Advertisement

Theoretical and Applied Climatology

, Volume 132, Issue 1–2, pp 135–144 | Cite as

An analysis of sensitivity of CLIMEX parameters in mapping species potential distribution and the broad-scale changes observed with minor variations in parameters values: an investigation using open-field Solanum lycopersicum and Neoleucinodes elegantalis as an example

  • Ricardo Siqueira da Silva
  • Lalit Kumar
  • Farzin Shabani
  • Marcelo Coutinho Picanço
Original Paper

Abstract

A sensitivity analysis can categorize levels of parameter influence on a model’s output. Identifying parameters having the most influence facilitates establishing the best values for parameters of models, providing useful implications in species modelling of crops and associated insect pests. The aim of this study was to quantify the response of species models through a CLIMEX sensitivity analysis. Using open-field Solanum lycopersicum and Neoleucinodes elegantalis distribution records, and 17 fitting parameters, including growth and stress parameters, comparisons were made in model performance by altering one parameter value at a time, in comparison to the best-fit parameter values. Parameters that were found to have a greater effect on the model results are termed “sensitive”. Through the use of two species, we show that even when the Ecoclimatic Index has a major change through upward or downward parameter value alterations, the effect on the species is dependent on the selection of suitability categories and regions of modelling. Two parameters were shown to have the greatest sensitivity, dependent on the suitability categories of each species in the study. Results enhance user understanding of which climatic factors had a greater impact on both species distributions in our model, in terms of suitability categories and areas, when parameter values were perturbed by higher or lower values, compared to the best-fit parameter values. Thus, the sensitivity analyses have the potential to provide additional information for end users, in terms of improving management, by identifying the climatic variables that are most sensitive.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico – CNPq), the Brazilian Federal Agency, for the Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Ensino Superior – CAPES) and the School of Environmental and Rural Science of the University of New England (UNE), Armidale, Australia. The simulations were carried out using computational facilities at UNE.

