| Literature DB >> 27651990 |
Marco Basile1, Francesco Valerio2, Rosario Balestrieri3, Mario Posillico4, Rodolfo Bucci5, Tiziana Altea5, Bruno De Cinti6, Giorgio Matteucci7.
Abstract
Environmental heterogeneity affects not only the distribution of a species but also its local abundance. High heterogeneity due to habitat alteration and fragmentation can influence the realized niche of a species, loweringEntities:
Keywords: Fragmentation; Heterogeneity; Management; Quantile regression; SDM
Year: 2016 PMID: 27651990 PMCID: PMC5018664 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.2398
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
Figure 1Treecreeper’s occurrences used to build the distribution models.
The study area is located in central-southern Italy, within Abruzzo, Lazio and Molise regions.
Surface of the habitat types included in the analysis within the study area (Abruzzo, Lazione and Molise regions, central Italy) and number of short-toed treecreeper’s occurrences.
| Forests and tree plantations habitat types | Area (km2) | N° of treecreeper’s occurrences |
|---|---|---|
| Holm oak ( | 511.9 | 8 |
| Downy oak ( | 1986.3 | 13 |
| Turkey oak ( | 2412.3 | 51 |
| 1342.4 | 20 | |
| Chestnut ( | 628.1 | 10 |
| 0.12 | 0 | |
| Beech ( | 2360.4 | 40 |
| 536.5 | 12 | |
| Tree plantations and bushes | 649.7 | 8 |
| Conifer (both natural and reforestation) | 545 | 4 |
| Shrubland and maquis | 1313.1 | 4 |
| Non forest | 20129.3 | 0 |
Settings used for species distribution modelling and resulted AUC (area under the curve of the receiving operator characteristic), sensitivity, specificity and TSS (true skills statistic).
| Full name | Acronym | Pseudo-absences | Parameters | AUC | Sensitivity | Specificity | TSS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial neural network | ANN | 10,000 | 5-fold cross validation | 0.949 | 92.045 | 89.689 | 0.771 |
| Classification tree analyses | CTA | 10,000 | 5-fold cross validation | 0.918 | 85.795 | 93.839 | 0.792 |
| Flexible discriminant analyses | FDA | 10,000 | Default with MARS to increase predictive power | 0.894 | 82.955 | 93.849 | 0.768 |
| Generalized boosting model | GBM | 10,000 | 5,000 maximum trees, 5 interaction and 10-fold cross validation | 0.961 | 93.75 | 94.529 | 0.842 |
| Generalized linear model | GLM | 10,000 | AIC-based stepwise model selection | 0.959 | 93.182 | 91.159 | 0.835 |
| Multivariate additive regression splines | MARS | 10,000 | Spline knots are determined automatically | 0.913 | 89.205 | 89.129 | 0.782 |
| Maximum entropy | ME | No; 10,000 background points | 1,000 bootstrap iterations | 0.929 | – | – | – |
| Random forest | RF | 10,000 | 750 trees, 10-fold cross validation | 1 | 100 | 99.98 | 1 |
Figure 2Variable importance based on different Species Distribution Models (SDMs).
NDVI, Normalized difference vegetation index; H’, Shannon index computed on landscape patch type diversity; Ai, aggregation index of landscape patches; Ed, patches’ edge density.
Test for differences of landscape metrics and environmental suitability between Bosco Pennataro and Chiarano-Sparvera, based on Species Distribution Models (SDMs).
| Metric | ||||
| H’ | 0.065 | 0.000 | 3.3342 | 0.0027 |
| Ed | 0.3583 | 0.0134 | −1.5038 | 0.1392 |
| Ai | 0.221 | 0.000 | 7.1504 | 0.000 |
| Model | ||||
| ANN | 0.07 | 0.000 | −36 | 0.000 |
| CTA | 4.901 | 0.000 | −9.93 | 0.000 |
| FDA | 2433.4 | 0.000 | −8.06 | 0.000 |
| GBM | 1.137 | 0.748 | −10.91 | 0.000 |
| GLM | 2.996 | 0.008 | −2.949 | 0.002 |
| MARS | 14648 | 0.000 | −4.893 | 0.000 |
| ME | 46.35 | 0.000 | −4.682 | 0.000 |
| RF | 30.42 | 0.000 | −4.044 | 0.000 |
Notes.
Shannon index of patch type diversity
edge density
aggregation index
Fisher’s test
t test
p value; model abbreviation are given in Table 2
Figure 3Scatterplot of abundance versus habitat suitability (as predicted by the Generalised Boosting model, GBM).
Regression lines represent the fitted relationship at different quantiles. Quantiles: solid line = 0.5 quantile, slope = 0.37, p < 0.5; dashed line = 0.75, slope = 0.19, p = n.s.; dotted line = 0.95, slope = 0.13, p = n.s.
DeltaAIC between null model and suitability-dependant model, for the same quantile.
| Quantile | ANN | CTA | FDA | GBM | GLM | MARS | ME | RF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.50 |
| 0.55 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.20 |
| 0.6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.39 |
| 0.65 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.88 | 0 | 0 | 1.86 |
| 0.7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.17 | 0.93 |
| 0.75 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.67 | 23.93 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.85 | 25.74 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.17 | 7.79 | 6.29 | 9.14 |
| 0.9 | 0 | 31.93 | 1.15 | 26.85 | 0 | 23.91 | 2.98 | 3.07 |
| 0.95 | 44.78 | 16.49 | 3.38 | 0 | 15.94 | 6.83 | 4.35 | 0 |
| 0.975 | 32.65 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 31.32 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.99 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.69 |