Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Quantitative Climate-Match Score for Risk-Assessment Screening of Reptile and Amphibian Introductions

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Assessing climatic suitability provides a good preliminary estimate of the invasive potential of a species to inform risk assessment. We examined two approaches for bioclimatic modeling for 67 reptile and amphibian species introduced to California and Florida. First, we modeled the worldwide distribution of the biomes found in the introduced range to highlight similar areas worldwide from which invaders might arise. Second, we modeled potentially suitable environments for species based on climatic factors in their native ranges, using three sources of distribution data. Performance of the three datasets and both approaches were compared for each species. Climate match was positively correlated with species establishment success (maximum predicted suitability in the introduced range was more strongly correlated with establishment success than mean suitability). Data assembled from the Global Amphibian Assessment through NatureServe provided the most accurate models for amphibians, while ecoregion data compiled by the World Wide Fund for Nature yielded models which described reptile climatic suitability better than available point-locality data. We present three methods of assigning a climate-match score for use in risk assessment using both the mean and maximum climatic suitabilities. Managers may choose to use different methods depending on the stringency of the assessment and the available data, facilitating higher resolution and accuracy for herpetofaunal risk assessment. Climate-matching has inherent limitations and other factors pertaining to ecological interactions and life-history traits must also be considered for thorough risk assessment.

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
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arntzen JW (2006) From descriptive to predictive distribution models: a working example with Iberian amphibians and reptiles. Frontiers in Zoology 3:8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Blaustein AR, Kiesecker JM (2002) Complexity in conservation: lessons from the global decline of amphibian populations. Ecology Letters 5:597–608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bomford M, Kraus F, Braysher M, Walter L, Brown L (2005) Risk assessment model for the import and keeping of exotic reptiles and amphibians. Australian Government Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra, 107 pp

  • Bomford M, Kraus F, Barry SC, Lawrence E (2009) Predicting establishment success for alien reptiles and amphibians: a role for climate matching. Biological Invasions 11:713–724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational Psychology Measurement 20:37–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins JT (1994–2008) The Centre for North American Herpetology. http://www.cnah.org/ex_nameslist.asp. Accessed 5 February 2008

  • Costa GC, Wolfe C, Shepard DB, Caldwell JP, Vitt LJ (2008) Detecting the influence of climatic variables on species distributions: a test using GIS niche-based models along a steep longitudinal environmental gradient. Journal of Biogeography 35:637–646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daehler CC, Carino DA (2000) Predicting invasive plants: prospects for a general screening system based on current regional models. Biological Invasions 2:93–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Ferrier S, Watson G, Pearce J, Drielsma M (2002) Extended statistical approaches to modelling spatial pattern in biodiversity in northeast New South Wales. I. Species-level modelling. Biodiversity and Conservation 11:2275–2307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ficetola GF, Thuiller W, Miaud C (2007) Prediction and validation of the potential global distribution of a problematic alien invasive species—the American bullfrog. Diversity and Distributions 13:476–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. Diversity and Distributions 15:108–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher RN, Case TJ (2003) A field guide to the reptiles and amphibians of coastal southern California. http://www.werc.usgs.gov/fieldguide/. Accessed January 2008

  • Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (1999–2008) Welcome to nonnative species information. http://myfwc.com/nonnatives/. Accessed April 2008

  • Franklin J, Wejnert KE, Hathaway SA, Rochester CJ, Fisher RN (2009) Effect of species rarity on the accuracy of species distribution models for reptiles and amphibians in southern California. Diversity and Distributions 15:167–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frost DR, Grant T, Faivovich J, Bain RH, Haas A, Haddad CFB, De Sa RO, Channing A, Wilkinson M, Donnellan SC, Raxworthy CJ, Campbell JA, Blotto BL, Moler P, Drewes RC, Nussbaum RA, Lynch JD, Green DM, Wheeler WC (2006) The amphibian tree of life. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 297:370 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • GBIF (Global Biodiversity Information Facility) (2008) GBIF data portal. www.gbif.net. Accessed January 2008

  • Giovanelli JGR, Haddad CFB, Alexandrino J (2007) Predicting the potential distribution of the alien invasive American bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus) in Brazil. Biological Invasions 10:585–590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon DR, Onderdonk DA, Fox AM, Stocker RK (2008) Consistent accuracy of the Australian weed risk assessment system across varied geographies. Diversity and Distributions 14:234–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham CH, Elith J, Hijmans RJ, Guisan A, Peterson AT, Loiselle BA, The NCEAS Predicting Species Distributions Working Group (2008) The influence of spatial errors in species occurrence data used in distribution models. Journal of Applied Ecology 45:239–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guisan A, Hofer U (2003) Predicting reptile distributions at the mesoscale: relation to climate and topography. Journal of Biogeography 30:1233–1243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guisan A, Zimmermann NE (2000) Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecological Modelling 135:147–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guisan A, Graham CH, Elith J, Huettmann F, The NCEAS Species Distribution Modelling Group (2007) Sensitivity of predictive species distribution models to change in grain size. Diversity and Distributions 13:332–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanley JA, McNeil BJ (1982) The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 143:29–36

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Heikkinen RK, Luoto M, Araújo MB, Virkkala R, Thuiller W, Sykes MT (2006) Methods and uncertainties in bioclimatic envelope modelling under climate change. Progress in Physical Geography 30:751–777

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hijmans RJ, Cameron SE, Parra JL, Jones PG, Jarvis A (2005) Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. International Journal of Climatology 25:1965–1978

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe (2006) Global amphibian assessment. www.globalamphibians.org, version 1.1. http://www.natureserve.org/getData/amphibianMaps.jsp. Accessed 8 April 2008

  • Kaiser J (1999) Stemming the tide of invading species. Science 285:1836–1841

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Keller RP, Lodge DM, Finnoff DC (2007) Risk assessment for invasive species produces net bioeconomic benefits. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104:203–207

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • King KW (1996–2006) Florida Museum of Natural History’s checklist of Florida amphibians and reptiles. http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/herpetology/fl-guide/flaherps.htm#TOP. Accessed April 2008

  • Kolar CS, Lodge DM (2001) Progress in invasion biology: predicting invaders. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 16:199–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolar CS, Lodge DM (2002) Ecological predictions and risk assessment for alien fishes in North America. Science 298:1233–1236

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kupferberg SJ (1997) Bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) invasion of a California river: the role of larval competition. Ecology 78:1736–1751

    Google Scholar 

  • Lever C (2003) Naturalized reptiles and amphibians of the world. Oxford University Press, New York, 318 pp

  • Lobo JM, Jimenez-Valverde A, Real R (2008) AUC: a misleading measure of the performance of predictive distribution models. Global Ecology and Biogeography 17:145–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mack RN, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, Evans H, Clout M, Bazzaz FA (2000) Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecological Applications 10:689–710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manel S, Williams HC, Ormerod SJ (2001) Evaluating presence–absence models in ecology: the need to account for prevalence. Journal of Applied Ecology 38:921–931

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menke SB, Holway DA, Fisher RN, Jetz W (2009) Characterizing and predicting species distributions across environments and scales: Argentine ant occurrences in the eye of the beholder. Global Ecology and Biogeography 18:50–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meshaka WE Jr, Butterfield BP, Hauge JB (2004) The exotic amphibians and reptiles of Florida. Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, 155 pp

  • Meshaka WE, Smith HT, Severson R, Severson MA (2005) Spatial picture of a gecko assemblage in flux. Biological Sciences 68:53–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Meshaka WE, Cress HL, Kingsland KL, Smith HT, Fitchett SA, Moore JA, Cowan EM (2006) Hemidactylus (House Gecko) assemblage dynamics on South Florida buildings. Journal of Kansas Herpetology 17:7–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Nafis G (2000–2008) California reptiles and amphibians. http://www.californiaherps.com/. Accessed April 2008

  • New M, Lister D, Hulme M, Makin I (2002) A high-resolution data set of surface climate over global land areas. Climate Research 21:1–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson AT, Nakazawa Y (2008) Environmental data sets matter in ecological niche modelling: an example with Solenopsis invicta and Solenopsis richteri. Global Ecology and Biogeography 17:135–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Pheloung PC, Williams PA, Halloy SR (1999) A weed risk assessment model for use as a biosecurity tool evaluating plant introductions. Journal of Environmental Management 57:239–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pitt WC, Vice DS, Pitzler ME (2005) Challenges of invasive reptiles and amphibians. In: Proceedings of the 11th wildlife damage management conference, pp 112–119

  • Pyron RA, Burbrink FT, Guiher TJ (2008) Claims of potential expansion throughout the U.S. by invasive python species are contradicted by ecological niche models. PLoS ONE 3:e2931

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Randin CF, Dirnbock T, Dullinger S, Zimmermann NE, Zappa M, Guisan A (2006) Are niche-based species distribution models transferable in space? Journal of Biogeography 33:1689–1703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Development Core Team (2007) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. http://www.R-project.org

  • Reed RN (2005) An ecological risk assessment of nonnative boas and pythons as potentially invasive species in the United States. Risk Analysis 25:753–766

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson DM, Thuiller W (2007) Home away from home—objective mapping of high-risk source areas for plant introductions. Diversity and Distributions 13:299–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodda GH, Reed RN, Jarnevich CS (2007) Climate matching as a tool for predicting potential North American spread of brown treesnakes. Managing vertebrate invasive species: USDA national wildlife research center symposia. University of Nebraska, Lincoln

  • Rodda GH, Jarnevich CS, Reed RN (2009) What parts of the US mainland are climatically suitable for invasive alien pythons spreading from Everglades National Park? Biological Invasions 11:241–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soares C, Brito JC (2007) Environmental correlates for species richness among amphibians and reptiles in a climate transition area. Biodiversity and Conservation 16:1087–1102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soberón J, Peterson AT (2005) Interpretation of models of fundamental ecological niches and species’ distributional areas. Biodiversity Informatics 2:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Stohlgren TJ, Schnase JL (2006) Risk analysis for biological hazards: what do we need to know about invasive species? Risk Analysis 26:163–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutton T, de Giovanni R, de Siqueira MF (2007) Introducing openModeller: a fundamental niche modelling framework. OSGeo Journal 1. ISSN:1994-1897

  • Teixeira J, Ferrand N, Arntzen JW (2001) Biogeography of the golden-striped salamander Chioglossa lusitanica: a field survey and spatial modelling approach. Ecography 24:618–624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thuiller W (2003) BIOMOD—optimizing predictions of species distributions and projecting potential future shifts under global change. Global Change Biology 9:1353–1362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torchin ME, Mitchell CE (2004) Parasites, pathogens, and invasions by plants and animals. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2:183–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (2007) Ecoregions of North America. http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/na_eco.htm. Accessed February 2007

  • van Wilgen NJ, Richardson DM, Baard EHW (2008) Alien reptiles and amphibians in South Africa: towards a pragmatic management strategy. South African Journal of Science 104:13–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Veltman CJ, Nee S, Crawley MJ (1996) Correlates of introduction success in exotic New Zealand birds. American Naturalist 147:542–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson M (1999) Invasions. Ecography 22:5–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willis KJ, Whittaker RJ (2002) Ecology—species diversity—scale matters. Science 295:1245–1248

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson JRU, Richardson DM, Rouget M, Procheş Ş, Amis MA, Henderson L, Thuiller W (2007) Residence time and potential range: crucial considerations in modelling plant invasions. Diversity and Distributions 13:11–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolf A, Nielsen CK, Weber T, Gibbs-Kieninger TJ (2002) Statewide modeling of bobcat, Lynx rufus, habitat in Illinois, USA. Biological Conservation 104:191–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WWF (World Wildlife Fund) (2006) WildFinder: online database of species distributions, ver. Jan-06. http://www.worldwildlife.org/wildfinder/searchBySpecies.cfm. Accessed January 2008

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Wilfried Thuiller for advice on modeling, Ladislav Mucina for assistance in identifying biomes in Florida and California, Kirk Klausmeyer for advice on obtaining digital data sets on species distributions, Walter Meshaka for commenting on species invasion success in Florida, and Mark Burgman, Jane Elith and Michael McCarthy for advice on statistical analyses, and four anonymous reviewers for helpful comments. Financial support for this work came from the Australian Centre of Excellence for Risk Analysis (ACERA) (NvW), the DST-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology, the Wilhelm Frank Bursary Fund (NvW), Cape Action for People and the Environment (C.A.P.E.), the Beatriu de Pinós postdoctoral grant (2006 BP-A 10124) from the Catalan Agency for Management of University and Research Grants (NRP), and the Hans Sigrist Foundation (DMR).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Invasion Biology (CIB), Department of Botany & Zoology, Stellenbosch University, P/Bag X1, Matieland, Stellenbosch, Western Cape, 7602, South Africa

    Nicola J. van Wilgen, Núria Roura-Pascual & David M. Richardson

Authors
  1. Nicola J. van Wilgen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Núria Roura-Pascual
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David M. Richardson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicola J. van Wilgen.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

(ZIP 37656 kb)

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 3

Table 3 Model results for each species introduced to California (C) and Florida (F) for all three datasets (WildFinder, GBIF and NatureServe)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

van Wilgen, N.J., Roura-Pascual, N. & Richardson, D.M. A Quantitative Climate-Match Score for Risk-Assessment Screening of Reptile and Amphibian Introductions. Environmental Management 44, 590–607 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-009-9311-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-009-9311-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation