Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of a species distribution model and a process model from a hierarchical perspective to quantify effects of projected climate change on tree species

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Context

Tree species distribution and abundance are affected by forces operating across a hierarchy of ecological scales. Process and species distribution models have been developed emphasizing forces at different scales. Understanding model agreement across hierarchical scales provides perspective on prediction uncertainty and ultimately enables policy makers and managers to make better decisions.

Objective

Our objective was to test the hypothesis that agreement between process and species distribution models varies by hierarchical level. Due to the top-down approach of species distribution models and the bottom-up approach of process models, the most agreement will occur at the mid-level of the hierarchical analysis, the ecological subsection level, capturing the effects of soil variables.

Methods

We compared projections of a species distribution model, Climate Change Tree Atlas, and a process model, LINKAGES 2.2. We conducted a correlation analysis between the models at regional, ecological subsection, and species level hierarchical scales.

Results

Both models had significant positive correlation (ρ = 0.53, P < 0.001) on the regional scale. The majority of the ecological subsections had greater model correlation than on the regional level when all climate scenarios were pooled. Correlation was poorest for the analysis of individual species. Models had the greatest correlation at the regional scale for the GFDL-A1fi scenario (the scenario with the most climate change). Species near their range edge generally had stronger correlation (loblolly pine, northern red oak, black oak).

Conclusion

Our general hypothesis was partly accepted. This suggests that uncertainties are relatively low when interpreting model results at subsection level.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bailey RG (1995) Ecoregions and subregions of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the US virgin islands. USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaumont LJ, Pitman AJ, Poulsen M, Hughes L (2007) Where will species go? Incorporating new advances in climate modeling into projections of species distributions. Glob Change Biol 13:1368–1385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Botkin DB, Janak JF, Wallis JR (1972) Some ecological consequences of a computer model of forest growth. J Ecol 60(3):849–872

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandt L, He H, Iverson L, Thompson F, Butler P, Handler S, Janowiak M, Swanston C, Albrecht M, Blume-Weaver R, Dijak W, Deizman P, DePuy J, Dinkel G, Fei S, Jones-Farrand T, Leahy M, Matthews S, Nelson P, Oberle B, Perez J, Peters M, Prasad A, Schneiderman JE, Shuey J, Smith AB, Studyvin C, Tirpak J, Walk J, Wang W, Watts L, Weigel D, Westin S (2014) Central Hardwoods ecosystem vulnerability assessment and synthesis: a report from the Central Hardwoods climate change response framework project. Gen Tech Rep NRS-124. Newtown Square, PA. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station

  • Breiman L (1996) Bagging predictors. Mach Learn 24:123–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Breiman L (2001) Random forests. Mach Learn 45:5–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheaib A, Badeau V, Boe J, Chuine I, Delire C, Dufrene E, Francois C, Gritti ES, Legay M, Pagé C, Thuiller W, Viovy N, Leadley P (2012) Climate change impacts on tree ranges: model intercomparison facilitates understanding and quantification of uncertainty. Ecol Lett 15:533–544

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dale V, Lannom KO, Tharp ML, Hodges DG, Fogel J (2009) Effects of climate change, land-use change, and invasive species on the ecology of the Cumberland forests. Can J For Res 39:467–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diez JM, Pulliam HR (2007) Hierarchical analysis of species distributions and abundance across environmental gradients. Ecology 88(12):3144–3152

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dijak WD, Rittenhouse CD (2009) Development and application of habitat suitability models to large landscapes. In: Millspaugh JJ, Thompson FR III (eds) Models for planning wildlife conservation in large landscapes. Elsevier, San Diego, pp 367–389

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dormann CF, Schymanski SJ, Cabral J, Chuine I, Graham C, Hartig F, Kearney M, Morin X, Römermann C, Schröder B, Singer A (2012) Correlation and process in species distribution models: bridging a dichotomy. J Biogeogr 39:2119–2131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallego-Sala AV, Clark JM, House JI, Orr HG, Prentice IC, Smith P, Farewell T, Chapman SJ (2010) Bioclimatic envelope model of climate change impacts on blanket peatland distribution in Great Britain. Clim Res 45(1):151–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson EJ (2013) When relationships estimated in the past can’t be used to predict the future: using mechanistic models to predict landscape ecological dynamics in a changing world. Landscape Ecol 28:1429–1437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson EJ, De Bruijn AMG, Pangle RE, Limousin JM, McDowell NG, Pockman WT, Sturtevant BR, Muss JD, Kubiske ME (2015) Integrating ecophysiology and forest landscape models to improve projections of drought effects under climate change. Glob Change Biol 21:843–856

