A quantitative synthesis of the importance of variables used in MaxEnt species distribution models
Corresponding Author
Johanna Bradie
Department of Biology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, H3A 1B1 Canada
Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Burlington, Ontario, L7S 1A1 Canada
Correspondence: Johanna Bradie, Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 867 Lakeshore Rd., Burlington, Ontario, L7S 1A1 Canada.
E-mail: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorBrian Leung
Department of Biology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, H3A 1B1 Canada
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Johanna Bradie
Department of Biology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, H3A 1B1 Canada
Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Burlington, Ontario, L7S 1A1 Canada
Correspondence: Johanna Bradie, Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 867 Lakeshore Rd., Burlington, Ontario, L7S 1A1 Canada.
E-mail: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorBrian Leung
Department of Biology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, H3A 1B1 Canada
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
Aim
To synthesize the species distribution modelling (SDM) literature to inform which variables have been used in MaxEnt models for different taxa and to quantify how frequently they have been important for species’ distributions.
Location
Global.
Methods
We conducted a quantitative synthesis analysing the contribution of over 400 distinct environmental variables to 2040 MaxEnt SDMs for nearly 1900 species representing over 300 families. Environmental variables were grouped into 24 related factors and results were analysed by examining the frequency with which variables were found to be most important, the mean contribution of each variable (at various taxonomic levels), and using TrueSkill™, a Bayesian skill rating system.
Results
Precipitation, temperature, bathymetry, distance to water and habitat patch characteristics were the most important variables overall. Precipitation and temperature were analysed most frequently and one of these variables was often the most important predictor in the model (nearly 80% of models, when tested). Notably, distance to water was the most important variable in the highest proportion of models in which it was tested (42% of 225 models). For terrestrial species, precipitation, temperature and distance to water had the highest overall contributions, whereas for aquatic species, bathymetry, precipitation and temperature were most important.
Main conclusions
Over all MaxEnt models published, the ability to discriminate occurrence from reference sites was high (average AUC = 0.92). Much of this discriminatory ability was due to temperature and precipitation variables. Further, variability (temperature) and extremes (minimum precipitation) were the most predictive. More generally, the most commonly tested variables were not always the most predictive, with, for instance, ‘distance to water’ infrequently tested, but found to be very important when it was. Thus, the results from this study summarize the MaxEnt SDM literature, and can aid in variable selection by identifying underutilized, but potentially important variables, which could be incorporated in future modelling efforts.
Supporting Information
| Filename | Description |
|---|---|
| jbi12894-sup-0001-AppendixS1.docxWord document, 35.1 KB | Appendix S1 Summary of predictor variables and data sources. |
| jbi12894-sup-0002-AppendixS2.docxWord document, 15.5 KB | Appendix S2 Supplementary methods. |
| jbi12894-sup-0003-AppendixS3.docxWord document, 143 KB | Appendix S3 Supplementary results tables and figures. |
Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
References
- Allouche, O., Tsoar, A. & Kadmon, R. (2006) Assessing the accuracy of species distribution models: prevalence, kappa and the true skill statistic (TSS). Journal of Applied Ecology, 43, 1223–1232.
- Angelieri, C.C.S., Adams-Hosking, C., Ferraz, K.M.P.M.B., Souza, M.P. & McAlpine, C.A. (2016) Using species distribution models to predict potential landscape restoration effects on puma conservation. PLoS ONE, 11, e0145232.
- Araújo, M.B. & Guisan, A. (2006) Five (or so) challenges for species distribution modelling. Journal of Biogeography, 33, 1677–1688.
- Araújo, M.B. & Pearson, R.G. (2005) Equilibrium of species’ distributions with climate. Ecography, 28, 693–695.
- Araújo, M.B., Ferri-Yáñez, F., Bozinovic, F., Marquet, P.A., Valladares, F. & Chow, S.L. (2013) Heat freezes niche evolution. Ecology Letters, 16, 1206–1219.
- Ashcroft, M.B., French, K.O. & Chisholm, L.A. (2011) An evaluation of environmental factors affecting species distributions. Ecological Modelling, 222, 524–531.
- Austin, M.P. (2002) Spatial prediction of species distirbution: an interface between ecological theory and statistical modelling. Ecological Modelling, 157, 101–118.
- Barbet-Massin, M. & Jetz, W. (2014) A 40-year, continent-wide, multispecies assessment of relevant climate predictors for species distribution modelling. Diversity and Distributions, 20, 1285–1295.
- Barry, S.C., Hayes, K.R., Hewitt, C.L., Behrens, H.L., Dragsund, E. & Bakke, S.M. (2008) Ballast water risk assessment: principles, processes, and methods. Ices Journal of Marine Science, 65, 121–131.
- Bennett, J. (2013) Comparison of native and exotic distribution and richness models across scales reveals essential conservation lessons. Ecography, 36, 1–10.
- Braunisch, V., Coppes, J., Arlettaz, R., Suchant, R., Schmid, H. & Bollmann, K. (2013) Selecting from correlated climate variables: a major source of uncertainty for predicting species distributions under climate change. Ecography, 36, 971–983.
- Broennimann, O., Treier, U.A., Müller-Schärer, H., Thuiller, W., Peterson, A.T. & Guisan, A. (2007) Evidence of climatic niche shift during biological invasion. Ecology Letters, 10, 701–709.
- Chamberlain, S. & Szocs, E. (2013) taxize - taxonomic search and retrieval in R. F1000 Research, 2, 191–216.
- Dangauthier, P., Herbrich, R., Minka, T. & Graepel, T. (2008) TrueSkill™ through time: revisiting the history of chess. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 20, 337–344.
- Dormann, C.F. (2007) Promising the future? Global change projections of species distributions. Basic and Applied Ecology, 8, 387–397.
- Dormann, C.F., Elith, J., Bacher, S., Buchmann, C., Carl, G., Carré, G., Marquéz, J.R.G., Gruber, B., Lafourcade, B., Leitão, P.J., Münkemüller, T., McClean, C., Osborne, P.E., Reineking, B., Schröder, B., Skidmore, A.K., Zurell, D. & Lautenbach, S. (2013) Collinearity: a review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography, 36, 27–46.
- Duncan, R.P., Bomford, M., Forsyth, D.M. & Conibear, L. (2001) High predictability in introduction outcomes and the geographical range size of introduced Australian birds: a role for climate. Journal of Animal Ecology, 70, 621–632.
- Elith, J. & Graham, C.H. (2009) Do they? How do they? WHY do they differ? On finding reasons for differing performances of species distribution models. Ecography, 32, 66–77.
- Elith, J. & Leathwick, J.R. (2009) Species distribution models: ecological explanation and prediction across space and time. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 40, 677–697.
- Elith, J., Graham, C.H., Anderson, R.P. et al. (2006) Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data. Ecography, 29, 129–151.
- Elith, J., Phillips, S.J., Hastie, T., Dudik, M., Chee, Y.E. & Yates, C.J. (2011) A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists. Diversity and Distributions, 17, 43–57.
- Ferraz, K.M.P.M.B., Siqueira, M.F., Alexandrino, E.R., Da Luz, D.T.A. & Do Couto, H.T.Z. (2012) Environmental suitability of a highly fragmented and heterogeneous landscape for forest bird species in south-eastern Brazil. Environmental Conservation, 39, 316–324.
- Franklin, J. (2009) Mapping species distributions: spatial inference and prediction. University Press, Cambridge.
10.1017/CBO9780511810602 Google Scholar
- Froese, R. (2016) Species 2000 additional common names for the catalogue of life (version Jan 2006). In: Species 2000 & ITIS Catalogue of Life, 28th July 2016 (ed. by Y. Roskov, L. Abucay, T. Orrell, D. Nicolson, C. Flann, N. Bailly, P. Kirk, T. Bourgoin, R.E. DeWalt, W. Decock and A. De Wever). Digital resource at www.catalogueoflife.org/col. Species 2000: Naturalis, Leiden, the Netherlands. ISSN 2405-8858.
- Games, P.A. & Howell, J.F. (1976) Pairwise multiple comparison procedures with unequal n's and/or variances: a Monte Carlo study. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 1, 113–125.
- Gaston, K. J. (2003) The structure and dynamics of geographic ranges. Oxford University Press, New York.
- Gaston, K.J. (2009) Geographic range limits of species. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276, 1391–1393.
- Guisan, A. & Thuiller, W. (2005) Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecology Letters, 8, 993–1009.
- Guisan, A. & Zimmermann, N.E. (2000) Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecological Modelling, 135, 147–186.
- Hanley, J.A. & McNeil, B.J. (1982) The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology, 143, 29–36.
- Hargreaves, A.L., Samis, K.E. & Eckert, C.G. (2014) Are species’ range limits simply niche limits writ large? A review of transplant experiments beyond the range. The American Naturalist, 183, 157–173.
- Herbrich, R., Minka, T. & Graepel, T. (2007) Trueskill™: a Bayesian skill rating system. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 20, 569–576.
- Hijmans, R.J., Cameron, S.E., Parra, J.L., Jones, P.G. & Jarvis, A. (2005) Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. International Journal of Climatology, 25, 1965–1978.
- Holt, R.D., Keitt, T.H., Lewis, M.A., Maurer, B.A. & Taper, M.L. (2005) Theoretical models of species’ borders: single species approaches. Oikos, 108, 18–27.
- Hutchinson, G.E. (1958) Concluding remarks. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology, 22, 415–427.
10.1101/SQB.1957.022.01.039 Google Scholar
- Kearney, M. & Porter, W. (2009) Mechanistic niche modelling: combining physiological and spatial data to predict species’ ranges. Ecology Letters, 12, 334–350.
- Mac Nally, R. (2000) Regression and model-building in conservation biology, biogeography and ecology: the distinction ebtween-and reconciliation of –“predictive’ and ‘explanatory’ models. Biodiversity and Conservation, 9, 655–671.
10.1023/A:1008985925162 Google Scholar
- Matthews, A. J.. (2013) Graph Data Extractor Version 0.0.0.1. [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://sourceforge.net/projects/graphdataextrac/
- Meynard, C.N. & Quinn, J.F. (2007) Predicting species distributions: a critical comparison of the most common statistical models using artificial species. Journal of Biogeography, 34, 1455–1469.
- Murray, K. & Conner, M.M. (2009) Methods to quantify variable importance: implications for the analysis of noisy ecological data. Ecology, 90, 348–55.
- Normand, S., Treier, U.A., Randin, C., Vittoz, P., Guisan, A. & Svenning, J.C. (2009) Importance of abiotic stress as a range-limit determinant for European plants: insights from species responses to climate gradients. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 19, 437–449.
- Nyström Sandman, A., Wikström, S.A., Blomqvist, M., Kautsky, H. & Isaeus, M. (2013) Scale-dependent influence of environmental variables on species distribution: a case study on five coastal benthic species in the Baltic Sea. Ecography, 36, 354–363.
- Orrell, T. (custodian) (2016) ITIS Global: the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (version Apr 2016). In: Species 2000 & ITIS Catalogue of Life, 28th July 2016 (ed. by Y. Roskov, L. Abucay, T. Orrell, D. Nicolson, C. Flann, N. Bailly, P. Kirk, T. Bourgoin, R.E. DeWalt, W. Decock and A. De Wever). Digital resource at www.catalogueoflife.org/col. Species 2000: Naturalis, Leiden, the Netherlands. ISSN 2405-8858.
- Parmesan, C. (2006) Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 1, 637–669.
- Pearman, P.B., Guisan, A., Broennimann, O. & Randin, C.F. (2007) Niche dynamics in space and time. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23, 149–158.
- Pearson, R.G., Dawson, T.E. & Liu, C. (2004) Modelling species distributions in Britain: a hierarchical integration of climate and land-cover data. Ecography, 154, 289–300.
- Peterson, A.T. (2003) Predicting the geography of species’ invasions via ecological niche modelling. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 78, 419–433.
- Peterson, A.T., Papes, M. & Kluza, D.A. (2003) Predicting the potential invasive distributions of four alien plant species in North America. Weed Science, 51, 863–868.
- Petitpierre, B., Kueffer, C., Broennimann, O., Randin, C., Daehler, C. & Guisan, A. (2012) Climatic niche shifts are rare among terrestrial plant invaders. Science, 335, 1344–1348.
- Phillips, S. (2006) A brief tutorial on MaxEnt. AT&T Research, Florham Park, NJ. Available at: https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~schapire/maxent/ (last accessed August 15, 2016).
- Phillips, S.J., Anderson, R.P. & Schapire, R.E. (2006) Maximum entropy modelling of species geographic distributions. Ecological Modelling, 190, 231–259.
- Python Software Foundation. (2015) Python Language Reference, version 2.7. Python Software Foundation, Beaverton, OR.
- R Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
- Sexton, J.P., McIntyre, P.J., Angert, A.L. & Rice, K.J. (2009) Evolution and ecology of species range limits. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 40, 415–436.
- Synes, N.W. & Osborne, P.E. (2011) Choice of predictor variables as a source of uncertainty in continental-scale species distribution modelling under climate change. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 20, 904–914.
- Thuiller, W., Munkemuller, T., Lavergne, S., Mouillot, D., Mouquet, N., Schiffers, K. & Gravel, D. (2013) A road map for integrating eco-evolutionary processes into biodiversity models. Ecology Letters, 16(s1), 94–105.
- Tingley, M.W., Monahan, W.B., Beissinger, S.R. & Moritz, C. (2009) Birds track their Grinnellian niche through a century of climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 106, 19637–19643.
- Warren, D.L. & Seifert, S.N. (2011) Ecological niche modelling in Maxent: the importance of model complexity and the performance of model selection criteria. Ecological Applications, 21, 335–342.
- Welch, B. (1951) On the comparison of several mean values: an alternative approach. Biometrika, 38, 330–336.
- Wiens, J.J. (2011) The niche, biogeography and species interactions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366, 2336–2350.
- Wiens, J.J. & Graham, C.H. (2005) Niche conservatism: integrating evolution, ecology and conservation biology. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 36, 519–539.
- Wisz, M.S., Hijmans, R.J., Li, J., Peterson, A.T., Graham,C.H., Guisan, A. & Distribut, N.P.S. (2008) Effects of sample size on the performance of species distribution models. Diversity and Distributions, 14, 763–773.
