Teresa Goicolea, Antoine Adde, Olivier Broennimann, Juan Ignacio García‐Viñas, Aitor Gastón, María José Aroca‐Fernández, Antoine Guisan, Rubén G. Mateo
{"title":"Spatially‐nested hierarchical species distribution models to overcome niche truncation in national‐scale studies","authors":"Teresa Goicolea, Antoine Adde, Olivier Broennimann, Juan Ignacio García‐Viñas, Aitor Gastón, María José Aroca‐Fernández, Antoine Guisan, Rubén G. Mateo","doi":"10.1111/ecog.07328","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Spatial truncation in species distribution models (SDMs) might cause niche truncation and model transferability issues, particularly when extrapolating models to non‐analog environmental conditions. While broad calibration extents reduce truncation issues, they usually overlook local ecological factors driving species distributions at finer resolution. Spatially‐nested hierarchical SDMs (HSDMs) address truncation by merging (a) a global model calibrated with broadly extended, yet typically low‐resolution, basic, and imprecise data; and (b) a regional model calibrated with spatially restricted but more precise and reliable data. This study aimed to examine HSDMs' efficacy to overcome spatial truncation in national‐scale studies. We compared two hierarchical strategies (‘covariate', which uses the global model output as a covariate for the regional model, and ‘multiply', which calculates the geometric mean of the global and regional models) and a non‐hierarchical strategy. The three strategies were compared in terms of niche truncation, environmental extrapolation, model performance, species' predicted distributions and shifts, and trends in species richness. We examined the consistency of the results over two study areas (Spain and Switzerland), 108 tree species, and four future climate scenarios. Only the non‐hierarchical strategy was susceptible to niche truncation, and environmental extrapolation issues. Hierarchical strategies, particularly the ‘covariate' one, presented greater model accuracy than non‐hierarchical strategies. The non‐hierarchical strategy predicted the highest overall values and the lowest decreases over time in species distribution ranges and richness. Differences between strategies were more evident in Switzerland, which was more affected by niche truncation issues. Spain was more negatively affected by climate change and environmental extrapolation. The ‘covariate' strategy exhibited higher model performance than the ‘multiply' one. However, uncertainties regarding model temporal transferability advocate for adopting and further examining multiple hierarchical approaches. This research underscores the importance of adopting spatially‐nested hierarchical SDMs given the compromised reliability of non‐hierarchical approaches due to niche truncation and extrapolation issues.","PeriodicalId":51026,"journal":{"name":"Ecography","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecography","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.07328","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Spatial truncation in species distribution models (SDMs) might cause niche truncation and model transferability issues, particularly when extrapolating models to non‐analog environmental conditions. While broad calibration extents reduce truncation issues, they usually overlook local ecological factors driving species distributions at finer resolution. Spatially‐nested hierarchical SDMs (HSDMs) address truncation by merging (a) a global model calibrated with broadly extended, yet typically low‐resolution, basic, and imprecise data; and (b) a regional model calibrated with spatially restricted but more precise and reliable data. This study aimed to examine HSDMs' efficacy to overcome spatial truncation in national‐scale studies. We compared two hierarchical strategies (‘covariate', which uses the global model output as a covariate for the regional model, and ‘multiply', which calculates the geometric mean of the global and regional models) and a non‐hierarchical strategy. The three strategies were compared in terms of niche truncation, environmental extrapolation, model performance, species' predicted distributions and shifts, and trends in species richness. We examined the consistency of the results over two study areas (Spain and Switzerland), 108 tree species, and four future climate scenarios. Only the non‐hierarchical strategy was susceptible to niche truncation, and environmental extrapolation issues. Hierarchical strategies, particularly the ‘covariate' one, presented greater model accuracy than non‐hierarchical strategies. The non‐hierarchical strategy predicted the highest overall values and the lowest decreases over time in species distribution ranges and richness. Differences between strategies were more evident in Switzerland, which was more affected by niche truncation issues. Spain was more negatively affected by climate change and environmental extrapolation. The ‘covariate' strategy exhibited higher model performance than the ‘multiply' one. However, uncertainties regarding model temporal transferability advocate for adopting and further examining multiple hierarchical approaches. This research underscores the importance of adopting spatially‐nested hierarchical SDMs given the compromised reliability of non‐hierarchical approaches due to niche truncation and extrapolation issues.
期刊介绍:
ECOGRAPHY publishes exciting, novel, and important articles that significantly advance understanding of ecological or biodiversity patterns in space or time. Papers focusing on conservation or restoration are welcomed, provided they are anchored in ecological theory and convey a general message that goes beyond a single case study. We encourage papers that seek advancing the field through the development and testing of theory or methodology, or by proposing new tools for analysis or interpretation of ecological phenomena. Manuscripts are expected to address general principles in ecology, though they may do so using a specific model system if they adequately frame the problem relative to a generalized ecological question or problem.
Purely descriptive papers are considered only if breaking new ground and/or describing patterns seldom explored. Studies focused on a single species or single location are generally discouraged unless they make a significant contribution to advancing general theory or understanding of biodiversity patterns and processes. Manuscripts merely confirming or marginally extending results of previous work are unlikely to be considered in Ecography.
Papers are judged by virtue of their originality, appeal to general interest, and their contribution to new developments in studies of spatial and temporal ecological patterns. There are no biases with regard to taxon, biome, or biogeographical area.