Ecological and biological indicators of the accuracy of species distribution models: lessons from European bryophytes

Collart, Flavien; Broennimann, Olivier; Guisan, Antoine; Vanderpoorten, Alain

doi:10.1111/ecog.06721

Download

Article (Scientific journals)

Ecological and biological indicators of the accuracy of species distribution models: lessons from European bryophytes

Collart, Flavien; Broennimann, Olivier; Guisan, Antoine et al.

2023 • In Ecography

Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi

Permalink
https://hdl.handle.net/2268/304250

DOI
10.1111/ecog.06721

Files (1)Send to Details Statistics Bibliography Similar publications

Files

Full Text

Ecography - 2023 - Collart - Ecological and biological indicators of the accuracy of species distribution models lessons.pdf

Publisher postprint (1.59 MB)

Download

All documents in ORBi are protected by a user license.

Send to

RIS BibTex APA Chicago Permalink X Linkedin

Details

Keywords :

bryophytes; GBIF; ecological niche models; independent evaluation; life-history traits; transferability

Abstract :

[en] The predictive power of species distribution models (SDMs) varies substantially among species depending on their ecological and life-history traits, but which of these traits are the most relevant and how they influence species ‘predictability’ remains an area of debate. Here, we address these questions in bryophytes. SDMs employing macroclimatic, topographic and edaphic predictors were calibrated for 411 species in Europe and externally evaluated using an independent dataset. Regression models were implemented to determine whether species characteristics, including life-history traits, ecological preference and niche breadth, determine the accuracy of SDMs. Variation in SDM accuracy among species was significantly explained by species characteris-tics, supporting the hypothesis that the strength of species–environment correlations is affected by characteristics of the species themselves. The percent variance of SDM accuracy explained by species traits, however, substantially varied between 9 and 57% depending on the evaluation metrics used. The lower correlation observed between species traits and MaxKappa and the Boyce index than with area under the curve (AUC) and MaxTSS suggests that the former are less suitable than the latter for deter-mining species ‘predictability’ based on their traits. SDM accuracy decreased from species restricted to pristine habitats to species thriving in eutrophic habitats with high levels of human disturbance. The widespread distribution of man-made habitats in fact opens the door for the spread of now ubiquitous species, even in environments that would primarily not be suitable for them. Such species, likely to occur anywhere, reach very high to full occupancy rates, thereby decreasing the accuracy of models aiming at predicting their distributions. The fact that AUC and MaxTSS were higher for species from pristine habitats is important in a conservation context, as ubiquitous species from eutrophic, disturbed environments are precisely the ones of lower conservation relevance.

Disciplines :

Phytobiology (plant sciences, forestry, mycology...)

Author, co-author :

Collart, Flavien ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département de Biologie, Ecologie et Evolution > Biologie de l'évolution et de la conservation - Unité aCREA-Ulg (Conseils et Recherches en Ecologie Appliquée) ; Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Lausanne Lausanne Switzerland

Broennimann, Olivier ; Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Lausanne Lausanne Switzerland ; Institute of Earth Surface Dynamics, University of Lausanne Lausanne Switzerland

Guisan, Antoine ^✱; Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Lausanne Lausanne Switzerland ; Institute of Earth Surface Dynamics, University of Lausanne Lausanne Switzerland

Vanderpoorten, Alain ^✱; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département de Biologie, Ecologie et Evolution > Biologie de l'évolution et de la conservation - Unité aCREA-Ulg (Conseils et Recherches en Ecologie Appliquée)

^✱ These authors have contributed equally to this work.

