Advertisement

Biological Invasions

, Volume 17, Issue 12, pp 3455–3465 | Cite as

Beyond species-specific assessments: an analysis and validation of environmental distance metrics for non-indigenous species risk assessment

  • Johanna Bradie
  • Adam Pietrobon
  • Brian Leung
Original Paper

Abstract

Environmental distance metrics quantify environmental similarity between locations using a number of environmental variables. They are commonly applied in aquatic non-indigenous species risk assessments to assess the relative risk of species transfer between different location pairs. Despite their application in governmental risk assessments globally, these metrics have not yet been empirically validated. We use empirical data for 419 species obtained from the Global Invasive Species Information Network database to perform a validation of environmental distance metrics. We explore the ability of environmental distance to discriminate presences from absences in both aquatic and terrestrial environments. We examine the effect of variable choice (both the number and types of variables included) and different metrics (Euclidean distance, Mahalanobis distance, and weighted versions of each) on metric performance. Environmental distance calculated using unweighted Euclidean distance performed best overall. When applied with appropriate variables, it was able to discriminate between presence and absence distances for up to 93 % of species. Variable choice significantly influenced metric performance, and including fewer, relevant variables outperformed applications where many variables were included. Our results support the use of environmental distance metrics in both aquatic and terrestrial environments.

Keywords

Climate matching Habitat matching Euclidean distance Invasion risk Mahalanobis distance Non-indigenous species Pathway analysis Prediction 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank R. Hilliard, S. Drury, D. Schneider, L. Della Venezia, A.Gervais, E. Hudgins, and A. Sardain for helpful discussions. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for comments that greatly improved our manuscript. This research was supported by an NSERC PGSD award to J.N.B., NSERC Canadian Aquatic Invasive Species Network grant and NSERC Discovery grant to B.L.

Supplementary material

10530_2015_970_MOESM1_ESM.docx (286 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 286 kb)

References

  1. Barry SC, Hayes KR et al (2008) Ballast water risk assessment: principles, processes, and methods. ICES J Mar Sci 65(2):121–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bates D, Maechler M et al (2014) Package lme4: linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. OctoberGoogle Scholar
  3. Behrens HL, Haugom GP et al (2002) EMBLA ballast water risk assessment manual. Det Norske Veritas, Norway 24 Google Scholar
  4. Bennett JR (2014) Comparison of native and exotic distribution and richness models across scales reveals essential conservation lessons. Ecography 37(2):120–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boik RJ (1979) Interactions, partial interactions, and interaction contrasts in the analysis of variance. Psychol Bull 86(5):1084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Calenge C, Darmon G et al (2008) The factorial decomposition of the Mahalanobis distances in habitat selection studies. Ecology 89(2):555–566CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Chamberlain S, Szocs E (2013) Taxize—taxonomic search and retrieval in RGoogle Scholar
  8. Chan F, Bailey S et al (2013) Relative risk assessment for ballast-mediated invasions at Canadian Arctic ports. Biol Invasions 15(2):295–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark JD, Dunn JE et al (1993) A multivariate model of female black bear habitat use for a geographic information system. J Wildl Manag 57(3):519–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clarke C, Hayes T et al (2003) Ballast water risk assessment: Port of Khark Island, vol 8. GloBallast Monograph Series. Islamic Republic of IranGoogle Scholar
  11. Elith J, Graham CH et al (2006) Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data. Ecography 29(2):129–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elith J, Phillips SJ et al (2011) A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists. Divers Distrib 17(1):43–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Farber O, Kadmon R (2003) Assessment of alternative approaches for bioclimatic modeling with special emphasis on the Mahalanobis distance. Ecol Model 160(1):115–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fisher RA (1921) On the `probable error’ of a coefficient of correlation deduced from a small sample. Metron 1:3–32Google Scholar
  15. Fox J, Weisberg S (2011) ‘car package’: An R companion to applied regression. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  16. Gaston KJ (2009) Geographic range limits of species. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 276(1661):1391–1393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. GISIN (2014) Global Invasive Species Information Network, providing free and open access to invasive species data. http://www.gisin.org. Accessed 22 Oct 2014
  18. Gollasch S (1996) Untersuchungen des Arteintrages durch den internationalen Schiffsverkehr unter besonderer Beru¨cksichtigung nichtheimischer Arten. Hamburg, University of Hamburg. PhD: 314Google Scholar
  19. Guisan A, Thuiller W (2005) Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol Lett 8(9):993–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hartigan JA, Wong MA (1979) A K-means clustering algorithm. Appl Stat 28:100–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hijmans RJ, Cameron SE et al (2005) Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int J Climatol 25(15):1965–1978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hijmans RJ, Williams E et al (2015) geosphere: Spherical Trigonometry. R package version 1.4-3. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=geosphere
  23. Hilliard RW, Walker S et al (1997) Stage 3B environmental similarity analyses. Ballast Water Risk Assessment 12 Queensland Ports. Brisbane, Queensland, Ports Corporation of QueenslandGoogle Scholar
  24. Keller RP, Drake JM et al (2011) Linking environmental conditions and ship movements to estimate invasive species transport across the global shipping network. Divers Distrib 17(1):93–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kumschick S, Richardson DM (2013) Species-based risk assessments for biological invasions: advances and challenges. Divers Distrib 19(9):1095–1105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Legendre P (1993) Spatial autocorrelation: trouble or new paradigm? Ecology 74(6):1659–1673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lenth RV, Hervac M (2015) lsmeans: Least-Squares Means. R package version 2.19. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lsmeans
  28. Leung B, Roura-Pascual N et al (2012) TEASIng apart alien species risk assessments: a framework for best practices. Ecol Lett 15(12):1475–1493CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Levin SA (1992) The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73(6):1943–1967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lockwood JL, Cassey P et al (2005) The role of propagule pressure in explaining species invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 20(5):223–228CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Mahalanobis PC (1936) On the generalized distance in statistics. Proc Natl Inst Sci India 12:49–55Google Scholar
  32. MEPC (2009) Project on control and management of harmful organisms transferred by ballast water in Turkey, vol 59. International Maritime OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  33. MEPC (2010) Ballast Water Management Programme, India (BAMPI), vol 60. International Maritime OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  34. NOAA (2014) STAR—global vegetation health products. Accessed online at http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/smcd/emb/vci/VH/
  35. Pearman PB, Guisan A et al (2007) Niche dynamics in space and time. Trends Ecol Evol 23(3):149–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Peterson AT (2003) Predicting the geography of species’ invasions via ecological niche modeling. Q Rev Biol 78(4):419–433CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Phillips SJ, Dudik M et al (2009) Sample selection bias and presence-only distribution models: implications for background and pseudo-absence data. Ecol Appl 19(1):181–197CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Pysek P, Richardson DM (2010) Invasive species, environmental change and management, and health. Annu Rev Environ Resour 35(35):25–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. R Core Development Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  40. Rahel FJ (2002) Homogenization of freshwater faunas. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 33:291–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Robinson LM, Elith J et al (2011) Pushing the limits in marine species distribution modelling: lessons from the land present challenges and opportunities. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 20:789–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ruesink JL (2007) Biotic resistance and facilitation of a non-native oyster on rocky shores. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 331:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Searle SR, Speed FM, Milliken GA (1980) Population marginal means in the linear model: an alternative to least squares means. Am Stat 34:216–221Google Scholar
  44. Segurado P, Araujo MB et al (2006) Consequences of spatial autocorrelation for niche-based models. J Appl Ecol 43(3):433–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stocks DT (2006) Ballast water risk assessment for ship entering Canada. BMT Fleet Technology, VictoriaGoogle Scholar
  46. Thompson LM, Van Manen FT et al (2006) A spatial modeling approach to identify potential butternut restoration sites in Mammoth Cave National Park. Restor Ecol 14(2):289–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Thuiller W, Araujo MB et al (2004) Do we need land-cover data to model species distributions in Europe? J Biogeogr 31(3):353–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. van Wilgen N, Roura-Pascual N et al (2009) A Quantitative Climate-Match Score for risk-assessment screening of reptile and amphibian introductions. Environ Manage 44(3):590–607CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Welch B (1951) On the comparison of several mean values: an alternative approach. Biometrika 38:330–336Google Scholar
  50. Wiens JJ, Ackerly DD et al (2010) Niche conservatism as an emerging principle in ecology and conservation biology. Ecol Lett 13(10):1310–1324CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Wölfel M, Ekenel HK (2005) Feature weighted Mahalanobis distance: improved robustness for Gaussian classifiers. 13th European signal processing conferenceGoogle Scholar
  52. Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical analysis. Pearson Education India, New DelhiGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations