Optimising long‐term monitoring projects for species distribution modelling: how atlas data may help

Long‐term biodiversity monitoring data are mainly used to estimate changes in species occupancy or abundance over time, but they may also be incorporated into predictive models to document species distributions in space. Although changes in occupancy or abundance may be estimated from a relatively limited number of sampling units, small sample size may lead to inaccurate spatial models and maps of predicted species distributions. We provide a methodological approach to estimate the minimum sample size needed in monitoring projects to produce accurate species distribution models and maps. The method assumes that monitoring data are not yet available when sampling strategies are to be designed and is based on external distribution data from atlas projects. Atlas data are typically collected in a large number of sampling units during a restricted timeframe and are often similar in nature to the information gathered from long‐term monitoring projects. The large number of sampling units in atlas projects makes it possible to simulate a broad gradient of sample sizes in monitoring data and to examine how the number of sampling units influences the accuracy of the models. We apply the method to several bird species using data from a regional breeding bird atlas. We explore the effect of prevalence, range size and habitat specialization of the species on the sample size needed to generate accurate models. Model accuracy is sensitive to particularly small sample sizes and levels off beyond a sufficiently large number of sampling units that varies among species depending mainly on their prevalence. The integration of spatial modelling techniques into monitoring projects is a cost‐effective approach as it offers the possibility to estimate the dynamics of species distributions in space and over time. We believe our innovative method will help in the sampling design of future monitoring projects aiming to achieve such integration.     

Spatial models to account for variation in observer effort in bird atlases

To assess the importance of variation in observer effort between and within bird atlas projects and demonstrate the use of relatively simple conditional autoregressive (CAR) models for analyzing grid‐based atlas data with varying effort. Pennsylvania and West Virginia, United States of America. We used varying proportions of randomly selected training data to assess whether variations in observer effort can be accounted for using CAR models and whether such models would still be useful for atlases with incomplete data. We then evaluated whether the application of these models influenced our assessment of distribution change between two atlas projects separated by twenty years (Pennsylvania), and tested our modeling methodology on a state bird atlas with incomplete coverage (West Virginia). Conditional Autoregressive models which included observer effort and landscape covariates were able to make robust predictions of species distributions in cases of sparse data coverage. Further, we found that CAR models without landscape covariates performed favorably. These models also account for variation in observer effort between atlas projects and can have a profound effect on the overall assessment of distribution change. Accounting for variation in observer effort in atlas projects is critically important. CAR models provide a useful modeling framework for accounting for variation in observer effort in bird atlas data because they are relatively simple to apply, and quick to run.     

The role of land cover in bioclimatic models depends on spatial resolution

Aim We explored the importance of climate and land cover in bird species distribution models on multiple spatial scales. In particular, we tested whether the integration of land cover data improves the performance of pure bioclimatic models. Location Finland, northern Europe. Methods The data of the bird atlas survey carried out in 1986–89 using a 10 × 10 km uniform grid system in Finland were employed in the analyses. Land cover and climatic variables were compiled using the same grid system. The dependent and explanatory variables were resampled to 20‐km, 40‐km and 80‐km resolutions. Generalized additive models (GAM) were constructed for each of the 88 land bird species studied in order to estimate the probability of occurrence as a function of (1) climate and (2) climate and land cover variables. Model accuracy was measured by a cross‐validation approach using the area under the curve (AUC) of a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) plot. Results In general, the accuracies of the 88 bird–climate models were good at all studied resolutions. However, the inclusion of land cover increased the performance of 79 and 78 of the 88 bioclimatic models at 10‐km and 20‐km resolutions, respectively. There was no significant improvement at the 40‐km resolution. In contrast to the finer resolutions, the inclusion of land cover variables decreased the modelling accuracy at 80km resolution. Main conclusions Our results suggest that the determinants of bird species distributions are hierarchically structured: climatic variables are large‐scale determinants, followed by land cover at finer resolutions. The majority of the land bird species in Finland are rather clearly correlated with climate, and bioclimate envelope models can provide useful tools for identifying the relationships between these species and the environment at resolutions ranging from 10 km to 80 km. However, the notable contribution of land cover to the accuracy of bioclimatic models at 10–20‐km resolutions indicates that the integration of climate and land cover information can improve our understanding and model predictions of biogeographical patterns under global change.     

