Abstract
Species distribution models (SDMs) are widely used to hindcast or forecast suitable habitat conditions during climate change. Although distant populations of a given species may show local adaptations to diverging environmental conditions, traditional SDMs disregard intraspecific variation. Yet, incorporating genetic information into SDMs could improve predictions. Here we aimed at investigating whether genetically informed SDMs would outperform traditional SDMs. Using published information on the spatial genetic structure of the European Beech Fagus sylvatica L. (1753), we built lineage-specific SDMs for each phylogenetic group of the species. We then combined all lineage-specific SDMs into a single genetically informed SDM that we compared against a traditional SDM approach. We finally compared SDMs’ predictions against independent datasets of present-day distribution as well as fossil distribution data from the Mid-Holocene, using six metrics of model performance. We found that aggregating lineage-specific SDMs into a single genetically informed SDM increased model performances to identify suitable areas currently occupied by F. sylvatica. In comparison to a traditional SDM, the genetically informed SDM we built for F. sylvatica assigned higher probabilities of occurrence during the Mid-Holocene at locations where fossil records were found. Aggregating lineage-specific SDMs into a single genetically informed SDM seems to outperform the traditional SDM approach, especially so when the aim is to identify potentially suitable areas of occupancy. This could be particularly useful for the identification of cryptic refugia that remain undetected by traditional SDMs. Genetically informed SDMs have the potential to improve our understanding of species redistribution under climate change.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Pollen records extracted from the European Pollen Database can be accessed are from Figshare with the following link: https://figshare.com/s/a4560da2e568e87cb6ac. Upon acceptance, a public DOI will be reserved and replace the above link.
Code availability
Not applicable.
References
Alkishe AA, Peterson AT, Samy AM (2017) Climate change influences on the potential geographic distribution of the disease vector tick Ixodes ricinus. PLoS ONE 12(12):e0189092. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189092
Allouche O, Tsoar A, Kadmon R (2006) Assessing the accuracy of species distribution models: prevalence, kappa and the true skill statistic (TSS). J Appl Ecol 43(6):1223–1232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01214.x
Araújo MB, Anderson RP, Márcia Barbosa A, Beale CM, Dormann CF, Early R, Rahbek C (2019) Standards for distribution models in biodiversity assessments. Sci. Adv. 5(1):eaat4858. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aat4858
Bivand R, Keitt T, Rowlingson B (2020) Rdal: bindings for the 'geospatial' data abstraction library. R package version 1.5-10. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rgdal
Braunisch V, Bollmann K, Graf RF, Hirzel AH (2008) Living on the edge—Modelling habitat suitability for species at the edge of their fundamental niche. Ecol Model 214(2–4):153–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2008.02.001
Chardon NI, Pironon S, Peterson ML, Doak DF (2020) Incorporating intraspecific variation into species distribution models improves distribution predictions, but cannot predict species traits for a wide-spread plant species. Ecography 43(1):60–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.04630
Collart F, Hedenäs L, Broennimann O, Guisan A, Vanderpoorten A (2020) Intraspecific differentiation: implications for niche and distribution modelling. J Biogeogr. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.14009
Cooper N, Jetz W, Freckleton RP (2010) Phylogenetic comparative approaches for studying niche conservatism: comparative approaches for niche conservatism. J Evol Biol 23(12):2529–2539. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02144.x
Cooper N, Freckleton RP, Jetz W (2011) Phylogenetic conservatism of environmental niches in mammals. Proc Royal Soc b: Biol Sci 278(1716):2384–2391. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.2207
De Kort H, Baguette M, Lenoir J, Stevens VM (2020) Toward reliable habitat suitability and accessibility models in an era of multiple environmental stressors. Ecol Evol. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6753
de Lafontaine G, Amasifuen Guerra CA, Ducousso A, Petit RJ (2014) Cryptic no more: soil macrofossils uncover Pleistocene forest microrefugia within a periglacial desert. New Phytol 204(3):715–729. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12833
Dray S, Dufour AB (2007) The ade4 package: implementing the duality diagram for ecologists. J Statist Softw. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v022.i04
Durrant TH, de Rigo D, Caudullo G (2016) Fagus sylvatica in Europe: distribution, habitat, usage and threats. In: San-Miguel-Ayanz J, de Rigo D, Caudullo G, Houston Durrant T, Mauri A (eds) European atlas of forest tree species. Publication Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
Excoffie L, Ray N (2008) Surfing during population expansions promotes genetic revolutions and structuration. Trends Ecol Evol 23(7):347–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.04.004
Excoffier L, Foll M, Petit RJ (2009) Genetic consequences of range expansions. Annu Rev Ecol Evol S 40(1):481–501. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.39.110707.173414
Fick SE, Hijmans RJ (2017) WorldClim 2: new 1-km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. Int J Climatol 37(12):4302–4315. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.5086
Fielding AH, Bell JF (1997) A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environ Conserv 24(1):38–49. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892997000088
Garnier S (2018) viridis: default color maps from 'matplotlib'. R package version 0.5.1. https://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=viridis
Garnier J, Lewis MA (2016) Expansion under climate change: the genetic consequences. Bull Math Biol 78(11):2165–2185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11538-016-0213-x
Grimmett L, Whitsed R, Horta A (2020) Presence-only species distribution models are sensitive to sample prevalence: evaluating models using spatial prediction stability and accuracy metrics. Ecol Model 431:109194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2020.109194
Guisan A, Thuiller W (2005) Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol Lett 8(9):993–1009. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00792.x
Guisan A, Tingley R, Baumgartner JB, Naujokaitis-Lewis I, Sutcliffe PR, Tulloch AIT, Buckley YM (2013) Predicting species distributions for conservation decisions. Ecol Lett 16(12):1424–1435. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12189
Guisan A, Petitpierre B, Broennimann O, Daehler C, Kueffer C (2014) Unifying niche shift studies: insights from biological invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 29(5):260–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.02.009
Guisan A, Thuiller W, Zimmermann NE (2017) Habitat suitability and distribution models: with applications in R. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139028271
Hallgren W, Santana F, Low-Choy S, Zhao Y, Mackey B (2019) Species distribution models can be highly sensitive to algorithm configuration. Ecol Model 408:108719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2019.108719
Hannah L, Midgley G, Andelman S, Araújo M, Hughes G, Martinez-Meyer E, Williams P (2007) Protected area needs in a changing climate. Front Ecol Environ 5(3):131–138. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2007)5[131:PANIAC]2.0.CO;2
Hällfors MH, Liao J, Dzurisin J, Grundel R, Hyvärinen M, Towle K, Wu GC, Hellmann JJ (2016) Addressing potential local adaptation in species distribution models: implications for conservation under climate change. Ecol Appl 26(4):1154–1169. https://doi.org/10.1890/15-0926
Hattab T, Garzón-López CX, Ewald M, Skowronek S, Aerts R, Horen H, Lenoir J (2017) A unified framework to model the potential and realized distributions of invasive species within the invaded range. Divers Distrib 23(7):806–819. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12566
Hijmans R (2020) Raster: geographic data analysis and modeling. R package version 3.1-5.https://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=raster
Hijmans RJ, Cameron SE, Parra JL, Jones PG, Jarvis A (2005) Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int J Climatol 25(15):1965–1978. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1276
Ives AR, Helmus MR (2011) Generalized linear mixed models for phylogenetic analyses of community structure. Ecol Monogr 81(3):511–525. https://doi.org/10.1890/10-1264.1
Lafontaine G, Ducousso A, Lefèvre S, Magnanou E, Petit R (2013) Stronger spatial genetic structure in recolonized areas than in refugia in European beech. Mol Ecol 22:4397–4412. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.12403
Lander TA, Klein EK, Roig A, Odduo-Muratorio S (2021) Weak founder effect but significant spatial genetic imprint of recent contraction and expansion of European beech populations. Heredity 126:491–504. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41437-020-00387-5
Lecocq T, Harpke A, Rasmont P, Schweiger O (2019) Integrating intraspecific differentiation in species distribution models: consequences on projections of current and future climatically suitable areas of species. Divers Distrib 25(7):1088–1100. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12916
Leroy B, Delsol R, Hugueny B, Meynard CN, Barhoumi C, Barbet-Massin M, Bellard C (2018) Without quality presence-absence data, discrimination metrics such as TSS can be misleading measures of model performance. J Biogeogr 45(9):1994–2002. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.13402
Liu C, White M, Newell G (2011) Measuring and comparing the accuracy of species distribution models with presence-absence data. Ecography 34(2):232–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2010.06354.x
Liu C, Newell G, White M (2016) On the selection of thresholds for predicting species occurrence with presence-only data. Ecol Evol 6(1):337–348. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1878
Liu C, Newell G, White M (2018) The effect of sample size on the accuracy of species distribution models: considering both presences and pseudo-absences or background sites. Ecography 42(3):535–548. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.03188
Lobo JM, Jiménez-Valverde A, Real R (2008) AUC: a misleading measure of the performance of predictive distribution models. Global Ecol Biogeogr 17(2):145–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2007.00358.x
Lobo JM, Jiménez-Valverde A, Hortal J (2010) The uncertain nature of absences and their importance in species distribution modelling. Ecography 33(1):103–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2009.06039.x
Márcia Barbosa A, Real R, Muñoz AR, Brown JA (2013) New measures for assessing model equilibrium and prediction mismatch in species distribution models. Divers Distrib 19(10):1333–1338. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12100
Magri D, Vendramin GG, Comps B, Dupanloup I, Geburek T, Gomory D, de Beaulieu J-L (2006) A new scenario for the Quaternary history of European beech populations: palaeobotanical evidence and genetic consequences. New Phytol 171(1):199–221. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2006.01740.x
Mainali KP, Warren DL, Dhileepan K, McConnachie A, Strathie L, Hassan G, Parmesan C (2015) Projecting future expansion of invasive species: comparing and improving methodologies for species distribution modeling. Glob Change Biol 21(12):4464–4480. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13038
Mauri A, Strona G, San-Miguel-Ayanz J (2017) EU-Forest a high-resolution tree occurrence dataset for Europe. Sci Data. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.123
Meynard CN, Gay P-E, Lecoq M, Foucart A, Piou C, Chapuis M-P (2017) Climate-driven geographic distribution of the desert locust during recession periods: subspecies’ niche differentiation and relative risks under scenarios of climate change. Glob Change Biol 23(11):4739–4749. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13739
Naimi B, Hamm NAS, Groen TA, Skidmore AK, Toxopeus AG (2014) Where is positional uncertainty a problem for species distribution modelling. Ecography 37:191–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2013.00205.x
Neve G, Pavlicko A, Konvicka M (2009) Loss of genetic diversity through spontaneous colonization in the bog fritillary butterfly, Proclossiana eunomia (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) in the Czech Republic. Eur J Entomol 106(1):11–19. https://doi.org/10.14411/eje.2009.002
Pabesma EJ, Bivand R (2005) Classes and methods for spatial data in R. R News 5(2). https://cran.r-project.org/doc/Rnews/
Palma RE, Gutiérrez-Tapia P, González JF, Boric-Bargetto D, Torres-Pérez F (2017) Mountaintops phylogeography: a case study using small mammals from the Andes and the coast of central Chile. PLoS ONE 12(7):e0180231. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180231
Pearman PB, D’Amen M, Graham CH, Thuiller W, Zimmermann NE (2010) Within-taxon niche structure: niche conservatism, divergence and predicted effects of climate change. Ecography 33(6):990–1003. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2010.06443.x
Pearson RG, Raxworthy CJ, Nakamura M, Townsend Peterson A (2007) ORIGINAL ARTICLE: predicting species distributions from small numbers of occurrence records: a test case using cryptic geckos in Madagascar: predicting species distributions with low sample sizes. J Biogeogr 34(1):102–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2006.01594.x
Peterson ML, Doak DF, Morris WF (2018) Incorporating local adaptation into forecasts of species’ distribution and abundance under climate change. Glob Change Biol 25(3):775–793. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14562
R Core Team (2019) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
Schulte U, Hochkirch A, Lötters S, Rödder D, Schweiger S, Weimann T, Veith M (2012) Cryptic niche conservatism among evolutionary lineages of an invasive lizard: Intraspecific niche conservatism. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 21(2):198–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2011.00665.x
Shabani F, Kumar L, Ahmadi M (2018) Assessing accuracy methods of species distribution models: AUC, specificity, sensitivity and the true skill statistic. Glob J Human Soc Sci (b) 18(1):13
Slatkin M (1996) In defense of founder-flush theories of speciation. Am Nat 147(4):493–505. https://doi.org/10.1086/285862
Smith AB, Godsoe W, Rodríguez-Sánchez F, Wang H-H, Warren D (2018) Niche estimation above and below the species level. Trends Ecol Evol 34(3):260–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2018.10.012
Svenning J-C, Normand S, Kageyama M (2008) Glacial refugia of temperate trees in Europe: insights from species distribution modelling. J Ecol 96(6):1117–1127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2008.01422.x
Svenning J-C, Fløjgaard C, Marske KA, Nógues-Bravo D, Normand S (2011) Applications of species distribution modeling to paleobiology. Quatern Sci Rev 30(21–22):2930–2947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2011.06.012
Thuiller W, Albert C, Araújo MB, Berry PM, Cabeza M, Guisan A, Zimmermann NE (2008) Predicting global change impacts on plant species’ distributions: future challenges. Perspect Plant Ecol, Evol Syst 9(3–4):137–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppees.2007.09.004
Thuiller W, Georges D, Engler R, Breiner F (2020) biomod2: ensemble platform for species distribution modeling. R package version 3.4.12
Václavík T, Meentemeyer RK (2012) Equilibrium or not? Modelling potential distribution of invasive species in different stages of invasion: equilibrium and invasive species distribution models. Divers Distrib 18(1):73–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2011.00854.x
Vale CG, Tarroso P, Brito JC (2014) Predicting species distribution at range margins: testing the effects of study area extent, resolution and threshold selection in the Sahara-Sahel transition zone. Divers Distrib 20(1):20–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12115
Wasof S, Lenoir J, Gallet-Moron E, Jamoneau A, Brunet J, Cousins SAO, Decocq G (2013) Ecological niche shifts of understorey plants along a latitudinal gradient of temperate forests in north-western Europe: species’ realized-niche shifts across latitude. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 22(10):1130–1140. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12073
Zimmermann NE, Edwards TC, Graham CH, Pearman PB, Svenning J-C (2010) New trends in species distribution modelling. Ecography 33:985–989. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2010.06953.x
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank all the invaluable contributions from Dr. Donatella Magri and Dr. Remy Petit for sharing their data and knowledge on the past distribution of Fagus Sylvatica. This work was supported by the Région Hauts-de-France and the European Regional Development Fund.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Not applicable.
Ethical approval
Not applicable.
Consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
All authors consent with the publication of this article.
Additional information
Communicated by Oliver Gailing.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Poli, P., Guiller, A. & Lenoir, J. Coupling fossil records and traditional discrimination metrics to test how genetic information improves species distribution models of the European beech Fagus sylvatica. Eur J Forest Res 141, 253–265 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-021-01437-1
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-021-01437-1