Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of four modeling tools for the prediction of potential distribution for non-indigenous weeds in the United States

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biological Invasions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study compares four models for predicting the potential distribution of non-indigenous weed species in the conterminous U.S. The comparison focused on evaluating modeling tools and protocols as currently used for weed risk assessment or for predicting the potential distribution of invasive weeds. We used six weed species (three highly invasive and three less invasive non-indigenous species) that have been established in the U.S. for more than 75 years. The experiment involved providing non-U. S. location data to users familiar with one of the four evaluated techniques, who then developed predictive models that were applied to the United States without knowing the identity of the species or its U.S. distribution. We compared a simple GIS climate matching technique known as Proto3, a simple climate matching tool CLIMEX Match Climates, the correlative model MaxEnt, and a process model known as the Thornley Transport Resistance (TTR) model. Two experienced users ran each modeling tool except TTR, which had one user. Models were trained with global species distribution data excluding any U.S. data, and then were evaluated using the current known U.S. distribution. The influence of weed species identity and modeling tool on prevalence and sensitivity effects was compared using a generalized linear mixed model. Each modeling tool itself had a low statistical significance, while weed species alone accounted for 69.1 and 48.5% of the variance for prevalence and sensitivity, respectively. These results suggest that simple modeling tools might perform as well as complex ones in the case of predicting potential distribution for a weed not yet present in the United States. Considerations of model accuracy should also be balanced with those of reproducibility and ease of use. More important than the choice of modeling tool is the construction of robust protocols and testing both new and experienced users under blind test conditions that approximate operational conditions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Araújo MB, New M (2007) Ensemble forecasting of species distributions. Trends Ecol Evol 22:42–47

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey RG (1998) Ecoregions: the ecosystem geography of the oceans and the continents. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bean WT, Stafford R, Brashares JS (2012) The effects of small sample size and sample bias on threshold selection and accuracy assessment of species distribution models. Ecography 35:250–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beans CM, Kilkenny FF, Galloway LF (2012) Climate suitability and human influences combined explain the range expansion of an invasive horticultural plant. Biol Invasions 14:2067–2078

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley BA (2013) Distribution models of invasive plants over-estimate potential impact. Biol Invasions 15:1417–1429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braunisch V, Coppes J, Arlettaz R et al (2013) Selecting from correlated climate variables: a major source of uncertainty for predicting species distributions under climate change. Ecography 36:971–983

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crombie J, Brown L, Lizzio J et al (2008) Climatch user manual. Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  • Dormann CF, McPherson JM, Araújo MB et al (2007) Methods to account for spatial autocorrelation in the analysis of species distributional data: a review. Ecography 30:609–628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dormann CF, Schymanski SJ, Cabral J et al (2012) Correlation and process in species distribution models: bridging a dichotomy. J Biogeogr 39:2119–2131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dormann CF, Elith J, Bacher S et al (2013) Collinearity: a review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography 36:27–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elith J, Leathwick JR (2009) Species distribution models: ecological explanation and prediction across space and time. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 40:677

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elith J, Graham CH, Anderson RP et al (2006) Novel methods to improve prediction of species distribution from occurrence data. Ecography 29:129–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elith J, Kearney M, Phillips S (2010) The art of modelling range-shifting species. Methods Ecol Evol 1:330–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elith J, Phillips SJ, Hastie T et al (2011) A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists. Divers Distrib 17:43–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Espenshade EBJ, Hudson JC, Morrison JL (1995) Goode’s world atlas, 19th edn. Rand McNally, Skokie

    Google Scholar 

  • Evangelista P, Kumar S, Stohlgren TJ et al (2007) Modeling aboveground biomass of Tamarix ramosissima in the Arkansas river basin of Southeastern Colorado, USA. West N Am Nat 67:503–509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evangelista PH, Kumar S, Stohlgren TJ et al (2008) Modelling invasion for a habitat generalist and a specialist plant species. Divers Distrib 14:808–817

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grenouillet G, Buisson L, Casajus N et al (2011) Ensemble modelling of species distribution: the effects of geographical and environmental ranges. Ecography 34:9–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groves RH, Panetta F, Virtue JG (2001) Weed Risk Assessment. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood

    Google Scholar 

  • GSDT (2000) Global gridded surfaces of selected soil characteristics (IGBP-DIS). [Global Gridded Surfaces of Selected Soil Characteristics (International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme—Data and Information System)]. Data set. http://www.daac.ornl.gov, from Oak Ridge National Laboratory Distributed Active Archive Center, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA. doi:10.3334/ORNLDAAC/569

  • Guisan A, Thuiller W (2005) Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol Lett 8:993–1009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guisan A, Graham CH, Elith J et al (2007) Sensitivity of predictive species distribution models to change in grain size. Divers Distrib 13:332–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haynes SN, Lench HC (2003) Incremental validity of new clinical assessment measures. Psychol Assess 15:456–466

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins SI, Richardson DM (2014) Invasive plants have broader physiological niches. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111:10610–10614

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins SI, Richardson DM, Cowling RM et al (1999) Predicting the landscape-scale distribution of alien plants and their threat to plant diversity. Conserv Biol 13:303–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins SI, O’Hara RB, Bykova O et al (2012) A physiological analogy of the niche for projecting the potential distribution of plants. J Biogeogr 39:2132–2145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hijmans RJ, Cameron SE, Parra JL et al (2005) Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int J Climatol 25:1965–1978

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman JD, Narumalani S, Mishra DR et al (2008) Predicting potential occurrence and spread of invasive plant species along the North Platte River, Nebraska. Invas. Plant Sci Manag 1:359–367

    Google Scholar 

  • IPPC (2009) International standards for phytosanitary measures. International plant protection convention (IPPC) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, pp 1–32. https://www.ippc.int/index.php?id=13399&L=0. Accessed 4 Oct 2010

  • Jarnevich CS, Young N (2015) Using the MAXENT program for species distribution modelling to assess invasion risk. In: Venette R (ed) Pest risk modelling and mapping for invasive alien species. CABI, Wallingford, pp 65–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarnevich CS, Stohlgren TJ, Barnett D et al (2006) Filling in the gaps: modelling native species richness and invasions using spatially incomplete data. Divers Distrib 12:511–520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Valverde A, Peterson AT, Soberón J et al (2011) Use of niche models in invasive species risk assessments. Biol Invasions 13:2785–2797

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kartesz JT (2015) The Biota of North America Program (BONAP). Taxonomic Data Center, Chapel Hill. http://www.bonap.net/tdc

  • Kearney MR, Wintle BA, Porter WP (2010) Correlative and mechanistic models of species distribution provide congruent forecasts under climate change. Conserv Lett 3:203–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koop AL, Fowler L, Newton LP et al (2012) Development and validation of a weed screening tool for the United States. Biol Invasions 14:273–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kriticos DJ, Webber BL, Leriche A et al (2012) CliMond: global high-resolution historical and future scenario climate surfaces for bioclimatic modelling. Methods Ecol Evol 3:53–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kriticos DJ, Maitre DC, Webber BL (2013) Essential elements of discourse for advancing the modelling of species’ current and potential distributions. J Biogeogr 40:608–611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu C, White M, Newell G (2011) Measuring and comparing the accuracy of species distribution models with presence–absence data. Ecography 34:232–243

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Liu C, White M, Newell G (2013) Selecting thresholds for the prediction of species occurrence with presence-only data. J Biogeogr 40:778–789

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lobo JM, Jiménez-Valverde A, Real R (2008) AUC: a misleading measure of the performance of predictive distribution models. Global Ecol Biogeogr 17:145–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mainali KP, Warren DL, Dhileepan K et al (2015) Projecting future expansion of invasive species: comparing and improving methodologies for species distribution modeling. Global Change Biol 21:4464–4480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P (ed) Frontiers in econometrics. Academic Press, New York, pp 105–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Merow C, Smith MJ, Silander JA (2013) A practical guide to MaxEnt for modeling species’ distributions: what it does, and why inputs and settings matter. Ecography 36:1058–1069

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merow C, Smith MJ, Edwards TC et al (2014) What do we gain from simplicity versus complexity in species distribution models? Ecography 37:1267–1281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morisette JT, Jarnevich CS, Holcombe TR et al (2013) VisTrails SAHM: visualization and workflow management for species habitat modeling. Ecography 36:129–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullen K, Ardia D, Gil DL et al (2011) DEoptim: an R package for global optimization by differential evolution. J Stat Softw 40:1–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson RG, Dawson TP (2003) Predicting the impacts of climate change on the distribution of species: are bioclimate envelope models useful? Global Ecol Biogeogr 12:361–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peel MC, Finlayson BL, McMahon TA (2007) Updated world map of the Köppen–Geiger climate classification. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci Discuss 4:439–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pheloung PC, Williams PA, Halloy SR (1999) A weed risk assessment model for use as a biosecurity tool evaluating plant introductions. J Environ Manag 57:239–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips SJ, Dudík M (2008) Modeling of species distributions with Maxent: new extensions and a comprehensive evaluation. Ecography 31:161–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinkard EA, Kriticos DJ, Wardlaw TJ et al (2010) Estimating the spatio-temporal risk of disease epidemics using a bioclimatic niche model. Ecol Model 221:2828–2838

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PPQ (2015) Guidelines for the USDA-APHIS-PPQ weed risk assessment process. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ)

  • Radosavljevic A, Anderson RP (2014) Making better Maxent models of species distributions: complexity, overfitting and evaluation. J Biogeogr 41:629–643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Randall JM, Morse LE, Benton N et al (2008) The invasive species assessment protocol: a tool for creating regional and national lists of invasive nonnative plants that negatively impact biodiversity. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 1:36–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reichard SH, Hamilton CW (1997) Predicting invasions of woody plants introduced into North America. Conserv Biol 11:193–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricklefs RE, Miller GL (2000) Ecology, 4th edn. W. H. Freeman and Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson MP, Kriticos DJ, Zachariades C (2008) Climate matching techniques to narrow the search for biological control agents. Biol Control 46:442–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodda GH, Jarnevich CS, Reed RN et al (2011) Challenges in identifying sites climatically matched to the native ranges of animal invaders. PLoS ONE 6:e14670

