| Literature DB >> 28303182 |
Hatice Yilmaz1, Osman Yalçın Yilmaz2, Yaşar Feyza Akyüz2.
Abstract
Species distribution modeling was used to determine factors among the large predictor candidate data set that affect the distribution of Muscari latifolium, an endemic bulbous plant species of Turkey, to quantify the relative importance of each factor and make a potential spatial distribution map of M. latifolium. Models were built using the Boosted Regression Trees method based on 35 presence and 70 absence records obtained through field sampling in the Gönen Dam watershed area of the Kazdağı Mountains in West Anatolia. Large candidate variables of monthly and seasonal climate, fine-scale land surface, and geologic and biotic variables were simplified using a BRT simplifying procedure. Analyses performed on these resources, direct and indirect variables showed that there were 14 main factors that influence the species' distribution. Five of the 14 most important variables influencing the distribution of the species are bedrock type, Quercus cerris density, precipitation during the wettest month, Pinus nigra density, and northness. These variables account for approximately 60% of the relative importance for determining the distribution of the species. Prediction performance was assessed by 10 random subsample data sets and gave a maximum the area under a receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) value of 0.93 and an average AUC value of 0.8. This study provides a significant contribution to the knowledge of the habitat requirements and ecological characteristics of this species. The distribution of this species is explained by a combination of biotic and abiotic factors. Hence, using biotic interaction and fine-scale land surface variables in species distribution models improved the accuracy and precision of the model. The knowledge of the relationships between distribution patterns and environmental factors and biotic interaction of M. latifolium can help develop a management and conservation strategy for this species.Entities:
Keywords: abiotic factors; biotic factors; boosted regression modeling; bulbous plant; species distribution modeling
Year: 2017 PMID: 28303182 PMCID: PMC5306017 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.2766
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
Figure 1Muscari latifolium. Photographed in Gönen Dam watershed, Turkey, April 2013
Figure 2Location of the studied area (filled blue) and distribution of Muscari latifolium incidence on a 3 × 3 km grid in Gönen Dam watershed (Turkey)
Environmental variables used to model Muscari latifolium distribution in the study area (numbers of variable given in the parenthesis)
| Variable (416) | Description | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Bioclim variables (19) | 19 bioclimatic data calculated from temperature and precipitation | WorldClim database |
| Monthly climatic data (48) | Average monthly mean temperature, average monthly minimum temperature, average monthly maximum temperature, and average monthly precipitation | WorldClim database |
| Monthly solar radiation data (60) | Monthly total of diffuse, direct, and total solar radiation, and direct‐to‐diffuse ratio and duration of solar radiation (12*5 = 60) | Modeled from DEM with SAGA GIS |
| Topographic variables (60) | Topographic variables (such as slope, aspect, and curvatures) | Derived from DEM with SAGA GIS terrain analyses |
| Geology (1) | Bedrock type | MTA data |
| Biotic interaction variables (228) | CAPs of 24 tree species according to tree species at each diameter class of 6 (6*24 = 144)Cover values of 73 shrub species and 6 diversity indices (73 + 7 = 80)Distance to nearest residential area, man, woman, and total population of residential areas | Calculated from the study field dataCalculated from the study field dataCalculated with GRAS GIS and Turkish Statistical Institute data |
Figure 3Schematic representation of the analysis steps used in the study
Most important variables selected according to final model performance
| Variable | Description | Unit |
|---|---|---|
| Bio13 | Precipitation of wettest month | Mm |
| Bio4 | Temperature seasonality (standard deviation ×100) | °C × 100 |
| Sunsetsep | Sunset of September | Time |
| Dir2difJul | Direct‐to‐diffuse insolation ratio in July | |
| Dir2difnov | Direct‐to‐diffuse insolation ratio in November | |
| Durinsnov | Duration of insolation in November | Hour |
| Dir2difMar | Direct‐to‐diffuse insolation ratio in March | |
| Mincur | Minimum curvature | |
| Northness | The degree to which a slope was northerly | |
| Bedrock | Bedrock type | |
| Qc1 | Total number of | Number |
| Pn4 | Total number of | Number |
| Sortorm |
| Percent |
| Growdist | Proximity to residential areas | Meter |
Performance of 10 repeated boosted regression tree models
| Model Number | ntree | calc.deviance | P | A | AUC | cor | max TPR + TNR at |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1,550 | 0.65 | 13 | 18 | 0.93 | 0.78 | 0.60 |
| 2 | 1,050 | 0.75 | 11 | 20 | 0.93 | 0.73 | 0.21 |
| 3 | 2,000 | 0.92 | 12 | 19 | 0.87 | 0.63 | 0.44 |
| 4 | 5,700 | 0.97 | 11 | 20 | 0.85 | 0.55 | 0.52 |
| 5 | 1,150 | 0.71 | 10 | 21 | 0.76 | 0.44 | 0.41 |
| 6 | 1,350 | 0.75 | 11 | 20 | 0.71 | 0.42 | 0.51 |
| 7 | 1,100 | 0.83 | 12 | 19 | 0.68 | 0.29 | 0.40 |
| 8 | 1,200 | 0.72 | 8 | 23 | 0.74 | 0.39 | 0.63 |
| 9 | 1,550 | 0.46 | 8 | 23 | 0.80 | 0.51 | 0.48 |
| 10 | 1,600 | 0.56 | 11 | 20 | 0.72 | 0.38 | 0.42 |
Minimum, maximum, and average relative contributions (%) of the most influential environmental predictors calculated using tenfold cross‐validated BRT models of 10 random subsampled train data sets
| Variable | Min | Max | Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bedrock | 21.45 | 33.16 | 27.24 |
| Qc1 | 8.61 | 16.99 | 12.58 |
| Bio13 | 5.29 | 11.14 | 8.12 |
| Pn4 | 3.90 | 10.09 | 7.15 |
| Northness | 2.78 | 11.97 | 6.17 |
| Sunsetsep | 2.17 | 8.01 | 5.37 |
| Sortorm | 2.75 | 8.23 | 4.99 |
| Growdist | 2.97 | 7.00 | 4.71 |
| Bio4 | 2.12 | 9.16 | 4.58 |
| Mincur | 1.77 | 11.13 | 4.45 |
| Dir2difjul | 2.44 | 6.90 | 4.24 |
| Durinsnov | 1.26 | 10.39 | 4.10 |
| Dir2difmar | 0.75 | 6.64 | 3.40 |
| Dir2difnov | 1.41 | 4.79 | 2.89 |
Presence/absence of Muscari latifolium on the six main bedrock types
| Bedrock type | Absence | Presence |
|---|---|---|
| Granodiorite | 12 | 3 |
| Sandstone | 12 | 2 |
| Miocene‐aged andesitic tuff | 13 | 1 |
| Oligocene‐aged andesitic tuff | 9 | 8 |
| Schist | 6 | 5 |
| Gneiss–mica‐schist | 5 | 9 |
Figure 4Partial dependence plots for the 14 most influential variables
Figure 5Potential spatial distribution map of Muscari latifolium obtained using the most influential variables upper left: green area shows the spatially predicted area within the whole study area