Sarah R. Naughtin, Antonio R. Castilla, Adam B. Smith, Allan E. Strand, Andria Dawson, Sean Hoban, Everett Andrew Abhainn, Jeanne Romero‐Severson, John D. Robinson
{"title":"整合基因组数据和模拟,评估替代物种分布模型,改进冰川避难所和未来对气候变化反应的预测","authors":"Sarah R. Naughtin, Antonio R. Castilla, Adam B. Smith, Allan E. Strand, Andria Dawson, Sean Hoban, Everett Andrew Abhainn, Jeanne Romero‐Severson, John D. Robinson","doi":"10.1111/ecog.07196","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Climate change poses a threat to biodiversity, and it is unclear whether species can adapt to or tolerate new conditions, or migrate to areas with suitable habitats. Reconstructions of range shifts that occurred in response to environmental changes since the last glacial maximum (LGM) from species distribution models (SDMs) can provide useful data to inform conservation efforts. However, different SDM algorithms and climate reconstructions often produce contrasting patterns, and validation methods typically focus on accuracy in recreating current distributions, limiting their relevance for assessing predictions to the past or future. We modeled historically suitable habitat for the threatened North American tree green ash <jats:italic>Fraxinus pennsylvanica</jats:italic> using 24 SDMs built using two climate models, three calibration regions, and four modeling algorithms. We evaluated the SDMs using contemporary data with spatial block cross‐validation and compared the relative support for alternative models using a novel integrative method based on coupled demographic‐genetic simulations. We simulated genomic datasets using habitat suitability of each of the 24 SDMs in a spatially‐explicit model. Approximate Bayesian computation (ABC) was then used to evaluate the support for alternative SDMs through comparisons to an empirical population genomic dataset. Models had very similar performance when assessed with contemporary occurrences using spatial cross‐validation, but ABC model selection analyses consistently supported SDMs based on the CCSM climate model, an intermediate calibration extent, and the generalized linear modeling algorithm. Finally, we projected the future range of green ash under four climate change scenarios. Future projections using the SDMs selected via ABC suggest only minor shifts in suitable habitat for this species, while some of those that were rejected predicted dramatic changes. Our results highlight the different inferences that may result from the application of alternative distribution modeling algorithms and provide a novel approach for selecting among a set of competing SDMs with independent data.","PeriodicalId":51026,"journal":{"name":"Ecography","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Integrating genomic data and simulations to evaluate alternative species distribution models and improve predictions of glacial refugia and future responses to climate change\",\"authors\":\"Sarah R. Naughtin, Antonio R. Castilla, Adam B. Smith, Allan E. Strand, Andria Dawson, Sean Hoban, Everett Andrew Abhainn, Jeanne Romero‐Severson, John D. Robinson\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ecog.07196\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Climate change poses a threat to biodiversity, and it is unclear whether species can adapt to or tolerate new conditions, or migrate to areas with suitable habitats. Reconstructions of range shifts that occurred in response to environmental changes since the last glacial maximum (LGM) from species distribution models (SDMs) can provide useful data to inform conservation efforts. However, different SDM algorithms and climate reconstructions often produce contrasting patterns, and validation methods typically focus on accuracy in recreating current distributions, limiting their relevance for assessing predictions to the past or future. We modeled historically suitable habitat for the threatened North American tree green ash <jats:italic>Fraxinus pennsylvanica</jats:italic> using 24 SDMs built using two climate models, three calibration regions, and four modeling algorithms. We evaluated the SDMs using contemporary data with spatial block cross‐validation and compared the relative support for alternative models using a novel integrative method based on coupled demographic‐genetic simulations. We simulated genomic datasets using habitat suitability of each of the 24 SDMs in a spatially‐explicit model. Approximate Bayesian computation (ABC) was then used to evaluate the support for alternative SDMs through comparisons to an empirical population genomic dataset. Models had very similar performance when assessed with contemporary occurrences using spatial cross‐validation, but ABC model selection analyses consistently supported SDMs based on the CCSM climate model, an intermediate calibration extent, and the generalized linear modeling algorithm. Finally, we projected the future range of green ash under four climate change scenarios. Future projections using the SDMs selected via ABC suggest only minor shifts in suitable habitat for this species, while some of those that were rejected predicted dramatic changes. Our results highlight the different inferences that may result from the application of alternative distribution modeling algorithms and provide a novel approach for selecting among a set of competing SDMs with independent data.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51026,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ecography\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-02\",\"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.07196\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecography","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.07196","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}
Integrating genomic data and simulations to evaluate alternative species distribution models and improve predictions of glacial refugia and future responses to climate change
Climate change poses a threat to biodiversity, and it is unclear whether species can adapt to or tolerate new conditions, or migrate to areas with suitable habitats. Reconstructions of range shifts that occurred in response to environmental changes since the last glacial maximum (LGM) from species distribution models (SDMs) can provide useful data to inform conservation efforts. However, different SDM algorithms and climate reconstructions often produce contrasting patterns, and validation methods typically focus on accuracy in recreating current distributions, limiting their relevance for assessing predictions to the past or future. We modeled historically suitable habitat for the threatened North American tree green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica using 24 SDMs built using two climate models, three calibration regions, and four modeling algorithms. We evaluated the SDMs using contemporary data with spatial block cross‐validation and compared the relative support for alternative models using a novel integrative method based on coupled demographic‐genetic simulations. We simulated genomic datasets using habitat suitability of each of the 24 SDMs in a spatially‐explicit model. Approximate Bayesian computation (ABC) was then used to evaluate the support for alternative SDMs through comparisons to an empirical population genomic dataset. Models had very similar performance when assessed with contemporary occurrences using spatial cross‐validation, but ABC model selection analyses consistently supported SDMs based on the CCSM climate model, an intermediate calibration extent, and the generalized linear modeling algorithm. Finally, we projected the future range of green ash under four climate change scenarios. Future projections using the SDMs selected via ABC suggest only minor shifts in suitable habitat for this species, while some of those that were rejected predicted dramatic changes. Our results highlight the different inferences that may result from the application of alternative distribution modeling algorithms and provide a novel approach for selecting among a set of competing SDMs with independent data.
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.