Search

BackgroundPredicting and explaining species occurrence using environmental characteristics is essential for nature conservation and management. Species distribution models consider species occurrence as the dependent variable and environmental conditions as the independent variables. Suitable conditions are estimated based on a sample of species observations, where one assumes that the underlying environmental conditions are known. This is not always the case, as environmental variables at broad spatial scales are regularly extrapolated from point-referenced data. However, treating the predicted environmental conditions as accurate surveys of independent variables at a specific point does not take into account their uncertainty.MethodsWe present a joint hierarchical Bayesian model where models for the environmental variables, rather than a set of predicted values, are input to the species distribution model. All models are fitted together based only on point-referenced observations, which results in a correct propagation of uncertainty. We use 50 plant species representative of the Dutch flora in natural areas with 8 soil condition predictors taken during field visits in the Netherlands as a case study. We compare the proposed model to the standard approach by studying the difference in associations, predicted maps, and cross-validated accuracy.FindingsWe find that there are differences between the two approaches in the estimated association between soil conditions and species occurrence (correlation 0.64-0.84), but the predicted maps are quite similar (correlation 0.82-1.00). The differences are more pronounced in the rarer species. The cross-validated accuracy is substantially better for 5 species out of the 50, and the species can also help to predict the soil characteristics. The estimated associations tend to have a smaller magnitude with more certainty.ConclusionThese findings suggests that the standard model is often sufficient for prediction, but effort should be taken to develop models which take the uncertainty in the independent variables into account for interpretation.

While shifts to high-intensity land cover have caused overwhelming biodiversity loss, it remains unclear how important natural land cover is to the occurrence, and thus the conservation, of different species groups. We used over 4 million plant species’ observations to evaluate the conservation importance of natural land cover by its association with the occurrence probability of 1 122 native and 403 exotic plant species at 1 km resolution by species distribution models. We found that 74.9% of native species, 83.9% of the threatened species and 77.1% rare species preferred landscapes with over 50% natural land cover, while these landscapes only accounted for 15.6% of all grids. Most species preferred natural areas with a mixture of forest and open areas rather than areas with completely open or forested nature. Compared to native species, exotic species preferred areas with lower natural land cover and the cover of natural open area, but they both preferred extremely high and low cover of natural forest area. Threatened and rare species preferred higher natural land cover, either cover of natural forest area or cover of natural open area than not threatened and common species, but rare species were also more likely to occur in landscapes with 0–25% cover of natural open area. Although more natural land cover in a landscape will not automatically result in more native species, because there is often a non-linear increase in species occurrence probability when going from 0% to 100% natural land cover, for conserving purposes, over 80% natural land cover should be kept in landscapes for conserving threatened and very rare species, and 60% natural land cover is the best for conserving common native species. Our results stress the importance of natural areas for plant species’ conservation. It also informs improvements to species conservation by increasing habitat diversity.

While shifts to high-intensity land cover have caused overwhelming biodiversity loss, it remains unclear how important natural land cover is to the occurrence, and thus the conservation, of different species groups. We used over 4 million plant species' observations to evaluate the conservation importance of natural land cover by its association with the occurrence probability of 1 122 native and 403 exotic plant species at 1 km resolution by species distribution models. We found that 74.9% of native species, 83.9% of the threatened species and 77.1% rare species preferred landscapes with over 50% natural land cover, while these landscapes only accounted for 15.6% of all grids. Most species preferred natural areas with a mixture of forest and open areas rather than areas with completely open or forested nature. Compared to native species, exotic species preferred areas with lower natural land cover and the cover of natural open area, but they both preferred extremely high and low cover of natural forest area. Threatened and rare species preferred higher natural land cover, either cover of natural forest area or cover of natural open area than not threatened and common species, but rare species were also more likely to occur in landscapes with 0-25% cover of natural open area. Although more natural land cover in a landscape will not automatically result in more native species, because there is often a non-linear increase in species occurrence probability when going from 0% to 100% natural land cover, for conserving purposes, over 80% natural land cover should be kept in landscapes for conserving threatened and very rare species, and 60% natural land cover is the best for conserving common native species. Our results stress the importance of natural areas for plant species' conservation. It also informs improvements to species conservation by increasing habitat diversity.