Do climate envelope models transfer? A manipulative test using dung beetle introductions

被引:80
作者
Duncan, Richard P. [1 ,2 ]
Cassey, Phillip [3 ]
Blackburn, Tim M. [4 ]
机构
[1] Lincoln Univ, Bioprotect Res Ctr, Lincoln 7647, New Zealand
[2] Landcare Res, Lincoln 7640, New Zealand
[3] Univ Birmingham, Ctr Ornithol, Sch Biosci, Birmingham B15 2TT, W Midlands, England
[4] ZSL, Inst Zool, London NW1 4RY, England
关键词
species distribution models; bioclimatic envelope; dispersal limitation; range limits; SPECIES DISTRIBUTIONS; PROPAGULE PRESSURE; RANGE; INVASIONS; SPECIFICITY; PERFORMANCE; PREDICTION; ASSEMBLAGE; REGRESSION; RESPONSES;
D O I
10.1098/rspb.2008.1801
中图分类号
Q [生物科学];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Climate envelope models (CEMs) are widely used to forecast future shifts in species ranges under climate change, but these models are rarely validated against independent data, and their fundamental assumption that climate limits species distributions is rarely tested. Here, we use the data on the introduction of five South African dung beetle species to Australia to test whether CEMs developed in the native range can predict distribution in the introduced range, where the confounding effects of dispersal limitation, resource limitation and the impact of natural enemies have been removed, leaving climate as the dominant constraint. For two of the five species, models developed in the native range predict distribution in the introduced range about as well as models developed in the introduced range where we know climate limits distribution. For the remaining three species, models developed in the native range perform poorly, implying that non-climatic factors limit the native distribution of these species and need to be accounted for in species distribution models. Quantifying relevant non-climatic factors and their likely interactions with climatic variables for forecasting range shifts under climate change remains a challenging task.
引用
收藏
页码:1449 / 1457
页数:9
相关论文
共 59 条
[31]  
Keating KA, 2004, J WILDLIFE MANAGE, V68, P774, DOI 10.2193/0022-541X(2004)068[0774:UAIOLR]2.0.CO
[32]  
2
[33]   Conservation strategies for poorly surveyed taxa: a dung beetle (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae) case study from southern Africa [J].
Koch, S. O. ;
Chown, S. L. ;
Davis, A. L. V. ;
Endroedy-Younga, S. ;
van Jaarsveld, A. S. .
JOURNAL OF INSECT CONSERVATION, 2000, 4 (01) :45-56
[34]   AUC:: a misleading measure of the performance of predictive distribution models [J].
Lobo, Jorge M. ;
Jimenez-Valverde, Alberto ;
Real, Raimundo .
GLOBAL ECOLOGY AND BIOGEOGRAPHY, 2008, 17 (02) :145-151
[35]   The role of propagule pressure in explaining species invasions [J].
Lockwood, JL ;
Cassey, P ;
Blackburn, T .
TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION, 2005, 20 (05) :223-228
[36]  
Matthews E.G., 1972, Australian J Zool, VNo. 9, P1
[37]  
Matthews E.G., 1974, Australian J Zool, VNo. 24, P1
[38]  
Matthews E.G., 1976, Australian J Zool, VNo. 38, P1
[39]   Can the invaded range of a species be predicted sufficiently using only native-range data?: Lehmann lovegrass (Eragrostis lehmanniana) in the southwestern United States [J].
Mau-Crimmins, TM ;
Schussman, HR ;
Geiger, EL .
ECOLOGICAL MODELLING, 2006, 193 (3-4) :736-746
[40]   Climate change hastens population extinctions [J].
McLaughlin, JF ;
Hellmann, JJ ;
Boggs, CL ;
Ehrlich, PR .
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 2002, 99 (09) :6070-6074