord
    METHODS IN ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION, 2019, 10 (04): : 471 - 480
  • [5] Mapping the current and future distributions of Onosma species endemic to Iran
    Farzaneh KHAJOEI NASAB
    Ahmadreza MEHRABIAN
    Hossein MOSTAFAVI
    Journal of Arid Land, 2020, 12 (06) : 1031 - 1045
  • [6] Mapping the current and future distributions of Onosma species endemic to Iran
    Farzaneh Khajoei Nasab
    Ahmadreza Mehrabian
    Hossein Mostafavi
    Journal of Arid Land, 2020, 12 : 1031 - 1045
  • [7] Mapping the current and future distributions of Onosma species endemic to Iran
    Khajoei Nasab, Farzaneh
    Mehrabian, Ahmadreza
    Mostafavi, Hossein
    JOURNAL OF ARID LAND, 2020, 12 (06) : 1031 - 1045
  • [8] Using plant distributions to predict the current and future range of a rare lizard
    Delean, Steven
    Bull, C. Michael
    Brook, Barry W.
    Heard, Lee M. B.
    Fordham, Damien A.
    DIVERSITY AND DISTRIBUTIONS, 2013, 19 (09) : 1125 - 1137
  • [9] Predicting species distributions: use of climatic parameters in BIOCLIM and its impact on predictions of species' current and future distributions
    Beaumont, LJ
    Hughes, L
    Poulsen, M
    ECOLOGICAL MODELLING, 2005, 186 (02) : 250 - 269
  • [10] Modelling species distributions without using species distributions: the cane toad in Australia under current and future climates
    Kearney, Michael
    Phillips, Ben L.
    Tracy, Christopher R.
    Christian, Keith A.
    Betts, Gregory
    Porter, Warren P.
    ECOGRAPHY, 2008, 31 (04) : 423 - 434