The role of biotic interactions in shaping distributions and realised assemblages of species: implications for species distribution modelling

Abstract

Predicting which species will occur together in the future, and where, remains one of the greatest challenges in ecology, and requires a sound understanding of how the abiotic and biotic environments interact with dispersal processes and history across scales. Biotic interactions and their dynamics influence species' relationships to climate, and this also has important implications for predicting future distributions of species. It is already well accepted that biotic interactions shape species' spatial distributions at local spatial extents, but the role of these interactions beyond local extents (e.g. 10 km 2 to global extents) are usually dismissed as unimportant. In this review we consolidate evidence for how biotic interactions shape species distributions beyond local extents and review methods for integrating biotic interactions into species distribution modelling tools. Drawing upon evidence from contemporary and palaeoecological studies of individual species ranges, functional groups, and species richness patterns, we show that biotic interactions have clearly left their mark on species distributions and realised assemblages of species across all spatial extents. We demonstrate this with examples from within and across trophic groups. A range of species distribution modelling tools is available to quantify species environmental relationships and predict species occurrence, such as: ( i ) integrating pairwise dependencies, ( ii ) using integrative predictors, and ( iii ) hybridising species distribution models (SDMs) with dynamic models. These methods have typically only been applied to interacting pairs of species at a single time, require a priori ecological knowledge about which species interact, and due to data paucity must assume that biotic interactions are constant in space and time. To better inform the future development of these models across spatial scales, we call for accelerated collection of spatially and temporally explicit species data. Ideally, these data should be sampled to reflect variation in the underlying environment across large spatial extents, and at fine spatial resolution. Simplified ecosystems where there are relatively few interacting species and sometimes a wealth of existing ecosystem monitoring data (e.g. arctic, alpine or island habitats) offer settings where the development of modelling tools that account for biotic interactions may be less difficult than elsewhere.

Shown for reading. Its publisher allows quoting it, not republishing it.

References 158

1. 1.

   Abrahamczyk S, Kessler M. Hummingbird diversity, food niche characters, and assemblage composition along a latitudinal precipitation gradient in the Bolivian lowlands. Journal of Ornithology. 2010;151:615-625.

   Not in our library

2. 2.

   Agustí J, Antón M. Mammoths, Sabertooths, and Hominids: 65 Million Years of Mammalian Evolution in Europe. 2002.

   Not in our library

3. 3.

   Algar AC, Kharouba HM, Young ER, Kerr JT. Predicting the future of species diversity: macroecological theory, climate change, and direct tests of alternative forecasting methods. Ecography. 2009;32:22-33.

   Not in our library

4. 4.

   ÁLvarez-Loayza P, White JF, Torres MS, Balslev H, Kristiansen T, Svenning J-C, Gil N. Light converts endosymbiotic fungus to pathogen, influencing seedling survival and niche-space filling of a common tropical tree. Iriartea deltoidea. PLoS ONE. 2011;6:e16386.

   Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0016386

5. 5.

   Araújo MB, Luoto M. The importance of biotic interactions for modelling species distributions under climate change. Global Ecology and Biogeography. 2007;16:743-753.

   Not in our library

6. 6.

   Augustin NH, Mugglestone MA, Buckland ST. An autologistic model for the spatial distribution of wildlife. Journal of Applied Ecology. 1996;33:339-347.

   Not in our library

7. 7.

   Austin MP. Spatial prediction of species distribution: an interface between ecological theory and statistical modelling. Ecological Modelling. 2002;157:101-118.

   Not in our library

8. 8.

   Bartish IV, Kadereit JW, Comes HP. Late Quaternary history of Hippophaë rhamnoides L. (Elaeagnaceae) inferred from chalcone synthase intron (Chsi) sequences and chloroplast DNA variation. Molecular Ecology. 2006;15:4065-4083.

   Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-294x.2006.03079.x

9. 9.

   Bascompte J. Mutualistic networks. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 2009;7:429-436.

   Not in our library

10. 10.

