| Literature DB >> 27054718 |
Lisa Biber-Freudenberger1, Jasmin Ziemacki1, Henri E Z Tonnang2, Christian Borgemeister1.
Abstract
Most agricultural pests are poikilothermic species expected to respond to climate change. Currently, they are a tremendous burden because of the high losses they inflict on crops and livestock. Smallholder farmers in developing countries of Africa are likely to suffer more under these changes than farmers in the developed world because more severe climatic changes are projected in these areas. African countries further have a lower ability to cope with impacts of climate change through the lack of suitable adapted management strategies and financial constraints. In this study we are predicting current and future habitat suitability under changing climatic conditions for Tuta absoluta, Ceratitis cosyra, and Bactrocera invadens, three important insect pests that are common across some parts of Africa and responsible for immense agricultural losses. We use presence records from different sources and bioclimatic variables to predict their habitat suitability using the maximum entropy modelling approach. We find that habitat suitability for B. invadens, C. cosyra and T. absoluta is partially increasing across the continent, especially in those areas already overlapping with or close to most suitable sites under current climate conditions. Assuming a habitat suitability at three different threshold levels we assessed where each species is likely to be present under future climatic conditions and if this is likely to have an impact on productive agricultural areas. Our results can be used by African policy makers, extensionists and farmers for agricultural adaptation measures to cope with the impacts of climate change.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27054718 PMCID: PMC4824351 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0153237
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Species names, source of presence records, date of data access, total number of presence records found for Africa in the original source and number of presence records used for training and testing.
| Species Name | Source | Access Date | No. of presence records | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| from source | used for training | used for testing | |||
| [ | 03/02/15 | 542 | 141 | 60 | |
| [ | 13/02/15 | 595 | 175 | 75 | |
| [ | 05/01/15 | 226 | 118 | 50 | |
Fig 1Presence records for 3 important pest species accessed through GBIF and other literature (see Table 1 for an overview).
Overview of global circulation models (GCMs) and representative concentration pathways (RCPs) that were available and accessed via the database WordlCim ([44] accessed through [45]).
| RCP 26 | RCP 45 | RCP 60 | RCP 85 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GFDL-ESM2G | • | • | • | |
| HadGEM-ES | • | • | • | • |
| MPI-ESMLR | • | • | • |
Overview of bioclimatic variables used for species distribution modelling.
| Abbrev. | Bioclimatic Variable Description |
|---|---|
| BIO1 | Annual Mean Temperature |
| BIO2 | Mean Diurnal Range (Mean of monthly (max temp—min temp)) |
| BIO3 | Isothermality (BIO2/BIO7) (* 100) |
| BIO4 | Temperature Seasonality (standard deviation *100) |
| BIO5 | Max Temperature of Warmest Month |
| BIO6 | Min Temperature of Coldest Month |
| BIO7 | Temperature Annual Range (BIO5-BIO6) |
| BIO8 | Mean Temperature of Wettest Quarter |
| BIO9 | Mean Temperature of Driest Quarter |
| BIO10 | Mean Temperature of Warmest Quarter |
| BIO11 | Mean Temperature of Coldest Quarter |
| BIO12 | Annual Precipitation |
| BIO13 | Precipitation of Wettest Month |
| BIO14 | Precipitation of Driest Month |
| BIO15 | Precipitation Seasonality (Coefficient of Variation) |
| BIO16 | Precipitation of Wettest Quarter |
| BIO17 | Precipitation of Driest Quarter |
| BIO18 | Precipitation of Warmest Quarter |
| BIO19 | Precipitation of Coldest Quarter |
Thresholds used to estimate species distribution maps for all three species.
The "Balance" threshold minimizes 6 * training omission rate + .04 * cumulative threshold + 1.6 * fractional predicted area.
| Equal training sensitivity and specificity | 0.266 | 0.378 | 0.379 |
| Maximum training sensitivity plus specificity | 0.196 | 0.187 | 0.463 |
| Balance training omission, predicted area and threshold value | 0.063 | 0.095 | 0.088 |
Area under curve (AUC) values of training and test data as an evaluation parameter of model performance for all investigated species.
| Species | AUC training data | AUC test data |
|---|---|---|
| 0.929 | 0.917 | |
| 0.874 | 0.861 | |
| 0.938 | 0.868 |
Fig 2Habitat suitability under current and future climatic conditions as well as change of habitat suitability of Bactrocera invadens (a-c), Ceratitis cosyra (d-f), and Tuta absoluta (g-i) modelled as logistic outputs of Maxent.
Permutation importance as drop in area under curve (AUC) after values of variables on training and presence data had been randomly permuted for each environmental variable in turn; values represent normalized percentage values based on a first model run including all available bioclimatic variables (values before slash) and a second model run including only the three most important variables (values after slash) according to the first model run.
| Variable Abbrev. | Permutation importance (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| BIO1 | 0.5 | 0 | 2.3 |
| BIO2 | 1.6 | 0.7 | 4.9 |
| BIO3 | 0.3 | 15 | 1.6 |
| BIO4 | 6.4 | 0 | |
| BIO5 | 0 | 0.4 | 0 |
| BIO6 | 3.4 | 0 | |
| BIO7 | 5.5 | 1.4 | |
| BIO8 | 4.4 | 8.1 | |
| BIO9 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 3.8 |
| BIO10 | 0.5 | 1.4 | 1.2 |
| BIO11 | 1.3 | 0 | |
| BIO12 | 13.5 | ||
| BIO13 | 5.2 | 5.3 | 6 |
| BIO14 | 0.5 | 1.2 | |
| BIO15 | 5.1 | 5.9 | 1.3 |
| BIO16 | 4.2 | 0 | |
| BIO17 | 4.8 | 0.6 | |
| BIO18 | 3.5 | 2.2 | 3.8 |
| BIO19 | 4.8 | 5 | 4.5 |
Fig 3Agricultural crop intensity overlaid with presence of each species under current and future climate assuming three different habitat suitability levels ( Agricultural crop intensity is reprinted from Ramankutty et al. [55] under a CC BY license, with permission from John Wiley and Sons, original copyright 2008.
Fig 4Agricultural crop intensity overlaid with presence of all three species combined under current and future climate assuming three different habitat suitability levels ( Agricultural crop intensity is reprinted from Ramankutty et al. [55] under a CC BY license, with permission from John Wiley and Sons, original copyright 2008.