Species-specific features affect the ability of census-derived models to map winter avian distribution

We identify autoecological traits of bird species that influence the accuracy of predictive models of species distribution based on census data obtained from stratified sampling. These models would serve as a complementary approach to the development of regional bird atlases. We model the winter bird abundance of 64 terrestrial bird species in 77 census plots in Central Spain (Madrid province), using regression tree analyses. The predicted distribution of species density derived from statistical models (birds/10 ha) was compared with the published relative abundances depicted by a very accurate regional atlas of wintering birds (birds observed per 10 h). Statistical models explained an average of 41.7% of the original deviance observed in the local bird distribution (range 19.6–79.3%). Significant associations between observed relative abundances (atlas data) and predicted average densities in 1×1 km squares within 10×10 km UTMs were attained for 44 out of 64 species. Interspecific discrepancies between predicted and observed distribution maps decreased with between-year constancy in regional bird distribution and the degree of ecological specialization of species. Therefore, statistical modeling using census localities allowed us to depict geographical variations in bird abundance that were similar to those in the quantitative atlas maps. Nevertheless, bird distributions derived from statistical models are less reproducible in some species than in others, depending on their autoecological traits.     

Modeling Spatial Trends in Estimated Species Richness using Breeding Bird Survey Data: A Valuable Tool in Biodiversity Assessment

We used data from the French breeding bird survey to estimate local bird species richness within sampled sites, using capture–recapture models. We investigated the possible effects of habitat structure and composition (landscape fragmentation, habitat cover and diversity) on estimated species richness at a local scale, and used the identified trends to help with modeling species richness at a large spatial scale. We performed geostatistical analyses based on spatial autocorrelation – cokriging models – to interpolate estimated species richness over the entire country, providing an opportunity to predict species-rich areas. We further compared species richness obtained with this method to species and rarity richness obtained using a national atlas of breeding birds. Estimated species richness was higher in species richness hotspots identified by the atlas. Combining informations on rare species from Atlas and species richness estimates from sound sampling based schemes should help with identifying species-rich areas for various taxa and locating biodiversity hotspots to be protected as high conservation value areas, especially in temperate zones where diversity hotspots are likely to match centers of high species richness because of very few centers of true endemicity.     

Fine scale waterbody data improve prediction of waterbird occurrence despite coarse species data

While modelling habitat suitability and species distribution, ecologists must deal with issues related to the spatial resolution of species occurrence and environmental data. Indeed, given that the spatial resolution of species and environmental datasets range from centimeters to hundreds of kilometers, it underlines the importance of choosing the optimal combination of resolutions to achieve the highest possible modelling prediction accuracy. We evaluated how the spatial resolution of land cover/waterbody datasets (meters to 1 km) affect waterbird habitat suitability models based on atlas data (grid cell of 12 × 11 km). We hypothesized that the area, perimeter and number of waterbodies computed from high resolution datasets would explain distributions of waterbirds better because coarse resolution datasets omit small waterbodies affecting species occurrence. Specifically, we investigated which spatial resolution of waterbodies better explain the distribution of seven waterbirds nesting on ponds/lakes with areas ranging from 0.1 ha to hundreds of hectares. Our results show that the area and perimeter of waterbodies derived from high resolution datasets (raster data with 30 m resolution, vector data corresponding with map scale 1:10 000) explain the distribution of the waterbirds better than those calculated using less accurate datasets despite the coarse grain of the species data. Taking into account the spatial extent (global vs regional) of the datasets, we found the Global Inland Waterbody Dataset to be the most suitable for modelling distribution of waterbirds. In general, we recommend using land cover data of a resolution sufficient to capture the smallest patches of the habitat suitable for a given species’ presence for both fine and coarse grain habitat suitability and distribution modelling.     

Presence-absence versus presence-only modelling methods for predicting bird habitat suitability

Habitat suitability models can be generated using methods requiring information on species presence or species presence and absence. Knowledge of the predictive performance of such methods becomes a critical issue to establish their optimal scope of application for mapping current species distributions under different constraints. Here, we use breeding bird atlas data in Catalonia as a working example and attempt to analyse the relative performance of two methods: the Ecological Niche factor Analysis (ENFA) using presence data only and Generalised Linear Models (GLM) using presence/absence data. Models were run on a set of forest species with similar habitat requirements, but with varying occurrence rates (prevalence) and niche positions (marginality). Our results support the idea that GLM predictions are more accurate than those obtained with ENFA. This was particularly true when species were using available habitats proportionally to their suitability, making absence data reliable and useful to enhance model calibration. Species marginality in niche space was also correlated to predictive accuracy, i.e. species with less restricted ecological requirements were modelled less accurately than species with more restricted requirements. This pattern was irrespective of the method employed. Models for wide‐ranging and tolerant species were more sensitive to absence data, suggesting that presence/absence methods may be particularly important for predicting distributions of this type of species. We conclude that modellers should consider that species ecological characteristics are critical in determining the accuracy of models and that it is difficult to predict generalist species distributions accurately and this is independent of the method used. Being based on distinct approaches regarding adjustment to data and data quality, habitat distribution modelling methods cover different application areas, making it difficult to identify one that should be universally applicable. Our results suggest however, that if absence data is available, methods using this information should be preferably used in most situations.     

Mapping from heterogeneous biodiversity monitoring data sources

Field monitoring can vary from simple volunteer opportunistic observations to professional standardised monitoring surveys, leading to a trade-off between data quality and data collection costs. Such variability in data quality may result in biased predictions obtained from species distribution models (SDMs). We aimed to identify the limitations of different monitoring data sources for developing species distribution maps and to evaluate their potential for spatial data integration in a conservation context. Using Maxent, SDMs were generated from three different bird data sources in Catalonia, which differ in the degree of standardisation and available sample size. In addition, an alternative approach for modelling species distributions was applied, which combined the three data sources at a large spatial scale, but then downscaling to the required resolution. Finally, SDM predictions were used to identify species richness and high quality areas (hotspots) from different treatments. Models were evaluated by using high quality Atlas information. We show that both sample size and survey methodology used to collect the data are important in delivering robust information on species distributions. Models based on standardized monitoring provided higher accuracy with a lower sample size, especially when modelling common species. Accuracy of models from opportunistic observations substantially increased when modelling uncommon species, giving similar accuracy to a more standardized survey. Although downscaling data through a SDM approach appears to be a useful tool in cases of data shortage or low data quality and heterogeneity, it will tend to overestimate species distributions. In order to identify distributions of species, data with different quality may be appropriate. However, to identify biodiversity hotspots high quality information is needed.     

Can niche‐based distribution models outperform spatial interpolation?

Aim Distribution modelling relates sparse data on species occurrence or abundance to environmental information to predict the population of a species at any point in space. Recently, the importance of spatial autocorrelation in distributions has been recognized. Spatial autocorrelation can be categorized as exogenous (stemming from autocorrelation in the underlying variables) or endogenous (stemming from activities of the organism itself, such as dispersal). Typically, one asks whether spatial models explain additional variability (endogenous) in comparison to a fully specified habitat model. We turned this question around and asked: can habitat models explain additional variation when spatial structure is accounted for in a fully specified spatially explicit model? The aim was to find out to what degree habitat models may be inadvertently capturing spatial structure rather than true explanatory mechanisms. Location We used data from 190 species of the North American Breeding Bird Survey covering the conterminous United States and southern Canada. Methods We built 13 different models on 190 bird species using regression trees. Our habitat‐based models used climate and landcover variables as independent variables. We also used random variables and simulated ranges to validate our results. The two spatially explicit models included only geographical coordinates or a contagion term as independent variables. As another angle on the question of mechanism vs. spatial structure we pitted a model using related bird species as predictors against a model using randomly selected bird species. Results The spatially explicit models outperformed the traditional habitat models and the random predictor species outperformed the related predictor species. In addition, environmental variables produced a substantial R² in predicting artificial ranges. Main conclusions We conclude that many explanatory variables with suitable spatial structure can work well in species distribution models. The predictive power of environmental variables is not necessarily mechanistic, and spatial interpolation can outperform environmental explanatory variables.     

Relationships between patterns of habitat cover and the historical distribution of the Marsh Tit,Willow Tit and Lesser Spotted Woodpecker in Britain

Spatial analysis of remotely-sensed land cover data in conjunction with species distribution atlases can reveal large-scale relationships between animal taxa and their habitats. We investigated the historical distribution patterns of three declining woodland birds, the Marsh Tit (Poecile palustris), Willow Tit (Poecile montana) and Lesser Spotted Woodpecker (Dendrocopos minor), in relation to a parsimonious landscape metric for describing habitat availability in Britain. Bird distributions were derived from two field-based atlas surveys, conducted in 1968–1972 and 1988–1991, and used to classify areas of the landscape for each species as retained, lost or gained between atlas periods, or unoccupied in both. We used remotely-sensed land cover data from 1990 to compare percentage habitat cover between landscape areas classified by bird occupation, and regional summary data from national woodland inventories to investigate changes in habitat cover and bird distributions. Percentage habitat cover was a sufficient landscape metric to explain the distribution pattern of all three bird species; habitat cover was greatest in areas where each species was retained between atlas surveys, significantly less in areas from which species were lost, and least in areas that remained unoccupied. Reductions in Marsh Tit distribution were less in regions that showed greater increases in habitat cover, but there was no such relationship for other species. Results indicated that spatial studies could be used to infer aspects of the spatial ecology of species where field data is lacking: by comparing distribution patterns with the relatively well-studied Marsh Tit, we found support for the assumption that the Lesser Spotted Woodpecker occupies very large territories in Britain, and provided evidence that the spatial habitat requirements of the Marsh Tit could be used as a proxy for the data-poor Willow Tit. The results showed that the habitat cover required to retain each species in the landscape had increased over time, illustrating how spatial studies can be used to identify priorities for further research and suggest conservation measures for declining species, and these are discussed.     

Determinants of avian species richness at different spatial scales

ABSTRACT. Studies of factors influencing avian biodiversity yield very different results depending on the spatial scale at which species richness is calculated. Ecological studies at small spatial scales (plot size 0.0025–0.4 km²) emphasize the importance of habitat diversity, whereas biogeographical studies at large spatial scales (quadrat size 400–50,000 km²) emphasize variables related to available energy such as temperature. In order to bridge the gap between those two approaches the bird atlas data set of Lake Constance was used to study factors determining avian species diversity at the intermediate spatial scales of landscapes (quadrat size 4–36 km²). At these spatial scales bird species richness was influenced by habitat diversity and not by variables related to available energy probably because, at the landscape scale, variation in available energy is small. Changing quadrat size between 4 and 36 km², but keeping the geographical extension of the study constant resulted in profound changes in the degree to which the amount of different habitat types was correlated with species richness. This suggests that high species diversity is achieved by different management regimes depending on the spatial scale at which species richness is calculated. However, generally, avian species diversity seems to be determined by spatial heterogeneity at the corresponding spatial scale. Thus, protecting the diversity of landscapes and ecosystems appears to ensure also high levels of species diversity.     

Evaluating model transferability for a threatened species to adjacent areas: Implications for rock‐wallaby conservation

When modelling the distribution of a species, it is often not possible to comprehensively sample the whole distribution of the species and managers may have habitat models based on data from one area that they want to apply in other areas. Hence, an important question is: how accurate are models of the distributions of species when applied beyond the areas where they were developed? A first step in measuring model transferability could be testing models in adjacent areas. We predicted the habitat associations of the brush‐tailed rock‐wallaby (Petrogale penicillata) across two spatial scales in two neighbouring study areas in eastern Australia, south‐east Queensland and north‐east New South Wales. We used classification trees for exploratory data analysis of habitat relationships and then applied logistic regression models to predict species occurrence. We assessed the within‐area discriminative ability of the habitat models using cross‐validation and threshold plots, and tested the predictive ability of the models for adjacent areas using the receiver operating characteristic statistic to determine the area under the curve. We found that models performed well within an area and extrapolating them to adjacent areas resulted in good predictive performance at the site scale but substantially poorer predictive performance at the landscape scale. We conclude that distribution models for wildlife species should only be extrapolated to neighbouring areas with caution when using landscape‐scale environmental variables. Alternatively, only key habitat associations predicted by the models at this scale should be transferred across adjacent areas once verified against local knowledge of the ecology of the study species.     

The relative importance of climate and habitat in determining the distributions of species at different spatial scales: a case study with ground beetles in Great Britain

Experimental studies have shown that many species show preferences for different climatic conditions, or may die in unsuitable conditions. Climate envelope models have been used frequently in recent years to predict the presence and absence of species at large spatial scales. However, many authors have postulated that the distributions of species at smaller spatial scales are determined by factors such as habitat availability and biotic interactions. Climatic effects are often assumed by modellers to be unimportant at fine resolutions, but few studies have actually tested this. We sampled the distributions of 20 beetle species of the family Carabidae across three study sites by pitfall trapping, and at the national scale from monitoring data. Statistical models were constructed to determine which of two sets of environmental variables (temperature or broad habitat type) best accounted for the observed data at the three sites and at the national (Great Britain) scale. High‐resolution temperature variables frequently produced better models (as determined by AIC) than habitat features when modelling the distributions of species at a local scale, within the three study sites. Conversely, habitat was always a better predictor than temperature when describing species’ distributions at a coarse scale within Great Britain. Northerly species were most likely to occur in cool micro‐sites within the study sites, whereas southerly species were most likely to occur in warm micro‐sites. Effects of microclimate were not limited to species at the edges of their distribution, and fine‐resolution temperature surfaces should therefore ideally be utilised when undertaking climate‐envelope modelling.     

Toward community predictions: Multi‐scale modelling of mountain breeding birds' habitat suitability,landscape preferences,and environmental drivers

Across a large mountain area of the western Swiss Alps, we used occurrence data (presence‐only points) of bird species to find suitable modelling solutions and build reliable distribution maps to deal with biodiversity and conservation necessities of bird species at finer scales. We have performed a multi‐scale method of modelling, which uses distance, climatic, and focal variables at different scales (neighboring window sizes), to estimate the efficient scale of each environmental predictor and enhance our knowledge on how birds interact with their complex environment. To identify the best radius for each focal variable and the most efficient impact scale of each predictor, we have fitted univariate models per species. In the last step, the final set of variables were subsequently employed to build ensemble of small models (ESMs) at a fine spatial resolution of 100 m and generate species distribution maps as tools of conservation. We could build useful habitat suitability models for the three groups of species in the national red list. Our results indicate that, in general, the most important variables were in the group of bioclimatic variables including “Bio11” (Mean Temperature of Coldest Quarter), and “Bio 4” (Temperature Seasonality), then in the focal variables including “Forest”, “Orchard”, and “Agriculture area” as potential foraging, feeding and nesting sites. Our distribution maps are useful for identifying the most threatened species and their habitat and also for improving conservation effort to locate bird hotspots. It is a powerful strategy to improve the ecological understanding of the distribution of bird species in a dynamic heterogeneous environment.     

Cetacean range and climate in the eastern North Atlantic: future predictions and implications for conservation

There is increasing evidence that the distributions of a large number of species are shifting with global climate change as they track changing surface temperatures that define their thermal niche. Modelling efforts to predict species distributions under future climates have increased with concern about the overall impact of these distribution shifts on species ecology, and especially where barriers to dispersal exist. Here we apply a bio‐climatic envelope modelling technique to investigate the impacts of climate change on the geographic range of ten cetacean species in the eastern North Atlantic and to assess how such modelling can be used to inform conservation and management. The modelling process integrates elements of a species' habitat and thermal niche, and employs “hindcasting” of historical distribution changes in order to verify the accuracy of the modelled relationship between temperature and species range. If this ability is not verified, there is a risk that inappropriate or inaccurate models will be used to make future predictions of species distributions. Of the ten species investigated, we found that while the models for nine could successfully explain current spatial distribution, only four had a good ability to predict distribution changes over time in response to changes in water temperature. Applied to future climate scenarios, the four species‐specific models with good predictive abilities indicated range expansion in one species and range contraction in three others, including the potential loss of up to 80% of suitable white‐beaked dolphin habitat. Model predictions allow identification of affected areas and the likely time‐scales over which impacts will occur. Thus, this work provides important information on both our ability to predict how individual species will respond to future climate change and the applicability of predictive distribution models as a tool to help construct viable conservation and management strategies.     

