The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Distinguishing geographical range shifts from artefacts of detectability and sampling effort

Distinguishing geographical range shifts from artefacts of detectability and sampling effort
Distinguishing geographical range shifts from artefacts of detectability and sampling effort
Aim:
The redistribution of species with climate change is well documented. Even so, the relative contribution of species detectability to the variation in measured range shift rates among species is poorly understood. How can true range shifts be discerned from sampling artefacts?

Location:
Australia.

Methods:
We simulate range shifts for species which differ in their abundance for comparison to patterns derived from empirical range shift data from two regional-scale (100s km) empirical studies. We demonstrate the use of spatial occupancy data in a distance-to-edge (DTE) model to assess changes in geographical range edges of fish species within a temperate reef fish community.

Results:
Simulations identified how sampling design can produce relatively larger error in range shift estimates in less abundant species, patterns that correspond with those observed in real data. Application of the DTE model allowed us to estimate the location of the true range edge with high accuracy in common species. In addition, upper confidence bounds for range edge estimates identified species with range edges that have likely shifted in location.

Conclusions:
Simulation and modelling approaches used to quantify the level of confidence that can be placed in observed range shifts are particularly valuable for studies of marine species, where observations are typically few and patchy. Given the observed variability in range shift estimates, the inclusion of confidence bounds on estimates of geographical range edges will advance our capacity to disentangle true distributional change from artefacts of sampling design.
Climate warming, extreme value statistics, range edge estimation, sampling methodology
1366-9516
13-22
Bates, Amanda E.
a96e267d-6d22-4232-b7ed-ce4e448a2a34
Bird, Tomas J.
763cc96b-c03e-422f-95cd-dc65c7491448
Stuart-Smith, Rick D.
0c540bfd-5366-4a45-9cef-b3b2afa9ac44
Wernberg, Thomas
bd368108-a7e1-4d4b-b4c2-6102aae7a7ff
Sunday, Jennifer M.
825c86f3-1fd5-45ad-a08d-804535daadf9
Barrett, Neville S.
a2858a4e-18c2-4aaa-ba4b-e3a3386abf44
Edgar, Graham J.
7269051b-fbec-4753-be8c-1bef22e7d4ec
Frusher, Stewart
70fc5213-9264-4f42-a368-fde6ff5b10b6
Hobday, Alistair J.
f3e96671-2bcf-4cc7-a69f-4e00607f4bb1
Pecl, Gretta T.
5c17c711-08b3-4fe2-b0e4-9c43613b7794
Smale, Dan A.
9be48b19-ad5f-4f40-87c8-e0bfa799584f
McCarthy, Michael
90e1fbbe-e914-45f1-bc35-acebf8d26f0f
Richardson, David M.
3fd36dcd-59ad-4371-9a83-17cc98c6ce81
Bates, Amanda E.
a96e267d-6d22-4232-b7ed-ce4e448a2a34
Bird, Tomas J.
763cc96b-c03e-422f-95cd-dc65c7491448
Stuart-Smith, Rick D.
0c540bfd-5366-4a45-9cef-b3b2afa9ac44
Wernberg, Thomas
bd368108-a7e1-4d4b-b4c2-6102aae7a7ff
Sunday, Jennifer M.
825c86f3-1fd5-45ad-a08d-804535daadf9
Barrett, Neville S.
a2858a4e-18c2-4aaa-ba4b-e3a3386abf44
Edgar, Graham J.
7269051b-fbec-4753-be8c-1bef22e7d4ec
Frusher, Stewart
70fc5213-9264-4f42-a368-fde6ff5b10b6
Hobday, Alistair J.
f3e96671-2bcf-4cc7-a69f-4e00607f4bb1
Pecl, Gretta T.
5c17c711-08b3-4fe2-b0e4-9c43613b7794
Smale, Dan A.
9be48b19-ad5f-4f40-87c8-e0bfa799584f
McCarthy, Michael
90e1fbbe-e914-45f1-bc35-acebf8d26f0f
Richardson, David M.
3fd36dcd-59ad-4371-9a83-17cc98c6ce81

Bates, Amanda E., Bird, Tomas J., Stuart-Smith, Rick D., Wernberg, Thomas, Sunday, Jennifer M., Barrett, Neville S., Edgar, Graham J., Frusher, Stewart, Hobday, Alistair J., Pecl, Gretta T., Smale, Dan A., McCarthy, Michael and Richardson, David M. (2015) Distinguishing geographical range shifts from artefacts of detectability and sampling effort. Diversity and Distributions, 21 (1), 13-22. (doi:10.1111/ddi.12263).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Aim:
The redistribution of species with climate change is well documented. Even so, the relative contribution of species detectability to the variation in measured range shift rates among species is poorly understood. How can true range shifts be discerned from sampling artefacts?

Location:
Australia.

Methods:
We simulate range shifts for species which differ in their abundance for comparison to patterns derived from empirical range shift data from two regional-scale (100s km) empirical studies. We demonstrate the use of spatial occupancy data in a distance-to-edge (DTE) model to assess changes in geographical range edges of fish species within a temperate reef fish community.

Results:
Simulations identified how sampling design can produce relatively larger error in range shift estimates in less abundant species, patterns that correspond with those observed in real data. Application of the DTE model allowed us to estimate the location of the true range edge with high accuracy in common species. In addition, upper confidence bounds for range edge estimates identified species with range edges that have likely shifted in location.

Conclusions:
Simulation and modelling approaches used to quantify the level of confidence that can be placed in observed range shifts are particularly valuable for studies of marine species, where observations are typically few and patchy. Given the observed variability in range shift estimates, the inclusion of confidence bounds on estimates of geographical range edges will advance our capacity to disentangle true distributional change from artefacts of sampling design.

Full text not available from this repository.

More information

e-pub ahead of print date: 1 October 2014
Published date: January 2015
Keywords: Climate warming, extreme value statistics, range edge estimation, sampling methodology
Organisations: Ocean and Earth Science

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 369816
URI: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/369816
ISSN: 1366-9516
PURE UUID: ca4bf210-6d7a-4ffb-8889-ed030abc053e

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 07 Oct 2014 09:56
Last modified: 17 Jul 2017 21:55

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Amanda E. Bates
Author: Tomas J. Bird
Author: Rick D. Stuart-Smith
Author: Thomas Wernberg
Author: Jennifer M. Sunday
Author: Neville S. Barrett
Author: Graham J. Edgar
Author: Stewart Frusher
Author: Alistair J. Hobday
Author: Gretta T. Pecl
Author: Dan A. Smale
Author: Michael McCarthy
Author: David M. Richardson

University divisions

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×