利用物种分布模型对气候和土地利用变化后的物种灭绝和殖民化预测不足

IF 4.6 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Alistair G. Auffret, Hedvig Nenzén, Ester Polaina
{"title":"利用物种分布模型对气候和土地利用变化后的物种灭绝和殖民化预测不足","authors":"Alistair G. Auffret,&nbsp;Hedvig Nenzén,&nbsp;Ester Polaina","doi":"10.1111/ddi.13834","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>To evaluate the performance of species distribution models in predicting observed colonisations, persistences and extirpations in response to changes in climate and land use over a multi-decadal period.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Location</h3>\n \n <p>Sweden.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We use historical (early 20th century) land use and climate data to build species distribution models for 84 plant species across three provinces of Sweden. Model performance was then evaluated internally using a subset of the historical data for cross-validation, as well as by using the models to project occurrences to the modern day and validating them with observed occurrences from 1990 to 2020. We then analysed predicted and observed occurrences in the modern period in terms of persistence, extirpation (local extinction) and colonisation in relation to species' habitat and climate associations.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>We found overall high agreement between evaluation methods, although internal evaluation gave consistently higher values for model performance (using true skill statistic, TSS). Overall, extirpations were worst predicted, with on average fewer than one-third of each species' extirpations being foreseen by the models. Colonisations were better predicted, while persistences were relatively well-predicted. Predictive accuracy of colonisations was higher for species with relatively warmer temperature associations (climate-driven expansion), while extirpations were better predicted in cool-related species (retractions at cool edges). Colonisations of forest-associated species were more common than predicted (underpredicted), despite widespread patterns of afforestation. Assessing grid-cell level turnover, we found that in grid cells that experienced the largest changes in terms of climate and land use, predicted extirpations were less likely to have happened.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Main Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>We found that commonly applied modelling approaches have limited ability to predict observed changes in species occurrences, especially extirpations. This suggests that we should take predictions of future biodiversity loss very seriously. However, the ability for species to (at least temporarily) persist in unsuitable conditions could be an opportunity for biodiversity conservation.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":51018,"journal":{"name":"Diversity and Distributions","volume":"30 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ddi.13834","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Underprediction of extirpation and colonisation following climate and land-use change using species distribution models\",\"authors\":\"Alistair G. Auffret,&nbsp;Hedvig Nenzén,&nbsp;Ester Polaina\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ddi.13834\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Aim</h3>\\n \\n <p>To evaluate the performance of species distribution models in predicting observed colonisations, persistences and extirpations in response to changes in climate and land use over a multi-decadal period.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Location</h3>\\n \\n <p>Sweden.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We use historical (early 20th century) land use and climate data to build species distribution models for 84 plant species across three provinces of Sweden. Model performance was then evaluated internally using a subset of the historical data for cross-validation, as well as by using the models to project occurrences to the modern day and validating them with observed occurrences from 1990 to 2020. We then analysed predicted and observed occurrences in the modern period in terms of persistence, extirpation (local extinction) and colonisation in relation to species' habitat and climate associations.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>We found overall high agreement between evaluation methods, although internal evaluation gave consistently higher values for model performance (using true skill statistic, TSS). Overall, extirpations were worst predicted, with on average fewer than one-third of each species' extirpations being foreseen by the models. Colonisations were better predicted, while persistences were relatively well-predicted. Predictive accuracy of colonisations was higher for species with relatively warmer temperature associations (climate-driven expansion), while extirpations were better predicted in cool-related species (retractions at cool edges). Colonisations of forest-associated species were more common than predicted (underpredicted), despite widespread patterns of afforestation. Assessing grid-cell level turnover, we found that in grid cells that experienced the largest changes in terms of climate and land use, predicted extirpations were less likely to have happened.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Main Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>We found that commonly applied modelling approaches have limited ability to predict observed changes in species occurrences, especially extirpations. This suggests that we should take predictions of future biodiversity loss very seriously. However, the ability for species to (at least temporarily) persist in unsuitable conditions could be an opportunity for biodiversity conservation.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51018,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diversity and Distributions\",\"volume\":\"30 7\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ddi.13834\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diversity and Distributions\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ddi.13834\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diversity and Distributions","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ddi.13834","RegionNum":2,"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

摘要

地点瑞典方法我们利用历史(20 世纪初)土地利用和气候数据,为瑞典三个省的 84 个植物物种建立了物种分布模型。然后,使用历史数据的子集进行交叉验证,并使用模型预测现代的物种出现情况,再用 1990 年至 2020 年的观测物种出现情况进行验证,从而对模型的性能进行内部评估。然后,我们根据物种的栖息地和气候相关性,从持续性、灭绝(局部灭绝)和定殖等方面分析了预测和观测到的现代物种出现情况。结果我们发现,尽管内部评估得出的模型性能值(使用真实技能统计量,TSS)一直较高,但各种评估方法之间的总体一致性很高。总体而言,模型对物种灭绝的预测最差,平均每个物种只有不到三分之一的灭绝被模型预测到。定殖预测较好,而持续存在预测相对较好。与温度关联相对较暖的物种(气候驱动的扩张)的定殖预测准确率较高,而与凉爽相关的物种(在凉爽边缘的缩减)的灭绝预测准确率较高。尽管植树造林的模式很普遍,但森林相关物种的定殖比预测的更为普遍(预测不足)。在评估网格单元层面的更替时,我们发现在气候和土地利用方面经历了最大变化的网格单元中,预测的物种灭绝发生的可能性较小。这表明,我们应该认真对待对未来生物多样性丧失的预测。然而,物种(至少暂时)在不适宜的条件下存活的能力可能是保护生物多样性的一个机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Underprediction of extirpation and colonisation following climate and land-use change using species distribution models

Underprediction of extirpation and colonisation following climate and land-use change using species distribution models

Aim

To evaluate the performance of species distribution models in predicting observed colonisations, persistences and extirpations in response to changes in climate and land use over a multi-decadal period.

Location

Sweden.

Methods

We use historical (early 20th century) land use and climate data to build species distribution models for 84 plant species across three provinces of Sweden. Model performance was then evaluated internally using a subset of the historical data for cross-validation, as well as by using the models to project occurrences to the modern day and validating them with observed occurrences from 1990 to 2020. We then analysed predicted and observed occurrences in the modern period in terms of persistence, extirpation (local extinction) and colonisation in relation to species' habitat and climate associations.

Results

We found overall high agreement between evaluation methods, although internal evaluation gave consistently higher values for model performance (using true skill statistic, TSS). Overall, extirpations were worst predicted, with on average fewer than one-third of each species' extirpations being foreseen by the models. Colonisations were better predicted, while persistences were relatively well-predicted. Predictive accuracy of colonisations was higher for species with relatively warmer temperature associations (climate-driven expansion), while extirpations were better predicted in cool-related species (retractions at cool edges). Colonisations of forest-associated species were more common than predicted (underpredicted), despite widespread patterns of afforestation. Assessing grid-cell level turnover, we found that in grid cells that experienced the largest changes in terms of climate and land use, predicted extirpations were less likely to have happened.

Main Conclusions

We found that commonly applied modelling approaches have limited ability to predict observed changes in species occurrences, especially extirpations. This suggests that we should take predictions of future biodiversity loss very seriously. However, the ability for species to (at least temporarily) persist in unsuitable conditions could be an opportunity for biodiversity conservation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Diversity and Distributions
Diversity and Distributions 环境科学-生态学
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
4.30%
发文量
195
审稿时长
8-16 weeks
期刊介绍: Diversity and Distributions is a journal of conservation biogeography. We publish papers that deal with the application of biogeographical principles, theories, and analyses (being those concerned with the distributional dynamics of taxa and assemblages) to problems concerning the conservation of biodiversity. We no longer consider papers the sole aim of which is to describe or analyze patterns of biodiversity or to elucidate processes that generate biodiversity.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信