Biological Invasions

, Volume 14, Issue 8, pp 1737–1751 | Cite as

Predicting the impact of climate change on the invasive decapods of the Iberian inland waters: an assessment of reliability

  • César Capinha
  • Pedro Anastácio
  • José António Tenedório
Original Paper


In an effort to predict the impact of climate change on the distribution of existing invasive species, niche-based models (NBMs) are being increasingly used to make forecasts. Here, we investigate the reliability of these models in predicting future climatic suitability for 4 invasive decapods of the Iberian Peninsula: Cherax destructor, Eriocheir sinensis, Pacifastacus leniusculus and Procambarus clarkii. From an ensemble of forecasts generated by 5 distinct algorithms (generalized linear models, artificial neural networks, support vector machines, random forests and alternating decision trees), we calculated consensus predictions for current conditions and 3 future time periods (2030, 2050 and 2080) under low and high scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions. Three criteria were examined to infer the robustness of the forecasts: ability to predict current distributions, inter-model variability and degree of environmental extrapolation. Our results indicate an overall decline in climatic suitability for the 4 invaders as time progresses. However, we also identified highly distinct levels of predictive uncertainty among species. Good indicators of reliability were found for Procambarusclarkii and Pacifastacusleniusculus, whereas the predictions for C. destructor showed low predictive performance, low inter-model agreement and wide areas of environmental extrapolation. For E. sinensis, the models also showed high variability with respect to areas projected to lose climatic suitability. Overall, our results highlight the need to consider and evaluate multiple sources of uncertainty when using NBM predictions for invaders under current and future conditions.


Climate change Decapods Ensemble forecasting Environmental extrapolation Iberian Peninsula Uncertainty 

Supplementary material

10530_2012_187_MOESM1_ESM.doc (2.4 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 2472 kb)