Language :

English

Title :

Ecological and biological indicators of the accuracy of species distribution models: lessons from European bryophytes

Publication date :

15 June 2023

Journal title :

Ecography

ISSN :

0906-7590

eISSN :

1600-0587

Publisher :

Wiley

Peer reviewed :

Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi

Additional URL :

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/ecog.06721

Data Set :

Data from: Ecological and biological indicators of the accuracy of species distribution models: lessons from European bryophytes

Occurrence data filtered from GBIF.org, trait database and dataset from IFBL square inventory ( Sotiaux & Vanderpoorten, 2015, updated in www.biogenet.ulg.ac.be ). These datasets were used for the analyses in the paper "Ecological and biological indicators of the accuracy of species distribution models: lessons from European bryophytes" accepted in Ecography (10.1111/ecog.06721)

Available on ORBi :

since 16 June 2023

Statistics

Number of views

25 (9 by ULiège)

Number of downloads

28 (4 by ULiège)

More statistics

Scopus citations^®

Scopus citations^®
without self-citations

OpenCitations

Bibliography

Allouche, O., Tsoar, A. and Kadmon, R. 2006. Assessing the accuracy of species distribution models: prevalence, kappa and the true skill statistic (TSS). – J. Appl. Ecol. 43: 1223–1232.
Amatulli, G., Domisch, S., Tuanmu, M. N., Parmentier, B., Ranipeta, A., Malczyk, J. and Jetz, W. 2018. A suite of global, cross-scale topographic variables for environmental and biodiversity modeling. – Sci. Data 5: 180040.
Anderson, R. P., Araújo, M. B., Guisan, A., Lobo, J. M., Martinez-Meyer, E., Peterson, A. T. and Soberón, J. 2016. Are species occurrence data in global online repositories fit for modeling species distributions? The case of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). Final report of the task group on GBIF data fitness for use in distribution modelling.
Araújo, M. B. and Guisan, A. 2006. Five (or so) challenges for species distribution modelling. – J. Biogeogr. 33: 1677–1688.
Araújo, M. B. and New, M. 2007. Ensemble forecasting of species distributions. – Trends Ecol. Evol. 22: 42–47.
Araújo, M. B. and Peterson, A. T. 2012. Uses and misuses of bioclimatic envelope modeling. – Ecology 93: 1527–1539.
Araújo, M. B., Anderson, R. P., Márcia Barbosa, A., Beale, C. M., Dormann, C. F., Early, R., Garcia, R. A., Guisan, A., Maiorano, L., Naimi, B., O'Hara, R. B., Zimmermann, N. E. and Rahbek, C. 2019. Standards for distribution models in biodiversity assessments. – Sci. Adv. 5: eaat4858.
Åström, M., Dynesius, M., Hylander, K. and Nilsson, C. 2007. Slope aspect modifies community responses to clear-cutting in boreal forests. – Ecology 88: 749–758.
Austin, M. P. and Van Niel, K. P. 2011. Improving species distribution models for climate change studies: variable selection and scale. – J. Biogeogr. 38: 1–8.
Bahn, V. and McGill, B. J. 2013. Testing the predictive performance of distribution models. – Oikos 122: 321–331.
Barber, R. A., Ball, S. G., Morris, R. K. A. and Gilbert, F. 2022. Target-group backgrounds prove effective at correcting sampling bias in Maxent models. – Divers. Distrib. 28: 128–141.
Bates, J. W. 2000. Mineral nutrition, substratum ecology, and pollution. – In: Shaw, A. J. and Goffinet, B. (eds), Bryophyte biology. Cambridge Univ. Press, pp. 248–311.
Beck, J., Böller, M., Erhardt, A. and Schwanghart, W. 2014. Spatial bias in the GBIF database and its effect on modeling species' geographic distributions. – Ecol. Inform. 19: 10–15.
Bivand, R. S., Pebesma, E. and Gomez-Rubio, V. 2013. Applied spatial data analysis with R, 2nd edn. – Springer.
Boyd, R. J., Powney, G. D., Carvell, C. and Pescott, O. L. 2021. occAssess: an R package for assessing potential biases in species occurrence data. – Ecol. Evol. 11: 16177–16187.
Broennimann, O., Di Cola, V. and Guisan, A. 2022. ecospat: spatial ecology miscellaneous methods, R package ver. 3.2.1. – https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ecospat.
Brown, M. J. M., Holland, B. R. and Jordan, G. J. 2020. hyperoverlap: detecting biological overlap in n-dimensional space. – Methods Ecol. Evol. 11: 513–523.
Buri, A., Grand, S., Yashiro, E., Adatte, T., Spangenberg, J. E., Pinto-Figueroa, E., Verrecchia, E. and Guisan, A. 2020. What are the most crucial soil variables for predicting the distribution of mountain plant species? A comprehensive study in the Swiss Alps. – J. Biogeogr. 47: 1143–1153.
Carpenter, W. S. and Goodenough, A. E. 2014. How robust are community-based plant bioindicators? Empirical testing of the relationship between Ellenberg values and direct environmental measures in woodland communities. – Community Ecol. 15: 1–11.
Cerrejón, C., Valeria, O., Mansuy, N., Barbé, M. and Fenton, N. J. 2020. Predictive mapping of bryophyte richness patterns in boreal forests using species distribution models and remote sensing data. – Ecol. Indic. 119: 106826.
Cerrejón, C., Valeria, O., Muñoz, J. and Fenton, N. J. 2022. Small but visible: predicting rare bryophyte distribution and richness patterns using remote sensing-based ensembles of small models. – PLoS One 17: e0260543.
Chamberlain, S., Barve, V., Mcglinn, D., Oldoni, D., Desmet, P., Geffert, L. and Ram, K. 2021. rgbif: interface to the global biodiversity information facility API, R package ver. 3.6.0. – https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rgbif.
Chatfield, C. 1995. Model uncertainty, data mining and statistical inference. – J. R. Stat. Soc. A 158: 419–444.
Chauvier, Y., Thuiller, W., Brun, P., Lavergne, S., Descombes, P., Karger, D. N., Renaud, J. and Zimmermann, N. E. 2021a. Influence of climate, soil, and land cover on plant species distribution in the European Alps. – Ecol. Monogr. 91: e01433.
Chauvier, Y., Zimmermann, N. E., Poggiato, G., Bystrova, D., Brun, P. and Thuiller, W. 2021b. Novel methods to correct for observer and sampling bias in presence-only species distribution models. – Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 30: 2312–2325.
Chevalier, M., Broennimann, O., Cornuault, J. and Guisan, A. 2021. Data integration methods to account for spatial niche truncation effects in regional projections of species distribution. – Ecol. Appl. 31: e02427.
Chevalier, M., Zarzo-Arias, A., Guélat, J., Mateo, R. G. and Guisan, A. 2022. Accounting for niche truncation to improve spatial and temporal predictions of species distributions. – Front. Ecol. Evol. 10: 944116.
Cianfrani, C., Buri, A., Vittoz, P., Grand, S., Zingg, B., Verrecchia, E. and Guisan, A. 2019. Spatial modelling of soil water holding capacity improves models of plant distributions in mountain landscapes. – Plant Soil 438: 57–70.
Collart, F., Broennimann, O., Guisan, A. and Vanderpoorten, A. 2023. Data from: Ecological and biological indicators of the accuracy of species distribution models: lessons from European bryophytes. – Figshare Digital Repository, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21696176.
Connor, T., Hull, V., Viña, A., Shortridge, A., Tang, Y., Zhang, J., Wang, F. and Liu, J. 2018. Effects of grain size and niche breadth on species distribution modeling. – Ecography 41: 1270–1282.
Danielson, J. J. and Gesch, D. B. 2011. Global multi-resolution terrain elevation data 2010. – United States Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey, pp. 2011–1073.
De Castro Oliveira, G., Meira Arruda, D., Fernandes Filho, E. I., Vieira Veloso, G., Rocha Francelino, M. and Reynaud Schaefer, C. E. G. 2021. Soil predictors are crucial for modelling vegetation distribution and its responses to climate change. – Sci. Tot. Environm. 780: 146680.
Descombes, P., Walthert, L., Baltensweiler, A., Meuli, R. G., Karger, D. N., Ginzler, C., Zurell, D. and Zimmermann, N. E. 2020. Spatial modelling of ecological indicator values improves predictions of plant distributions in complex landscapes. – Ecography 43: 1448–1463.
Diekmann, M. 2003. Species indicator values as an important tool in applied plant ecology – a review. – Basic Appl. Ecol. 4: 493–506.
Dormann, C. F., Elith, J., Bacher, S., Buchmann, C., Carl, G., Carré, G., Marquéz, J. R. G., Gruber, B., Lafourcade, B., Leitão, P. J., Münkemüller, T., McClean, C., Osborne, P. E., Reineking, B., Schröder, B., Skidmore, A. K., Zurell, D. and Lautenbach, S. 2013. Collinearity: a review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. – Ecography 36: 27–46.
During, H. J. 1992. Ecological classification of bryophytes and lichens. – In: Bates, J. W. and Farmer, A. M. (eds),Bryophytes and lichens in a changing environment. Clarendon Press, pp. 1–31.
Dyderski, M., Żarnowiec, J., Stebel, A. and Chmura, D. 2022. Propagule pressure and land-use are more important than climate for invasive bryophytes regional distributions. – Landsc. Ecol. 37: 1871–1884.
Elith, J., Kearney, M. and Phillips, S. 2010. The art of modelling range-shifting species. – Methods Ecol. Evol. 1: 330–342.
Fernandes, R. F., Scherrer, D. and Guisan, A. 2019. Effects of simulated observation errors on the performance of species distribution models. – Divers. Distrib. 25: 400–413.
Fielding, A. H. and Bell, J. F. 1997. A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. – Environ. Conserv. 24: 38–49.
França, S. and Cabral, H. N. 2016. Predicting fish species distribution in estuaries: influence of species' ecology in model accuracy. – Estuar Coast. Shelf Sci. 180: 11–20.
Friedman, J., Hastie, T. and Tibshirani, R. 2010. Regularization paths for generalized linear models via coordinate descent. – J. Stat. Softw. 33: 1–22.
Friedman, J. H. 2001. Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine. – Ann. Stat. 29: 1189–1232.
Graham, C. H., Ferrier, S., Huettman, F., Moritz, C. and Peterson, A. T. 2004. New developments in museum-based informatics and applications in biodiversity analysis. – Trends Ecol. Evol. 19: 497–503.
Guisan, A. and Hofer, U. 2003. Predicting reptile distributions at the mesoscale: relation to climate and topography. – J. Biogeogr. 30: 1233–1243.
Guisan, A., Zimmermann, N. E., Elith, J., Graham, C. H., Phillips, S. and Peterson, A. T. 2007. What matters for predicting the occurrences of trees: techniques, data, or species' characteristics? – Ecol. Monogr. 77: 615–630.
Guisan, A., Thuiller, W. and Zimmermann, N. E. 2017. Habitat suitability and distribution models. – Cambridge Univ. Press.
Guo, C., Lek, S., Ye, S., Li, W., Liu, J. and Li, Z. 2015. Uncertainty in ensemble modelling of large-scale species distributions: effects from species characteristics and model techniques. – Ecol. Modell. 306: 67–75.
Hageer, Y., Esperón-Rodríguez, M., Baumgartner, J. B. and Beaumont, L. J. 2017. Climate, soil or both? Which variables are better predictors of the distributions of Australian shrub species? – PeerJ 5: e3446.
Hanspach, J., Kühn, I., Pompe, S. and Klotz, S. 2010. Predictive performance of plant species distribution models depends on species traits. – Perspect. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst. 12: 219–225.
Hastie, T. and Tibshirani, R. 1987. Generalized additive models: some applications. – J. Amer. Stat. Assoc. 82: 371–386.
Hernandez, P. A., Graham, C. H., Master, L. L. and Albert, D. L. 2006. The effect of sample size and species characteristics on performance of different species distribution modeling methods. – Ecography 29: 773–785.
Hespanhol, H., Séneca, A., Figueira, R. and Sérgio, C. 2010. Bryophyte-environment relationships in rock outcrops of north-western Portugal: the importance of micro and macro-scale variables. – Cryptogam. Bryol. 31: 147–161.
Hiederer, R. 2013a. Mapping soil properties for Europe - spatial representation of soil database attributes. – Publications Office of the European Union.
Hiederer, R. 2013b. Mapping soil typologies - spatial decision support applied to European soil database. – Publications Office of the European Union.
Hijmans, R. J. 2022. raster: geographic data analysis and modeling, R package ver. 3.5-15. – https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=raster.
Hijmans, R. J., Phillips, S., Leathwick, J. and Elith, J. 2021. dismo: species distribution modeling, R package ver. 1.3-5. – https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dismo.
Hill, M. O., Roy, D. B. and Thompson, K. 2002. Hemeroby, urbanity and ruderality: bioindicators of disturbance and human impact. – J. Appl. Ecol. 39: 708–720.
Hirzel, A. H., Le Lay, G., Helfer, V., Randin, C. and Guisan, A. 2006. Evaluating the ability of habitat suitability models to predict species presences. – Ecol. Modell. 199: 142–152.
Hortal, J., Jiménez-Valverde, A., Gómez, J. F., Lobo, J. M. and Baselga, A. 2008. Historical bias in biodiversity inventories affects the observed environmental niche of the species. – Oikos 117: 847–858.
Hutsemékers, V., Dopagne, C. and Vanderpoorten, A. 2008. How far and how fast do bryophytes disperse at the landscape scale? – Divers. Distrib. 14: 483–492.
James, G., Witten, D., Hastie, T. and Tibshirani, R. 2013. An introduction to statistical learning: with applications in R. – Springer.
Jiménez, L. and Soberón, J. 2020. Leaving the area under the receiving operating characteristic curve behind: an evaluation method for species distribution modelling applications based on presence-only data. – Methods Ecol. Evol. 11: 1571–1586.
Jiménez-Valverde, A. 2020. Sample size for the evaluation of presence-absence models. – Ecol. Indic. 114: 106289.
Karger, D. N., Conrad, O., Böhner, J., Kawohl, T., Kreft, H., Soria-Auza, R. W., Zimmermann, N. E., Linder, H. P. and Kessler, M. 2017. Climatologies at high resolution for the Earth land surface areas. – Sci. Data 4: 170122.
Karger, D. N., Conrad, O., Böhner, J., Kawohl, T., Kreft, H., Soria-Auza, R. W., Zimmermann, N. E., Linder, H. P. and Kessler, M. 2018. Data from: Climatologies at high resolution for the earth's land surface areas. – Dryad Digital Repository, http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.5061/dryad.kd1d4.
Laenen, B., Machac, A., Gradstein, S. R., Shaw, B., Patiño, J., Désamoré, A., Goffinet, B., Cox, C. J., Shaw, A. J. and Vanderpoorten, A. 2016. Geographic range in liverworts: does sex really matter? – J. Biogeogr. 43: 627–635.
Lassueur, T., Joost, S. and Randin, C. F. 2006. Very high resolution digital elevation models: do they improve models of plant species distribution? – Ecol. Modell. 198: 139–153.
Lee-Yaw, J. A., McCune, J. L., Pironon, S. and Sheth, S. N. 2022. Species distribution models rarely predict the biology of real populations. – Ecography 2022: e05877.
Lembrechts, J. J. et al. 2020. SoilTemp: A global database of near-surface temperature. – Glob. Change Biol. 26: 6616–6629.
Lobo, J. M., Jiménez-Valverde, A. and Hortal, J. 2010. The uncertain nature of absences and their importance in species distribution modelling. – Ecography 33: 103–114.
Lou, Y., Liu, Y., Tang, Z., Jiang, M., Lu, X. and Rydin, H. 2019. Testing unidimensional species distribution models to forecast and hindcast changes in marsh vegetation over 40 years. – Ecol. Indic. 104: 341–346.
Marshall, L., Carvalheiro, L. G., Aguirre-Gutiérrez, J., Bos, M., de Groot, G. A., Kleijn, D., Potts, S. G., Reemer, M., Roberts, S., Scheper, J. and Biesmeijer, J. C. 2015. Testing projected wild bee distributions in agricultural habitats: predictive power depends on species traits and habitat type. – Ecol. Evol. 5: 4426–4436.
Matutini, F., Baudry, J., Fortin, M.-J., Pain, G. and Pithon, J. 2021. Integrating landscape resistance and multi-scale predictor of habitat selection for amphibian distribution modelling at large scale. – Landsc. Ecol. 36: 3557–3573.
McCune, J. L. 2016. Species distribution models predict rare species occurrences despite significant effects of landscape context. – J. Appl. Ecol. 53: 1871–1879.
McCune, J. L., Rosner-Katz, H., Bennett, J. R., Schuster, R. and Kharouba, H. M. 2020. Do traits of plant species predict the efficacy of species distribution models for finding new occurrences? – Ecol. Evol. 10: 5001–5014.
McEuen, A. B. and Curran, L. M. 2004. Seed dispersal and recruitment limitation across spatial scales in temperate forest fragments. – Ecology 85: 507–518.
McPherson, J. M. and Jetz, W. 2007. Effects of species' ecology on the accuracy of distribution models. – Ecography 30: 135–151.
Mesgaran, M. B., Cousens, R. D. and Webber, B. L. 2014. Here be dragons: a tool for quantifying novelty due to covariate range and correlation change when projecting species distribution models. – Divers. Distrib. 20: 1147–1159.
Meyer, C., Kreft, H. and Weigelt, P. 2015. Multidimensional biases, gaps and uncertainties in global plant occurrence information. – Ecol. Lett. 19: 992–1006.
Meynard, C. N. and Quinn, J. F. 2007. Predicting species distributions: a critical comparison of the most common statistical models using artificial species. – J. Biogeogr. 34: 1455–1469.
Mod, H. K., Scherrer, D., Luoto, M. and Guisan, A. 2016. What we use is not what we know: environmental predictors in plant distribution models. – J. Veg. Sci. 27: 1308–1322.
Mothes, C. C., Stroud, J. T., Clements, S. L. and Searcy, C. A. 2019. Evaluating ecological niche model accuracy in predicting biotic invasions using South Florida's exotic lizard community. – J. Biogeogr. 46: 432–441.
Nelder, J. A. and Wedderburn, R. W. M. 1972. Generalized linear models. – J. R. Stat. Soc. A 135: 370–384.
Newbold, T., Reader, T., Zalat, S., El-Gabbas, A. and Gilbert, F. 2009. Effect of characteristics of butterfly species on the accuracy of distribution models in an arid environment. – Biodivers. Conserv. 18: 3629–3641.
Newbold, T., Reader, T., El-Gabbas, A., Berg, W., Shohdi, W. M., Zalat, S., el Din, S. B. and Gilbert, F. 2010. Testing the accuracy of species distribution models using species records from a new field survey. – Oikos 119: 1326–1334.
Norberg, A. et al. 2019. A comprehensive evaluation of predictive performance of 33 species distribution models at species and community levels. – Ecol. Monogr. 89: e01370.
Pakeman, R. J., O'Brien, D., Genney, D. and Brooker, R. W. 2022. Identifying drivers of change in bryophyte and lichen species occupancy in Scotland. – Ecol. Indic. 139: 108889.
Panagos, P., Van Liedekerke, M., Jones, A. and Montanarella, L. 2012. European Soil Data Centre: response to European policy support and public data requirements. – Land Use Policy 29: 329–338.
Patiño, J., Bisang, I., Hedenäs, L., Dirkse, G., Bjarnason, Á. H., Ah-Peng, C. and Vanderpoorten, A. 2013. Baker's law and the island syndromes in bryophytes. – J. Ecol. 101: 1245–1255.
Patiño, J., Carine, M. A., Fernández-Palacios, J. M., Otto, R., Schaefer, H. and Vanderpoorten, A. 2014. The anagenetic world of spore-producing land plants. – New Phytol. 201: 305–311.
Pebesma, E. J. and Bivand, R. S. 2005. Classes and methods for spatial data in R, R News 5. – https://cran.r-project.org/doc/Rnews.
Petitpierre, B., Broennimann, O., Kueffer, C., Daehler, C. and Guisan, A. 2017. Selecting predictors to maximize the transferability of species distribution models: lessons from cross-continental plant invasions. – Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 26: 275–287.
Phillips, S. J., Dudík, M., Elith, J., Graham, C. H., Lehmann, A., Leathwick, J. and Ferrier, S. 2009. Sample selection bias and presence-only distribution model: implications for background and pseudo-absence data. – Ecol. Appl. 19: 181–197.
Phillips, S. J., Dudík, M. and Schapire, R. E. 2022. Maxent software for modeling species niches and distributions, ver. 3.4.1. – http://biodiversityinformatics.amnh.org/open_source/maxent/.
Poggio, L., de Sousa, L. M., Batjes, N. H., Heuvelink, G. B. M., Kempen, B., Ribeiro, E. and Rossiter, D. 2021. SoilGrids 2.0: producing soil information for the globe with quantified spatial uncertainty. – SOIL 7: 217–240.
Pöyry, J., Luoto, M., Heikkinen, R. K. and Saarinen, K. 2008. Species traits are associated with the quality of bioclimatic models. – Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 17: 403–414.
Proosdij, A. S. J., Sosef, M. S. M., Wieringa, J. J. and Raes, N. 2016. Minimum required number of specimen records to develop accurate species distribution models. – Ecography 39: 542–552.
Randin, C. F., Dirnböck, T., Dullinger, S., Zimmermann, N. E., Zappa, M. and Guisan, A. 2006. Are niche-based species distribution models transferable in space? – J. Biogeogr. 33: 1689–1703.
Regos, A., Gagne, L., Alcaraz-Segura, D., Honrado, J. P. and Domínguez, J. 2019. Effects of species traits and environmental predictors on performance and transferability of ecological niche models. – Sci. Rep. 9: 4221.
Roberts, D. R., Bahn, V., Ciuti, S., Boyce, M. S., Elith, J., Guillera-Arroita, G., Hauenstein, S., Lahoz-Monfort, J. J., Schröder, B., Thuiller, W., Warton, D. I., Wintle, B. A., Hartig, F. and Dormann, C. F. 2017. Cross-validation strategies for data with temporal, spatial, hierarchical, or phylogenetic structure. – Ecography 40: 913–929.
Rydin, H. 2009. Population and community ecology of bryophytes. – In: Shaw, A. J. and Goffinet, B. (eds), Bryophyte biology, 2nd ed. Cambridge Univ. Press, pp. 393–444.
Santini, L., Benítez-López, A., Maiorano, L., Čengić, M. and Huijbregts, M. A. J. 2021. Assessing the reliability of species distribution projections in climate change research. – Divers. Distrib. 27: 1035–1050.
Scherrer, D. and Guisan, A. 2019. Ecological indicator values reveal missing predictors of species distributions. – Sci. Rep. 9: 3061.
Scherrer, D., Esperon-Rodriguez, M., Beaumont, L. J., Barradas, V. L. and Guisan, A. 2021. National assessments of species vulnerability to climate change strongly depend on selected data sources. – Divers. Distrib. 27: 1367–1382.
Seoane, J., Carrascal, L. M., Alonso, C. L. and Palomino, D. 2005. Species-specific traits associated to prediction errors in bird habitat suitability modelling. – Ecol. Modell. 185: 299–308.
Simmel, J., Ahrens, M. and Poschlod, P. 2021. Ellenberg N values of bryophytes in Central Europe*. – J. Veg. Sci. 32: e12957.
Sor, R., Park, Y.-S., Boets, P., Goethals, P. L. M. and Lek, S. 2017. Effects of species prevalence on the performance of predictive models. – Ecol. Modell. 354: 11–19.
Sotiaux, A. and Vanderpoorten, A. 2015. Atlas des Bryophytes (mousses, hépatiques, anthocérotes) de Wallonie (19802014). – Département de l'Etude du Milieu Naturel et Agricole (SPWDGARNE). Serie Faune-Flore-Habitats 9.
Syfert, M. M., Smith, M. J. and Coomes, D. A. 2013. The effects of sampling bias and model complexity on the predictive performance of MaxEnt species distribution models. – PLoS One 8: e55158.
Tessarolo, G., Rangel, T. F., Araújo, M. B. and Hortal, J. 2014. Uncertainty associated with survey design in Species Distribution Models. – Divers. Distrib. 20: 1258–1269.
Tessarolo, G., Lobo, J. M., Rangel, T. F. and Hortal, J. 2021. High uncertainty in the effects of data characteristics on the performance of species distribution models. – Ecol. Indic. 121: 107147.
Thuiller, W., Lavorel, S., Midgley, G., Lavergne, S. and Rebelo, T. 2004. Relating plant traits and species distributions along bioclimatic gradients for 88 Leucadendron taxa. – Ecology 85: 1688–1699.
Thuiller, W., Georges, D., Gueguen, M., Engler, R. and Breiner, F. 2021. biomod2: ensemble platform for species distribution modeling, R package ver. 3.5.1. – https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=biomod2.
Tibshirani, R. 1996. Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. – J. R. Stat. Soc. B 58: 267–288.
Tibshirani, R., Bien, J., Friedman, J., Hastie, T., Simon, N., Taylor, J. and Tibshirani, R. J. 2012. Strong rules for discarding predictors in lasso-type problems. – J. R. Stat. Soc. B 74: 245–266.
Tóth, B., Weynants, M., Pásztor, L. and Hengl, T. 2017. 3D soil hydraulic database of Europe at 250 m resolution. – Hydrol. Processes 31: 2662–2666.
[cit-0118] Van Zuijlen, K., Nobis, M. P., Hedenäs, L., Hodgetts, N., Calleja Alarcón, J. A., Albertos, B., Bernhardt-Römermann, M., Gabriel, R., Gariletti, R., Lara, P., Preston, C. D., Simmel, J., Urmi, E., Bisang, I. and Bergamini, A. 2023. Bryophytes of Europe Traits (BET) dataset: a fundamental tool for ecological studies. – J. Veg. Sci. 34: e13179.
Vanderpoorten, A., Sotiaux, A. and Engels, P. 2005. A GIS-based survey for the conservation of bryophytes at the landscape scale. – Biol. Conserv. 121: 189–194.
Wang, Z., Pi, C., Bao, W. and Bader, M. Y. 2022. Elevational trends in photosynthetic capacity and trait relationships of subtropical montane understorey bryophytes. – Ecol. Indic. 142: 109251.
West, A. M., Kumar, S., Brown, C. S., Stohlgren, T. J. and Bromberg, J. 2016. Field validation of an invasive species Maxent model. – Ecol. Infor. 36: 126–134.
Yates, K. L. et al. 2018. Outstanding challenges in the transferability of ecological models. – Trends Ecol. Evol. 33: 790–802.
Zamorano, D., Labra, F. A., Villarroel, M., Lacy, S., Mao, L., Olivares, M. A. and Peredo-Parada, M. 2019. Assessing the effect of fish size on species distribution model performance in southern Chilean rivers. – PeerJ 7: e7771.
Zanatta, F., Engler, R., Collart, F., Broennimann, O., Mateo, R. G., Papp, B., Muñoz, J., Baurain, D., Guisan, A. and Vanderpoorten, A. 2020. Bryophytes are predicted to lag behind future climate change despite their high dispersal capacities. – Nat. Commun. 11: 5601.
Zizka, A., Antonelli, A. and Silvestro, D. 2021. sampbias, a method for quantifying geographic sampling biases in species distribution data. – Ecography 44: 25–32.
Zurell, D. et al. 2020. A standard protocol for reporting species distribution models. – Ecography 43: 1261–1277.