Community dynamics under environmental change: How can next generation mechanistic models improve projections of species distributions?

Abstract

Please cite this article in press as: Singer, A., et al., Community dynamics under environmental change: How can next generation mechanistic models improve projections of species distributions? Ecol. Model. (2015), http://dx. a b s t r a c tEnvironmental change is expected to shift the geographic range of species and communities. To estimate the consequences of these shifts for the functioning and stability of ecosystems, reliable predictions of alterations in species distributions are needed. Projections with correlative species distribution models, which correlate species' distributions to the abiotic environment, have become a standard approach. Criticism of this approach centres around the omission of relevant biotic feedbacks and triggered the search for alternatives. A new generation of mechanistic process-based species distribution models aims at implementing formulations of relevant biotic processes to cover species' life histories, physiology, dispersal abilities, evolution, and both intra-and interspecific interactions. Although this step towards more structural realism is considered important, it remains unclear whether the resulting projections are more reliable. Structural realism has the advantage that geographic range shifting emerges from the interplay of relevant abiotic and biotic processes. Having implemented the relevant response mechanisms, structural realistic models should better tackle the challenge of generating projections of species responses to (non-analogous) environmental change. However, reliable projections of future species ranges demand ecological information that is currently only available for few species. In this opinion paper, we discuss how the discrepancy between demand for structural realism on the one hand and the related knowledge gaps on the other hand affects the reliability of mechanistic species distribution models. We argue that omission of relevant processes potentially impairs projection accuracy (proximity of the mean outcome to the true value), particularly if species range shifts emerge from species and community dynamics. Yet, insufficient knowledge that limits model specification and parameterization, as well as process complexity, Abbreviations: C-SDM, correlative species distribution model; H-SDM, hybrid species distribution model; M-SDM, mechanistic species distribution model. Please cite this article in press as: Singer, A., et al., Community dynamics under environmental change: How can next generation mechanistic models improve projections of species distributions? Ecol. Model. (2015), http://dx.ECOMOD-7739; No. of Pages 12 2 A. Singer et al. / Ecological Modelling xxx (2015) xxx-xxxincreases projection uncertainty (variance in the outcome of simulated model projections). The accuracy-uncertainty-relation reflects current limits to delivering reliable projections of range shifts. We propose a protocol to improve and communicate projection reliability. The protocol combines modelling and empirical research to efficiently fill critical knowledge gaps that ...

Mechanistic simulation models in macroecology and biogeography: state‐of‐art and prospects

“…We argue that much of the controversy surrounding the neutral theory is rooted in this issue (see also Chave ). Weak inference through flexibility : if theories are too flexible, it is difficult to say whether a good fit provides much evidence for the modelled processes. For example, species distribution models can provide excellent fits with niche axes that are clearly not ecologically sensible (Bahn and McGill ). Low integration : most (but not all) classic theories concentrate on processes at one particular ecological level, neglecting other processes that cannot be included at the focal level (Table ). Low predictive power through lack of integration : accurate predictions, particularly under environmental change, require modeling all essential causal mechanisms (Singer et al ).…”

“…Low predictive power through lack of integration : accurate predictions, particularly under environmental change, require modeling all essential causal mechanisms (Singer et al ).…”

“…Not surprisingly, human‐induced climate change emerges as one of the most commonly considered anthropogenic drivers (Singer et al , Urban et al , reviewed by Bellard et al ). Climate change can be incorporated by directly varying environmental variables (e.g.…”

Emerging Opportunities for Landscape Ecological Modelling

“…Further, under rapidly changing conditions and especially at the physiological limits of a species' tolerance, we may expect to see evolution occurring on an ecological timescale. Thus, to improve our ability to project biodiversity futures, it will be important that we develop process based distribution models [170][171][172].…”

Biodiversity Dynamics on Islands: Explicitly Accounting for Causality in Mechanistic Models

“…Reasons for this include the possibility to define isolation and area [3], while still retaining a degree of connectivity via rare long-distance dispersal events. At the same time, islands showcase all major types of mechanisms thus far indicated to influence biodiversity dynamics, such as physiological, demographic, dispersal, interaction, genetic and environmental processes [4][5][6].…”