Environmental Earth Sciences

, Volume 73, Issue 2, pp 779–786 | Cite as

Potential distribution of invasive alien species in the upper Ili river basin: determination and mechanism of bioclimatic variables under climate change

  • Zhonglin Xu
Thematic Issue


Controlling alien species invasion requires a full understanding of the potential distribution of alien species and the functions of key environmental factors that influence such distribution. In this study, potential distributions of 28 invasive alien species under current and future bioclimatic conditions at the upper Ili river basin (the Chinese part of the basin) were predicted, and the important bioclimatic variables that determine the distributions were examined. Under the current conditions, the number of alien species ranged from 0 to 10, and the eastern part of the basin may not be influenced by invaded species. Under future conditions, 0–22 alien species may find these areas suitable for invasion. The potential distributions of invasive plant species were determined mainly by precipitation-related bioclimatic variables, whereas temperature-related variables were relatively more relevant for animal species. Bioclimatic conditions during the coldest and/or driest month (or quarter, which is a period of 3 months) may significantly affect potential distributions for both plant and animal species. Quantified analysis demonstrated that the number of species is likely to increase considerably with the increase in precipitation during the driest month, particularly with a variation of >3 mm in the precipitation during the driest month. More alien species may invade regions where the precipitation during the driest quarter under future conditions is 10 mm higher than the current conditions. The effect of precipitation during the coldest quarter on species invasion is similar to that of precipitation during the driest quarter: the higher the precipitation during the driest quarter under future conditions (more than 9 mm than that under current conditions), the higher will be the rate of alien species invasion in the study area.


Climate change Species invasion Species potential distribution Important bioclimatic variables 



Special thanks to the anonymous reviewers for providing constructive comments that greatly improved the quality of the manuscript. This work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 41363098).


