Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Integrated models that unite local and regional data reveal larger-scale environmental relationships and improve predictions of species distributions

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Context

The scale of environmental relationships is often inferred through the use of species distribution models. Yet such models are frequently developed at two distinct scales. Coarse-scale models typically use information-poor (e.g., presence-only) data to predict relative distributions across geographic ranges, whereas fine-scale models often use richer information (e.g., presence–absence data) to predict distributions at local to landscape scales.

Objectives

We unite presence–absence and presence-only data to predict occurrence of species, what we refer to as integrated distribution models. We determine if integrated models improve predictions of species distributions and identification of characteristic spatial scales of environmental relationships relative to presence–absence modeling and ensemble modeling that averages predictions from separate presence-only and presence–absence models.

Methods

We apply recent advances in integrated distribution models to predict Sherman’s fox squirrel (Sciurus niger shermani) distribution in north-central Florida. Presence-only data were collected through a citizen-science program across its geographic range, while presence–absence data were collected using camera trapping surveys across 40 landscapes.

Results

Integrated models estimated environmental relationships with greater precision and identified larger characteristic scales for environmental relationships than using presence–absence data alone. In addition, integrated models tended to have greater predictive performance, which was more robust to the amount of presence–absence and presence-only data used in modeling, than presence–absence and ensemble models.

Conclusions

Integrated distribution models hold much potential for improving our understanding of environmental relationships, the scales at which environmental relationships operate, and providing more accurate predictions of species distributions. Many avenues exist for further advancement of these modeling approaches.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abadi F, Gimenez O, Arlettaz R, Schaub M (2010) An assessment of integrated population models: bias, accuracy, and violation of the assumption of independence. Ecology 91:7–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Albright TP, Pidgeon AM, Rittenhouse CD, Clayton MK, Flather CH, Culbert PD, Wardlow BD, Radeloff VC (2010) Effects of drought on avian community structure. Glob Change Biol 16:2158–2170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Araujo MB, New M (2007) Ensemble forecasting of species distributions. Trends Ecol Evol 22:42–47

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Austin MP (2002) Spatial prediction of species distribution: an interface between ecological theory and statistical modelling. Ecol Model 157:101–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beale CM, Lennon JJ, Yearsley JM, Brewer MJ, Elston DA (2010) Regression analysis of spatial data. Ecol Lett 13:246–264

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brotons L, Thuiller W, Araujo MB, Hirzel AH (2004) Presence–absence versus presence-only modelling methods for predicting bird habitat suitability. Ecography 27:437–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cushman SA, McGarigal K (2002) Hierarchical, multi-scale decomposition of species-environment relationships. Landscape Ecol 17:637–646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Knegt HJ, van Langevelde F, Coughenour MB, Skidmore AK, de Boer WF, Heitkonig IMA, Knox NM, Slotow R, van der Waal C, Prins HHT (2010) Spatial autocorrelation and the scaling of species–environment relationships. Ecology 91:2455–2465

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson JL, Zuckerberg B, Bonter DN (2010) Citizen science as an ecological research tool: challenges and benefits. In: Futuyma DJ, Shafer HB, Simberloff D (eds) Annual review of ecology, evolution, and systematics, vol 41, pp 149–172

  • Dorazio RM (2012) Predicting the geographic distribution of a species from presence-only data subject to detection errors. Biometrics 68:1303–1312

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dorazio RM (2014) Accounting for imperfect detection and survey bias in statistical analysis of presence-only data. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 23:1472–1484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 32:66–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elith J, Leathwick JR (2009) Species distribution models: ecological explanation and prediction across space and time. Annual review of ecology evolution and systematics, pp 677–697

  • Elith J, Graham CH, Anderson RP, Dudik M, Ferrier S, Guisan A, Hijmans RJ, Huettmann F, Leathwick JR, Lehmann A, Li J, Lohmann LG, Loiselle BA, Manion G, Moritz C, Nakamura M, Nakazawa Y, Overton JM, Peterson AT, Phillips SJ, Richardson K, Scachetti-Pereira R, Schapire RE, Soberon J, Williams S, Wisz MS, Zimmermann NE (2006) Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data. Ecography 29:129–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans JM, Fletcher RJ Jr, Alavalapati J (2010) Using species distribution models to identify suitable areas for biofuel feedstock production. Glob Chang Biol Bioenergy 2:63–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fielding AH, Bell JF (1997) A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environ Conserv 24:38–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fithian W, Elith J, Hastie T, Keith DA (2015) Bias correction in species distribution models: pooling survey and collection data for multiple species. Methods Ecol Evol 6:424–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher RJ Jr, Hutto RL (2008) Partitioning the multi-scale effects of human activity on the occurrence of riparian forest birds. Landscape Ecol 23:727–739

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher RJ Jr, Revell A, Reichert BE, Kitchens WM, Dixon JD, Austin JD (2013) Network modularity reveals critical scales for connectivity in ecology and evolution. Nat Commun 4:2572

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fourcade Y, Engler JO, Roedder D, Secondi J (2014) Mapping species distributions with MAXENT using a geographically biased sample of presence data: a performance assessment of methods for correcting sampling bias. PLoS ONE 9:e97122

