Environmental Niche Of Species Research Articles

A Systematic Review of Marine-Based Species Distribution Models (SDMs) with Recommendations for Best Practice

In the marine environment Species Distribution Models (SDMs) have been used in hundreds of papers for predicting the present and future geographic range and environmental niche of species. We have analysed ways in which SDMs are being applied to marine species in order to recommend best practice in future studies. This systematic review was registered as a protocol on the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/tngs6/. The literature reviewed (236 papers) was published between 1992 and July 2016. The number of papers significantly increased through time (R2=0.92, p<0.05). The studies were predominantly carried out in the Temperate Northern Atlantic (45%) followed by studies of global scale (11%) and studies in Temperate Australasia (10%). The majority of studies reviewed focused on theoretical ecology (37%) including investigations of biological invasions by non-native organisms, conservation planning (19%), and climate change predictions (17%). Most of the studies were published in ecological, multidisciplinary or biodiversity conservation journals. Most of the studies (94%) failed to report the amount of uncertainty derived from data deficiencies and model parameters. Best practice recommendations are proposed here to ensure that novice and advanced SDM users can (a) understand the main elements of SDMs, (b) reproduce standard methods and analysis, and (c) identify potential limitations with their data. We suggest that in the future, studies of marine SDMs should report on key features of the approaches employed, data deficiencies, the selection of the best explanatory model, and the approach taken to validate the SDM results. In addition, based on the literature reviewed, we suggest that future marine SDMs should account for uncertainty levels as part of the modelling process.

Effects of species’ ecology on the accuracy of distribution models

In the face of accelerating biodiversity loss and limited data, species distribution models – which statistically capture and predict species’ occurrences based on environmental correlates – are increasingly used to inform conservation strategies. Additionally, distribution models and their fit provide insights on the broad‐scale environmental niche of species. To investigate whether the performance of such models varies with species’ ecological characteristics, we examined distribution models for 1329 bird species in southern and eastern Africa. The models were constructed at two spatial resolutions with both logistic and autologistic regression. Satellite‐derived environmental indices served as predictors, and model accuracy was assessed with three metrics: sensitivity, specificity and the area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristics plots. We then determined the relationship between each measure of accuracy and ten ecological species characteristics using generalised linear models.Among the ecological traits tested, species’ range size, migratory status, affinity for wetlands and endemism proved most influential on the performance of distribution models. The number of habitat types frequented (habitat tolerance), trophic rank, body mass, preferred habitat structure and association with sub‐resolution habitats also showed some effect. In contrast, conservation status made no significant impact. These findings did not differ from one spatial resolution to the next. Our analyses thus provide conservation scientists and resource managers with a rule of thumb that helps distinguish, on the basis of ecological traits, between species whose occurrence is reliably or less reliably predicted by distribution models. Reasonably accurate distribution models should, however, be attainable for most species, because the influence ecological traits bore on model performance was only limited. These results suggest that none of the ecological traits tested provides an obvious correlate for environmental niche breadth or intra‐specific niche differentiation.