The importance of biotic interactions for modelling species distributions under climate change
Article first published online: 20 SEP 2007
Global Ecology and Biogeography
Volume 16, Issue 6, pages 743–753, November 2007
How to Cite
Araújo, M. B. and Luoto, M. (2007), The importance of biotic interactions for modelling species distributions under climate change. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 16: 743–753. doi: 10.1111/j.1466-8238.2007.00359.x
- Issue published online: 20 SEP 2007
- Article first published online: 20 SEP 2007
- Bioclimatic envelope models;
- climate change;
- clouded Apollo butterfly;
- Parnassius mnemosyne;
- sensitivity analysis;
Aim There is a debate as to whether biotic interactions exert a dominant role in governing species distributions at macroecological scales. The prevailing idea is that climate is the key limiting factor; thus models that use present-day climate–species range relationships are expected to provide reasonable means to quantify the impacts of climate change on species distributions. However, there is little empirical evidence that biotic interactions would not constrain species distributions at macroecological scales. We examine this idea, for the first time, and provide tests for two null hypotheses: (H0 1) – biotic interactions do not exert a significant role in explaining current distributions of a particular species of butterfly (clouded Apollo, Parnassius mnemosyne) in Europe; and (H0 2) – biotic interactions do not exert a significant role in predictions of altered species’ ranges under climate change.
Methods Generalized additive modelling (GAM) was used to investigate relationships between species and climate; species and host plants; and species and climate + host plants. Because models are sensitive to the variable selection strategies utilised, four alternative approaches were used: AIC (Akaike's Information Criterion), BIC (Bayesian Information Criterion), BRUTO (Adaptive Backfitting), and CROSS (Cross Selection).
Results In spite of the variation in the variables selected with different methods, both hypotheses (H0 1 and H0 2) were falsified, providing support for the proposition that biotic interactions significantly affect both the explanatory and predictive power of bioclimatic envelope models at macro scales.
Main conclusions Our results contradict the widely held view that the effects of biotic interactions on individual species distributions are not discernible at macroecological scales. Results are contingent on the species, type of interaction and methods considered, but they call for more stringent evidence in support of the idea that purely climate-based modelling would be sufficient to quantify the impacts of climate change on species distributions.