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin J (2009) Mapping species distributions: spatial inference and prediction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Getis A, Franklin J (1987) Second-order neighborhood analysis of mapped point patterns. Ecology 68:473–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guisan A, Thuiller W (2005) Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol Lett 8:993–1009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hastie T, Fithian W (2013) Inference from presence-only data; the ongoing controversy. Ecography 36:864–867

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Holland JD, Bert DG, Fahrig L (2004) Determining the spatial scale of species’ response to habitat. Bioscience 54:227–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horne JK, Schneider DC (1995) Spatial variance in ecology. Oikos 74:18–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inventory FNA (2010) Guide to the natural communities of Florida: 2010. Tallahassee

  • Jackson HB, Fahrig L (2015) Are ecologists conducting research at the optimal scale? Glob Ecol Biogeogr 24:52–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson ND, Fahrig L (2014) Landscape context affects genetic diversity at a much larger spatial extent than population abundance. Ecology 95:871–881

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jones CC, Acker SA, Halpern CB (2010) Combining local- and large-scale models to predict the distributions of invasive plant species. Ecol Appl 20:311–326

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kadmon R, Farber O, Danin A (2004) Effect of roadside bias on the accuracy of predictive maps produced by bioclimatic models. Ecol Appl 14:401–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kantola AT, Humphrey SR (1990) Habitat use by Sherman’s fox squirrel (Sciurus niger shermani) in Florida. J Mammal 71:411–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keil P, Wilson AM, Jetz W (2014) Uncertainty, priors, autocorrelation and disparate data in downscaling of species distributions. Divers Distrib 20:797–812

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellner KF, Swihart RK (2014) Accounting for imperfect detection in ecology: a quantitative review. PLoS ONE 9:e111436

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Kery M, Royle JA, Schmid H (2005) Modeling avian abundance from replicated counts using binomial mixture models. Ecol Appl 15:1450–1461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koprowski JL (1994) Sciurus niger. Mamm Species 479:1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Lahoz-Monfort JJ, Guillera-Arroita G, Wintle BA (2014) Imperfect detection impacts the performance of species distribution models. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 23:504–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawler JJ, Shafer SL, Blaustein AR (2010) Projected climate impacts for the amphibians of the western hemisphere. Conserv Biol 24:38–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson CR, Hodgson JA, Wilson RJ, Richards SA (2014) Prevalence, thresholds and the performance of presence–absence models. Methods Ecol Evol 5:54–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu C, White M, Newell G (2011) Measuring and comparing the accuracy of species distribution models with presence–absence data. Ecography 34:232–243

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Liu C, White M, Newell G (2013) Selecting thresholds for the prediction of species occurrence with presence-only data. J Biogeogr 40:778–789

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loeb SC, Moncrief ND (1993) The biology of fox squirrels in the Southeast: a review. In: Moncrief ND, Edwards JW, Tappe PA (eds) Fox squirrels, Sciurus niger, Proceedings of the 2nd symposium of Southeast, pp 1–20

  • Loiselle BA, Howell CA, Graham CH, Goerck JM, Brooks T, Smith KG, Williams PH (2003) Avoiding pitfalls of using species distribution models in conservation planning. Conserv Biol 17:1591–1600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loiselle BA, Jorgensen PM, Consiglio T, Jimenez I, Blake JG, Lohmann LG, Montiel OM (2008) Predicting species distributions from herbarium collections: does climate bias in collection sampling influence model outcomes? J Biogeogr 35:105–116

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Lachman GB, Droege S, Royle JA, Langtimm CA (2002) Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one. Ecology 83:2248–2255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marmion M, Parviainen M, Luoto M, Heikkinen RK, Thuiller W (2009) Evaluation of consensus methods in predictive species distribution modelling. Divers Distrib 15:59–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy KP, Fletcher RJ, Rota CT, Hutto RL (2012) Predicting species distributions from samples collected along roadsides. Conserv Biol 26:68–77

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miguet P, Jackson HB, Jackson ND, Martin AE, Fahrig L. What determines the spatial extent of landscape effects on species? Landscape Ecol (in press)

  • Miller JR, Turner MG, Smithwick EAH, Dent CL, Stanley EH (2004) Spatial extrapolation: the science of predicting ecological patterns and processes. Bioscience 54:310–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore JC (1956) Variation in the fox squirrel in Florida. Amer Midland Nat 55:41–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore JC (1957) The natural history of the fox squirrel, Sciurus niger shermani. Bull Am Mus Nat Hist 113:1–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris K (2004) Managing threatened species: the ecological toolbox, evolutionary theory and declining-population paradigm. J Appl Ecol 41:413–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oneill RV, Hunsaker CT, Timmins SP, Jackson BL, Jones KB, Riitters KH, Wickham JD (1996) Scale problems in reporting landscape pattern at the regional scale. Landscape Ecol 11:169–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce JL, Boyce MS (2006) Modelling distribution and abundance with presence-only data. J Appl Ecol 43:405–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips SJ, Anderson RP, Schapire RE (2006) Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol Model 190:231–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips SJ, Dudik M, Elith J, Graham CH, Lehmann A, Leathwick J, Ferrier S (2009) Sample selection bias and presence-only distribution models: implications for background and pseudo-absence data. Ecol Appl 19:181–197

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Renner IW, Elith J, Baddeley A, Fithian W, Hastie T, Phillips SJ, Popovic G, Warton DI (2015) Point process models for presence-only analysis. Methods Ecol Evol 6:366–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renner IW, Warton DI (2013) Equivalence of MAXENT and poisson point process models for species distribution modeling in ecology. Biometrics 69:274–281

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ries L, Fletcher RJ, Battin J, Sisk TD (2004) Ecological responses to habitat edges: mechanisms, models, and variability explained. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:491–522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rota CT, Fletcher RJ Jr, Evans JM, Hutto RL (2011) Does accounting for detectability improve species distribution models? Ecography 34:659–670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Royle JA (2004) N-mixture models for estimating population size from spatially replicated counts. Biometrics 60:108–115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Royle JA, Chandler RB, Yackulic C, Nichols JD (2012) Likelihood analysis of species occurrence probability from presence-only data for modelling species distributions. Methods Ecol Evol 3:545–554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Royle JA, Dorazio RM (2008) Hierarchical modeling and inference in ecology: the analysis of data from populations, metapopulations, and communities. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaub M, Gimenez O, Sierro A, Arlettaz R (2007) Use of integrated modeling to enhance estimates of population dynamics obtained from limited data. Conserv Biol 21:945–955

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smith AC, Fahrig L, Francis CM (2011) Landscape size affects the relative importance of habitat amount, habitat fragmentation, and matrix quality on forest birds. Ecography 34:103–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soberon J (2007) Grinnellian and Eltonian niches and geographic distributions of species. Ecol Lett 10:1115–1123

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson CM, McGarigal K (2002) The influence of research scale on bald eagle habitat selection along the lower Hudson River, New York (USA). Landscape Ecol 17:569–586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson HR (1955) Spatial point processes, with applications to ecology. Biometrika 42:102–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton DH, Branch LC, Sunquist ME (2011) The influence of landscape, patch, and within-patch factors on species presence and abundance: a review of focal patch studies. Landscape Ecol 26:7–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton DH, Fletcher RJ Jr (2014) Body size and spatial scales in avian response to landscapes: a meta-analysis. Ecography 37:454–463

    Google Scholar 

  • Urban DL, Oneill RV, Shugart HH (1987) Landscape ecology. Bioscience 37:119–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warton DI, Renner IW, Ramp D (2013) Model-based control of observer bias for the analysis of presence-only data in ecology. PLoS ONE 8:e79168

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Warton DI, Shepherd LC (2010) Poisson point process models solve the “pseudo-absence problem” for presence-only data in ecology. Ann Appl Stat 4:1383–1402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weigl PD, Steele MA, Sherman LJ, Ha JC, Sharpe TL (1989) The ecology of the fox squirrel Sciurus niger in North Carolina: implications for survival in the Southeast. Bull Tall Timbers Res Stn 24(I-XII):1–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenger SJ, Olden JD (2012) Assessing transferability of ecological models: an underappreciated aspect of statistical validation. Methods Ecol Evol 3:260–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiens JA (1989) Spatial scaling in ecology. Funct Ecol 3:385–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerberg B, Desrochers A, Hochachka WM, Fink D, Koenig WD, Dickinson JL (2012) Overlapping landscapes: a persistent, but misdirected concern when collecting and analyzing ecological data. J Wildl Manag 76:1072–1080

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

B. Reichert and three anonymous reviewers provided thoughtful reviews on previous versions of this manuscript, which greatly clarified the ideas presented here. R. Dorazio provided useful insight. We thank the University of Florida, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the private landowners, National Forest Service, Florida Forest Service, Florida Park Service, The Florida National Guard’s Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, and the University of Florida’s Ordway-Swisher Biological Station, Plant Science Research & Education Unit, and Austin Cary Forest for providing site access and logistical support. We also thank the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA-NIFA Initiative Grant No. 2012-67009-20090 for support. Finally, we thank the technicians and many volunteers for assistance in the field, and the voluntary participants for submitting their sightings to our online survey.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, PO Box 110430, 110 Newins-Ziegler Hall, Gainesville, FL, 32611-0430, USA

    Robert J. Fletcher Jr., Robert A. McCleery, Daniel U. Greene & Courtney A. Tye

Authors
  1. Robert J. Fletcher Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert A. McCleery
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniel U. Greene
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Courtney A. Tye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert J. Fletcher Jr..

Additional information

Special issue: Multi-scale habitat modeling.

Guest Editors: K. McGarigal and S. A. Cushman.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1169 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fletcher, R.J., McCleery, R.A., Greene, D.U. et al. Integrated models that unite local and regional data reveal larger-scale environmental relationships and improve predictions of species distributions. Landscape Ecol 31, 1369–1382 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0327-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0327-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation