IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0186025.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using worldwide edaphic data to model plant species niches: An assessment at a continental extent

Author

Listed:
  • Santiago José Elías Velazco
  • Franklin Galvão
  • Fabricio Villalobos
  • Paulo De Marco Júnior

Abstract

Ecological niche modeling (ENM) is a broadly used tool in different fields of plant ecology. Despite the importance of edaphic conditions in determining the niche of terrestrial plant species, edaphic data have rarely been included in ENMs of plant species perhaps because such data are not available for many regions. Recently, edaphic data has been made available at a global scale allowing its potential inclusion and evaluation on ENM performance for plant species. Here, we take advantage of such data and address the following main questions: What is the influence of distinct predictor variables (e.g. climatic vs edaphic) on different ENM algorithms? and what is the relationship between the performance of different predictors and geographic characteristics of species? We used 125 plant species distributed over the Neotropical region to explore the effect on ENMs of using edaphic data available from the SoilGrids database and its combination with climatic data from the CHELSA database. In addition, we related these different predictor variables to geographic characteristics of the target species and different ENM algorithms. The use of different predictors (climatic, edaphic, and both) significantly affected model performance and spatial complexity of the predictions. We showed that the use of global edaphic plus climatic variables generates ENMs with similar or better accuracy compared to those constructed only with climate variables. Moreover, the performance of models considering these different predictors, separately or jointly, was related to geographic properties of species records, such as number and distribution range. The large geographic extent, the variability of environments and the different species’ geographical characteristics considered here allowed us to demonstrate that global edaphic data adds useful information for plant ENMs. This is particularly valuable for studies of species that are distributed in regions where more detailed information on soil properties is poor or does not even exist.

Suggested Citation

  • Santiago José Elías Velazco & Franklin Galvão & Fabricio Villalobos & Paulo De Marco Júnior, 2017. "Using worldwide edaphic data to model plant species niches: An assessment at a continental extent," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-24, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0186025
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186025
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0186025
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0186025&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0186025?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carsten Meyer & Holger Kreft & Robert Guralnick & Walter Jetz, 2015. "Global priorities for an effective information basis of biodiversity distributions," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 6(1), pages 1-8, November.
    2. Lenth, Russell V., 2016. "Least-Squares Means: The R Package lsmeans," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 69(i01).
    3. Karatzoglou, Alexandros & Meyer, David & Hornik, Kurt, 2006. "Support Vector Machines in R," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 15(i09).
    4. Pliscoff, Patricio & Luebert, Federico & Hilger, Hartmut H. & Guisan, Antoine, 2014. "Effects of alternative sets of climatic predictors on species distribution models and associated estimates of extinction risk: A test with plants in an arid environment," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 288(C), pages 166-177.
    5. Frieda Beauregard & Sylvie de Blois, 2014. "Beyond a Climate-Centric View of Plant Distribution: Edaphic Variables Add Value to Distribution Models," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(3), pages 1-11, March.
    6. Ren-Yan Duan & Xiao-Quan Kong & Min-Yi Huang & Wei-Yi Fan & Zhi-Gao Wang, 2014. "The Predictive Performance and Stability of Six Species Distribution Models," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-8, November.
    7. Tomislav Hengl & Gerard B M Heuvelink & Bas Kempen & Johan G B Leenaars & Markus G Walsh & Keith D Shepherd & Andrew Sila & Robert A MacMillan & Jorge Mendes de Jesus & Lulseged Tamene & Jérôme E Tond, 2015. "Mapping Soil Properties of Africa at 250 m Resolution: Random Forests Significantly Improve Current Predictions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-26, June.
    8. Barve, Narayani & Barve, Vijay & Jiménez-Valverde, Alberto & Lira-Noriega, Andrés & Maher, Sean P. & Peterson, A. Townsend & Soberón, Jorge & Villalobos, Fabricio, 2011. "The crucial role of the accessible area in ecological niche modeling and species distribution modeling," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(11), pages 1810-1819.
    9. Brice B Hanberry & Hong S He & Brian J Palik, 2012. "Pseudoabsence Generation Strategies for Species Distribution Models," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(8), pages 1-12, August.
    10. Anderson, Robert P. & Gonzalez, Israel, 2011. "Species-specific tuning increases robustness to sampling bias in models of species distributions: An implementation with Maxent," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(15), pages 2796-2811.
    11. Jesús Aguirre-Gutiérrez & Luísa G Carvalheiro & Chiara Polce & E Emiel van Loon & Niels Raes & Menno Reemer & Jacobus C Biesmeijer, 2013. "Fit-for-Purpose: Species Distribution Model Performance Depends on Evaluation Criteria – Dutch Hoverflies as a Case Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-11, May.
    12. de Souza, Rodrigo Antônio & De Marco, Paulo, 2014. "The use of species distribution models to predict the spatial distribution of deforestation in the western Brazilian Amazon," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 291(C), pages 250-259.
    13. Karatzoglou, Alexandros & Smola, Alexandros & Hornik, Kurt & Zeileis, Achim, 2004. "kernlab - An S4 Package for Kernel Methods in R," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 11(i09).
    14. Václavík, Tomáš & Meentemeyer, Ross K., 2009. "Invasive species distribution modeling (iSDM): Are absence data and dispersal constraints needed to predict actual distributions?," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 220(23), pages 3248-3258.
    15. Austin, Mike, 2007. "Species distribution models and ecological theory: A critical assessment and some possible new approaches," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 200(1), pages 1-19.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pimenta, Mayra & Andrade, André Felipe Alves de & Fernandes, Fernando Hiago Souza & Amboni, Mayra Pereira de Melo & Almeida, Renata Silva & Soares, Ana Hermínia Simões de Bello & Falcon, Guth Berger &, 2022. "One size does not fit all: Priority areas for real world problems," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 470(C).
    2. John M. Humphreys & Robert B. Srygley & David H. Branson, 2022. "Geographic Variation in Migratory Grasshopper Recruitment under Projected Climate Change," Geographies, MDPI, vol. 2(1), pages 1-19, January.
    3. Ebrahim Jahanshiri & Nur Marahaini Mohd Nizar & Tengku Adhwa Syaherah Tengku Mohd Suhairi & Peter J. Gregory & Ayman Salama Mohamed & Eranga M. Wimalasiri & Sayed N. Azam-Ali, 2020. "A Land Evaluation Framework for Agricultural Diversification," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-19, April.
    4. Dany A. Cotrina Sánchez & Elgar Barboza Castillo & Nilton B. Rojas Briceño & Manuel Oliva & Cristóbal Torres Guzman & Carlos A. Amasifuen Guerra & Subhajit Bandopadhyay, 2020. "Distribution Models of Timber Species for Forest Conservation and Restoration in the Andean-Amazonian Landscape, North of Peru," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-20, September.
    5. Munroe, Samantha & Guerin, Greg & Saleeba, Tom & Martín-Forés, Irene & Blanco-Martin, Bernardo & Sparrow, Ben & Tokmakoff, Andrew, 2020. "ausplotsR: An R package for rapid extraction and analysis of vegetation and soil data collected by Australia’s Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network," EcoEvoRxiv 25phx, Center for Open Science.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Halvorsen, Rune & Mazzoni, Sabrina & Dirksen, John Wirkola & Næsset, Erik & Gobakken, Terje & Ohlson, Mikael, 2016. "How important are choice of model selection method and spatial autocorrelation of presence data for distribution modelling by MaxEnt?," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 328(C), pages 108-118.
    2. Pimenta, Mayra & Andrade, André Felipe Alves de & Fernandes, Fernando Hiago Souza & Amboni, Mayra Pereira de Melo & Almeida, Renata Silva & Soares, Ana Hermínia Simões de Bello & Falcon, Guth Berger &, 2022. "One size does not fit all: Priority areas for real world problems," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 470(C).
    3. Wolke Tobón-Niedfeldt & Alicia Mastretta-Yanes & Tania Urquiza-Haas & Bárbara Goettsch & Angela P. Cuervo-Robayo & Esmeralda Urquiza-Haas & M. Andrea Orjuela-R & Francisca Acevedo Gasman & Oswaldo Oli, 2022. "Incorporating evolutionary and threat processes into crop wild relatives conservation," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-18, December.
    4. Mouton, Ans M. & De Baets, Bernard & Goethals, Peter L.M., 2010. "Ecological relevance of performance criteria for species distribution models," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 221(16), pages 1995-2002.
    5. Barker, Justin R. & MacIsaac, Hugh J., 2022. "Species distribution models: Administrative boundary centroid occurrences require careful interpretation," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 472(C).
    6. Rufino, Marta M. & Albouy, Camille & Brind'Amour, Anik, 2021. "Which spatial interpolators I should use? A case study applying to marine species," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 449(C).
    7. Akpoti, Komlavi & Groen, Thomas & Dossou-Yovo, Elliott & Kabo-bah, Amos T. & Zwart, Sander J., 2022. "Climate change-induced reduction in agricultural land suitability of West-Africa's inland valley landscapes," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    8. Duque-Lazo, J. & van Gils, H. & Groen, T.A. & Navarro-Cerrillo, R.M., 2016. "Transferability of species distribution models: The case of Phytophthora cinnamomi in Southwest Spain and Southwest Australia," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 320(C), pages 62-70.
    9. Moreno-Amat, Elena & Mateo, Rubén G. & Nieto-Lugilde, Diego & Morueta-Holme, Naia & Svenning, Jens-Christian & García-Amorena, Ignacio, 2015. "Impact of model complexity on cross-temporal transferability in Maxent species distribution models: An assessment using paleobotanical data," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 312(C), pages 308-317.
    10. Ana Patrícia Rocha & Hugo Miguel Pereira Choupina & Maria do Carmo Vilas-Boas & José Maria Fernandes & João Paulo Silva Cunha, 2018. "System for automatic gait analysis based on a single RGB-D camera," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-24, August.
    11. Herkt, K. Matthias B. & Barnikel, Günter & Skidmore, Andrew K. & Fahr, Jakob, 2016. "A high-resolution model of bat diversity and endemism for continental Africa," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 320(C), pages 9-28.
    12. Trevor H. Booth, 2017. "Assessing species climatic requirements beyond the realized niche: some lessons mainly from tree species distribution modelling," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 145(3), pages 259-271, December.
    13. Boria, Robert A. & Olson, Link E. & Goodman, Steven M. & Anderson, Robert P., 2014. "Spatial filtering to reduce sampling bias can improve the performance of ecological niche models," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 275(C), pages 73-77.
    14. Muñoz-Mas, R. & Martínez-Capel, F. & Alcaraz-Hernández, J.D. & Mouton, A.M., 2015. "Can multilayer perceptron ensembles model the ecological niche of freshwater fish species?," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 309, pages 72-81.
    15. Jesús Aguirre-Gutiérrez & Luísa G Carvalheiro & Chiara Polce & E Emiel van Loon & Niels Raes & Menno Reemer & Jacobus C Biesmeijer, 2013. "Fit-for-Purpose: Species Distribution Model Performance Depends on Evaluation Criteria – Dutch Hoverflies as a Case Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-11, May.
    16. Pelayo Acevedo & Alberto Jiménez-Valverde & Jorge M. Lobo & Raimundo Real, 2017. "Predictor weighting and geographical background delimitation: two synergetic sources of uncertainty when assessing species sensitivity to climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 145(1), pages 131-143, November.
    17. Bell, David M. & Schlaepfer, Daniel R., 2016. "On the dangers of model complexity without ecological justification in species distribution modeling," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 330(C), pages 50-59.
    18. Robinson, Todd P. & van Klinken, Rieks D. & Metternicht, Graciela, 2010. "Comparison of alternative strategies for invasive species distribution modeling," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 221(19), pages 2261-2269.
    19. Pecchi, Matteo & Marchi, Maurizio & Burton, Vanessa & Giannetti, Francesca & Moriondo, Marco & Bernetti, Iacopo & Bindi, Marco & Chirici, Gherardo, 2019. "Species distribution modelling to support forest management. A literature review," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 411(C).
    20. Parreira, Micael Rosa & Nabout, João Carlos & Tessarolo, Geiziane & de Souza Lima-Ribeiro, Matheus & Teresa, Fabrício Barreto, 2019. "Disentangling uncertainties from niche modeling in freshwater ecosystems," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 391(C), pages 1-8.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0186025. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.