Figures
Abstract
Predicting species range shifts in response to climatic change is a central aspect of global change studies. An ever growing number of species have been modeled using a variety of species distribution models (SDMs). However, quantitative studies of the characteristics of range shifts are rare, predictions of range changes are hard to interpret, analyze and summarize, and comparisons between the various models are difficult to make when the number of species modeled is large. Maxent was used to model the distribution of 12 Abies spp. in China under current and possible future climate conditions. Two fuzzy set defined indices, range increment index (I) and range overlapping index (O), were used to quantify range shifts of the chosen species. Correlation analyses were used to test the relationships between these indices and species distribution characteristics. Our results show that Abies spp. range increments (I) were highly correlated with longitude, latitude, and mean roughness of their current distributions. Species overlapping (O) was moderately, or not, correlated with these parameters. Neither range increments nor overlapping showed any correlation with species prevalence. These fuzzy sets defined indices provide ideal measures of species range shifts because they are stable and threshold-free. They are reliable indices that allow large numbers of species to be described, modeled, and compared on a variety of taxonomic levels.
Citation: Kou X, Li Q, Liu S (2011) Quantifying Species' Range Shifts in Relation to Climate Change: A Case Study of Abies spp. in China. PLoS ONE 6(8): e23115. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023115
Editor: Mike B. Gravenor, University of Swansea, United Kingdom
Received: March 19, 2011; Accepted: July 7, 2011; Published: August 24, 2011
Copyright: © 2011 Kou et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: This research was carried out with the support of the Special Research Program for Public-Welfare Forestry (Grant No. 200804001) and NSFC's Major Project (Grant No. 30590383). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
The increasing availability of species distribution models (SDMs) [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], open-access high resolution climate data sets [3], [6], [7], [8], [9], digital species distribution maps, and digital voucher specimen data sets [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] (BGIF http://www.gbif.org; TROPICOS http://www.tropicos.org), make it possible to model species distribution and to predict shifts in species' ranges in response to possible future changes in climate. As a result, many such studies have been carried out [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] and many more can be expected. Studies of changes in biodiversity (either of whole biota or within a certain taxonomic group) will clearly benefit from these methodological advances [21], [22], [23]. However, interpretation of the large quantities of data and predictions likely to be produced will certainly present a challenge. Standardized methods will be required to quantify and compare predicted changes in species distribution. Conventional mapping and visual inspection methods will be inadequate to cope with the amount of data generated, and quantitative indices will be required.
These quantitative indices will also be needed to provide new methods for evaluating SDM results [24], [25], [26]. It has recently become clear that “standard” SDM validation procedures give inadequate or even misleading results [25], [27]. The Kappa index, the area under the curve (AUC) of a receiver operating characteristic (ROC), and other methods involving the partitioning of data sets to build models and validate subsets, are all by nature model fitting techniques [1], [28], [29], [30], [31]. These indices and procedures are valid for evaluating species' range shifts in response to climate change only when model predictions are consistently related to model fitting. Unfortunately, this assumption is rarely met [32]. The performance of a model in predicting outcomes can only be evaluated by examining its predictions. Because the “actual” distribution data in the future are of course lacking, no model can ever be truly validated. However, model uncertainty, model transferability, and ‘hindcasting’ analyses can be performed to evaluate predictions indirectly [24], [26], [30], [33], [34]. Quantitative indices are required to compare models and their predictions statistically.
It is possible to apply traditionally defined indices (discrete map based) to measure range shifts, but difficulties often arise from the fact that most SDMs do not predict conventional maps showing discrete distributions, but instead usually predict either distributions based on assumptions of continuously suitable habitats, or distributions showing the probability of species occurrence [1], [5]. Datum type conversions from continuous to discrete maps are usually performed by classifying predictions into absent/present using a threshold value [32]. However, the choice of threshold values can seriously affect the resulting maps and makes it impossible to compare results between different studies.
Fuzzy set theory provides a promising means of solving this problem because it does not require the use of thresholds [35], [36] but it is a difficult theory to understand and involves complex calculations. The first problem can be addressed through analogies with traditional mapping methods, and the second using GIS programming.
We used two fuzzy set defined indices to quantify range shifts of Abies spp. in China to test the hypothesis that shifts in species' ranges caused by climate change vary according to each specie's current distribution [37].
Methods
The Abies spp. in China
Twenty-eight species (including varieties) of the genus Abies (family Pinaceae) occur in China [38], [39], with 12 of them being sufficiently widely distributed to be modeled by SDMs. Abies spp. are cold tolerant, moisture-loving, coniferous trees, generally distributed in mountainous areas. In China, Abies spp. are concentrated in mountainous areas in the northeast and southwest (Figure 1), where most of the forests occur. They do not occur in northwest China because of their intolerance of aridity (unlike Picea spp.). It is not clear whether Abies are absent from the central and southeast Chinese plains due to human disturbance or the high ambient temperatures. The relatively large number of Abies species, the ease with which they may be located, and the variability in their spatial distribution (both large and small, and compact and dispersed populations occur over a large geographical area) make them a good case study (Table 1).
Species distribution and environmental data sets
Species distribution data were extracted from the digital Vegetation Atlas of China (1∶1000 000) [40]. The maps have a vector based data format with each vegetation patch represented by a polygon. The smallest polygons that can be detected on the maps are about 1 km2.
These maps are compiled from multiple sources, are accepted as the most accurate nationwide Chinese vegetation maps, and show the distribution of vegetation types during the 1970–80s. The vegetation types are classified and named after the first two or three most important community building species typical of each type.
We extracted all the mapped vegetation types containing Abies spp. within the vegetation type name (that is where an Abies spp. was one of the three main species defining a community). Species with scattered distribution or those that occur only rarely were not included in our species distribution data set. Excluding scattered or rare distributions did not seriously distort our sample ranges because Abies spp. are very conspicuous and usually abundant in large patches [39].
The vector maps were firstly converted into raster layers on the ArcInfo workstation (polygrid). The resulting data layers have cells one minute in size. Each species was then aggregated to coarser data layers having a cell size of 5 minutes, to match the resolution of our environmental data.
To project the future shifts in a species' range, we used only climatic data as candidate predictors and ignored other factors such as topography and soil type. The projected ranges therefore reflected only climatic suitability for the species, rather than their true distributions. We chose climatic factors most relevant to plant species distribution, rather than the total climatic data available [41]. The predictive data set used was extracted from BioPlant, a world plant bioclimatic data set with a 10 minute (latitude/longitude) sample resolution [9] and we then downscaled it to 5 minutes using change factor downscaling techniques. The BioPlant data set calculates 15 layers of variables derived from monthly temperature and precipitation data, which were downscaled from GCM model predictions. Change factor downscaling techniques were adopted to obtain a fine scale data set [8], which took full account of the effects of elevation on climatic variables.
In this research, we used the data set derived from the most commonly applied general circulation model (GCM): HADCM3 [3]. Three SRES greenhouse emission scenarios (A1B, A2, B1), and two future time slices, mid-century (20 year means from 2041–2060), and end-century (20 year means from 2081–2100).
Climatic data for calculating bioclimatic variables representing the present were downloaded from the WorldClim data set [7], which has a resolution and interpolating schedule consistent with those used for our future scenarios. The same procedure was applied to calculate the 15 plant biological variables [9].
The standard deviation of detrended elevation data was defined as “topographical roughness” in this study. The 5-minute resolution relative roughness data layer was calculated from SRTM DEM data (http://dds.cr.usgs.gov/srtm/). The SRTM data were first aggregated onto a 1-minute resolution grid, the grid was detrended, and then the focal standard deviations were calculated within each 5×5 focal area cell. The relative roughness was then calculated by dividing the raw roughness by the mean roughness over the whole study area using Arcgis Spatial Analyst.
The whole data set of Abies species distributions and environmental variables (current and future scenarios) is available as supporting information (File S1).
Model implementation
Maxent was chosen to model each species' climate requirements [42], [43], and the fitted models were projected to the future climate scenarios to predict changes in species' ranges. Species sample data were extracted from the grid data derived from the vegetation maps described above. All grid cells that showed the presence of a target species were converted to point data format and 300 cells were selected at random to train the model (this sample limit being selected to avoid over fitting). If a species was present in less than 300 cells, all of the cells were selected. A total of 10 000 background points were selected at random from the entire study area (140 631 cells in total), avoiding cells occupied by the target species.
The mean temperature of the coldest month (T_cld), the growing degree days (GDD) with a threshold of 0°C, and the aridity of the growing season were chosen as environmental variables. Growing season aridity was defined as the ratio of the total potential evapotranspiration during the growing season to the total precipitation in the same period. These three predictors are thought to be the main environmental factors constraining plant species distributions [41]. Grid data of these variables for the present climate and the three climate change scenarios were converted to ASCII data format compatible with Maxent.
All the data layers were mapped in geographical projections (raw latitude and longitude coordinates) and with a resolution of five minutes. The mapping was confined to the Chinese mainland, Hainan, and Taiwan. The other smaller Chinese islands were not included in the analysis.
Model runs were conducted on 12 species, two future time slices (mid-century and end-century), and three climate change scenarios (A1B, A2, B1), using the Maxent batch file running mode. Default settings were adopted and the logistic outputs were recorded.
The AUC, maximum kappa (max_κ), and maximum true skill statistic (max_TSS) indices of all species were calculated to examine the goodness of model fitting.
Definitions of indices
We adopted the conceptual framework, proposed by Real et al. [36], that uses fuzzy set theory to describe how various conditions favoring a species distribution change in response to changes in climate. Two indices were proposed to measure different aspects favoring a species, namely the increment in favorability (I), and the favorability overlap (O):where, c represents fuzzy set cardinality, Fp represents the fuzzy set of current distribution, and Ff is the fuzzy set of future distribution.
We extended the meaning of the indices by replacing the membership function from species favorability with potential suitability of species' range. Thus the meanings of the I and O indices are changed to increment and overlap in species' ranges shifts.
The range increment and overlapping indices can be more easily understood in ordinary discrete mapping terms:where, n represents the number of cells. Subscripts p and f represent present and future distributions, and subscripts f∩p and fUp represent combined and overlapping areas of both future and present distributions.
The equivalence of the two definitions can be demonstrated by considering the threshold definition as a special case of a fuzzy set definition with a stepwise membership function. The membership is zero when the occurrence probability is below a given threshold, and one when the probability is above that threshold.
Calculation of indices and analysis
The I and O indices were calculated for 12 species, at two future time slices (mid-century and end-century), three climate change scenarios (A1B, A2, B1), and using two calculation methods (the threshold method with a threshold of 0.1, and the fuzzy set method. The calculations were all done using an ARCINFO Workstation with arc macro language (AML). GRID algebra was the most commonly applied function in the programming (File S2).
The mean, standard deviation, and maximum and minimum values of the I and O indices of the 12 Abies spp. were calculated for each scenario and future time slice. Spearman's rank correlation coefficients were calculated for the species' range shift indices (I and O) compared to the species current distribution parameters (latitude and longitude of the distribution centroid, mean topographical roughness within a species' range, and the number of cells occupied by the species), and the significance of the relationships was tested using the t-distribution. Three significance levels (“very significant” 0.01, “moderately significant” 0.05, and “slightly significant” 0.10) were assigned to the relationships.
Results
Performances in model fitting
The area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic, maximum kappa (max_κ), and maximum true skill statistic (max_TSS) are the three most widely used indices to indicate the performance of a model (its discrimination power) for current climate [44]. The AUCs of all the species in the models built using Maxent were greater than 0.980, (average 0.990) showing that the models are powerful discriminators, and that the three selected variables (T_cld, GDD, and growing season aridity) were good predictors of Abies spp. distribution. The max_TSS also provided a good model fit, with values for most of the species greater than 0.950. However, max_κ showed model fits that were only moderate, with an average max_κ of around 0.350. TSS and κ were very sensitive to the threshold, with TSS preferring a low threshold and κ preferring a high threshold (Table S1).
Range shifts of Abies spp. in China represented by the I and O indices
Visual inspection of the modeled maps (Figure 2 and Figure 3) and the plotted I and O index values (Figure S1) show that the index gave meaningful indications of range increments and overlapping that conformed to our intuitive expectations. For example, SP. 1 expanded its range markedly compared with its original ranges and its I index values ranged from 1.0 to 2.0 for both future time slices and the scenarios calculated by the threshold and fuzzy set methods. SP. 5 showed most overlap on all occasions (future time slices, climate scenarios, and method of calculation) compared with those of other species, and also had the largest O index values.
The expansion or contraction in range size (I index) varied widely among species, with range expansions (I>0) more common than contractions (I<0). Taking the genus as a whole, the differences among species were much more significant than those within species for the different climate scenarios and future times (Figure S1).
Like the change in range size (I index), the range overlapping (O index) showed very large interspecies variation, while the variation between scenarios was relatively small. Unlike the change in range size, where the trend between the two future time slices diverged, range overlapping showed very convergent changes, with much smaller overlapping at the end-century than at the mid-century time slice. This means that range overlap decreases with time (Figure S1).
Correlations between shifts in range and distribution parameters
It is clear from Table 2 that the change in range size (I index) was “very significantly” correlated with latitude, longitude, and mean roughness, and not correlated with the number of cells a species originally occupied. The positive correlations with latitude and longitude mean that Abies spp. distributed in northeastern China tended to expand their range much more than their southwestern counterparts. The negative correlation with roughness indicates that Abies spp. tended to expand more in flatter areas, or to contract in rougher areas. We were surprised to find that changes in Abies spp. range sizes were not correlated with their original areas of distribution. This is unusual because it is generally hypothesized that narrowly distributed species are more vulnerable to climate change. These trends were consistent for all climatic change scenarios, future time slices, and index calculation methods.
The range overlapping (O index) was clearly not correlated with the number of cells a species originally occupied. It gave “very” to “moderately” significant negative correlations with longitude, while the O index by threshold method gave more “very” significant cases than did the fuzzy set method. The O index gave “moderately” to “slightly” significant positive correlations with roughness, while the O index by the threshold method gave more “moderately” significant cases than did the fuzzy set method. No significant correlation was detected between the O index and latitude in the threshold method cases, but a few cases of slightly significant negative correlations were detected in the fuzzy set cases (Table 3).
By comparing the correlations of the I and O indices to distributional characteristics, the I index shows much more consistency in all climate scenarios, time slices, and index calculation methods.
table-1-captionIn summary, the range size changes and range overlapping were never correlated with the original species distribution areas. The range size changes showed very significant positive correlations with longitude and latitude, and very significant negative correlations with roughness. The range overlapping showed generally negative correlations with longitude, negative or no correlations with latitude, and positive or no correlations with roughness. The original hypothesis is therefore partially upheld with regard to Abies spp. in China.
Discussion
Why does the threshold problem matter?
As mentioned in the introduction, it is imperative to apply standard indices so that: 1) large numbers of data-rich predicted maps can be adequately summarized; 2) inter-species (or inter-taxa) comparisons can be used to evaluate the overall influence of climate change on biodiversity; and 3) the methodological differences in evaluating model performances, from goodness-of-fit to direct measurement methods, can be examined. Problems in applying the threshold method have presented a major obstacle to the development of such standard indices.
Several methods have been applied to determine appropriate threshold values (arbitrary, maximum corrected rate, maximum kappa, maximum sensitivity plus specialty, or a balance between sensitivity and specialty) [32], [44], [45], and the debate as to which is best continues. It is evident that using different methods to determine thresholds makes comparisons among studies invalid. The stability of these methods is also a major concern. Suppose that the same method is applied to determine a threshold for two different sample subsets of the same species. It is reasonable to suppose that the actual thresholds for each group would be different, so which threshold should be applied? If each model applied used its own threshold, then would the predicted ranges have the same meaning and be comparable? Moreover, if we were to model multi-species range shifts, should we use the same threshold for all species or the “best” threshold for each species? Choosing the best universal threshold for all species would be difficult, and using different thresholds for each would complicate comparisons between the ranges of different species. It is an important property of standard indices that they are threshold-free and this explains the popularity of the AUC index in measuring model performance.
Turnover rate has frequently been used as a quantitative index to measure the effect of climatic change on species' range shifts and changes in biodiversity. This index can be used to measure the overall effects of climate change on a group of species [17], [22], [32], [33], [37]. However, shifts in range at the species level are the basis for all changes at higher taxonomic and community levels. We believe that if predictions are not accurate at the species level, then estimated overall turnover rates must be inaccurate also. The same threshold selection problem that we have discussed above applies in assessing species turnover rate [32]. Arbitrary selection of thresholds, or applying “best” thresholds that are not universally agreed, must add uncertainty to estimates of biodiversity change, and make comparisons among studies problematic. It is possible to formulate turnover rate indices using the same fuzzy set method as for species, and thus make them threshold free.
Fuzzy set defined indices may be more stable than threshold based ones
Stability is another important property required by a good index. We realized that fuzzy set defined indices are more stable than threshold ones while making visual inspections of index values species by species. Detailed analyses of outliers and inconsistent cases pointed to threshold effects as the primary cause. Close scrutiny of two outliers (SP. 9 and SP. 11) shows that they all contain large areas of low suitability habitat (near threshold 0.1) in the future climate scenarios (Figure 3). The difference between them is that one of those areas (for SP. 9) was slightly greater than the given threshold (0.1) and the other (for SP. 11) was less than the threshold. Even small adjustments of the threshold may result in large differences in predicted ranges. Large areas of near threshold distribution could be the reason for the differences between the two methods of analysis.
It also appears from the overall statistics of the indices (Table S2 and Table S3) that fuzzy set defined indices may be more stable, because the range of fuzzy set defined indices (both I and O) are significantly smaller than the threshold ones, and the standard deviation of the fuzzy set defined O index are smaller than for the threshold defined index.
However, these observations do not conclusively confirm the hypothesis that fuzzy set defined indices are more stable, and further studies are needed. Comparison of the standard deviations of indices in several model runs, at exactly the same model settings, may provide a statistical assessment regarding the absolute stability of these indices.
In summary, the IOMS framework proposed by Real et al. [36] provided a good basis for our study. We calculated two relatively independent indices, I and O, which provide good quantitative descriptions of species' range shift characteristics, and perform well in the example species modeled. By applying these indices to Abies spp. in China, we found that: 1) most of the variations in range expansion and distribution overlap in response to climate change are due to interspecies differences rather than the type of climate change scenario modeled; 2) species' range shift characteristics are not correlated with the species prevalence, but show clear correlations with their geographic locations; and 3) species ranges change more (greater range expansion or contraction, and smaller overlaps) in flat areas than in topographically rough areas. Whether these conclusions are unique to Abies spp. in China, or represent a general pattern requires further investigation.
Supporting Information
Figure S1.
I and O indices of Abies species for different scenarios and calculating methods. In the classification axis, the naming takes the form ##_**_xx. ## represents indices the calculation method of the indices, with Thed representing the discrete method with threshold 0.1, and Fuz the Fuzzy set method. ** represents climate scenarios, taking the value of A1B, A2, or B1. xx represents the future time, with Y50 representing mid-century (2041–2060) and Y90 representing end-century(2081–2100 ). SP. No. follows the definition shown in Table 1.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023115.s001
(DOC)
Table S1.
Model performance indices for 12 Abies spp. in China. Area under the curve of receiver operation characteristic (AUC) , maximum kappa (max_κ), and maximum true skill statistic (max_TSS) are three most widely used indices to indicate model performances (discrimination power) for current climate. A step length of 0.05 on threshold was adopted to determine the thresholds for Max_kappa and Max_TSS.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023115.s002
(DOC)
Table S2.
Statistics of the I index for 12 Abies species for three climate scenarios and two future time slices.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023115.s003
(DOC)
Table S3.
Statistics of the O index for 12 Abies species for three climate scenarios and two future time slices.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023115.s004
(DOC)
File S1.
A rar file of Abies spp. distributions and environmental data layers.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023115.s005
(RAR)
File S2.
AML codes for calculating the I and O indices.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023115.s006
(AML)
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank three anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.
Author Contributions
Conceived and designed the experiments: XK SL. Performed the experiments: XK QL. Analyzed the data: QL. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: XK. Wrote the paper: XK SL.
References
- 1. Elith J, Graham CH, Anderson RP, Dudik M, Ferrier S, et al. (2006) Novel methods improve prediction of species' distributions from occurrence data. Ecography 29: 129–151.
- 2. Lawler JJ, White D, Neilson RP, Blaustein AR (2006) Predicting climate-induced range shifts: model differences and model reliability. Global Change Biology 12: 1568–1584.
- 3. Meehl GA, Covey C, Delworth T, Latif M, McAvaney B, et al. (2007) The WCRP CMIP3 multimodel dataset - A new era in climate change research. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 88: 1383–+.
- 4. Wisz MS, Hijmans RJ, Li J, Peterson AT, Graham CH, et al. (2008) Effects of sample size on the performance of species distribution models. Diversity and Distributions 14: 763–773.
- 5. Thuiller W, Lafourcade B, Engler R, Araujo MB (2009) BIOMOD - a platform for ensemble forecasting of species distributions. Ecography 32: 369–373.
- 6. New M, Lister D, Hulme M, Makin I (2002) A high-resolution data set of surface climate over global land areas. Climate Research 21: 1–25.
- 7. Hijmans RJ, Cameron SE, Parra JL, Jones PG, Jarvis A (2005) Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. International Journal of Climatology 25: 1965–1978.
- 8. Tabor K, Williams JW (2010) Globally downscaled climate projections for assessing the conservation impacts of climate change. Ecological Applications 20: 554–565.
- 9. Kou XJ, Li Q, Liu SR (2011) High resolution bioclimatic dataset derived from future climate projections for plant species distribution modeling. Ecological Infomatics.
- 10.
Harrison JA, Allan DG, Underhill LG, Herremans M, Tree AJ, et al. (1997) The atlas of Southern African Birds. Birdlife South Africa, Johannesburg.
- 11. Kurtto A, Lampinen R (1999) Atlas of the distribution of vascular plants in Finland: A digital view of the national floristic database. Acta Botanica Fennica 162: 67–74.
- 12.
Patterson BD, Ceballos G, Sechrest W (2003) Digitial distribution maps of the mammals of the western hemisphere, Version 1.0 NatureServe, Arlington, VA.
- 13. Dunn AM, Weston MA (2008) A review of terrestrial bird atlases of the world and their application. Emu 108: 42–67.
- 14. Robertson MP, Cumming GS, Erasmus BFN (2010) Getting the most out of atlas data. Diversity and Distributions 16: 363–375.
- 15. Thuiller W, Araujo MB, Pearson RG, Whittaker RJ, Brotons L, et al. (2004) Biodiversity conservation - Uncertainty in predictions of extinction risk. Nature 430:
- 16. Poyry J, Luoto M, Heikkinen RK, Saarinen K (2008) Species traits are associated with the quality of bioclimatic models. Global Ecology and Biogeography 17: 403–414.
- 17. Coetzee BWT, Robertson MP, Erasmus BFN, van Rensburg BJ, Thuiller W (2009) Ensemble models predict Important Bird Areas in southern Africa will become less effective for conserving endemic birds under climate change. Global Ecology and Biogeography 18: 701–710.
- 18. Zanini F, Pellet J, Schmidt BR (2009) The transferability of distribution models across regions: an amphibian case study. Diversity and Distributions 15: 469–480.
- 19. Lobo JM, Jimenez-Valverde A, Hortal J (2010) The uncertain nature of absences and their importance in species distribution modelling. Ecography 33: 103–114.
- 20. Platts PJ, Ahrends A, Gereau RE, McClean CJ, Lovett JC, et al. (2010) Can distribution models help refine inventory-based estimates of conservation priority? A case study in the Eastern Arc forests of Tanzania and Kenya. Diversity and Distributions 16: 628–642.
- 21. Thomas CD, Cameron A, Green RE, Bakkenes M, Beaumont LJ, et al. (2004) Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427: 145–148.
- 22. Lawler JJ, Shafer SL, White D, Kareiva P, Maurer EP, et al. (2009) Projected climate-induced faunal change in the Western Hemisphere. Ecology 90: 588–597.
- 23. Svenning JC, Kerr J, Rahbek C (2009) Predicting future shifts in species diversity. Ecography 32: 3–4.
- 24. Randin CF, Dirnbock T, Dullinger S, Zimmermann NE, Zappa M, et al. (2006) Are niche-based species distribution models transferable in space? Journal of Biogeography 33: 1689–1703.
- 25. Jimenez-Valverde A, Lobo JM, Hortal J (2008) Not as good as they seem: the importance of concepts in species distribution modelling. Diversity and Distributions 14: 885–890.
- 26. Phillips SJ (2008) Transferability, sample selection bias and background data in presence-only modelling: a response to Peterson et al. (2007). Ecography 31: 272–278.
- 27. Lobo JM, Jimenez-Valverde A, Real R (2008) AUC: a misleading measure of the performance of predictive distribution models. Global Ecology and Biogeography 17: 145–151.
- 28. Araujo MB, Pearson RG, Thuiller W, Erhard M (2005) Validation of species-climate impact models under climate change. Global Change Biology 11: 1504–1513.
- 29. Araujo MB, Whittaker RJ, Ladle RJ, Erhard M (2005) Reducing uncertainty in projections of extinction risk from climate change. Global Ecology and Biogeography 14: 529–538.
- 30. Araujo MB, Guisan A (2006) Five (or so) challenges for species distribution modelling. Journal of Biogeography 33: 1677–1688.
- 31. Elith J, Graham CH (2009) Do they? How do they? WHY do they differ? On finding reasons for differing performances of species distribution models. Ecography 32: 66–77.
- 32. Thuiller W (2004) Patterns and uncertainties of species' range shifts under climate change. Global Change Biology 10: 2020–2027.
- 33. Diniz JAF, Bini LM, Rangel TF, Loyola RD, Hof C, et al. (2009) Partitioning and mapping uncertainties in ensembles of forecasts of species turnover under climate change. Ecography 32: 897–906.
- 34. Nogues-Bravo D (2009) Predicting the past distribution of species climatic niches. Global Ecology and Biogeography 18: 521–531.
- 35. Robertson MP, Villet MH, Palmer AR (2004) A fuzzy classification technique for predicting species' distributions: applications using invasive alien plants and indigenous insects. Diversity and Distributions 10: 461–474.
- 36. Real R, Marquez AL, Olivero J, Estrada A (2010) Species distribution models in climate change scenarios are still not useful for informing policy planning: an uncertainty assessment using fuzzy logic. Ecography 33: 304–314.
- 37. Broennimann O, Thuiller W, Hughes G, Midgley GF, Alkemade JMR, et al. (2006) Do geographic distribution, niche property and life form explain plants' vulnerability to global change? Global Change Biology 12: 1079–1093.
- 38.
Editorial Committee of Flora of China CAS (1978) Flora of China (Volume 7). Beijing Science Press.
- 39.
Wu ZY (1980) Vegetation of China. Beijing: Science Press.
- 40.
Hou XY (2001) The Vegetation Atlas of China(1∶1000 000). Beijing: Science Press.
- 41. Harrison SP, Prentice IC, Barboni D, Kohfeld KE, Ni J, et al. (2010) Ecophysiological and bioclimatic foundations for a global plant functional classification. Journal of Vegetation Science 21: 300–317.
- 42. Phillips SJ, Anderson RP, Schapire RE (2006) Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecological Modelling 190: 231–259.
- 43. Phillips SJ, Dudik M (2008) Modeling of species distributions with Maxent: new extensions and a comprehensive evaluation. Ecography 31: 161–175.
- 44. Allouche O, Tsoar A, Kadmon R (2006) Assessing the accuracy of species distribution models: prevalence, kappa and the true skill statistic (TSS). Journal of Applied Ecology 43: 1223–1232.
- 45. Manel S, Williams HC, Ormerod SJ (2001) Evaluating presence-absence models in ecology: the need to account for prevalence. Journal of Applied Ecology 38: 921–931.