Modelling strategies for predicting the potential impacts of climate change on the natural distribution of species have often focused on the characterization of a species’ bioclimate envelope. A number of recent critiques have questioned the validity of this approach by pointing to the many factors other than climate that play an important part in determining species distributions and the dynamics of distribution changes. Such factors include biotic interactions, evolutionary change and dispersal ability. This paper reviews and evaluates criticisms of bioclimate envelope models and discusses the implications of these criticisms for the different modelling strategies employed. It is proposed that, although the complexity of the natural system presents fundamental limits to predictive modelling, the bioclimate envelope approach can provide a useful first approximation as to the potentially dramatic impact of climate change on biodiversity. However, it is stressed that the spatial scale at which these models are applied is of fundamental importance, and that model results should not be interpreted without due consideration of the limitations involved. A hierarchical modelling framework is proposed through which some of these limitations can be addressed within a broader, scale‐dependent context.

Aim Techniques that predict species potential distributions by combining observed occurrence records with environmental variables show much potential for application across a range of biogeographical analyses. Some of the most promising applications relate to species for which occurrence records are scarce, due to cryptic habits, locally restricted distributions or low sampling effort. However, the minimum sample sizes required to yield useful predictions remain difficult to determine. Here we developed and tested a novel jackknife validation approach to assess the ability to predict species occurrence when fewer than 25 occurrence records are available.Location Madagascar.Methods Models were developed and evaluated for 13 species of secretive leaftailed geckos (Uroplatus spp.) that are endemic to Madagascar, for which available sample sizes range from 4 to 23 occurrence localities (at 1 km 2 grid resolution). Predictions were based on 20 environmental data layers and were generated using two modelling approaches: a method based on the principle of maximum entropy (Maxent) and a genetic algorithm (GARP). ResultsWe found high success rates and statistical significance in jackknife tests with sample sizes as low as five when the Maxent model was applied. Results for GARP at very low sample sizes (less than c. 10) were less good. When sample sizes were experimentally reduced for those species with the most records, variability among predictions using different combinations of localities demonstrated that models were greatly influenced by exactly which observations were included.Main conclusions We emphasize that models developed using this approach with small sample sizes should be interpreted as identifying regions that have similar environmental conditions to where the species is known to occur, and not as predicting actual limits to the range of a species. The jackknife validation approach proposed here enables assessment of the predictive ability of models built using very small sample sizes, although use of this test with larger sample sizes may lead to overoptimistic estimates of predictive power. Our analyses demonstrate that geographical predictions developed from small numbers of occurrence records may be of great value, for example in targeting field surveys to accelerate the discovery of unknown populations and species.

Transforming the results of species distribution modelling from probabilities of or suitabilities for species occurrence to presences/absences needs a specific threshold. Even though there are many approaches to determining thresholds, there is no comparative study. In this paper, twelve approaches were compared using two species in Europe and artificial neural networks, and the modelling results were assessed using four indices: sensitivity, specificity, overall prediction success and Cohen's kappa statistic. The results show that prevalence approach, average predicted probability/suitability approach, and three sensitivity-specificity-combined approaches, including sensitivity-specificity sum maximization approach, sensitivityspecificity equality approach and the approach based on the shortest distance to the top-left corner (0,1) in ROC plot, are the good ones. The commonly used kappa maximization approach is not as good as the afore-mentioned ones, and the fixed threshold approach is the worst one. We also recommend using datasets with prevalence of 50% to build models if possible since most optimization criteria might be satisfied or nearly satisfied at the same time, and therefore it's easier to find optimal thresholds in this situation.

Increasing concern over the implications of climate change for biodiversity has led to the use of species-climate envelope models to project species extinction risk under climatechange scenarios. However, recent studies have demonstrated significant variability in model predictions and there remains a pressing need to validate models and to reduce uncertainties. Model validation is problematic as predictions are made for events that have not yet occurred. Resubstituition and data partitioning of present-day data sets are, therefore, commonly used to test the predictive performance of models. However, these approaches suffer from the problems of spatial and temporal autocorrelation in the calibration and validation sets. Using observed distribution shifts among 116 British breeding-bird species over the past $ 20 years, we are able to provide a first independent validation of four envelope modelling techniques under climate change. Results showed good to fair predictive performance on independent validation, although rules used to assess model performance are difficult to interpret in a decision-planning context. We also showed that measures of performance on nonindependent data provided optimistic estimates of models' predictive ability on independent data. Artificial neural networks and generalized additive models provided generally more accurate predictions of species range shifts than generalized linear models or classification tree analysis. Data for independent model validation and replication of this study are rare and we argue that perfect validation may not in fact be conceptually possible. We also note that usefulness of models is contingent on both the questions being asked and the techniques used. Implementations of species-climate envelope models for testing hypotheses and predicting future events may prove wrong, while being potentially useful if put into appropriate context.

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