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hampe A, Petit RJ (2005) Conserving biodiversity under climate change: the rear edge matters. Ecol Lett 8:461–467

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • He HS, Mladenoff DJ, Crow TR (1999) Linking an ecosystem model and a landscape model to study forest species response to climate warming. Ecol Model 114:213–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He HS, Hao Z, Mladenoff DJ, Shao G, Hu Y, Chang Y (2005) Simulating forest ecosystem response to climate warming incorporating spatial effects in North-Eastern China. J Biogeogr 32:2043–2056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007) Climate change 2007: synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [core writing team, Pachauri RK, Reisinger A (eds)]. IPCC, Geneva

  • Iverson LR, Prasad AM (1998) Predicting abundance of 80 tree species following climate change in the Eastern United States. Ecol Monogr 68(4):465–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iverson LR, Schwartz MW, Prasad AM (2004) How fast and far might tree species migrate in the eastern United States due to climate change. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 13:209–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iverson LR, Prasad A, Matthews S (2008) Modeling potential climate change impacts on the trees of the northeastern United States. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 13:487–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iverson LR, McKenzie D (2013) Tree-species range shifts in a changing climate: detecting, modeling, assisting. Landscape Ecol 28:879–889. doi:10.1007/s10980-013-9885-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keenan T, Serra JM, Lloret F, Ninyerola M, Sabate S (2011) Predicting the future of forests in the Mediterranean under climate change, with niche- and process-based models: CO2 matters! Glob Change Biol 17:565–579. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02254.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klopatek JM, Gardner RH (eds) (1999) Landscape ecological analysis: issues and applications. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Landsberg JJ, Gower ST (1997) Applications of physiological ecology to forest management. Academic Press Inc, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • Landsberg JJ, Sands P (2011) Physiological ecology of forest production: principles, processes and models. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Landscape Change Research Group (2014) Climate Change Atlas. Northern Research Station, U.S. Forest Service, Delaware http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/atlas

  • Liang Y, HS He, Fraser JS, Wu ZW (2013) Thematic and spatial resolutions affect model-based predictions of tree species distribution. Plos One 8(7):e67889. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0067889

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liang Y, He HS, Wu Z, Yang J (2014) Effects of environmental heterogeneity on predictions of tree species’ abundance in response to climate warming. Environ Model Softw 59:222–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Little EL (1971) Atlas of United States trees. Conifers and important hardwoods, vol 1. Miscellaneous publication 1146, USDA Forest Service, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Mäkelä A, Landsberg J, Ek AR, Burk TE, Ter-Mikaelian M, Ågren GI, Oliver CD, Puttonen P (2000) Process-based models for forest ecosystem management: current state of the art and challenges for practical implementation. Tree Physiol 20:289–298

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marcot BG, Thompson MP, Runge MC, Thompson FR, McNulty S, Cleaves D, Tomosy M, Fisher LA, Bliss A (2012) Recent advances in applying decision science to managing national forests. For Ecol Manag 285:123–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews SN, Iverson LR, Prasad AM, Peters MP (2011) Modifying climate change habitat models using tree species-specific assessments of model uncertainty and life history-factors. For Ecol Manag 262:1460–1472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meier ES, Lischke H, Schmatz DR, Zimmermann NE (2012) Climate, competition and connectivity affect future migration and ranges of European trees. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 21:164–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller MR (1981) Ecological land classification terrestrial subsystem, a basic inventory system for planning and management on the Mark Twain National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region

    Google Scholar 

  • Morin X, Thuiller W (2009) Comparing niche- and process-based models to reduce prediction uncertainty in species range shifts under climate change. Ecology 90(5):1301–1313

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-National Climatic Data Center (NOAA-NCDC) (2011) http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/. Accessed 01 July 2011

  • Newman JA, Anand M, Henry HAL, Hunt S, Gedalof Z (2011) Climate change biology. CAB International, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Nigh T, Schroeder W (2002) Atlas of Missouri ecoregions. Department of Conservation, Jefferson City

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill RV, Johnson AR, King AW (1989) A hierarchical framework for the analysis of scale. Landscape Ecol 3(3,4):193–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pastor J, Post WM (1985) Development of a linked forest productivity-soil process model. ORNL/TM-9519. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Pastor J, Post WM (1986) Influence of climate soil moisture, and succession on forest carbon and nitrogen cycles. Biogeochem 2(1):3–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pastor J, Post WM (1988) Response of Northern forests to CO2-induced climate change. Nature 334:55–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson RG, Dawson TP (2003) Predicting the impacts of climate change on the distribution of species: are bioclimate envelope models useful? Glob Ecol Biogeogr 12:361–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheskin DJ (2000) Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures, 2nd edn. CRC Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Soil survey staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Database for Missouri. (http://soils.usda.gov/) Accessed 01 June 2013

  • Stoner AMK, Hayhoe K, Yang X (2011) Downscaled Climate Projections by Katharine Hayhoe. http://cida.usgs.gov/climate/hayhoe_projections.jsp. Accessed 01 Nov 2011

  • Thomas CD (2010) Climate, climate change and range boundaries. Divers Distrib 16:488–495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton PE, Thornton MM, Mayer BW, Wilhelmi N, Wei Y, Cook RB (2012) Daymet: daily surface weather on a 1 km grid for North America, 1980—2012. http://daymet.ornl.gov/. Accessed 01 July 2012 from Oak Ridge National Laboratory Distributed Active Archive Center, Oak Ridge 10.3334/ORNLDAAC/Daymet_V2

  • Turner MG (1989) Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 20:171–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner MG (2005) Landscape ecology in North America: past, present, and future. Ecology 86(8):1967–1974

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner MG, Gardner RH, O’Neill RV (2001) Landscape ecology in theory and practice pattern and process. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodall C, Conkling B, Amacher M, Coulston J, Jovan S, Perry C, Schulz B, Smith G, Wolf SW (2010) The forest inventory and analysis database. Version 4.0: Database description and user’s manual for phase 3. USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square

    Google Scholar 

  • Wullschleger SD, Gunderson CA, Tharp ML, West DC, Post WM (2003) Simulated patterns of forest succession and productivity as a consequence of altered precipitation. In: Hanson PJ, Wullschleger SD (eds) North American Temperate Deciduous Forest Responses to Changing Precipitation Regimes. Springer, New York, pp 433–446

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann NE, Yoccoz NG, Edwards TC Jr, Meier ES, Thuiller W, Guisan A, Schmatz DR, Pearman PB (2009) Climatic extremes improve predictions of spatial patterns of tree species. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106(Supplement 2):19723–19728

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Louis R. Iverson and Matthew P. Peters for providing us with Climate Change Tree Atlas raw data for our analysis. We would like to thank Stan D. Wullschleger for input and clarification regarding LINKAGES 2.2. We would like to thank Wilfred M. Post for input regarding the LINKAGES model. We would also like to thank two anonymous reviewers. Funding for this project was provided by the U.S.D.A. Forest Service Northern Research Station, the University of Missouri GIS Mission Enhancement Program, and the Department of Interior U.S.G.S. Northeast Climate Science Center. The contents of this paper are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the United States Government.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Forestry, University of Missouri, 203 Anheuser-Busch Natural Resources Building, Columbia, MO, 65211, USA

    Jeffrey E. Schneiderman, Hong S. He & Jacob S. Fraser

  2. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Northern Research Station, University of Missouri, 202 Anheuser-Busch Natural Resources Building, Columbia, MO, 65211, USA

    Frank R. Thompson III & William D. Dijak

Authors
  1. Jeffrey E. Schneiderman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hong S. He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Frank R. Thompson III
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. William D. Dijak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jacob S. Fraser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeffrey E. Schneiderman.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 238 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schneiderman, J.E., He, H.S., Thompson, F.R. et al. Comparison of a species distribution model and a process model from a hierarchical perspective to quantify effects of projected climate change on tree species. Landscape Ecol 30, 1879–1892 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0217-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0217-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation