Biotic interactions improve prediction of boreal bird distributions at macro‐scales

Abstract

AimThe role of biotic interactions in influencing species distributions at macroscales remains poorly understood. Here we test whether predictions of distributions for four boreal owl species at two macro-scales (10 × 10 km and 40 × 40 km grid resolutions) are improved by incorporating interactions with woodpeckers into climate envelope models.Location Finland, northern Europe.Methods Distribution data for four owl and six woodpecker species, along with data for six land cover and three climatic variables, were collated from 2861 10 × 10 km grid cells. Generalized additive models were calibrated using a 50% random sample of the species data from western Finland, and by repeating this procedure 20 times for each of the four owl species. Models were fitted using three sets of explanatory variables: (1) climate only; (2) climate and land cover; and (3) climate, land cover and two woodpecker interaction variables. Models were evaluated using three approaches: (1) examination of explained deviance; (2) four-fold cross-validation using the model calibration data; and (3) comparison of predicted and observed values for independent grid cells in eastern Finland. The model accuracy for approaches (2) and (3) was measured using the area under the curve of a receiver operating characteristic plot. ResultsAt 10-km resolution, inclusion of the distribution of woodpeckers as a predictor variable significantly improved the explanatory power, cross-validation statistics and the predictive accuracy of the models. Inclusion of land cover led to similar improvements at 10-km resolution, although these improvements were less apparent at 40-km resolution for both land cover and biotic interactions.Main conclusions Predictions of species distributions at macro-scales may be significantly improved by incorporating biotic interactions and land cover variables into models. Our results are important for models used to predict the impacts of climate change, and emphasize the need for comprehensive evaluation of the reliability of species-climate impact models.

Occurrence and abundance models of threatened plant species: Applications to mitigate the impact of hydroelectric power dams

“…Austin et al (1990) and Guisan and Thuiller (2005), for example, suggested that the response curve of a species along an environmental gradient can be seriously constrained by interaction with biotic factors. This hypothesis was recently tested by Heikkinen et al (2007) and Ritchie et al (2009), using different organisms, and they both found similar results. When data related to interspecific competitors were incorporated into models, species predictions were significantly improved.…”

A maximum entropy model for predicting wild boar distribution in Spain

“…The inclusion of biotic interactions or absence data, for instance, in these models gives more realistic distributions (Araújo & Luoto, 2007;Heikkinen et al, 2007;Baselga & Araújo, 2009). Unfortunately, the use of these factors is still under study and it was not possible to include them in our model.…”

Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantitative Climate Reconstructions Based on Late-Quaternary Biological Proxies

“…Despite all the effort in recent years that has gone into identifying and understanding the major sources of uncertainty associated with the use of bioclimate envelopes to model and predict current and future species distributions and developing performance criteria for different models (e.g. Kadmon et al 2003;Araújo et al 2005b;Guisan & Thuiller 2005;Luoto et al 2005;Thuiller et al 2005;Araújo & Guisan 2006;Araújo & Rahbek 2006;Elith et al 2006;Heikkinen et al 2006;Lawler et al 2006;Araújo & Luoto 2007;Botkin et al 2007;Heikkinen et al 2007;Luoto et al 2007;Beale et al 2008;Green et al 2008;Luoto & Heikkinen 2008;Araújo et al 2009;Engler et al 2009;Titeux et al 2009;Randin et al 2009b;Franklin 2010;Hoffman et al 2010;Mouton et al 2010;Smulders et al 2010), the key assumption remains, namely that climate is assumed to limit the observed distribution in bioclimate envelope models. The greatest uncertainty is whether this assumption holds for the species modelled today (Beale et al 2008;Duncan et al 2009;Chapman 2010), and hence in predictions for the future (Dormann 2007a) and in the use of such bioclimatic-envelope models as a basis for inferring past climate from fossil remains.…”