International audienceAim Many attempts to predict the potential range of species rely on environmental niche (or 'bioclimate envelope') modelling, yet the effects of using different niche-based methodologies require further investigation. Here we investigate the impact that the choice of model can have on predictions, identify key reasons why model output may differ and discuss the implications that model uncertainty has for policy-guiding applications. Location The Western Cape of South Africa. Methods We applied nine of the most widely used modelling techniques to model potential distributions under current and predicted future climate for four species (including two subspecies) of Proteaceae. Each model was built using an identical set of five input variables and distribution data for 3996 sampled sites. We compare model predictions by testing agreement between observed and simulated distributions for the present day (using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and kappa statistics) and by assessing consistency in predictions of range size changes under future climate (using cluster analysis). Results Our analyses show significant differences between predictions from different models, with predicted changes in range size by 2030 differing in both magnitude and direction (e.g. from 92% loss to 322% gain). We explain differences with reference to two characteristics of the modelling techniques: data input requirements (presence/absence vs. presence-only approaches) and assumptions made by each algorithm when extrapolating beyond the range of data used to build the model. The effects of these factors should be carefully considered when using this modelling approach to predict species ranges. Main Conclusions We highlight an important source of uncertainty in assessments of the impacts of climate change on biodiversity and emphasize that model predictions should be interpreted in policy-guiding applications along with a full appreciation of uncertainty

Models exploring the relationships between species' occurrences and sets of predictor variables produce two kinds of useful outputs. The first are estimates of the probability that species might occur at given unrecorded locations. The second are estimates of an area's suitability for species. The use of empirical models of occurrence in conservation planning has ABSTRACT Aim Various statistical techniques have been used to model species probabilities of occurrence in response to environmental conditions. This paper provides a comprehensive assessment of methods and investigates whether errors in model predictions are associated to specific kinds of geographical and environmental distributions of species.Location Portugal, Western Europe.Methods Probabilities of occurrence for 44 species of amphibians and reptiles in Portugal were modelled using seven modelling techniques: Gower metric, Ecological Niche Factor Analysis, classification trees, neural networks, generalized linear models, generalized additive models and spatial interpolators. Generalized linear and additive models were constructed with and without a term accounting for spatial autocorrelation. Model performance was measured using two methods: sensitivity and Kappa index. Species were grouped according to their spatial (area of occupancy and extent of occurrence) and environmental (marginality and tolerance) distributions. Two-way comparison tests were performed to detect significant interactions between models and species groups.Results Interaction between model and species groups was significant for both sensitivity and Kappa index. This indicates that model performance varied for species with different geographical and environmental distributions. Artificial neural networks performed generally better, immediately followed by generalized additive models including a covariate term for spatial autocorrelation. Nonparametric methods were preferred to parametric approaches, especially when modelling distributions of species with a greater area of occupancy, a larger extent of occurrence, lower marginality and higher tolerance.Main conclusions This is a first attempt to relate performance of modelling techniques with species spatial and environmental distributions. Results indicate a strong relationship between model performance and the kinds of species distributions being modelled. Some methods performed generally better, but no method was superior in all circumstances. A suggestion is made that choice of the appropriate method should be contingent on the goals and kinds of distributions being modelled.

Climate and land-use change drive a suite of stressors that shape ecosystems and interact to yield complex ecological responses, i.e. additive, antagonistic and synergistic effects.Currently we know little about the spatial scale relevant for the outcome of such interactions and about effect sizes. This knowledge gap needs to be filled to underpin future land management decisions or climate mitigation interventions, for protecting and restoring freshwater ecosystems. The study combines data across scales from 33 mesocosm experiments with those from 14 river basins and 22 cross-basin studies in Europe producing 174 combinations of paired-stressor effects on a biological response variable. Generalised linear models showed that only one of the two stressors had a significant effect in 39% of the analysed cases, 28% of the paired-stressor combinations resulted in additive and 33% in interactive (antagonistic, synergistic, opposing or reversal) effects. For lakes the frequency of additive and interactive effects was similar for all spatial scales addressed, while for rivers this frequency increased with scale. Nutrient enrichment was the overriding stressor for lakes, generally exceeding those of secondary stressors. For rivers, the effects of nutrient enrichment were dependent on the specific stressor combination and biological response variable. These results vindicate the traditional focus of lake restoration and management on nutrient stress, while highlighting that river management requires more bespoke management solutions.