  1. Ashcroft MB, French KO, Chisholm LA (2011) An evaluation of environmental factors affecting species distributions. Ecol Model 222:521–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barbet-Massin M, Rome Q, Muller F, Perrard A, Villemant C, Jiguet F (2013) Climate change increases the risk of invasion by the Yellow-legged hornet. Biol Conserv 157:4–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbosa AM, Real R, Vargas JM (2009) Transferability of environmental favourability models in geographic space: the case of the Iberian desman (Galemys pyrenaicus) in Portugal and Spain. Ecol Model 220:747–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beaumont LJ, Pitman A, Perkins S, Zimmermann NE, Yoccoz NG, Thuiller W (2010) Impacts of climate change on the world’s most exceptional ecoregions. P Natl Acad Sci USA 108:2306–2311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beck J, Ballesteros-Mejia L, Nagel P, Kitching IJ (2013) Online solutions and the ‘Wallacean shortfall’: what does GBIF conbribute to our knowledge of species’ ranges? Divers Distrib. doi: 10.1111/ddi.12083 Google Scholar
  6. Bradley BA, Oppenheimer M, Wilcove DS (2009) Climate change and plant invasions: restoration opportunities ahead? Global Change Biol 15:1511–1521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chuine I, Morin X, Sonié L, Collin C, Fabreguettes J, Degueldre D, Salager JL, Roy J (2012) Climate change might increase the invasion potential of the alien C4 grass Setaria parviflora (Poaceae) in the Mediterranean Basin. Divers Distrib 18:661–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. David P, Thibaud D, Louis D, Samuel WJ, Dariusz S, Christer E, Kevin RB, Benoit R, Paul DN (2012) Biological invasions in soil: DNA barcoding as a monitoring tool in a multiple taxa survey targeting European earthworms and springtails in North America. Biol Invasions 15:899–910Google Scholar
  9. Díaz S, Fargione J, Chapin FS III, Tilman D (2006) Biodiversity loss threatens human well-being. PLoS Biol 4(8):e277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Elith J, Graham CH, Anderson RP, Dudík M, Ferrier S, Guisan A et al (2006) Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distribution from occurrence data. Ecography 29:129–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fort M (2013) Natural hazards vs climate change and their potential impacts in the dry, northern Himalayas: focus on the Upper Kali Gandaki (Mustang District, Nepal). Environ Earth Sci. doi: 10.1007/s12665-014-3087-y
  12. GBIF Global Biodiversity Information Facility (2007) Free and open access to biodiversity data. Accessed 29 Oct 2012
  13. Gormley AM, Forsyth DM, Griffioen P, Lindeman M, Ramsey DSL, Scroggie MP, Woodford L (2011) Using presence-only and presence–absence data to estimate the current and potential distributions of established invasive species. J App Ecol 48:25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gritti ES, Smith B, Sykes MT (2006) Vulnerability of mediterranean basin ecosystems to climate change and invasion by exotic plant species. J Biogeogr 33:145–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Har-Edom OL, Sternberg M (2010) Invasive species and climate change: Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronquist as a tool for assessing the invasibility of natural plant communities along an aridity gradient. Biol Invasions 12:1953–1960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hidalgo PJ, Marín JM, Quijada J, Moreira JM (2008) A spatial distribution model of cork oak (Quercus subuer) in southwestern Spain: a suitable tool for reforestation. Forest Ecol Manag 255:25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hijmans RJ, Cameron SE, Parra JL, Jones PG, Jarvis A (2005) Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int J Climatol 25:1965–1978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hof AR, Jansson R, Nilsson C (2012) The usefulness of elevation as a predictor variable in species distribution modelling. Ecol Model 246:86–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hofmann JM, Watson V, Scharaw B (2013) Groundwater quality under stress: contaminants in the Kharaa river basin (Mongolia). Environ Earth Sci. doi:  10.1007/s12665-014-3148-2
  20. Hulme PE (2006) Beyond control: wider implications for the management of biological invasions. J Appl Ecol 43:835–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. IUCN (2001) IUCN Red List categories. Version 3.1. Prepared by the IUCN Species Survival Commission. World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  22. Jackson MC, Grey J (2013) Accelerating rates of freshwater invasions in the catchment of the River Thames. Biol Invasion 15:945–951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jiménez-Valverde A, Lobo JM (2006) The ghost of unbalanced species distribution data in geographical model predictions. Divers Distrib 12:521–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lassueur T, Joost S, Randin CF (2006) Very high resolution digital elevation models: do they improve models of plant species distributions? Ecol Model 198:139–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Latimer A, Wu S, Gelfand AE, Silander JA (2006) Building statistical models to analyze species distributions. Ecol Appl 16:33–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Liu CR, White M, Newell G (2011) Measuring and comparing the accuracy of species distribution models with presence-absence data. Ecography 34:232–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Palmer MA, Reidy Liermann CA, Nilsson C, Flörke M, Alcamo J, Lake PS, Bond N (2008) Climate change and the world’s river basins: anticipating management options. Front Ecol Environ 6:81–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Phillips SJ, Anderson RP, Schapire RE (2006) Maxent entropy modeling of species geographic distribution. Ecol Model 190:231–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pimentel D, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2005) Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol Econ 52:273–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pollock L, Morris WK, Vesk PA (2012) The role of functional traits in species distributions revealed through a hierarchical model. Ecography 35:716–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Prates-Clark CDC, Saatchi SS, Agosti D (2008) Predicting geographical distribution models of high-value timber trees in the Amazon Basin using remotely sensed data. Ecol Model 211:309–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Roura-Pascual N, Brotons L, Peterson AT, Thuiller W (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
  33. Sánchez-Flores E (2007) GARP modeling of natural and human factors affecting the potential distribution of the invasive Schismus arabicus and Brassica tournefortii in ‘El Pinacate y Gran Desierto de Altar’ Biosphere Reserve’. Ecol Model 204:457–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Simberloff D, Martin JL, Genovesi P, Maris V, Wardle DA, Aronson J, Corchamp F, Galil B, Garcia-Bethou E, Pascal M, Pyšek P, Sousa R, Tabacchi E, Vila M (2012) Impacts of biological invasions: what’s what and the way forward. Trends Ecol Evol 28:58–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Van Der Wal J, Shoo LP, Graham C, Williams SE (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
  36. Vié JC, Hilton-Taylor C, Stuart SN, Tong R (2009) Status of the world’s species. In: Vié JC, Hilton-Taylor C, Stuart SN (eds) Wildlife in a changing world—an analysis of the 2008 IUCN red list of threatened species. IUCN, Switzerland, pp 15–42Google Scholar
  37. Vilà M, Basnou C, Pyšek P, Josefsson M, Genovesi P, Gollasch S, Nentwig W, Olenin S, Roques A, Roy D, Hulme EP, Partners D (2010) How well do we understand the impacts of alien species on ecosystem services? A pan-European, cross-taxa assessment. Front Ecol Environ 8:135–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Walther GR, Roques A, Hulme PE, Sykes MT, Pysek P, Kühn I, Zobel M, Bacher S, Botta-Dukát Z, Bugmann H, Czúcz B, Dauber J, Hickler T, Jarosík V, Kenis M, Klotz S, Minchin D, Moora M, Nentwig W, Ott J, Panov VE, Reineking B, Robinet C, Semenchenko V, Solarz W, Thuiller W, Vilà M, Vohland K, Settele J (2012) Alien species in a warmer world: risks and opportunities. Trends Ecol Evol 24:686–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wang B, Liu G, Xue S (2012) Effect of black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) on soil chemical and microbiological properties in the eroded hilly area of China’s Loess Plateau. Environ Earth Sci 65:597–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ward NL, Masters GJ (2007) Linking climate change and species invasion: an illustration using insect herbivores. Global Change Biol 13:1605–1615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Watt MS, Kriticos DJ, Manning LK (2009) The current and future potential distribution of Melaleuca quinquenervia. Weed Res 49:381–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Xu X, Yang Z, Saiken A, Rui S, Liu X (2012) Natural heritage value of Xinjiang Tianshan and global comparative analysis. J Mt Sci 9:262–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Yan X, Zhengyu L, Gregg WP, Dianmo L (2001) Invasive species in China—an overview. Biodivers Conserv 10:1317–1341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yuan GY, Chen L, Cheng Y (2010) On the investigation and evaluation of the biodiversity of the Xinjiang Province. Xinjiang Environ Prot 32(1):1–06 In Chinese with English abstractGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Resource and Environmental ScienceXinjiang UniversityUrumqiChina

Personalised recommendations