Advertisement

Biological Invasions

, Volume 13, Issue 5, pp 1209–1227 | Cite as

Where will conflicts between alien and rare species occur after climate and land-use change? A test with a novel combined modelling approach

  • Joana Vicente
  • Christophe F. Randin
  • João Gonçalves
  • Marc J. Metzger
  • Ângela Lomba
  • João Honrado
  • Antoine Guisan
Original Paper

Abstract

Protecting native biodiversity against alien invasive species requires powerful methods to anticipate these invasions and to protect native species assumed to be at risk. Here, we describe how species distribution models (SDMs) can be used to identify areas predicted as both suitable for rare native species and highly susceptible to invasion by alien species, at present and under future climate and land-use scenarios. To assess the condition and dynamics of such conflicts, we developed a combined predictive modelling (CPM) approach, which predicts species distributions by combining two SDMs fitted using subsets of predictors classified as acting at either regional or local scales. We illustrate the CPM approach for an alien invader and a rare species associated with similar habitats in northwest Portugal. Combined models predict a wider variety of potential species responses, providing more informative projections of species distributions and future dynamics than traditional, non-combined models. They also provide more informative insight regarding current and future rare-invasive conflict areas. For our studied species, conflict areas of highest conservation relevance are predicted to decrease over the next decade, supporting previous reports that some invasive species may contract their geographic range and impact due to climate change. More generally, our results highlight the more informative character of the combined approach to address practical issues in conservation and management programs, especially those aimed at mitigating the impact of invasive plants, land-use and climate changes in sensitive regions.

Keywords

Alien invaders Climate change Combined predictive modelling Land-use change Rare species Species distribution models 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was financially supported by FCT (Portuguese Science Foundation) through Ph.D grant SFRH/BD/40668/2007 to J. Vicente. A. Guisan received support from the Swiss NCCR (National Centres of Competence in Research) for “Plant survival in natural and agroecological landscapes” (http://www.unine.ch/nccr). A. Lomba is supported by FCT through PhD grant SFRH/BD/31576/2006. We would like to thank to Roger Bivand (Economic Geography Section, Department of Economics, Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration) for his precious help in the adaptation of codes in R software. This paper is a contribution of the BIOLIEF conference: “World Conference on Biological Invasions and Ecosystem Functioning”. We would like to thank Dr. Daniel Simberloff, editor-in-chief of this special issue in Biological Invasions.

References

  1. Araújo MB, New M (2007) Ensemble forecasting of species distributions. Trends Ecol Evol 22:42–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Araújo MB, Williams PH, Turner A (2002) A sequential approach to minimise threats within selected conservation areas. Biodivers Conserv 11:1011–1024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Araújo MB, Cabeza M, Thuiller W, Hannah L, Williams PH (2004) Would climate change drive species out of reserves? An assessment of existing reserve-selection methods. Glob Change Biol 10:1618–1626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Araújo MB, Pearson RG, Thuiller W, Erhard M (2005) Validation of species-climate impact models under climate change. Glob Change Biol 11:1504–1513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Austin MP (2007) Species distribution models and ecological theory: a critical assessment and some possible new approaches. Ecol Model 200:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borcard D, Legendre P, Avois-Jacquet C, Tuomisto H (2004) Dissecting the spatial structure of ecological data at multiple scales. Ecology 85:1826–1832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bradley BA (2009) Regional analysis of impacts of climate change on cheatgrass invasion shows potential risk and opportunity. Glob Change Biol 15:196–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bradley BA (2010) Assessing ecosystem threats from global and regional change: hierarchical modeling of risk to sagebrush ecosystems from climate change, land use and invasive species in Nevada, USA. Ecography 33:198–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bradley BA, Oppenheimer M, Wilcove DS (2009) Climate change and plant invasions: restoration opportunities ahead? Glob Change Biol 15:1511–1521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Broennimann O, Guisan A (2008) Predicting current and future biological invasions: both native and invaded ranges matter. Biol Lett 4:585–589PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Broennimann O, Thuiller W, Hughes G, Midgley GF, Alkemade JMR, Guisan A (2006) Do geographic distribution, niche property and life form explain plants’ vulnerability to global change? Glob Change Biol 12:1079–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Broennimann O, Treles UA, Müller-Schärer H, Thuiller W, Peterson AT, Guisan A (2007) Evidence of climatic niche shift during biological invasion. Ecol Lett 10:701–709PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brown JH, Stevens GC, Kaufman DM (1996) The geographic range: size, shape, boundaries, and internal structure. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 27:597–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carballeira A, Reigosa MJ (1999) Effects of natural leachates of Acacia dealbata Link in Galicia (NW Spain). Bot Bull Acad Sin 40:87–92Google Scholar
  15. Carson DJ (1999) Climate modelling: achievements and prospects. Q J Roy Meteor Soc 125:27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cliff AD, Ord JK (1981) Spatial processes: models and applications. Pion Limited, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Culliney TW (2005) Benefits of classical biological control for managing invasive plants. Crit Rev Plant Sci 24:131–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dale VH (1997) The relationship between land-use change and climate change. Ecol Appl 7:753–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dirnböck T, Dullinger S, Grabherr G (2003) A regional impact assessment of climate and land-use change on alpine vegetation. J Biogeogr 30:401–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dormann CF, McPherson JM, Araujo MB, Bivand R, Bolliger J, Carl G, Davies RG, Hirzel A, Jetz W, Kissling WD, Kuhn I, Ohlemuller R, Peres-Neto PR, Reineking B, Schroder B, Schurr FM, Wilson R (2007) Methods to account for spatial autocorrelation in the analysis of species distributional data: a review. Ecography 30:609–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Elith J, Leathwick J (2007) Predicting species distributions from museum and herbarium records using multiresponse models fitted with multivariate adaptive regression splines. Diversity Distrib 13:265–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Elith J, Graham CH, Anderson RP, Ferrier M, Dudík S, Guisan A, Hijmans RJ, Huettmann F, Leathwick JR, Lehmann A, Li J, Lohmann LG, Loiselle BA, Manion G, Moritz C, Nakamura M, Nakazawa Y, McC Overton J, Peterson AT, Phillips SJ, Richardson K, Scachetti-Pereira R, Schapire RE, Soberón J, Williams S, Wisz MS, Zimmermann NE (2006) Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data. Ecography 29:129–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. ESRI (2008) ArcGIS 9.3. Environmental Systems Research Institute IncGoogle Scholar
  24. Ficetola GF, Thuiller W, Miaud C (2007) Prediction and validation of the potential global distribution of a problematic alien invasive species—the American bullfrog. Diversity Distrib 13:476–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ficetola GF, Maiorano L, Falcucci A, Dendoncker N, Boitani L, Padoa-Schioppa E, Miaud C, Thuiller W (2010) Knowing the past to predict the future: land-use change and the distribution of invasive bullfrogs. Glob Change Biol 16:528–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fielding AH, Bell JF (1997) A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environ Conserv 24:38–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gelfand AE, Schmidt AM, Wu S, Silander JA, Latimer A, Rebelo AG (2005) Modelling species diversity through species level hierarchical modelling. Appl Statist 54:1–20Google Scholar
  28. Gray TNE, Borey R, Hout SK, Chamnan H, Collar NJ, Dolman PM (2008) Generality of models that predict the distribution of species: conservation activity and reduction of model transferability for a threatened bustard. Conserv Biol 23:433–439PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Guisan A, Theurillat JP (2000) Assessing alpine plant vulnerability to climate change: a modeling perspective. Integrated Assessment 1:307–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Guisan A, Thuiller W (2005) Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol Lett 8:993–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Guisan A, Zimmermann NE (2000) Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecol Model 135:147–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Guisan A, Lehmann A, Ferrier S, Austin M, Mc Overton J, Aspinall R, Hastie T (2006) Making better biogeographical predictions of species’ distributions. J Appl Ecol 43:386–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Guisan A, Graham CH, Elith J, Huettmann F (2007) Sensitivity of predictive species distribution models to change in grain size. Diversity Distrib 13:332–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Heikkinen RK, Luoto M, Kuussaari M, Toivonen T (2007) Modelling the spatial distribution of a threatened butterfly: impacts of scale and statistical technique. Landscape Urban Plan 79:347–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hijmans RJ, Cameron S, Parra J (2005) WorldClim, version 1.3. http://biogeo.berkeley.edu/worldclim/worldclim.htm. University of California, Berkeley
  36. Hirzel A, Guisan A (2002) Which is the optimal sampling strategy for habitat suitability modelling. Ecol Model 157:331–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Klijn F, de Haes HAU (1994) A hierarchical approach to ecosystems and its implication for ecological land classification. Landscape Ecol 9:89–104Google Scholar
  38. Lassueur T, Joost S, Randin CF (2006) Very high resolution digital elevation models: do they improve models of plant species distribution? Ecol Model 198:139–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Legendre P, Legendre L (1998) Numerical ecology. Dev Environ Model ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  40. Levine JM (2000) Species diversity and biological invasions: relating local process to community pattern. Science 288:852–854PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Liu CR, Berry PM, Dawson TP, Pearson RG (2005) Selecting thresholds of occurrence in the prediction of species distributions. Ecography 28:385–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mika AM, Weiss RM, Olfert OO, Hallett RH, Newman JA (2008) Will climate change be beneficial or detrimental to the invasive swede midge in North America? Contrasting predictions using climate projections from different general circulation models. Glob Change Biol 14:1721–1733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis report. Island Press, Washington, DC. Online at http://www.millenniumassessment.org/
  44. Muñoz AR, Real R, Barbosa AM, Vargas JM (2005) Modelling the distribution of Bonelli’s eagle in Spain: implications for conservation planning. Diversity Distrib 11:477–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Murphy HT, Lovett-Doust J (2007) Accounting for regional niche variation in habitat suitability models. OIKOS 116:99–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nakicenovic N, Swart R (eds) (2000) Special report on emissions scenarios. A special report of working group III of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 570. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/emission/index.htm
  47. Nehrbass N, Winkler E, Pergl J, Perglova I, Pysek P (2006) Empirical and virtual investigation of the population dynamics of an alien plant under the constraints of local carrying capacity: Heracleum mantegazzianum in the Czech Republic. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 7:253–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Parmesan C, Yohe G (2003) A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421:37–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pauchard A, Shea K (2006) Integrating the study of non-native plant invasions across spatial scales. Biol Invasions 8:399–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pearce J, Ferrier S (2001) The practical value of modelling relative abundance of species for regional conservation planning: a case study. Biol Conserv 98:33–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pearson RG, Dawson TE, Liu C (2004) Modelling species distributions in Britain: a hierarchical integration of climate and land-cover data. Ecography 27:285–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Perrings C, Williamson M, Barbier EB, Delfino D, Dalmazzone S, Shogren J, Simmons P, Watkinson A (2002) Biological invasion risks and the public good: an economic perspective ecology and society 6: 1 (online). URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss1/art1/
  53. R Development Core Team (2009) R: a language and environment for statistical computing, reference index version 2.9.2. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL: http://www.R-project.org
  54. Randin CF, Engler R, Normand S, Zappa M, Zimmermann NE, Pearman PB, Vittoz P, Thuiller W, Guisan A (2009a) Climate change and plant distribution: local models predict high-elevation persistence. Glob Change Biol 15:1557–1569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Randin CF, Vuissoz G, Liston G, Vittoz P, Guisan A (2009b) Introduction of snow and geomorphic disturbance variables into predictive models of alpine plant distribution in the Western Swiss Alps. Arct Antarct Alp Res 41:347–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rounsevell MDA, Reginster I, Araujo MB, Carter TR, Dendoncker N, Ewert F, House JI, Kankaanpaa S, Leemans R, Metzger MJ, Schmit C, Smith P, Tuck G (2006) A coherent set of future land use change scenarios for Europe. Agr Ecosyst Environ 114:57–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Settle C, Shogren JF (2002) Modeling native-exotic species within Yellowstone lake. Am J Agr Econ 84:1323–1328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Theoharides KA, Dukes JS (2007) Plant invasion across space and time: factors affecting nonindigenous species success during four stages of invasion. New Phytol 176:256–273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Thuiller W (2004) Patterns and uncertainties of species’ range shifts under climate change. Glob Change Biol 10:2020–2027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Thuiller W, Araújo MB, Lavorel S (2004) Do we need land-cover data to model species distributions in Europe? J Biogeogr 31:353–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Thuiller W, Richardson DM, Pysek P, Midgley GF, Hughes GO, Rouget M (2005) Niche-based modelling as a tool for predicting the risk of alien plant invasions at a global scale. Glob Change Biol 11:2234–2250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Thuiller W, Albert C, Araújo MB, Berry PM, Guisan A, Hickler T, Midgley GF, Paterson J, Schurr FM, Sykes MT, Zimmermann NE (2008) Predicting global change impacts on plant species distributions: future challenges. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 9:137–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Thuiller W, Lafourcade B, Engler R, Araújo MB (2009) BIOMOD—a platform for ensemble forecasting of species distributions. Ecography 32:369–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Titeux N, Dufrene M, Radoux J, Hirzel AH, Defourny P (2007) Fitness-related parameters improve presence-only distribution modelling for conservation practice: The case of the red-backed shrike. Biol Conserv 138:207–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Vicente J, Alves P, Randin C, Guisan A, Honrado J (2010) What drives invasibility? A multi-model inference test and spatial modelling of alien plant species richness patterns in Northern Portugal. Ecography 33:1081–1092. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2010.6380.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wiens JA (1989) Spatial scaling in ecology. Funct Ecol 3:385–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wiens JA (2002) Predicting species occurrences: progress, problems, and prospects. In: Scott JM, Heglund PJ, Morrison ML, Haufler JB, Raphael MG, Wall WA, Samson FB (eds) Predicting species occurrences: issues of accuracy and scale. Island Press, Covelo, pp 739–749Google Scholar
  68. Wisz M, Guisan A (2009) Do pseudo-absence selection strategies affect geographic predictions of species? A virtual species approach. BMC Ecology 9 (online). http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1472-6785-9-8.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joana Vicente
    • 1
  • Christophe F. Randin
    • 2
  • João Gonçalves
    • 1
  • Marc J. Metzger
    • 3
  • Ângela Lomba
    • 1
  • João Honrado
    • 1
  • Antoine Guisan
    • 4
  1. 1.Departamento de BiologiaCIBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos and Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade do PortoPortoPortugal
  2. 2.Institute of BotanyUniversity of BaselBaselSwitzerland
  3. 3.CECS Centre for the study of Environmental Change and Sustainability, School of GeosciencesUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK
  4. 4.Spatial Ecology Group, Department of Ecology and Evolution and Institute of Geology and PalaeontologyUniversity of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations