Projecting species distribution models to different geographic extents is a fundamental step in understanding the potential distribution of species in new or future environments. By applying the models developed for one geographic region to other areas, we can gain insights into how species might respond to changing environmental conditions or expand their ranges.
Furthermore, projecting species distribution models to different geographic extents allows us to identify areas that may be suitable for species introduction or conservation efforts. By understanding the potential distribution of a species in new regions, conservationists can make informed decisions about habitat restoration, species reintroduction, the establishment of protected areas, forecasting biological invasions, identifying priority conservation areas for rare or threatened species, assessing climate change risks, and understanding the ecological processes driving species diversification (Rödder et al, 2009; Rodda et al, 2011; Warren et al, 2014; Acevedo et al, 2014; Breiner et al, 2015).
In this example, we are going to work with occurrences of the Monk Parakeet or Myiopsitta monachus. Originating from South America, particularly Argentina, this bird species has successfully established populations in various parts of the world, including North America, Europe, and Asia. The invasion process of Myiopsitta monachus is characterized by its adaptability and resilience in colonizing new habitats (Strubbe and Matthysen, 2017). The species’ invasive success can be attributed to several factors. Myiopsitta monachus is highly adaptable to different environments, capable of thriving in urban, suburban, and agricultural landscapes. They exhibit generalist feeding behavior, consuming a wide range of food sources, including fruits, seeds, and agricultural crops . Additionally, their communal nesting habits and ability to construct large, elaborate nests in trees, buildings, and utility structures provide them with shelter and protection, further aiding their establishment in new areas (Davis, Malas and Minor, 2014).
The impacts of Myiopsitta monachus invasions can be both positive and negative. While they contribute to biodiversity by establishing new populations and adding to avian diversity, they can also cause conflicts with humans. Their large communal nests can damage infrastructure, such as power lines, and their feeding habits may result in crop damage (Reed et al, 2014). Furthermore, they can outcompete native bird species for resources and potentially disrupt local ecosystems (Simberloff, 2014).
The question at hand is whether Colombia provides suitable habitat for the Monk Parakeet.
If you skip the last section, extract the files inside of the “.zip” folder example to the main root folder. It will write a folder called example having three other folders: Bias_file, Data, and Occurrences.
First, we are going to call some libraries
library(maps)
library(dplyr)
library(ggplot2)
library(sf)
Then, load the occurrences.
dataSp <- read.csv("example/Occurrences/single_species_3.csv")
View(dataSp)
We need to remove the records without coordinate data a it is not useful for this analysis
dataSp <- filter(dataSp, !is.na(decimalLongitude), !is.na(decimalLatitude))
Now, explore the dataSp object. Notice the change in column names.
names(dataSp)
## [1] "gbifID" "datasetKey"
## [3] "occurrenceID" "kingdom"
## [5] "phylum" "class"
## [7] "order" "family"
## [9] "genus" "species"
## [11] "infraspecificEpithet" "taxonRank"
## [13] "scientificName" "verbatimScientificName"
## [15] "verbatimScientificNameAuthorship" "countryCode"
## [17] "locality" "stateProvince"
## [19] "occurrenceStatus" "individualCount"
## [21] "publishingOrgKey" "decimalLatitude"
## [23] "decimalLongitude" "coordinateUncertaintyInMeters"
## [25] "coordinatePrecision" "elevation"
## [27] "elevationAccuracy" "depth"
## [29] "depthAccuracy" "eventDate"
## [31] "day" "month"
## [33] "year" "taxonKey"
## [35] "speciesKey" "basisOfRecord"
## [37] "institutionCode" "collectionCode"
## [39] "catalogNumber" "recordNumber"
## [41] "identifiedBy" "dateIdentified"
## [43] "license" "rightsHolder"
## [45] "recordedBy" "typeStatus"
## [47] "establishmentMeans" "lastInterpreted"
## [49] "mediaType" "issue"
nrow(dataSp)
## [1] 295
ncol(dataSp)
## [1] 50
Plot the occurrences. To accurately plot the occurrences of the Monk Parakeet, it is essential to use shapefiles that represent the species’ native distribution. These shapefiles will provide the necessary geographical boundaries to create an accurate and informative map.
So, lets retrieve a world map
world1 <- st_as_sf(map(database = 'world', plot = FALSE, fill = TRUE))
and plot the occurrences
dataSp.points <- dataSp |>
st_as_sf(coords = c("decimalLongitude", "decimalLatitude"), crs = st_crs("EPSG:4326"))
ggplot() +
geom_sf(data = world1) +
geom_sf(data = dataSp.points, color = "blue")
Call the biomodelos-sdm setup and load packages
source("setup.R")
do.load(vector.packages)
## [1] "ok"
Load the core function fit_biomodelos
source("R/fit_biomodelos.R")
The chunk code for this example is
fit_biomodelos(
occ = dataSp, col_sp = "species", col_lat = "decimalLatitude",
col_lon = "decimalLongitude", clim_vars = "worldclim", dir_clim = "example/Data/env_vars/",
dir_other = "example/Data/env_vars/other/", method_M = "points_MCP",
proj_models = "M-G", remove_distance = 10, remove_method = "spthin",
area_G ="example/Data/biogeographic_shp/nacional_wgs84.shp", extrapo = "no_ext", compute_G = T,
fc_large_sample = c("l", "q", "lq"), beta_large_sample = c(1, 1.5, 2)
)
Here is a brief explanation of new the arguments. *In order to save space, those revised or equal to the working example 1 will be override.
In order to gain a better understanding of the concepts of calibration and projection, we will visualize three key components: the area of interest or M, the projection area, and the final model surface. This visualization will provide a clearer picture of how these components relate to each other in the context of species distribution modeling
aoi <- read_sf("Myiopsitta.monachus/interest_areas/shape_M.shp")
aop <- read_sf("Myiopsitta.monachus/interest_areas/shape_G.shp")
And now, plot both areas
ggplot() +
geom_sf(data = world1) +
geom_sf(data = aoi, fill = "yellow") +
geom_sf(data = aop, fill = "blue")
col <- vect("example/Data/biogeographic_shp/nacional_wgs84.shp")
models <- list.files("Myiopsitta.monachus/ensembles/current/MAXENT/", full.names = T)[3] |>
rast() |>
crop(col)
plot(models)
plot(col, add = T )
In the context of modeling the potential distribution of Myopsitta monachus in Colombia, the train area or M refers to the designated region where the model is constructed and calibrated (yellow polygon). This area encompasses the native occurrences of Myopsitta monachus in Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay. By focusing on the species’ native occurrences, the train area provides a suitable and relevant context for developing an accurate species distribution model.
On the other hand, the projection area represents the geographical extent where the model is projected. In the case of Myopsitta monachus, this would extend beyond the borders of Colombia, encompassing regions where the species has not yet been observed but could potentially occur. However, our area of projection is restricted to Colombian borders.
Acevedo, P., Melo-Ferreira, J., Real, R., and Alves, P. C. (2014). Evidence for niche similarities in the allopatric sister species Lepus castroviejoi and Lepus corsicanus. Journal of Biogeography, 41, 977– 986.
Breiner, F. T., Guisan, A., Bergamini, A., and Nobis, M. P. (2015). Overcoming limitations of modelling rare species by using ensemble of small models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 6, 1210– 1218.
Davis, A.Y., Malas, N. and Minor, E.S. (2014). Substitutable habitats? The biophysical and anthropogenic drivers of an exotic bird’s distribution. Biol Invasions 16, 415–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-013-0530-z
Reed, J. E., McCleery, R. A., Silvy, N. J., Smeins, F. E., and Brightsmith, D. J. (2014). Monk parakeet nest-site selection of electric utility structures in Texas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 129, 65-72.
Rodda, G. H., Jarnevich, C. S., and Reed, R. N. (2011). Challenges in identifying sites climatically matched to the native ranges of animal invaders. PLoS One, 6, e14670. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014670
Rödder, D., Schmidtlein, S., Veith, M., and Lötters, S. (2009). Alien invasive slider turtle in unpredicted habitat: A matter of niche shift or of predictors studied? PLoS One, 4, e7843.
Simberloff, D., Martin, J. L., Genovesi, P., Maris, V., Wardle, D. A., Aronson, J., … and Vilà, M. (2013). Impacts of biological invasions: what’s what and the way forward. Trends in ecology & evolution, 28(1), 58-66.
Strubbe, D. and Matthysen, E. (2009), Establishment success of invasive ring-necked and monk parakeets in Europe. Journal of Biogeography, 36: 2264-2278. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2009.02177.x
Warren, D. L., Wright, A. N., Seifert, S. N., and Shaffer, B. H. (2014). Incorporating model complexity and spatial sampling bias into ecological niche models of climate change risks faced by 90 California vertebrate species of concern. Diversity and Distribution, 20, 334– 343. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12160