Input matters matter: Bioclimatic consistency to map more reliable species distribution models

Abstract

Abstract Accuracy of global bioclimatic databases is essential to understand biodiversity–environment relationships. Many studies have explored biases and uncertainties related to species distribution models (SDMs) but the effect of choosing a specific database among the different alternatives has not been previously assessed. The lack of bioclimatic congruence (degree of agreement) between different databases is a main concern in distribution modelling and it is critical in single‐source models, for which the database choice is decisive. In order to prevent unreliable predictions derived from distorted input data, SDMs accuracy can be assessed by mapping model predictions according to a bioclimatic congruence measure derived from the comparison of multiple databases, which can be achieved with the bioclimatic consistency maps that we propose in this study. Here, (a) we present the first global‐scale bioclimatic congruence map to analyse environmental mismatches between recently updated bioclimatic databases. We also test the importance of input matters on the reliability of distribution models of sixteen mammals, by addressing (b) inconsistencies among species response curves (temperature and precipitation), and (c) discrepancies among SDMs predictions depending on the chosen bioclimatic database. Finally, (d) we propose a strategy to assess bioclimatic consistency of model predictions, showing its application to the specific case of Litocranius walleri. Our results confirm that the single‐source modelling approach greatly influences the estimation of species–environment relationship and consequently, bias spatial predictions derived from SDMs. This is especially true for studies conducted in polar and mountainous regions which showed the smallest bioclimatic congruence. We show that by adding bioclimatic congruence to SDMs projections, we can build a bioclimatic consistency map that enables the detection of both risky and consistent areas, as revealed for the case of L. walleri. Assessing uncertainty in bioclimatic input data is key to avoid erroneous conclusions in macroecological and biogeographical studies. The spatial characterization of bioclimatic consistency provides an adequate empirical framework which effectively illustrates bioclimatic data limitations. We strongly recommend that this new strategy should be formally and systematically incorporated into distribution modelling to build more reliable SDMs, which are essential to develop successful biodiversity conservation programmes.