  1. Anastácio PM, Parente VS, Correia AM (2005) Crayfish effects on seeds and seedlings: identification and quantification of damage. Freshw Biol 50:697–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Araújo MB, New M (2007) Ensemble forecasting of species distributions. Trends Ecol Evol 22:42–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Araújo MB, Rahbek C (2006) How does climate change affect biodiversity? Science 313:1396PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arce JA, Alonso F (2011) Factors related to the presence of the Austropotamobius pallipes (Lereboullet, 1858) species complex in calcareous mountin rivers in central Spain. Knowl Manag Aquat Ecosyst 401:25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Austin MP, Van Niel KP (2011) Improving species distribution models for climate change studies: variable selection and scale. J Biogeogr 38:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beatty SJ (2006) The diet and trophic positions of translocated, sympatric populations of Cherax destructor and Cherax cainii in the Hutt River, Western Australia: evidence of resource overlap. Marine Freshw Res 57:825–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beaumont LJ, Hughes L, Pitman AJ (2008) Why is the choice of future climate scenarios for species distribution modelling important? Ecol Lett 11:1135–1146PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Beaumont LJ, Gallagher RV, Downey PO et al (2009a) Modelling the impact of Hieracium spp. on protected areas in Australia under future climates. Ecography 32:757–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beaumont LJ, Gallagher RV, Thuiller W et al (2009b) Different climatic envelopes among invasive populations may lead to underestimations of current and future biological invasions. Divers Distrib 15:409–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bernardo JM, Costa AM, Bruxelas S et al (2011) Dispersal and coexistence of two non-native crayfish species (Pacifastacus leniusculus and Procambarus clarkii) in NE Portugal over a 10-year period. Knowl Manag Aquat Ecosyst 401:28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Breiman L (2001) Random forests. Mach Learn 45:5–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Broennimann O, Guisan A (2008) Predicting current and future biological invasions: both native and invaded ranges matter. Biol Lett 4:585–589PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brotons L, Thuiller W, Araújo MB et al (2004) Presence-absence versus presence-only modelling methods for predicting bird habitat suitability. Ecography 27:437–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Buisson L, Thuiller W, Casajus N et al (2010) Uncertainty in ensemble forecasting of species distribution. Glob Change Biol 16:1145–1157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cabral H, Costa M (1999) On the occurrence of the Chinese mitten crab, Eriocheir sinensis in Portugal (Decapoda, Brachyura). Crustaceana 72:55–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Caissie D (2006) The thermal regime of rivers: a review. Freshw Biol 51:1389–1406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Capinha C, Anastácio P (2011) Assessing the environmental requirements of invaders using ensembles of distribution models. Divers Distrib 17:13–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Capinha C, Leung B, Anastácio P (2011) Predicting worldwide invasiveness for four major problematic decapods: an evaluation of using different calibration sets. Ecography 34:448–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Clavero M, Prenda J, Delibes M (2003) Trophic diversity of the otter (Lutra lutra L.) in temperate and Mediterranean freshwater habitats. J Biogeogr 30:761–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Diniz-Filho JAF, Mauricio Bini L, Fernando Rangel T et al (2009) Partitioning and mapping uncertainties in ensembles of forecasts of species turnover under climate change. Ecography 32:897–906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Diniz-Filho JAF, Nabout JC, Bini LM et al (2010) Ensemble forecasting shifts in climatically suitable areas for Tropidacris cristata (Orthoptera: Acridoidea: Romaleidae). Insect Conserv Divers 3:213–221Google Scholar
  22. Dittel AI, Epifanio CE (2009) Invasion biology of the Chinese mitten crab Eriochier sinensis: a brief review. J Exp Marine Biol Ecol 374:79–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dormann C (2007) Promising the future? Global change projections of species distributions. Basic Appl Ecol 8:387–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dormann CF, Purschke O, Márquez JRG et al (2008) Components of uncertainty in species distribution analysis: a case study of the great grey shrike. Ecology 89:3371–3386PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Drake JA (2009) Handbook of alien species in Europe. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  26. Drake JM, Randin C, Guisan A (2006) Modelling ecological niches with support vector machines. J Appl Ecol 43:424–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dukes J, Mooney H (1999) Does global change increase the success of biological invaders? Trends Ecol Evol 14:135–139PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Elith J, Graham CH (2009) Do they? How do they? WHY do they differ? On finding reasons for differing performances of species distribution models. Ecography 32:66–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Elith J, Leathwick J (2009) Species distribution models: ecological explanation and prediction across space and time. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 40:677–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Elith J, Graham C, Anderson R et al (2006) Novel methods improve prediction of species distributions from occurrence data. Ecography 29:129–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Elith J, Kearney M, Phillips S (2010) The art of modelling range-shifting species. Methods Ecol Evol 1:330–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ficetola GF, Thuiller W, Padoa-Schioppa E (2009) From introduction to the establishment of alien species: bioclimatic differences between presence and reproduction localities in the slider turtle. Divers Distrib 15:108–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fitzpatrick M, Hargrove W (2009) The projection of species distribution models and the problem of non-analog climate. Biodivers Conserv 18:2255–2261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Freund Y, Mason L (1999) The alternating decision tree learning algorithm. In: Proceeding of the sixteenth international conference on machine learning. Bled, pp 124–133Google Scholar
  35. Galil BS, Nehring S, Panov V (2007) Waterways as invasion highways—impact of climate change and globalization. In: Nentwig W (ed) Biological invasions. Springer, Berlin, pp 59–74Google Scholar
  36. Gallagher R, Hughes L, Leishman M et al (2010) Predicted impact of exotic vines on an endangered ecological community under future climate change. Biol Invasions 12:4049–4063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Garcia-de-Lomas J, Dana E, López-Santiago J et al (2010) Management of the Chinese mitten crab, Eriocheir sinensis (H. Milne Edwards, 1853) in the Guadalquivir Estuary (Southern Spain). Aquat Invasions 5:323–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Grenouillet G, Buisson L, Casajus N et al (2011) Ensemble modelling of species distribution: the effects of geographical and environmental ranges. Ecography 34:9–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Guisan A, Thuiller W (2005) Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol Lett 8:993–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Guisan A, Zimmermann NE (2000) Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecol Model 135:147–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gutiérrez-Yurrita P, Martinez J, Bravo-Utrera M et al. (1999) The status of crayfish populations in Spain and Portugal. In: Gherardi F, Holdich DM (eds) Crayfish in Europe as alien species. How to make the best of a bad situation? A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 161–192Google Scholar
