Exploring spatial nonstationarity for four mammal species reveals regional variation in environmental relationships

Abstract

Abstract Broad‐scale ecological research on species distributions commonly presumes that the correlative relationships discovered are stationary over space. This is an assumption of most species distribution models (SDMs) that combine observations of species occurrence with environmental characteristics to understand current ecological correlates and to predict distributions based on those relationships. However, ecological relationships may vary spatially because of changes in the environment (i.e., resource availability) or the organism itself (i.e., local adaptation). Discovering this within‐species variation typically requires dense datasets over large geographic areas, which are now being provided by the recent proliferation of open‐access biodiversity occurrence records. Using nearly 4000 sampling locations from an open‐access, state‐wide camera‐trapping project, we explore the space‐varying effects of covariates on the distribution of four mammal species at two scales: region‐specific and fine resolution, with the latter estimated using spatially varying coefficients (SVC) models, to understand the scale of spatial variation in ecological relationships. Among the four species tested, the ecological relationships for two were best explained with the regional models, equivocal results for one species, while the SVC model had superior fit and predictive performance for the final species (white‐tailed deer, Odocoileus virginianus). Spatial nonstationarity was more common in relationships with landscape composition characteristics, such as housing density, than in landscape configuration metrics, such as patch richness density. One of the most appealing results of an SVC approach is not only the improved predictions across large landscapes but also understanding how animals are responding to the environment differently at the management unit level. For example, we found that deer's spatially varying relationship with forest cover was best explained by an interactive effect of deer management units (i.e., differences in deer populations) and predator pressure. These findings lead to a new hypothesis about how deer may be differentially using forested environments across space and could be a promising area of future research. Given sufficient data, accounting for nonstationarity in SDMs can show large‐scale ecological patterns while also detecting local level changes in animal ecology in areas small enough that management or protection can be readily implemented.

Keywords

• spatial nonstationarity
• species distributions
• species–environment relationships