Land use changes affect distributional patterns of desert birds in the Baja California peninsula, Mexico

Reliable plans for desert bird conservation will depend on accurate prediction of habitat change effects on their distribution and abundance patterns. Predictive models can help highlight relationships between human‐related and other environmental variables and the presence of desert bird species. Presence/absence of 30 desert bird species of Baja California peninsula was modelled on the basis of explanatory variables taken from the field, maps, and digital imagery. Generalized linear models were fit to each bird species using both variables representing human activity and other environmental factors as predictors that might influence distribution. Probability of species presence was used as a habitat suitability index to evaluate the effect of human activity when the model contained a significant human activity variable. No differences were found in bird species richness between natural sites and those transformed by agriculture or urbanization. Of 59 bird species recorded in surveys, 34% were positively or negatively associated with human‐transformed habitats. Fourteen species seem to benefit from transformation of natural vegetation by agriculture or urbanization, while six were negatively affected. Sensitivity analyses of final models indicated all were robust. Results suggest that the occurrence of a large percentage of bird species inhabiting scrub habitats is sensitive to human habitat transformation. This finding has important conservation implications at regional scale as fragmentation and conversion of desert ecosystems into agricultural and urban areas affect the distribution of species that are highly selective for scrub habitat. Land use and anthropogenic activities seem to change ecological patterns at large spatial scales, but other factors could drive species richness distribution too (i.e. individual species response, species–energy relationships). The spatial modelling approach at regional scale used in this study can be useful for designing natural resource management plans in the Sonoran desert scrub.     

Finessing atlas data for species distribution models

Aim The spatial resolution of species atlases and therefore resulting model predictions are often too coarse for local applications. Collecting distribution data at a finer resolution for large numbers of species requires a comprehensive sampling effort, making it impractical and expensive. This study outlines the incorporation of existing knowledge into a conventional approach to predict the distribution of Bonelli’s eagle (Aquila fasciata) at a resolution 100 times finer than available atlas data. Location Malaga province, Andalusia, southern Spain. Methods A Bayesian expert system was proposed to utilize the knowledge from distribution models to yield the probability of a species being recorded at a finer resolution (1 × 1 km) than the original atlas data (10 × 10 km). The recorded probability was then used as a weight vector to generate a sampling scheme from the species atlas to enhance the accuracy of the modelling procedure. The maximum entropy for species distribution modelling (MaxEnt) was used as the species distribution model. A comparison was made between the results of the MaxEnt using the enhanced and, the random sampling scheme, based on four groups of environmental variables: topographic, climatic, biological and anthropogenic. Results The models with the sampling scheme enhanced by an expert system had a higher discriminative capacity than the baseline models. The downscaled (i.e. finer scale) species distribution maps using a hybrid MaxEnt/expert system approach were more specific to the nest locations and were more contrasted than those of the baseline model. Main conclusions The proposed method is a feasible substitute for comprehensive field work. The approach developed in this study is applicable for predicting the distribution of Bonelli’s eagle at a local scale from a national‐level occurrence data set; however, the usefulness of this approach may be limited to well‐known species.     

Landscape heterogeneity metrics as indicators of bird diversity: Determining the optimal spatial scales in different landscapes

Species distribution models are often used to study the biodiversity of ecosystems. The modelling process uses a number of parameters to predict others, such as the occurrence of determinate species, population size, habitat suitability or biodiversity. It is well known that the heterogeneity of landscapes can lead to changes in species’ abundance and biodiversity. However, landscape metrics depend on maps and spatial scales when it comes to undertaking a GIS analysis.We explored the goodness of fit of several models using the metrics of landscape heterogeneity and altitude as predictors of bird diversity in different landscapes and spatial scales. Two variables were used to describe biodiversity: bird richness and trophic level diversity, both of which were obtained from a breeding bird survey by means of point counts. The relationships between biodiversity and landscape metrics were compared using multiple linear regressions. All of the analyses were repeated for 14 different spatial scales and for cultivated, forest and grassland environments to determine the optimal spatial scale for each landscape typology.Our results revealed that the relationships between species’ richness and landscape heterogeneity using 1:10,000 land cover maps were strongest when working on a spatial scale up to a radius of 125–250 m around the sampled point (circa 4.9–19.6 ha). Furthermore, the correlation between measures of landscape heterogeneity and bird diversity was greater in grasslands than in cultivated or forested areas. The multi-spatial scale approach is useful for (a) assessing the accuracy of surrogates of bird diversity in different landscapes and (b) optimizing spatial model procedures for biodiversity mapping, mainly over extensive areas.     

Modeling plant species distributions under future climates: how fine scale do climate projections need to be?

Recent studies suggest that species distribution models (SDMs) based on fine‐scale climate data may provide markedly different estimates of climate‐change impacts than coarse‐scale models. However, these studies disagree in their conclusions of how scale influences projected species distributions. In rugged terrain, coarse‐scale climate grids may not capture topographically controlled climate variation at the scale that constitutes microhabitat or refugia for some species. Although finer scale data are therefore considered to better reflect climatic conditions experienced by species, there have been few formal analyses of how modeled distributions differ with scale. We modeled distributions for 52 plant species endemic to the California Floristic Province of different life forms and range sizes under recent and future climate across a 2000‐fold range of spatial scales (0.008–16 km²). We produced unique current and future climate datasets by separately downscaling 4 km climate models to three finer resolutions based on 800, 270, and 90 m digital elevation models and deriving bioclimatic predictors from them. As climate‐data resolution became coarser, SDMs predicted larger habitat area with diminishing spatial congruence between fine‐ and coarse‐scale predictions. These trends were most pronounced at the coarsest resolutions and depended on climate scenario and species' range size. On average, SDMs projected onto 4 km climate data predicted 42% more stable habitat (the amount of spatial overlap between predicted current and future climatically suitable habitat) compared with 800 m data. We found only modest agreement between areas predicted to be stable by 90 m models generalized to 4 km grids compared with areas classified as stable based on 4 km models, suggesting that some climate refugia captured at finer scales may be missed using coarser scale data. These differences in projected locations of habitat change may have more serious implications than net habitat area when predictive maps form the basis of conservation decision making.     

Weather, not climate, defines distributions of vagile bird species

Background

Accurate predictions of species distributions are essential for climate change impact assessments. However the standard practice of using long-term climate averages to train species distribution models might mute important temporal patterns of species distribution. The benefit of using temporally explicit weather and distribution data has not been assessed. We hypothesized that short-term weather associated with the time a species was recorded should be superior to long-term climate measures for predicting distributions of mobile species.

Methodology

We tested our hypothesis by generating distribution models for 157 bird species found in Australian tropical savannas (ATS) using modelling algorithm Maxent. The variable weather of the ATS supports a bird assemblage with variable movement patterns and a high incidence of nomadism. We developed “weather” models by relating climatic variables (mean temperature, rainfall, rainfall seasonality and temperature seasonality) from the three month, six month and one year period preceding each bird record over a 58 year period (1950–2008). These weather models were compared against models built using long-term (30 year) averages of the same climatic variables.

Conclusions

Weather models consistently achieved higher model scores than climate models, particularly for wide-ranging, nomadic and desert species. Climate models predicted larger range areas for species, whereas weather models quantified fluctuations in habitat suitability across months, seasons and years. Models based on long-term climate averages over-estimate availability of suitable habitat and species'' climatic tolerances, masking species potential vulnerability to climate change. Our results demonstrate that dynamic approaches to distribution modelling, such as incorporating organism-appropriate temporal scales, improves understanding of species distributions.