  42. Hall M, Frank E, Holmes G et al (2009) The WEKA data mining software: an update. SIGKDD Explor Newsl 11:10–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hanley J, McNeil B (1982) The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 143:29–36PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Hartley S, Harris R, Lester PJ (2006) Quantifying uncertainty in the potential distribution of an invasive species: climate and the Argentine ant. Ecol Lett 9:1068–1079PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hellmann J, Byers J, Bierwagen B et al (2008) Five potential consequences of climate change for invasive species. Conserv Biol 22:534–543PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Holdich DM (2002) Distribution of crayfish in Europe and some adjoining countries. Bull Fr Pêche Piscic 367:611–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Holdich D, Reynolds J, Souty-Grosset C et al (2009) A review of the ever increasing threat to European crayfish from non-indigenous crayfish species. Knowl Manag Aquat Ecosyst 394–395:11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ilhéu M, Bernardo J, Fernandes S (2007) Predation of invasive crayfish on aquatic vertebrates: the effect of Procambarus clarkii on fish assemblages in Mediterranean temporary streams. In: Gherardi F (ed) Biological invaders in inland waters: profiles, distribution, and threats. Springer, Netherlands, pp 543–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  50. Jones PG, Thornton PK, Heinke J (2009) Generating characteristic daily weather data using downscaled climate model data from the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment. Accessed 15 Feb 2011
  51. Kearney M, Porter W (2009) Mechanistic niche modelling: combining physiological and spatial data to predict species’ ranges. Ecol Lett 12:334–350PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lavergne S, Molofsky J (2007) Increased genetic variation and evolutionary potential drive the success of an invasive grass. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:3883–3888PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Le Lay G, Engler R, Franc E et al (2010) Prospective sampling based on model ensembles improves the detection of rare species. Ecography 33:1015–1027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Liu C, Berry PM, Dawson TP et al (2005) Selecting thresholds of occurrence in the prediction of species distributions. Ecography 28:385–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lynas J, Storey A, Knott B (2007) Introduction and spread of crayfish (Parastacidae) in Western Australia and their potential to displace indigenous species. In: Gherardi F (ed) Biological invaders in inland waters: profiles, distribution, and threats. Springer, Netherlands, pp 577–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mateo RG, Croat TB, Felicísimo ÁM et al (2010) Profile or group discriminative techniques? Generating reliable species distribution models using pseudo-absences and target-group absences from natural history collections. Divers Distrib 16:84–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. McCullagh P, Nelder J (1989) Generalized linear models, 2nd edn. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  58. Nakicenovic N, Swart R (2000) Emissions scenarios. A special report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  59. Newbold T (2010) Applications and limitations of museum data for conservation and ecology, with particular attention to species distribution models. Prog Phys Geogr 34:3–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Nyström P (2002) Ecology. In: Holdich DM (ed) Biology of freshwater crayfish. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp 192–235Google Scholar
  61. Pearman PB, Guisan A, Broennimann O et al (2008) Niche dynamics in space and time. Trends Ecol Evol 23:149–158PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pearson R, Thuiller W, Araújo M et al (2006) Model-based uncertainty in species range prediction. J Biogeogr 33:1704–1711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Peterson AT (2003) Predicting the geography of species’ invasions via ecological niche modeling. Q Rev Biol 78:419–433PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Peterson AT, Papeş M, Eaton M (2007) Transferability and model evaluation in ecological niche modeling: a comparison of GARP and Maxent. Ecography 30:550–560Google Scholar
  65. Pfahringer B, Holmes G, Kirkby R (2001) Optimizing the induction of alternating decision trees. In: Cheung D, Williams G, Li Q (eds) Advances in knowledge discovery and data mining. Springer, Berlin, pp 477–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Phillips SJ (2008) Transferability, sample selection bias and background data in presence-only modelling: a response to Peterson et al. (2007). Ecography 31:272–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Phillips SJ, Anderson RP, Schapire RE (2006) Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol Model 190:231–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Rahel F, Olden J (2008) Assessing the effects of climate change on aquatic invasive species. Conserv Biol 22:521–533PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rahmstorf S, Cazenave A, Church JA et al (2007) Recent climate observations compared to projections. Science 316:709PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Roura-Pascual N, Brotons L, Peterson A et al (2009) Consensual predictions of potential distributional areas for invasive species: a case study of Argentine ants in the Iberian Peninsula. Biol Invasions 11:1017–1031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rudnick DA, Hieb K, Grimmer KF et al (2003) Patterns and processes of biological invasion: the Chinese mitten crab in San Francisco Bay. Basic Appl Ecol 4:249–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sabater S, Feio MJ, Graça MAS et al (2009) Chapter 4—The Iberian Rivers. In: Tockner K, Uehlinger U, Robinson CT (eds) Rivers of Europe. Academic Press, London, pp 113–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sahlin U, Smith HG, Edsman L et al (2010) Time to establishment success for introduced signal crayfish in Sweden—a statistical evaluation when success is partially known. J App Ecol 47:1044–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sarle W (1994) Neural networks and statistical models. In: Proceedings of the nineteenth annual SAS users groups international conference. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, pp 1538–1550Google Scholar
  75. Souty-Grosset C, Holdich DM, Noël PY et al (2006) Atlas of crayfish in Europe. Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, ParisGoogle Scholar
  76. Thuiller W, Brotons L, Araújo MB et al (2004) Effects of restricting environmental range of data to project current and future species distributions. Ecography 27:165–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Thuiller W, Richardson D, Pysek P et al (2005) Niche-based modelling as a tool for predicting the risk of alien plant invasions at a global scale. Glob Change Biol 11:2234–2250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. VanDerWal J, Shoo LP, Graham C et al (2009) Selecting pseudo-absence data for presence-only distribution modeling: how far should you stray from what you know? Ecol Model 220:589–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Vapnik VN (1995) The nature of statistical learning theory. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  80. Vose R, Easterling D, Gleason B (2005) Maximum and minimum temperature trends for the globe: an update through 2004. Geophys Res Lett 32:L23822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Walther G, Roques A, Hulme P et al (2009) Alien species in a warmer world: risks and opportunities. Trends Ecol Evol 24:686–693PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • César Capinha
    • 1
  • Pedro Anastácio
    • 1
  • José António Tenedório
    • 2
  1. 1.IMAR, Centro de Mar e Ambiente, c/o Departamento de Paisagem, Ambiente e OrdenamentoUniversidade de ÉvoraÉvoraPortugal
  2. 2.Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas, e-GEO, Centro de Estudos de Geografia e Planeamento RegionalUniversidade Nova de LisboaLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations