Methods and uncertainties in bioclimatic envelope modelling under climate change

Abstract

International audiencePotential impacts of projected climate change on biodiversity are often assessed using single-species bioclimatic 'envelope' models. Such models are a special case of species distribution models in which the current geographical distribution of species is related to climatic variables so to enable projections of distributions under future climate change scenarios. This work reviews a number of critical methodological issues that may lead to uncertainty in predictions from bioclimatic modelling. Particular attention is paid to recent developments of bioclimatic modelling that address some of these issues as well as to the topics where more progress needs to be made. Developing and applying bioclimatic models in a informative way requires good understanding of a wide range of methodologies, including the choice of modelling technique, model validation, collinearity, autocorrelation, biased sampling of explanatory variables, scaling and impacts of non-climatic factors. A key challenge for future research is integrating factors such as land cover, direct CO2 effects, biotic interactions and dispersal mechanisms into species-climate models. We conclude that, although bioclimatic envelope models have a number of important advantages, they need to be applied only when users of models have a thorough understanding of their limitations and uncertainties

Predicting the future of forests in the Mediterranean under climate change, with niche- and process-based models: CO2 matters!

“…Despite their broad use, uncertainties about nichebased model predictions remain high (Hampe, 2004;Heikkinen et al, 2006;Randin et al, 2006). To date, the main drawback of niche-based models is their inability to consider important relationships such as biotic interactions, mortality, or growth (Davis et al, 1998;Hampe, 2004) and their reliance on observed distributions, which are the results of long-term historical factors (e.g., postglacial recolonization and human management), and environmental stochasticity, among other factors.…”

Fine-scale spatial patterns of the Tertiary relict Zelkova abelicea (Ulmaceae) indicate possible processes contributing to its persistence to climate changes

“…''Fill'' refers to the total fit of the matrix. Columns ''NODFcolumns'' and ''NODFrows'' refer to the NODF as measured only according to matrix columns and rows, respectively, while ''NODF'' refers to the total NODF variables, but a minimum set of available parameters have been chosen to avoid overfitting, which in turn may result in artifacts (Beaumont et al 2005;Heikkinen et al 2006;Araújo and Peterson 2012). The fact that the total contribution of the direct abiotic variables (i.e., soil, landscape and climate variables) in the model reaches 10.8 %, whereas bare soil and plant cover attain 14.1 and 0.1 %, respectively, also indicates that patterns resulting from disturbance and biotic interactions may also be important.…”

An overview of recent remote sensing and GIS based research in ecological informatics

“…The relationships established between the variables may then be used to project the future distribution of the species under a set of climate change scenarios (Pearson and Dawson, 2003;Luoto et al, 2007). Such studies can provide a valuable initial assessment of likely climate change impacts, especially if used at coarse spatial scales where macro-climate variation has most impact on species distributions (Pearson and Dawson, 2003;Luoto et al, 2005;Heikkinen et al, 2006). There are, of course, limitations to such modeling (Pearson and Dawson, 2003;Beaumont et al, 2007;Brooker et al, 2007;Osborne et al, 2007a).…”