Development and evaluation of species distribution models for fourteen native central U.S. fish species
- 541 Downloads
Environmental change has and will continue to adversely influence aquatic communities. Efforts to model impacts of environmental change on fisheries have largely focused on cold water, commercial, and recreationally valued species, even though warm water, non-game species have important roles in ecosystem services and processes. We developed species distribution models for fourteen warm water fish species native to the central United States and evaluated environmental drivers and predictive performance. We used an ensemble model approach produced by combining forecasts of five single-model techniques. Response plots and variable importance calculations were used to evaluate the influence of individual variables. The predictive performance of the ensemble models was assessed using area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic plot (AUC). AUC values indicate ensemble models performed better than single-model types, suggesting ensemble models are more reliable and applicable for management purposes than single models. Most models were influenced by a mix of climate, land use, and geophysical variables; however, climate variables were the dominant environmental drivers across models. Given the high sensitivity of models to climate and land use, we expect future climate and land use changes to influence distributions.
KeywordsEnsemble model Fish distributions Model performance Warm water fishes Range projections
The authors thank the state natural resource agencies that shared fish data with us to make this project feasible: Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Missouri Department of Conservation, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Nebraska Game and Fish Commission, North Dakota Department of Health, North Dakota Game, Fish and Parks, and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. We also thank Dr. Justin Schoof for providing historical climate data.
- Bovee, K. D., Newcomb, T. J. & Coon, T.G. (1994) Relations between habitat variability and population dynamics of bass in the Huron River, Michigan. Biological Report 21. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, DC: 63 pp.Google Scholar
- Dudgeon, D., A. H. Arthington, M. O. Gessner, Z. Kawabata, D. J. Knowler, C. Leveque, R. J. Naiman, A. Prieur-Richard, D. Soto, M. L. J. Stiassny & C. A. Sullivan, 2006. Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biological Reviews 81: 163–182.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Elith, J., C. H. Graham, R. P. Anderson, M. Dudik, S. Ferrier, A. Guisan, R. J. Hijmans, F. Huettmann, J. R. Leathwick, A. Lehmann, J. Li, L. G. Lohmann, B. A. Loiselle, G. Manion, C. Moritz, M. Nakamura, Y. Nakazawa, J. Overton, A. Townsend Peterson, S. J. Phillips, K. Richardson, R. Scachetti-Pereira, R. E. Schapire, J. Soberon, S. Williams, M. S. Wisz & N. E. Zimmerman, 2006. Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data. Ecography 29: 129–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Franklin, J., 2009. Mapping Species Distribution: Spatial Inference and Prediction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
- Heimann, D.C., Licher, S.S. & Schalk, G.K. (2007) Effects of impoundments and land-cover changes on streamflows and selected fish habitat in the Upper Osage River Basin, Missouri and Kansas. Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5175. U.S. Geological Survey: 96 pp.Google Scholar
- Jackson, D. A., P. R. Peres-Neto & J. D. Olden, 2001. What controls who is where in freshwater fish communities—the role of biotic, abiotic, and spatial factors. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 58: 157–170.Google Scholar
- Leopold, L., 1994. The View of the River. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
- McPherson, J. M. & W. Jetz, 2007. Effects of species’ ecology on the accuracy of distribution models. Ecography 30: 135–151.Google Scholar
- NatureServe, 2010. Digital Distribution Maps of the Freshwater Fishes in the Conterminous United States, Version 3.0. Natureserve, Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
- Quist, M. C., W. A. Hubert & F. J. Rahel, 2005. Fish assemblage structure following impoundment of a Great Plains river. Western North American Naturalist 65: 53–63.Google Scholar
- Tobin, B.D. & D.J. Weary, 2004 Digital engineering aspects of karst map: a GIS version of Davies, W.E., Simpson, J.H., Ohlmacher, G.C., Kirk, W.S., and Newton, E.G., 1984, Enginering aspects of karstL U.S. Geological Survey, National Atlas of the United States of America, Scale 1:7,500,000. Available at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2004/1352/. Accessed 2012.
- Townsend Peterson, A., 2006. Uses and requirements of ecological niche models and relation distributional models. Biodiversity Informatics 3: 59–72.Google Scholar
- U.S. Geological Survey 2013 Biodiversity Information Serving Our Nation (BISON). Available at: (accessed 2014).Google Scholar
- Van der Putten, W. H., M. Macel & M. E. Visser, 2010. Predicting species distribution and abundance responses to climate change: why it is essential to include biotic interactions across trophic levels. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 365: 2025–2034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wenger, S. J., D. J. Isaak, C. H. Luce, H. M. Neville, K. D. Fausch, J. B. Dunham, D. C. Dauwalter, M. K. Young, M. M. Elsner, B. E. Rieman, A. F. Hamlet & J. E. Williams, 2011. Flow regime, temperature, and biotic interactions drive differential declines of trout species under climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108: 14175–14180.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar