Improving the prediction of plant species distribution and community composition by adding edaphic to topo‐climatic variables

Improving the prediction of plant species distribution and community composition by adding... Questions Soil properties have been widely shown to influence plant growth and distribution. However, the degree to which edaphic variables can improve models based on topo‐climatic variables is still unclear. In this study, we tested the roles of seven edaphic variables, namely (1) pH; (2) the content of nitrogen and of (3) phosphorus; (4) silt; (5) sand; (6) clay and (7) carbon‐to‐nitrogen ratio, as predictors of species distribution models in an edaphically heterogeneous landscape. We also tested how the respective influence of these variables in the models is linked to different ecological and functional species characteristics. Location The Western Alps, Switzerland. Methods With four different modelling techniques, we built models for 115 plant species using topo‐climatic variables alone and then topo‐climatic variables plus each of the seven edaphic variables, one at a time. We evaluated the contribution of each edaphic variable by assessing the change in predictive power of the model. In a second step, we evaluated the importance of the two edaphic variables that yielded the largest increase in predictive power in one final set of models for each species. Third, we explored the change in predictive power and the importance of variables across plant functional groups. Finally, we assessed the influence of the edaphic predictors on the prediction of community composition by stacking the models for all species and comparing the predicted communities with the observed community. Results Among the set of edaphic variables studied, pH and nitrogen content showed the highest contributions to improvement of the predictive power of the models, as well as the predictions of community composition. When considering all topo‐climatic and edaphic variables together, pH was the second most important variable after degree‐days. The changes in model results caused by edaphic predictors were dependent on species characteristics. The predictions for the species that have a low specific leaf area, and acidophilic preferences, tolerating low soil pH and high humus content, showed the largest improvement by the addition of pH and nitrogen in the model. Conclusions pH was an important predictor variable for explaining species distribution and community composition of the mountain plants considered in our study. pH allowed more precise predictions for acidophilic species. This variable should not be neglected in the construction of species distribution models in areas with contrasting edaphic conditions. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Vegetation Science Wiley

Improving the prediction of plant species distribution and community composition by adding edaphic to topo‐climatic variables

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/improving-the-prediction-of-plant-species-distribution-and-community-0BPn410y2x
Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 International Association for Vegetation Science
ISSN
1100-9233
eISSN
1654-1103
DOI
10.1111/jvs.12002
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Questions Soil properties have been widely shown to influence plant growth and distribution. However, the degree to which edaphic variables can improve models based on topo‐climatic variables is still unclear. In this study, we tested the roles of seven edaphic variables, namely (1) pH; (2) the content of nitrogen and of (3) phosphorus; (4) silt; (5) sand; (6) clay and (7) carbon‐to‐nitrogen ratio, as predictors of species distribution models in an edaphically heterogeneous landscape. We also tested how the respective influence of these variables in the models is linked to different ecological and functional species characteristics. Location The Western Alps, Switzerland. Methods With four different modelling techniques, we built models for 115 plant species using topo‐climatic variables alone and then topo‐climatic variables plus each of the seven edaphic variables, one at a time. We evaluated the contribution of each edaphic variable by assessing the change in predictive power of the model. In a second step, we evaluated the importance of the two edaphic variables that yielded the largest increase in predictive power in one final set of models for each species. Third, we explored the change in predictive power and the importance of variables across plant functional groups. Finally, we assessed the influence of the edaphic predictors on the prediction of community composition by stacking the models for all species and comparing the predicted communities with the observed community. Results Among the set of edaphic variables studied, pH and nitrogen content showed the highest contributions to improvement of the predictive power of the models, as well as the predictions of community composition. When considering all topo‐climatic and edaphic variables together, pH was the second most important variable after degree‐days. The changes in model results caused by edaphic predictors were dependent on species characteristics. The predictions for the species that have a low specific leaf area, and acidophilic preferences, tolerating low soil pH and high humus content, showed the largest improvement by the addition of pH and nitrogen in the model. Conclusions pH was an important predictor variable for explaining species distribution and community composition of the mountain plants considered in our study. pH allowed more precise predictions for acidophilic species. This variable should not be neglected in the construction of species distribution models in areas with contrasting edaphic conditions.

Journal

Journal of Vegetation ScienceWiley

Published: Jul 1, 2013

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off