The effect of the extent of the study region on GIS models of species geographic distributions and estimates of niche evolution: preliminary tests with montane rodents (genus Nephelomys ) in Venezuela

The effect of the extent of the study region on GIS models of species geographic distributions... Aim Various techniques model a species’ niche and potential distribution by comparing the environmental conditions of occurrence localities with those of the overall study region (via a background or pseudoabsence sample). Here, we examine how changes in the extent of the study region (ignored or under‐appreciated in most studies) affect models of two rodents, Nephelomys caracolus and Nephelomys meridensis. Location North‐central South America. Methods We used Maxent to model the species' potential distributions via two methods of defining the study region. In Method 1 (typical of most studies to date), we calibrated the model in a large study region that included the ranges of both species. In Method 2, we calibrated the model using a smaller study region surrounding the localities of the focal species, and then applied it to the larger region. Because the study region of Method 1 is likely to include areas of suitable conditions that are unoccupied because of dispersal limitations and/or biotic interactions, this approach is prone to overfitting to conditions found near the occupied localities. In contrast, Method 2 should avoid such problems but may require further assumptions (‘clamping’ in Maxent) to make predictions for areas with environmental conditions beyond those found in the smaller study region. For each method, we calculated several measures of geographic interpredictivity between predictions for the species (cross‐species AUC, cross‐species omission rate, and proportional geographic overlap). Results Compared with Method 1, Method 2 revealed a larger predicted area for each species, less concentrated around known localities (especially for N. caracolus). It also led to higher cross‐species AUC values, lower cross‐species omission rates and higher proportions of geographic overlap. Clamping was minimal and occurred primarily in regions unlikely to be suitable. Main conclusions Method 2 led to more realistic predictions and higher estimates of niche conservatism. Conclusions reached by many studies depend on the selection of an appropriate study region. Although detailed information regarding dispersal limitations and/or biotic interactions will typically be difficult to obtain, consideration of coarse distributional patterns, topography and vegetational zones often should permit delimitation of a much more reasonable study region than the extremely large ones currently in common use. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Biogeography Wiley

The effect of the extent of the study region on GIS models of species geographic distributions and estimates of niche evolution: preliminary tests with montane rodents (genus Nephelomys ) in Venezuela

Journal of Biogeography, Volume 37 (7) – Jul 1, 2010

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/the-effect-of-the-extent-of-the-study-region-on-gis-models-of-species-CDnJ4ezsXq
Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
ISSN
0305-0270
eISSN
1365-2699
D.O.I.
10.1111/j.1365-2699.2010.02290.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Aim Various techniques model a species’ niche and potential distribution by comparing the environmental conditions of occurrence localities with those of the overall study region (via a background or pseudoabsence sample). Here, we examine how changes in the extent of the study region (ignored or under‐appreciated in most studies) affect models of two rodents, Nephelomys caracolus and Nephelomys meridensis. Location North‐central South America. Methods We used Maxent to model the species' potential distributions via two methods of defining the study region. In Method 1 (typical of most studies to date), we calibrated the model in a large study region that included the ranges of both species. In Method 2, we calibrated the model using a smaller study region surrounding the localities of the focal species, and then applied it to the larger region. Because the study region of Method 1 is likely to include areas of suitable conditions that are unoccupied because of dispersal limitations and/or biotic interactions, this approach is prone to overfitting to conditions found near the occupied localities. In contrast, Method 2 should avoid such problems but may require further assumptions (‘clamping’ in Maxent) to make predictions for areas with environmental conditions beyond those found in the smaller study region. For each method, we calculated several measures of geographic interpredictivity between predictions for the species (cross‐species AUC, cross‐species omission rate, and proportional geographic overlap). Results Compared with Method 1, Method 2 revealed a larger predicted area for each species, less concentrated around known localities (especially for N. caracolus). It also led to higher cross‐species AUC values, lower cross‐species omission rates and higher proportions of geographic overlap. Clamping was minimal and occurred primarily in regions unlikely to be suitable. Main conclusions Method 2 led to more realistic predictions and higher estimates of niche conservatism. Conclusions reached by many studies depend on the selection of an appropriate study region. Although detailed information regarding dispersal limitations and/or biotic interactions will typically be difficult to obtain, consideration of coarse distributional patterns, topography and vegetational zones often should permit delimitation of a much more reasonable study region than the extremely large ones currently in common use.

Journal

Journal of BiogeographyWiley

Published: Jul 1, 2010

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