Climate variables are not the dominant predictor of Arctic shorebird distributions

• Published in: PloS one 2023-05, Vol.18 (5), p.e0285115-e0285115
• Main Authors: Anderson, Christine M, Fahrig, Lenore, Rausch, Jennie, Smith, Paul A
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Aquatic birds; Arctic Regions; Biology and Life Sciences; Birds; Climate; Climate Change; Climate effects; Climate models; Climate prediction; Climatic changes; Conservation; Conservation of Natural Resources; Earth Sciences; Ecology and Environmental Sciences; Ecosystem; Engineering and Technology; Environmental aspects; Evaluation; Forecasting; Habitats; Humans; Hypotheses; Influence; Land cover; Land use; Modelling; Physical Sciences; Polar environments; Precipitation; Protected areas; Research and Analysis Methods; Sustainable development; Threat evaluation; Variables; Wildlife conservation
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285115

Competing theoretical perspectives about whether or not climate is the dominant factor influencing species' distributions at large spatial scales have important consequences when habitat suitability models are used to address conservation problems. In this study, we tested how much variables in addition to climate help to explain habitat suitability for Arctic-breeding shorebirds. To do this we model species occupancy using path analyses, which allow us to estimate the indirect effects of climate on other predictor variables, such as land cover. We also use deviance partitioning to quantify the total relative importance of climate versus additional predictors in explaining species occupancy. We found that individual land cover variables are often stronger predictors than the direct and indirect effects of climate combined. In models with both climate and additional variables, on average the additional variables accounted for 57% of the explained deviance, independent of shared effects with the climate variables. Our results support the idea that climate-only models may offer incomplete descriptions of current and future habitat suitability and can lead to incorrect conclusions about the size and location of suitable habitat. These conclusions could have important management implications for designating protected areas and assessing threats like climate change and human development.