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Roubicek AJ, Van Der Wal J, Beaumont LJ et al (2010) Does the choice of climate baseline matter in ecological niche modelling? Ecol Model 221:2280–2286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saha S, Moorthi S, Pan H-L et al (2010) The NCEP climate forecast system reanalysis. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 91:1015–1057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segurado P, Araújo MB, Kunin W (2006) Consequences of spatial autocorrelation for niche-based models. J Appl Ecol 43:433–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soberon J, Peterson AT (2005) Interpretation of models of fundamental ecological niches and species’ distributional areas. Biodivers Inf 2:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Springer YP, Jarnevich CS, Barnett DT et al (2015) Modeling the present and future geographic distribution of the Lone Star Tick, Amblyomma americanum (Ixodida: Ixodidae), in the continental United States. Am J Trop Med Hyg 93:875–890

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Sutherst RW, Maywald GF, Yonow T et al (1999) CLIMEX: predicting the effects of climate on plants and animals. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutherst RW, Maywald GF, Kriticos DJ (2007) CLIMEX version 3: user’s guide. Hearne Scientific Software Pty Ltd. http://www.Hearne.co-m.au

  • Synes NW, Osborne PE (2011) Choice of predictor variables as a source of uncertainty in continental-scale species distribution modelling under climate change. Global Ecol Biogeogr 20:904–914

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornley JH (1998) Modelling shoot [ratio] root relations: the only way forward? Ann Bot 81:165–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thuiller W, Lafourcade B, Engler R et al (2009) BIOMOD—a platform for ensemble forecasting of species distributions. Ecography 32:369–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trabucco A, Zomer R (2010) Global soil water balance geospatial database. CGIAR consortium for spatial information. Data set available on-line http://www.cgiar-csi.org

  • Václavík T, Kupfer JA, Meentemeyer RK (2012) Accounting for multi-scale spatial autocorrelation improves performance of invasive species distribution modelling (iSDM). J Biogeogr 39:42–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venette RC, Kriticos DJ, Magarey RD et al (2010) Pest risk maps for invasive alien species: a roadmap for improvement. Bioscience 60:349–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webber BL, Yates CJ, Le Maitre DC et al (2011) Modelling horses for novel climate courses: insights from projecting potential distributions of native and alien Australian acacias with correlative and mechanistic models. Divers Distrib 17:978–1000

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West AM, Kumar S, Brown CS et al (2016) Field validation of an invasive species Maxent model. Ecol Inf 36:126–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilks DS (1995) Statistical methods in the atmospheric sciences. Academic Press, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson JRU, Richardson DM, Rouget M et al (2007) Residence time and potential range: crucial considerations in modelling plant invasions. Divers Distrib 13:11–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank USDA-APHIS-PPQ for funding. We thank Dr. Jose Lopez-Collado, Department of Tropical Agroecosystems, Colegio de Postgraduados; Dr. Tony Arthur, Department of Agriculture, Australia; and Dr. Anna Szyniszewska, Rothamsted Research, UK for commenting on model results as part of the Model Inter-Comparison Focus group from the Seventh International Pest Risk Mapping Workgroup (now the International Pest Risk Research Group) held in Raleigh, NC, October, 2013. The first author would like to acknowledge USDA-NIFA AFRI Competitive Grants Program Food Security Challenge Area grant 2015-68004-23179. We thanks Nicholas Young of Colorado State University for reviewing the manuscript. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. We also would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Lisa Kohl

    Present address: USDA-APHIS-PIM, Riverdale, MD, 20737, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for IPM, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 27606, USA

    Roger Magarey, Seung Cheon Hong, Yu Takeuchi, David Christie & John Hastings

  2. USDA-APHIS-CPHST-PERAL, Raleigh, NC, 27606, USA

    Leslie Newton, Lisa Kohl, Leah Millar & Anthony L. Koop

  3. U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science Center, Fort Collins, CO, 80526, USA

    Catherine S. Jarnevich

  4. Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Ottawa, ON, K1A 0Y9, Canada

    Martin Damus & Karen Castro

  5. Plant Ecology, University of Bayreuth, 95447, Bayreuth, Germany

    Steven I. Higgins

  6. Natural Resource and Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 80523, USA

    Amanda West

  7. USDA-APHIS-CPHST, Fort Collins, CO, 80526, USA

    Gericke Cook

  8. Biota of North America Program, Chapel Hill, NC, 27516, USA

    John Kartesz

Authors
  1. Roger Magarey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Leslie Newton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Seung Cheon Hong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yu Takeuchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. David Christie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Catherine S. Jarnevich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Lisa Kohl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Martin Damus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Steven I. Higgins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Leah Millar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Karen Castro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Amanda West
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. John Hastings
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Gericke Cook
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. John Kartesz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Anthony L. Koop
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roger Magarey.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Magarey, R., Newton, L., Hong, S.C. et al. Comparison of four modeling tools for the prediction of potential distribution for non-indigenous weeds in the United States. Biol Invasions 20, 679–694 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-017-1567-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-017-1567-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation