Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 31, Issue 6, pp 1195–1208 | Cite as

The scaling of geographic ranges: implications for species distribution models

  • Charles B. Yackulic
  • Joshua R. Ginsberg
Research Article

Abstract

Context

The geographic ranges of many species are responding to ongoing environmental change. Processes operating at different levels of biological organization, with corresponding spatial extents and grains and temporal rates, interact with the evolving configuration of environmental conditions to determine range dynamics.

Objectives

To synthesize understanding of scales and scaling, including relevant biological levels of organization, focusing on the processes that mediate species-environment relationships and the models used to make inferences about species distributions.

Methods

We review concepts related to the scaling of geographic ranges and implications for the most commonly used analytic methods, using simple simulations to illustrate important issues.

Results

Many processes lead to species distributions being dependent on environmental conditions within sites and within a neighborhood. Studies with large extents and fine grains can cut across several levels of biological organization (individual, within-population, and metapopulation processes) complicating interpretation. Many geographic ranges are not in dynamic equilibrium, but common models used for inference assume equilibrium. Interspecific interactions shape species distributions at multiple scales, and arguments for ignoring species interactions also assume equilibrium.

Conclusions

There is a need for timely science to inform policy and management decisions; however, we must also strive to provide predictions that best reflect our understanding of ecological systems. Species distributions evolve through time and reflect responses to environmental conditions that are mediated through individual and population processes. Species distribution models that reflect this understanding, and explicitly model dynamics, are likely to give more accurate predictions.

Keywords

Climate change Disequilibrium Dynamic Landscape Metapopulation Niche Occupancy  Temporal rates 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank S. Vanderkooi and J.D. Nichols and two anonymous reviewers for suggestions based on earlier drafts. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Supplementary material

10980_2015_333_MOESM1_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 15 kb)

References

  1. Andrewartha HG, Birch LC (1954) The distribution and abundance of animals. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrewartha HG, Birch LC (1984) The ecological web: more on the distribution and abundance of animals. University of Chicago press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  3. Augustin NH, Mugglestone MA, Buckland ST (1996) An autologistic model for the spatial distribution of wildlife. J Appl Ecol 33(2):339–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnosky AD, Matzke N, Tomiya S, Wogan GO, Swartz B, Quental TB, Mersey B (2011) Has the Earth/’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature 471(7336):51–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berger KM, Gese EM (2007) Does interference competition with wolves limit the distribution and abundance of coyotes? J Anim Ecol 76(6):1075–1085PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bled F, Royle JA, Cam E (2011) Hierarchical modeling of an invasive spread: the Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto in the United States. Ecol Appl 21(1):290–302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caughley G, Grice D, Barker R, Brown B (1988) The edge of the range. J Anim Ecol 57(3):771–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR (2002) Mammal population losses and the extinction crisis. Science 296(5569):904–907PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Colwell RK, Rangel TF (2009) Hutchinson’s duality: the once and future niche. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106(Supplement 2):19651–19658PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Connor EF, Faeth SH, Simberloff D (1983) Leafminers on Oak: the role of immigration and in situ reproductive recruitment. Ecology 64(1):191–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Creel S, Winnie J, Maxwell B, Hamlin K, Creel M (2005) Elk alter habitat selection as an antipredator response to wolves. Ecology 86(12):3387–3397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dibble KL, Yackulic CB, Kennedy TA, Budy P (2015) Flow management and fish density regulate salmonid recruitment and adult size in tailwaters across western North America. Ecol ApplGoogle Scholar
  13. Dillon A, Kelly MJ (2007) Ocelot Leopardus pardalis in Belize: the impact of trap spacing and distance moved on density estimates. Oryx 41(4):469–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dorazio RM (2012) Predicting the geographic distribution of a species from presence-only data subject to detection errors. Biometrics 68(4):1303–1312PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dormann CF, Schymanski SJ, Cabral J, Chuine I, Graham C, Hartig F, Singer A (2012) Correlation and process in species distribution models: bridging a dichotomy. J Biogeogr 39(12):2119–2131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Early R, Sax DF (2014) Climatic niche shifts between species’ native and naturalized ranges raise concern for ecological forecasts during invasions and climate change. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 23(12):1356–1365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Elith J, Graham C, Anderson R, Dudík M, Ferrier S, Guisan A (2006) Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data. Ecography 29(2):129–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Englund G, Cooper SD (2003) Scale effects and extrapolation in ecological experiments. Adv Ecol Res. Academic Press, pp. 161–213Google Scholar
  19. Fithian W, Hastie T (2013) Finite-sample equivalence in statistical models for presence-only data. Ann Appl Stat 7(4):1917–1939PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fletcher RJ (2006) Emergent properties of conspecific attraction in fragmented landscapes. Am Nat 168(2):207–219PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fortin D, Beyer HL, Boyce MS, Smith DW, Duchesne T, Mao JS (2005) Wolves influence elk movements: behavior shapes a trophic cascade in Yellowstone National Park. Ecology 86(5):1320–1330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Freckleton RP, Watkinson AR (2003) Are all plant populations metapopulations? J Ecol 91(2):321–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. García-Valdés R, Zavala MA, Araújo MB, Purves DW (2013) Chasing a moving target: projecting climate change-induced shifts in non-equilibrial tree species distributions. J Ecol 101(2):441–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gaston KJ (2003) The structure and dynamics of geographic ranges. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Gelman A, Pardoe L (2006) Bayesian measures of explained variance and pooling in multilevel (hierarchical) models. Technometrics 48(2):241–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ginsberg JR, Huck UW (1989) Sperm competition in mammals. Trends Ecol Evol 4(3):74–79PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Godsoe W, Harmon LJ (2012) How do species interactions affect species distribution models? Ecography 35(9):811–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gompper ME (2002) Top carnivores in the suburbs? Ecological and conservation issues raised by colonization of North-Eastern North America by coyotes: the expansion of the coyote’s geographical range may broadly influence community structure, and rising coyote densities in the suburbs may alter how the general public views wildlife. Bioscience 52(2):185–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Greene CM, Stamps JA (2001) Habitat selection at low population densities. Ecology 82(8):2091–2100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Guisan A, Thuiller W (2005) Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol Lett 8(9):993–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hanski I (1994) A practical model of metapopulation dynamics. J Anim Ecol 63(1):151–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hanski I (1999) Metapopulation ecology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  33. Hanski I, Ovaskainen O (2000) The metapopulation capacity of a fragmented landscape. Nature 404(6779):755–758PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Harrison S (1991) Local extinction in a metapopulation context—an empirical-evaluation. Biol J Linn Soc 42(1–2):73–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hastings A (2004) Transients: the key to long-term ecological understanding? Trends Ecol Evol 19(1):39–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hebblewhite M, Merrill EH (2007) Multiscale wolf predation risk for elk: does migration reduce risk? Oecologia 152(2):377–387PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hollenbeck JP, Ripple WJ (2008) Aspen snag dynamics, cavity-nesting birds, and trophic cascades in Yellowstone’s northern range. For Ecol Manag 255(3–4):1095–1103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Holt RD (2009) Bringing the Hutchinsonian niche into the 21st century: ecological and evolutionary perspectives. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:19659–19665PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hulme PE (2009) Trade, transport and trouble: managing invasive species pathways in an era of globalization. J Appl Ecol 46(1):10–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hutchinson GE (1957) Concluding remarks. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol 22:415–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jackson ST, Betancourt JL, Booth RK, Gray ST (2009) Ecology and the ratchet of events: climate variability, niche dimensions, and species distributions. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106(Supplement 2):19685–19692PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Johnson DH (1980) The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. Ecology 61(1):65–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kelt DA, Van Vuren DH (2001) The ecology and macroecology of mammalian home range area. Am Nat 157(6):637–645PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Latimer A, Wu S, Gelfand A, Silander J Jr (2006) Building statistical models to analyze species distributions. Ecol Appl 16(1):33–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Levin SA (1992) The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73(6):1943–1967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Levins R (1969) Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control. Bull Entomol Soc Am 15:237–240Google Scholar
  47. Lewis MA, Murray JD (1993) Modeling territoriality and wolf deer interactions. Nature 366(6457):738–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lichstein JW, Simons TR, Shriner SA, Franzreb KE (2002) Spatial autocorrelation and autoregressive models in ecology. Ecol Monogr 72(3):445–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Macdonald DW (1983) The ecology of carnivore social behaviour. Nature 301(5899):379–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. McInerny GJ, Etienne RS (2012a) Ditch the niche—is the niche a useful concept in ecology or species distribution modelling? J Biogeogr 39(12):2096–2102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. McInerny GJ, Etienne RS (2012b) Pitch the niche—taking responsibility for the concepts we use in ecology and species distribution modelling. J Biogeogr 39(12):2112–2118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. McInerny GJ, Etienne RS (2012c) Stitch the niche—a practical philosophy and visual schematic for the niche concept. J Biogeogr 39(12):2103–2111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mech LD (1977) Wolf-pack buffer zones as prey reservoirs. Science 198(4314):320–321PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mech SG, Zollner PA (2002) Using body size to predict perceptual range. Oikos 98(1):47–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Miller DAW, Brehme CS, Hines JE, Nichols JD, Fisher RN (2012) Joint estimation of habitat dynamics and species interactions: disturbance reduces co-occurrence of non-native predators with an endangered toad. J Anim Ecol 81(6):1288–1297PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Millstein RL (2009) Populations as individuals. Biol Theor 4(3):267–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Moorcroft P, Lewis MA (2006) Mechanistic home range analysis. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  58. Pimm SL, Russell GJ, Gittleman JL, Brooks TM (1995) The future of biodiversity. Science 269(5222):347–350PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pulliam HR (2000) On the relationship between niche and distribution. Ecol Lett 3:349–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Renner IW, Warton DI (2013) Equivalence of MAXENT and poisson point process models for species distribution modeling in ecology. Biometrics 69(1):274–281PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ripple WJ, Estes JA, Beschta RL, Wilmers CC, Ritchie EG, Hebblewhite M, Schmitz OJ (2014) Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. Science 343(6167):1241484PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Royle JA, Nichols JD (2003) Estimating abundance from repeated presence-absence data or point counts. Ecology 84(3):777–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Saltré F, Saint-Amant R, Gritti ES, Brewer S, Gaucherel C, Davis BA, Chuine I (2013) Climate or migration: what limited European beech post-glacial colonization? Glob Ecol Biogeogr 22(11):1217–1227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Soberón J (2007) Grinnellian and Eltonian niches and geographic distributions of species. Ecol Lett 10(12):1115–1123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Soberón JM (2010) Niche and area of distribution modeling: a population ecology perspective. Ecography 33(1):159–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Soberón J, Nakamura M (2009) Niches and distributional areas: concepts, methods, and assumptions. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106(Supplement 2):19644–19650PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Stamps JA (1988) Conspecific attraction and aggregation in territorial species. Am Nat 131(3):329–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sutherland WJ (1996) From individual behaviour to population ecology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  69. Tyre AJ, Possingham HP, Lindenmayer DB (2001) Inferring process from pattern: can territory occupancy provide information about life history parameters? Ecol Appl 11(6):1722–1737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Uriarte M, Yackulic CB, Lim Y, Arce-Nazario JA (2011) Influence of land use on water quality in a tropical landscape: a multi-scale analysis. Landscape Ecol 26(8):1151–1164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wake DB, Vredenburg VT (2008) Are we in the midst of the sixth mass extinction? A view from the world of amphibians. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105(Supplement 1):11466–11473PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wells JV, Richmond ME (1995) Populations, metapopulations, and species populations: what are they and who should care? Wildl Soc Bull 23(3):458–462Google Scholar
  73. Wiens JA (1989) Spatial scaling in ecology. Funct Ecol 3(4):385–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wiens JA, Stenseth NC, Vanhorne B, Ims RA (1993) Ecological mechanisms and landscape ecology. Oikos 66(3):369–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Woolfenden GE, Fitzpatrick JW (1984) The Florida scrub jay: demography of a cooperative-breeding bird. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  76. Yackulic CB, Chandler R, Zipkin EF, Royle JA, Nichols JD, Campbell Grant EH, Veran S (2013) Presence-only modelling using MAXENT: when can we trust the inferences? Methods Ecol Evol 4(3):236–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Yackulic CB, Nichols JD, Reid J, Der R (2015) To predict the niche, model colonization and extinction. Ecology 96(1):16–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Yackulic CB, Reid J, Davis R, Hines JE, Nichols JD, Forsman E (2012) Neighborhood and habitat effects on vital rates: expansion of the barred owl in the oregon coast ranges. Ecology 93(8):1953–1966PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Yackulic CB, Reid J, Nichols JD, Hines JE, Davis R, Forsman E (2014) The roles of competition and habitat in the dynamics of populations and species distributions. Ecology 95(2):265–279PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Yackulic CB, Sanderson EW, Uriarte M (2011) Anthropogenic and environmental drivers of modern range loss in large mammals. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108(10):4024–4029PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Young JK, Shivik JA (2006) What carnivore biologists can learn from bugs, birds, and beavers: a review of spatial theories. Can J Zool-Rev Can De Zool 84(12):1703–1711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Zollner PA, Lima SL (1997) Landscape-level perceptual abilities in white-footed mice: perceptual range and the detection of forested habitat. Oikos 80(1):51–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Zollner PA, Lima SL (1999) Orientational data and perceptual range: real mice aren’t blind. Oikos 84(1):164–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Zurell D, Jeltsch F, Dormann CF, Schröder B (2009) Static species distribution models in dynamically changing systems: how good can predictions really be? Ecography 32(5):733–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht (outside the USA) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.U.S. Geological Survey, Southwest Biological Science CenterGrand Canyon Monitoring and Research CenterFlagstaffUSA
  2. 2.Cary Institute of Ecosystem StudiesMillbrookUSA

Personalised recommendations