The scaling of geographic ranges: implications for species distribution models
- 909 Downloads
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsClimate change Disequilibrium Dynamic Landscape Metapopulation Niche Occupancy Temporal rates
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.
- Andrewartha HG, Birch LC (1954) The distribution and abundance of animals. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- Andrewartha HG, Birch LC (1984) The ecological web: more on the distribution and abundance of animals. University of Chicago press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Englund G, Cooper SD (2003) Scale effects and extrapolation in ecological experiments. Adv Ecol Res. Academic Press, pp. 161–213Google Scholar
- Gaston KJ (2003) The structure and dynamics of geographic ranges. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Hanski I (1999) Metapopulation ecology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Levins R (1969) Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control. Bull Entomol Soc Am 15:237–240Google Scholar
- Moorcroft P, Lewis MA (2006) Mechanistic home range analysis. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
- Sutherland WJ (1996) From individual behaviour to population ecology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Woolfenden GE, Fitzpatrick JW (1984) The Florida scrub jay: demography of a cooperative-breeding bird. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar