Niels Preuk, Daniel Romero-Mujalli, Damaris Zurell, Manuel Steinbauer, and Juergen Kreyling
{"title":"Randomising spatial patterns supports the integration of intraspecific variation in ecological niche models","authors":"Niels Preuk, Daniel Romero-Mujalli, Damaris Zurell, Manuel Steinbauer, and Juergen Kreyling","doi":"10.1111/ecog.07289","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Ecological niche models (ENMs) are an essential modelling technique in biodiversity prediction and conservation and are frequently used to forecast species responses to global changes. Classic species-level models may show limitations as they assume species homogeneity, neglecting intraspecific variation. Composite ENMs allow the integration of intraspecific variation by combining intraspecific-level ENMs, capturing individual environmental responses over the species' geographic range. While recent studies suggest that accounting for intraspecific variation improves model predictions, we currently lack methods to test the significance of the improvement. Here, we propose a null model approach that randomises observed intraspecific structures as an appropriate baseline for comparison. We illustrate this approach by comparing predictive performance of a species-level ENM to composite ENMs for European beech <i>Fagus sylvatica</i>. To investigate the influence of spatial lineage structure, we tested all models against the same withheld data to allow comparison across models based on five common performance metrics. We found that the species-level ENM expressed higher overall performance (i.e. AUC, TSS, and Boyce index) and specificity (ability to predict absences), while the composite ENMs achieved higher sensitivity (ability to predict presences). In line with this, the composite ENMs also showed increased sensitivity and decreased specificity compared to the null models that randomised lineage structure. We showed that the assessment of model performance strongly varies based on the used measures, emphasising a careful investigation of multiple measures for evaluation. The application of null models allowed us to disentangle the effect of observed patterns of intraspecific variation in ENMs. Further, we highlight the validation and use of well-founded subgroups for modelling. Although intraspecific variation improves the prediction of occurrences of European beech, it did not fully outcompete the classic species-level model and should be used with care and rather to improve understanding and to supplement, not replace, species-level models.","PeriodicalId":51026,"journal":{"name":"Ecography","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecography","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.07289","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Ecological niche models (ENMs) are an essential modelling technique in biodiversity prediction and conservation and are frequently used to forecast species responses to global changes. Classic species-level models may show limitations as they assume species homogeneity, neglecting intraspecific variation. Composite ENMs allow the integration of intraspecific variation by combining intraspecific-level ENMs, capturing individual environmental responses over the species' geographic range. While recent studies suggest that accounting for intraspecific variation improves model predictions, we currently lack methods to test the significance of the improvement. Here, we propose a null model approach that randomises observed intraspecific structures as an appropriate baseline for comparison. We illustrate this approach by comparing predictive performance of a species-level ENM to composite ENMs for European beech Fagus sylvatica. To investigate the influence of spatial lineage structure, we tested all models against the same withheld data to allow comparison across models based on five common performance metrics. We found that the species-level ENM expressed higher overall performance (i.e. AUC, TSS, and Boyce index) and specificity (ability to predict absences), while the composite ENMs achieved higher sensitivity (ability to predict presences). In line with this, the composite ENMs also showed increased sensitivity and decreased specificity compared to the null models that randomised lineage structure. We showed that the assessment of model performance strongly varies based on the used measures, emphasising a careful investigation of multiple measures for evaluation. The application of null models allowed us to disentangle the effect of observed patterns of intraspecific variation in ENMs. Further, we highlight the validation and use of well-founded subgroups for modelling. Although intraspecific variation improves the prediction of occurrences of European beech, it did not fully outcompete the classic species-level model and should be used with care and rather to improve understanding and to supplement, not replace, species-level models.
期刊介绍:
ECOGRAPHY publishes exciting, novel, and important articles that significantly advance understanding of ecological or biodiversity patterns in space or time. Papers focusing on conservation or restoration are welcomed, provided they are anchored in ecological theory and convey a general message that goes beyond a single case study. We encourage papers that seek advancing the field through the development and testing of theory or methodology, or by proposing new tools for analysis or interpretation of ecological phenomena. Manuscripts are expected to address general principles in ecology, though they may do so using a specific model system if they adequately frame the problem relative to a generalized ecological question or problem.
Purely descriptive papers are considered only if breaking new ground and/or describing patterns seldom explored. Studies focused on a single species or single location are generally discouraged unless they make a significant contribution to advancing general theory or understanding of biodiversity patterns and processes. Manuscripts merely confirming or marginally extending results of previous work are unlikely to be considered in Ecography.
Papers are judged by virtue of their originality, appeal to general interest, and their contribution to new developments in studies of spatial and temporal ecological patterns. There are no biases with regard to taxon, biome, or biogeographical area.