References

  1. Anderson B, Borgonovo E, Galeotti M, Roson R (2014) Uncertainty in climate change modeling: can global sensitivity analysis be of help? Risk Anal 34:271–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barry S, Elith J (2006) Error and uncertainty in habitat models. J Appl Ecol 43:413–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Booth TH, Nix HA, Busby JR, Hutchinson MF (2014) BIOCLIM: the first species distribution modelling package, its early applications and relevance to most current MAXENT studies. Diver Distrib 20:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burgman M, Lindenmayer D, Elith J (2005) Managing landscapes for conservation under uncertainty. Ecology 86:2007–2017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chown SL, Nicolson S (2004) Insect physiological ecology: mechanisms and patterns. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  6. Chown SL, Terblanche JS (2006) Physiological diversity in insects: ecological and evolutionary contexts. Adv Insect Physiol 33:50–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. da Silva RS, Kumar L, Shabani F, Picanço MC (2016a) Assessing the impact of global warming on worldwide open field tomato cultivation through CSIRO-Mk3•0 global climate model. J Agric Sci. doi: 10.1017/S0021859616000654 Google Scholar
  8. da Silva RS, Kumar L, Shabani F, Picanço MC (2016b) Potential risk levels of invasive Neoleucinodes elegantalis (small tomato borer) in areas optimal for open field Solanum lycopersicum (tomato) cultivation in the present and under predicted climate change. Pest Manag Sci. doi: 10.1002/ps4344 Google Scholar
  9. De Villiers M, Hattingh V, Kriticos D (2013) Combining field phenological observations with distribution data to model the potential distribution of the fruit fly Ceratitis rosa Karsch (Diptera: Tephritidae). Bull Entomol Res 103:60–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Villiers M, Hattingh V, Kriticos D, Brunel S, Vayssières J-F, Sinzogan A, Billah M, Mohamed S, Mwatawala M, Abdelgader H (2015) The potential distribution of Bactrocera dorsalis: considering phenology and irrigation patterns. Bull Entomol Res 1–15Google Scholar
  11. Elith J, Kearney M, Phillips S (2010) The art of modelling range‐shifting species. Methods Ecol Evol 1:330–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gao Q, Yu M, Yang X (2000) An analysis of sensitivity of terrestrial ecosystems in China to climatic change using spatial simulation. Clim Chang 47:373–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Guo Q, Liu Y (2010) ModEco: an integrated software package for ecological niche modeling. Ecography 33:637–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hamby D (1994) A review of techniques for parameter sensitivity analysis of environmental models. Environ Monit Assess 32:135–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heuvelink E (2005) Tomatoes. CABIGoogle Scholar
  16. Hijmans R.J, Elith J (2011) Species distribution modeling with R. Citeseer, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.190.9177&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed 200416)
  17. Hill MP, Thomson LJ, Björkman C, Niemelä P (2015) Species distribution modelling in predicting response to climate change. Climate Change and Insect Pests 16Google Scholar
  18. Johnson CJ, Gillingham MP (2008) Sensitivity of species-distribution models to error, bias, and model design: an application to resource selection functions for woodland caribou. Ecol Model 213:143–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jones JB Jr (2007) Tomato plant culture: in the field, greenhouse, and home garden. CRC pressGoogle Scholar
  20. Kriticos D, Maywald G, Yonow T, Zurcher E, Herrmann N, Sutherst R (2015) CLIMEX Version 4: Exploring the effects of climate on plants, animals and diseases. Canberra 184 ppGoogle Scholar
  21. Maia AV, Almeida C, Santoro KR, Melo JL, Oliveira JV, Guedes RN, Badji CA (2016) High-level phylogeographic structuring of Neoleucinodes elegantalis Guenée (Lepidoptera, Crambridae) in Brazil: an important tomato pest. Rev Bras Entomol 60:206–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Miranda MMM, Picanço MC, Zanuncio JC, Bacci L, Silva ÉM (2005) Impact of integrated pest management on the population of leafminers, fruit borers, and natural enemies in tomato. Cienc Rural 35:204–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moraes CP, Foerster LA (2015) Thermal requirements, fertility, and number of generations of Neoleucinodes elegantalis (Guenée) (Lepidoptera: Crambidae). Neotrop Entomol 1–7Google Scholar
  24. Mordue W, Goldsworthy G, Brady J, Blaney W (1980) Insect physiology. Blackwell Scientific PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  25. Morisette JT, Jarnevich CS, Holcombe TR, Talbert CB, Ignizio D, Talbert MK, Silva C, Koop D, Swanson A, Young NE (2013) VisTrails SAHM: visualization and workflow management for species habitat modeling. Ecography 36:129–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pattison RR, Mack RN (2008) Potential distribution of the invasive tree Triadica sebifera (Euphorbiaceae) in the United States: evaluating CLIMEX predictions with field trials. Glob Chang Biol 14:813–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Phillips SJ, Anderson RP, Schapire RE (2006) Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol Model 190:231–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Picanço M, Bacci L, Crespo A, Miranda M, Martins JC (2007) Effect of integrated pest management practices on tomato production and conservation of natural enemies. Agric For Entomol 9:327–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ramirez-Cabrala NYZ, Kumar L, Taylor S (2015) Crop niche modeling projects major shifts in common bean growing areas. Agric For Meteorol 218:102–113Google Scholar
  30. Shabani F, Kotey B (2015) Future distribution of cotton and wheat in Australia under potential climate change. J Agric Sci 1–11Google Scholar
  31. Shabani F, Kumar L (2013) Risk levels of invasive Fusarium oxysporum f sp in areas suitable for date palm (Phoenix dactylifera) cultivation under various climate change projections. PLoS ONE 8(12):e83404. doi: 10.1371/journalpone0083404 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shabani F, Kumar L (2014) Sensitivity analysis of CLIMEX parameters in modeling potential distribution of Phoenix dactylifera L. PLoS ONE 9(4):e94867. doi: 10.1371/journalpone0094867 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shabani F, Kumar L (2015) Should species distribution models use only native or exotic records of existence or both? Ecol Inform 29:57–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shabani F, Kumar L, Esmaeili A (2013) Use of CLIMEX, land use and topography to refine areas suitable for date palm cultivation in spain under climate change scenarios. J Earth Sci Clim Change 4:145Google Scholar
  35. Shabani F, Kumar L, Ahmadi M (2016) A comparison of absolute performance of different correlative and mechanistic species distribution models in an independent area. Ecol Evol 6:5973–5986. doi: 10.1002/ece32332 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Taylor S, Kumar L (2012) Sensitivity analysis of CLIMEX parameters in modelling potential distribution of Lantana camara L. PLoS ONE 7(7):e40969. doi: 10.1371/journalpone0040969 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thuiller W, Lafourcade B, Engler R, Araújo MB (2009) BIOMOD—a platform for ensemble forecasting of species distributions. Ecography 32:369–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wolda H (1988) Insect seasonality: why? Annu Rev Ecol Syst 1–18Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ricardo Siqueira da Silva
    • 1
    • 3
  • Lalit Kumar
    • 2
  • Farzin Shabani
    • 2
  • Marcelo Coutinho Picanço
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Departamento de EntomologiaUniversidade Federal de ViçosaViçosaBrazil
  2. 2.Ecosystem Management, School of Environmental and Rural ScienceUniversity of New EnglandArmidaleAustralia
  3. 3.Departamento de FitotecniaUniversidade Federal de ViçosaViçosaBrazil

Personalised recommendations