    Bauer IE, McMorrow J, Yalden DW. The historic ranges of three equid species in north-east Africa: a quantitative comparison of environmental tolerances. Journal of Biogeography. 1994;21:169-182.

    Not in our library

11. 11.

    Bellingham PJ, Towns DR, Cameron EK, Davis JJ, Wardle DA, Wilmshurst JM, Mulder CPH. New Zealand island restoration: seabirds, predators, and the importance of history. New Zealand Journal of Ecology. 2010;34:115-136.

    Not in our library

12. 12.

    Bennett KD, Lamb HF. Holocene pollen sequences as a record of competitve interacitons among tree populations. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 1988;3:141-144.

    Not in our library10.1016/0169-5347(88)90178-4

13. 13.

    Berger J, Stacey PB, Bellis L, Johnson MP. A mammalian predator-prey imbalance: grizzly bear and wolf extinction affect avian neotropical migrants. Ecological Applications. 2001;11:947-960.

    Not in our library

14. 14.

    Bertolino S. Introduction of the American grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) in Europe: a case study in biological invasion. Current Science. 2008;95:903-906.

    Not in our library

15. 15.

    Billick I, Case TJ. Higher order interactions in ecological communities: what are they and how can they be detected? Ecology. 1994;75:1529-1543.

    Not in our library

16. 16.

    Bohn U, Neuhäusl R. Map of the Natural Vegetation of Europe. 2003.

    Not in our library

17. 17.

    Bond WJ, Midgley GF, Woodward FI. The importance of low atmospheric CO2 and fire in promoting the spread of grasslands and savannas. Global Change Biology. 2003;9:973-982.

    Not in our library

18. 18.

    Boursot P, Auffray JC, Brittondavidian J, Bonhomme F. The evolution of house mice. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 1993;24:119-152.

    Not in our library

19. 19.

    Bowers MA, Brown JH. Body size and coexistence in desert rodents: chance or community structure? Ecology. 1982;63:391-400.

    Not in our library

20. 20.

    Braschler B, Hill JK. Role of larval host plants in the climate-driven range expansion of the butterfly Polygonia c-album. Journal of Animal Ecology. 2007;76:415-423.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-2656.2007.01217.x

21. 21.

    Briers RA. Range limits and parasite prevalence in a freshwater snail. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B. 2003;270:S178-S180.

    Not in our library10.1098/rsbl.2003.0046

22. 22.

    Brooker RW. Plant-plant interactions and environmental change. New Phytologist. 2006;171:271-284.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1469-8137.2006.01752.x

23. 23.

    Brooker RW, Callaghan TV. The balance between positive and negative plant interactions and its relationship to environmental gradients: a model. Oikos. 1998;81:196-207.

    Not in our library

24. 24.

    Brooker RW, Callaway RM, Cavieres LA, Kikvidze Z, Lortie CJ, Michalet R, Pugnaire FI, Valiente-Banuet A, Whitham TG. Don't diss integration: a comment on Ricklefs' disintegrating communities. The American Naturalist. 2009;174:919-927.

    Not in our library10.1086/648058

25. 25.

    Bruelheide H, Scheidel U. Slug herbivory as a limiting factor for the geographical range of Arnica montana. Journal of Ecology. 1999;87:839-848.

    Not in our library

26. 26.

    Bullock JM, Edwards RJ, Carey PD, Rose RJ. Geographical separation of two Ulex species at three spatial scales: does competition limit species' ranges? Ecography. 2000;23:257-271.

    Not in our library

27. 27.

    Callaghan TV, Johansson M, Heal OW, Saelthun NR, Barkved LJ, Bayfield N, Brandt O, Brooker R, Christiansen HH, Forchhammer M, Høye TT, Humlum O, Järvinen A, Jonasson C, Kohler J, Magnusson B, Meltofte H, Mortensen L, Neuvonen S, Pearce I, Rasch M, Turner L, Hasholt B, Huhta E, Leskinen E, Nielsen N, Siikamäki P. Environmental changes in the North Atlantic Region: SCANNET as a collaborative approach for documenting, understanding and predicting changes. Ambio Special Report Number. 2004;13:39-50.

    Not in our library

28. 28.

    Callaway RM, Brooker RW, Choler P, Kikvidze Z, Lortie CJ, Michalet R, Paolini L, Pugnaire FI, Newingham B, Aschehoug ET, Armas C, Kikodze D, Cook BJ. Positive interactions among alpine plants increase with stress. Nature. 2002a;417:844-848.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature00812

29. 29.

    Callaway RM, DeLucia EH, Moore D, Nowak R, Schlesinger WH. Competition and facilitation: contrasting effects of Artemisia tridentata on desert vs. montane pines. Ecology. 1996;77:2130-2141.

    Not in our library

30. 30.

    Callaway RM, Reinhart KO, Moore GW, Moore DJ, Pennings SC. Epiphyte host preferences and host traits: mechanisms for species-specific interactions. Oecologia. 2002b;132:221-230.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00442-002-0943-3

31. 31.

    Callaway RM, Thelen GC, Rodriguez A, Holben WE. Soil biota and exotic plant invasion. Nature. 2004;427:731-733.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature02322

32. 32.

    Case TJ, Bender EA. Testing for higher order interactions. The American Naturalist. 1981;118:920-929.

    Not in our library

33. 33.

    Choler P, Michalet R, Callaway RM. Facilitation and competition on gradients in alpine plant communities. Ecology. 2001;82:3295-3308.

    Not in our library

34. 34.

    Dalsgaard B, González AMM, Olesen JM, Ollerton J, Timmermann A, Andersen LH, Tossas AG. Plant-hummingbird interactions in the West Indies: floral specialisation gradients associated with environment and hummingbird size. Oecologia. 2009;159:757-766.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00442-008-1255-z

35. 35.

    van Dam NM. How plants cope with biotic interactions. Plant Biology. 2009;11:1-5.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1438-8677.2008.00179.x

36. 36.

    Damgaard C, Fayolle A. Measuring the importance of competition: a new formulation of the problem. Journal of Ecology. 2010;98:1-6.

    Not in our library

37. 37.

    Davis AJ, Jenkinson LS, Lawton JH, Shorrocks B, Wood S. Making mistakes when predicting shifts in species range in response to global warming. Nature. 1998;391:783-786.

    Not in our library10.1038/35842

38. 38.

    Dengler JF, Jansen F, Glöckler F, Peet RK, De Cáceres M, Chytrý M, Ewald J, Oldeland J, Lopez-Gonzalez G, Finckh M, Mucina L, Rodwell JS, Schaminée JHJ, Spencer N. The Global Index of Vegetation-Plot Databases (GIVD): a new resource for vegetation science. Journal of Vegetation Science. 2011;22:582-597.

    Not in our library

39. 39.

    Dormann CF, McPherson JM, Araújo MB, Bivand R, Bolliger J, Carl G, Davies RG, Hirzel A, Jetz W, Kissling WD, Kühn I, Ohlemüller R, Peres-Neto PR, Reineking B, Schröder B, Schurr FM, Wilson R. Methods to account for spatial autocorrelation in the analysis of species distributional data: a review. Ecography. 2007;30:609-628.

    Not in our library

40. 40.

    Dormann CF, Roxburgh SH. Experimental evidence rejects pairwise modelling approach to coexistence in plant communities. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B. 2005;272:1279-1285.

    Not in our library10.1098/rspb.2005.3066

Cited by papers we hold 6

• Climate Change and Local Host Availability Drive the Northern Range Boundary in the Rapid Expansion of a Specialist Insect Herbivore, Papilio cresphontes · 2021
  Not checked
• Solutions in microbiome engineering: prioritizing barriers to organism establishment · 2021
  No notice
• Empirical Predictability of Community Responses to Climate Change · 2018
  Not checked
• Evaluating collinearity effects on species distribution models: An approach based on virtual species simulation · 2018
  No notice
• Biotic and abiotic factors predicting the global distribution and population density of an invasive large mammal · 2017
  Corrected
• The influence of interspecific interactions on species range expansion rates · 2014
  No notice

Reads

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.