Summary 1.Spatial autocorrelation is an important source of bias in most spatial analyses. We explored the bias introduced by spatial autocorrelation on the explanatory and predictive power of species' distribution models, and make recommendations for dealing with the problem. 2. Analyses were based on the distribution of two species of freshwater turtle and two virtual species with simulated spatial structures within two equally sized areas located on the Iberian Peninsula. Sequential permutations of environmental variables were used to generate predictor variables that retained the spatial structure of the original variables. Univariate models of species' distributions using generalized linear models (GLM), generalized additive models (GAM) and classification tree analysis (CTA) were fitted for each variable permutation. Variation of accuracy measures with spatial autocorrelation of the original predictor variables, as measured by Moran's I, was analysed and compared between models. The effects of systematic subsampling of the data set and the inclusion of a contagion term to deal with spatial autocorrelation in models were assessed with projections made with GLM, as it was with this method that estimates of significance based on randomizations were obtained. 3. Spatial autocorrelation was shown to represent a serious problem for niche-based species' distribution models. Significance values were found to be inflated up to 90-fold. 4. In general, GAM and CTA performed better than GLM, although all three methods were vulnerable to the effects of spatial autocorrelation. 5. The procedures utilized to reduce the effects of spatial autocorrelation had varying degrees of success. Subsampling was partially effective in avoiding the inflation effect, whereas the inclusion of a contagion term fully eliminated or even overcompensated for this effect. Direct estimation of probability using variable simulations was effective, yet seemed to show some residual spatial autocorrelation effects. 6. Synthesis and applications. Given the expected inflation in the estimates of significance when analysing spatially autocorrelated variables, these need to be adjusted. The reliability and value of niche-based distribution models for management and other applied ecology purposes can be improved if certain techniques and procedures, such as the null model approach recommended in this study, are implemented during the model-building process.

Assessment of ecological status for the European Water Framework Directive (WFD) is based on "Biological Quality Elements" (BQEs), namely phytoplankton, benthic flora, benthic invertebrates and fish. Morphological identification of these organisms is a time-consuming and expensive procedure. Here, we assess the options for complementing and, perhaps, replacing morphological identification with procedures using eDNA, metabarcoding or similar approaches. We rate the applicability of DNA-based identification for the individual BQEs and water categories (rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters) against eleven criteria, summarised under the headlines representativeness (for example suitability of current sampling methods for DNA-based identification, errors from DNA-based species detection), sensitivity (for example capability to detect sensitive taxa, unassigned reads), precision of DNA-based identification (knowledge about uncertainty), comparability with conventional approaches (for example sensitivity of metrics to differences in DNA-based identification), cost effectiveness and environmental impact. Overall, suitability of DNA-based identification is particularly high for fish, as eDNA is a well-suited sampling approach which can replace expensive and potentially harmful methods such as gill-netting, trawling or electrofishing. Furthermore, there are attempts to replace absolute by relative abundance in metric calculations. For invertebrates and phytobenthos, the main challenges include the modification of indices and completing barcode libraries. For phytoplankton, the barcode libraries are even more problematic, due to the high taxonomic diversity in plankton samples. If current assessment concepts are kept, DNA-based identification is least appropriate for macrophytes (rivers, lakes) and angiosperms/macroalgae (transitional and coastal waters), which are surveyed rather than sampled. We discuss general implications of implementing DNA-based identification into standard ecological assessment, in particular considering any adaptations to the WFD that may be required to facilitate the transition to molecular data.