Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Modelling the biological invasion of Prosopis juliflora using geostatistical-based bioclimatic variables under climate change in arid zones of southwestern Iran

  • Research article
  • Published:
Journal of Arid Land Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Invasive species have been the focus of ecologists due to their undesired impacts on the environment. The extent and rapid increase in invasive plant species is recognized as a natural cause of global-biodiversity loss and degrading ecosystem services. Biological invasions can affect ecosystems across a wide spectrum of bioclimatic conditions. Understanding the impact of climate change on species invasion is crucial for sustainable biodiversity conservation. In this study, the possibility of mapping the distribution of invasive Prosopis juliflora (Swartz) DC. was shown using present background data in Khuzestan Province, Iran. After removing the spatial bias of background data by creating weighted sampling bias grids for the occurrence dataset, we applied six modelling algorithms (generalized additive model (GAM), classification tree analysis (CTA), random forest (RF), multivariate adaptive regression splines (MARS), maximum entropy (MaxEnt) and ensemble model) to predict invasion distribution of the species under current and future climate conditions for both optimistic (RCP 2.6) and pessimistic (RCP 8.5) scenarios for the years 2050 and 2070, respectively. Predictor variables including weighted mean of CHELSA (climatologies at high resolution for the Earth’s land surface areas)-bioclimatic variables and geostatistical-based bioclimatic variables (1979–2020), physiographic variables extracted from shuttle radar topography mission (SRTM) and some human factors were used in modelling process. To avoid causing a biased selection of predictors or model coefficients, we resolved the spatial autocorrelation of presence points and multi-collinearity of the predictors. As in a conventional receiver operating characteristic (ROC), the area under curve (AUC) is calculated using presence and absence observations to measure the probability and the two error components are weighted equally. All models were evaluated using partial ROC at different thresholds and other statistical indices derived from confusion matrix. Sensitivity analysis showed that mean diurnal range (Bio2) and annual precipitation (Bio12) explained more than 50% of the changes in the invasion distribution and played a pivotal role in mapping habitat suitability of P. juliflora. At all thresholds, the ensemble model showed a significant difference in comparison with single model. However, MaxEnt and RF outperformed the others models. Under climate change scenarios, it is predicted that suitable areas for this invasive species will increase in Khuzestan Province, and increasing climatically suitable areas for the species in future will facilitate its future distribution. These findings can support the conservation planning and management efforts in ecological engineering and be used in formulating preventive measures.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adhikari D, Barik S, Upadhaya K. 2012. Habitat distribution modelling for reintroduction of Ilex khasiana Purk., a critically endangered tree species of northeastern India. Ecological Engineering, 40: 37–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allouche O, Tsoar A, Kadmon R. 2006. Assessing the accuracy of species distribution models: prevalence, kappa and the true skill statistic (TSS). Journal of Applied Ecology, 43(6): 1223–1232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez A, Salas E A L, Harings N M, et al. 2017. Projections of future suitable bioclimatic conditions of parthenogenetic whiptails. Climate, 5(2): 34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Araújo M, New M. 2007. Ensemble forecasting of species distributions. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 22(1): 42–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aznar J C, Gloaguen E, Tapsoba D, et al. 2012. Interpolation of monthly mean temperatures using cokriging in spherical coordinates. International Journal of Climatology, 33(3): 758–769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakkenes M, Alkemade J, Ihle F, et al. 2002. Assessing effects of forecasted climate change on the diversity and distribution of European higher plants for 2050. Global Change Biology, 8(4): 390–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbet-Massin M, Jiguet F, Albert C H, et al. 2012. Selecting pseudo-absences for species distribution models: how, where and how many? Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 3: 327–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barve N. 2008. Tool for Partial ROC. Lawrence: Biodiversity Institute, 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bazzichetto M, Malavasi M, Bartak V, et al. 2018. Plant invasion risk: A quest for invasive species distribution modelling in managing protected areas. Ecological Indicators, 95: 311–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behnamfar K, Orsham A, Salehehshshtari M H, et al. 2019. Determination of tolerance to below-zero temperatures in Prosopis juliflora using physiological indices. Iranian Journal of Range and Desert Research, 26(1): 49–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellard C, Thuiller W, Leroy B, et al. 2013. Will climate change promote future invasions? Global Change Biology, 19(12): 3740–3748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellard C, Cassey P, Blackburn T M. 2016. Alien species as a driver of recent extinctions. Biology Letters, 12(2): 20150623, doi: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2015.0623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broennimann O, Thuiller W, Hughes G et al. 2006. Do geographic distribution, niche property and life form explain plants’ vulnerability to global change? Global Change Biology, 12(6): 1079–1093.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choudhury M R, Deb P, Singha H, et al. 2016. Predicting the probable distributions and threat of invasive Mimosa diplotricha Suavalle and Mikania micrantha Kunth in a protected tropical grassland. Ecological Engineering, 97: 23–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crimmins S M, Dobrowski S Z, Mynsberge A R. 2013. Evaluating ensemble forecasts of plant species distributions under climate change. Ecological Modelling, 266: 126–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diao C, Wang L. 2014. Development of an invasive species distribution model with fine-resolution remote sensing. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 30: 65–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobrowski S Z, Thorne J H, Greenberg J A, et al. 2011. Modeling plant ranges over 75 years of climate change in California, USA: temporal transferability and species traits. Ecological Monographs, 81(2): 241–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elith J, Graham C H, Anderson R P, et al. 2006. Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data. Ecography, 29(2): 129–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elith J, Phillips S J, Hastie T, et al. 2010. A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists. Diversity and Distributions, 17(1): 43–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evangelista P H, Kumar S, Stohlgren T J, et al. 2008. Modelling invasion for a habitat generalist and a specialist plant species. Diversity and Distribution, 14(5): 808–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gong X, Chen Y, Wang T, et al. 2020. Double-edged effects of climate change on plant invasions: Ecological niche modeling global distributions of two invasive alien plants. Science of the Total Environment, 740: 139933, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guisan A, Tingley R, Baumgartner J B, et al. 2013. Predicting species distributions for conservation decisions. Ecology Letters, 16(12): 1424–1435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harsch M A, Phillips A, Zhou Y, et al. 2017. Moving forward: insights and applications of moving-habitat models for climate change ecology. Journal of Ecology, 105(5): 1169–1181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heshmati I, Khorasani N, Shams-Esfandabad B, et al. 2019. Forthcoming risk of Prosopis juliflora global invasion triggered by climate change: implications for environmental monitoring and risk assessment. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 191: 72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang C, Asner G P. 2009. Applications of remote sensing to alien invasive plant studies. Sensors, 9(6): 4869–4889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services). 2015. Decision IPBES-3/1: Work Programme for the Period 2014–2018. Bonn: IPBES, 43.

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC. 2013. Climate change. In: Stocker T F, Qin D H, Plattner G K, et al. The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones C. 2012. Challenges in predicting the future distributions of invasive plant species. Forest Ecology and Management, 284: 9–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joshi C, Leeuw J D, van Duren I C. 2004. Remote sensing and GIS applications for mapping and spatial modeling of invasive species. International Journal of Geo-Information, 35: 669–677.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaky E, Nolan V, Alatawi A, et al. 2020. A comparison between ensemble and MaxEnt species distribution modelling approaches for conservation: A case study with Egyptian medicinal plants. Ecological Informatics, 60: 101150, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2020.101150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kandwal R, Jeganathan C, Tolpekin V, et al. 2009. Discriminating the invasive species, Lantana using vegetation indices. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 37: 275–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khosravi Y, Balyani S. 2019. Spatial modeling of mean annual temperature in Iran: comparing cokriging and geographically weighted regression. Environmental Modeling and Assessment, 24: 341–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kindt R. 2018. Ensemble species distribution modelling with transformed suitability values. Environmental Modelling and Software, 100: 136–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar S, Spaulding S A, Stohlgren T J, et al. 2009. Potential habitat distribution for the freshwater diatom Didymosphenia geminata in the continental US. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment, 7(8): 415–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar S, Neven L, Zhu H, et al. 2015. Assessing the global risk of establishment of Cydia pomonella (Lepidoptera: Totricidae) using CLIMEX and MaxEnt niche models. Journal of Economic Entomology, 108(4): 1708–1719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamelas-López L, Pardavila X, Borges P A V, et al. 2020. Modelling the distribution of Mustela nivalis and M. putorius in the Azores archipelago based on native and introduced ranges. PLoS ONE, 15(8): e0237216, doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linders T E W, Schaffner U, Eschen R, et al. 2019. Direct and indirect effects of invasive species: Biodiversity loss is a major mechanism by which an invasive tree affects ecosystem functioning. Ecology, 107: 2660–2670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marmion M, Parviainen M, Luoto M, et al. 2009. Evaluation of consensus methods in predictive species distribution modelling. Diversity and Distributions, 15(1): 59–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masocha M, Dube T. 2018. Global terrestrial biomes at risk of cacti invasion identified for four species using consensual modelling. Journal of Arid Environments, 156: 77–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naimi B, Araújo M B. 2016. SDM: a reproducible and extensible R platform for species distribution modelling. Ecography, 39(4): 368–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oldeland J, Dorigo W, Leickfeld L, et al. 2010. Combining vegetation indices, constrained ordination and fuzzy classification for mapping semi-natural vegetation units from hyperspectral imagery. Remote Sensing of Environment, 114(6): 1155–1166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pal J S, Eltahir E A B. 2015. Future temperature in southwest Asia projected to exceed a threshold for human adaptability. Nature Climate Change, 6: 197–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parmesan C. 2006. Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 37: 637–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pasiecznik N M, Felker P, Harris P J, et al. 2001. The Prosopis juliflora—Prosopis pallida Complex: A Monograph. UK: HDRA Coventry, 162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peknicová J, Berchová-Bímová K. 2016. Application of species distribution models for protected areas threatened by invasive plants. Journal for Nature Conservation, 34: 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry M, Hollis D. 2005. The generation of monthly gridded datasets for a range of climatic variables over the UK. International Journal of Climatology, 25(8): 1041–1054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson A T, Papes M, Soberón J. 2008. Rethinking receiver operating characteristic analysis applications in ecological niche modeling. Ecological Modelling, 213(1): 63–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips S J, Anderson R P, Schapire R E. 2006. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecological Modelling, 190(3–4): 231–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips S J, Dudík M. 2008. Modeling of species distributions with MaxEnt: new extensions and a comprehensive evaluation. Ecography, 31(2): 161–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips S J, Dudík M, Elith J, et al. 2009. Sample selection bias and presence-only distribution models: implications for background and pseudo-absence data. Ecological Applications, 19(1): 181–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poggiato G, Münkemüller T, Bystrova D, et al. 2021. On the interpretations of joint modeling in community ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 36(5): 391–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rueda M N, Salgado-Roa F C, Gantiva Q C H, et al. 2021. Environmental drivers of diversification and hybridization in neotropical butterflies. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 9: 750703, doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.750703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz G R, Bandera C F. 2017. Validation of calibrated energy models: Common errors. Energies, 10(10): 1587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santini L, Benítez-López A, Maiorano L, et al. 2021. Assessing the reliability of species distribution projections in climate change research. Diversity and Distributions, 27(6): 1035–1050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrestha U B, Sharma K P, Devkota A, et al. 2018. Potential impact of climate change on the distribution of six invasive alien plants in Nepal. Ecological Indicators, 95: 99–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh S. 2018. Understanding the role of slope aspect in shaping the vegetation attributes and soil properties in Montane ecosystems. Tropical Ecology, 59(3): 417–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Srivastava V, Griess V C, Padalia H. 2018. Mapping invasion potential using ensemble modelling. A case study on Yushaniamaling in the Darjeeling Himalayas. Ecological Modelling, 385: 35–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stohlgren T J, Ma P, Kumar S, et al. 2010. Ensemble habitat mapping of invasive plant species. Risk Analysis, 30(2): 224–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wakie T T, Evangelista P H, Jarnevich S, et al. 2014. Mapping current and potential distribution of non-native Prosopis juliflora in the Afar region of Ethiopia. PLoS ONE, 9(11): e112854, doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0112854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warren D L, Seifert S N. 2011. Ecological niche modeling in MaxEnt: The importance of model complexity and the performance of model selection criteria. Ecological Applications, 21(2): 335–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang X, Xie X, Liu D L, et al. 2015. Spatial interpolation of daily rainfall data for local climate impact assessment over Greater Sydney region. Advances in Meteorology, (2): 523629, doi: https://doi.org/10.1155//2015/563629.

  • Yin Q, Adeli E, Shen L, et al. 2021. Population-guided large margin classifier for high-dimension low-sample-size problems. Machine Learning, 79: 107030, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2019.107030.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Natural Resources, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, 8415683111, Iran

    Mohadeseh Amiri & Mosfata Tarkesh

  2. Natural Resources and Watershed Management Organization, Khuzestan, 6134788439, Iran

    Mohammad Shafiezadeh

Authors
  1. Mohadeseh Amiri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mosfata Tarkesh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mohammad Shafiezadeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohadeseh Amiri.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Amiri, M., Tarkesh, M. & Shafiezadeh, M. Modelling the biological invasion of Prosopis juliflora using geostatistical-based bioclimatic variables under climate change in arid zones of southwestern Iran. J. Arid Land 14, 203–224 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40333-022-0004-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40333-022-0004-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation