Predicting species distributions from herbarium collections: does climate bias in collection sampling influence model outcomes?

Abstract

Aim Species distribution models and geographical information system (GIS) technologies are becoming increasingly important tools in conservation planning and decision-making. Often the rich data bases of museums and herbaria serve as the primary data for predicting species distributions. Yet key assumptions about the primary data often are untested, and violation of such assumptions may have consequences for model predictions. For example, users of primary data assume that sampling has been random with respect to geography and environmental gradients. Here we evaluate the assumption that plant voucher specimens adequately sample the climatic gradient and test whether violation of this assumption influences model predictions.Location Bolivia and Ecuador.Methods Using 323,711 georeferenced herbarium collections and nine climatic variables, we predicted the distribution of 76 plant species using maximum entropy models (MAXENT) with training points that sampled the climate environments randomly and training points that reflected the climate bias in the herbarium collections. To estimate the distribution of species, MAXENT finds the distribution of maximum entropy (i.e. closest to uniform) subject to the constraint that the expected value for each environmental variable under the estimated distribution matches its empirical average. The experimental design included species that differed in geographical range and elevation; all species were modelled with 20 and 100 training points. We examined the influence of the number of training points and climate bias in training points, elevation and range size on model performance using analysis of variance models. ResultsWe found that significant parts of the climatic gradient were poorly represented in herbarium collections for both countries. For the most part, existing climatic bias in collections did not greatly affect distribution predictions when compared with an unbiased data set. Although the effects of climate bias on prediction accuracy were found to be greater where geographical ranges were characterized by high spatial variation in the degree of climate bias (i.e. ranges where the bias of the various climates sampled by collections deviated considerably from the mean bias), the greatest influence on model performance was the number of presence points used to train the model. Main conclusionsThese results demonstrate that predictions of species distributions can be quite good despite existing climatic biases in primary data found in natural history collections, if a sufficiently large number of training points is available. Because of consistent overprediction of models, these results also confirm the importance of validating models with independent data or expert opinion. Failure to include independent model validation, especially in

Herbarium specimens show contrasting phenological responses to Himalayan climate

“…Especially during the early part of the 20th century, Rhododendron was also of great horticultural value in Europe and North America (26). Originally gathered for species delimitation, historical herbarium collections have been used to impute changes in species ranges (27,28) and in traits (29,30). Specimens were usually collected in flower and with data on time and place of collection.…”

Cyberinfrastructure for an integrated botanical information network to investigate the ecological impacts of global climate change on plant biodiversity

“…Our ability to predict species' abundances and ranges, let alone how they will change, remains limited [18,22]. In order for biologists to predict how individual taxa and entire communities will respond to a changing world requires understanding why plant taxa grow where they do and what limits their ranges.…”

A methodological framework to quantify the spatial quality of biological databases

“…It is presumed to be one of the factors potentially distorting the results of biogeographical analysis (Funk & Richardson 2002, Loiselle et al 2008, Wolmarans et al 2010), but its influence on model output is rarely explicitly made. However, it has been demonstrated that spatial bias can have a substantial influence on model outcome and performance as well as in the establishment of the effect of environmental variables on the defined niche of a species (Graham et al 2004, Feeley & Silman 2010.…”