Species distribution models and empirical test: Comparing predictions with well-understood geographical distribution of Bothrops alternatus in Argentina

Species distribution models (SDMs) estimate the geographical distribution of species although with several limitations due to sources of inaccuracy and biases. Empirical tests arose as the most important steps in scientific knowledge to assess the efficiency of model predictions, which are poorly rigorous in SDMs. A good approach to the empirical distribution (ED) of a species can be obtained from comprehensive empirical knowledge, that is, well-understood distributions gathered from large amount of data generated with appropriate spatial and temporal samples coverage. The aims of this study were to (a) compare different SDMs predictions with an ED; and (b) evaluate if fuzzy global matching (FGM) could be used as an index to compare SDMs predictions and ED. Six algorithms with 5 and 20 variables were used to assess their accuracy in predicting the ED of the venomous snake Bothrops alternatus (Viperidae). Its entire distribution is known, thanks to thorough field surveys across Argentina, with 1,767 records. ED was compared with SDMs predictions using Map Comparison Kit. SDMs predictions showed important biases in all methods used, from 70% sub-estimation to 40% over-estimation of ED. BIOCLIM predicted ≈31% of B. alternatus ED. DOMAIN predicted 99% of ED, but over-estimated 40% of the area. GLM with five variables calculated 75% of ED, while Genetic Algorithm for Rule-set Prediction showed ≈60% of ED; the last two presenting overpredictions in areas with favorable climatic conditions but not inhabited by the species. MaxEnt and RF were the only methods to detect isolated populations in the southern distribution of B. alternatus. Although SDMs proved useful in making predictions about species distribution, predictions need validation with expert maps knowledge and ED. Moreover, FGM showed a good performance as an index with values similar to True Skill Statistic, so that it could be used to relate ED and SDMs predictions.Fil: Sarquis, Juan Andrés. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Santa Fe. Instituto Nacional de Limnología. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Instituto Nacional de Limnología; ArgentinaFil: Cristaldi, Maximiliano Ariel. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Santa Fe. Instituto Nacional de Limnología. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Instituto Nacional de Limnología; ArgentinaFil: Arzamendia, Vanesa. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Santa Fe. Instituto Nacional de Limnología. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Instituto Nacional de Limnología; ArgentinaFil: Bellini, Gisela Paola. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Santa Fe. Instituto Nacional de Limnología. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Instituto Nacional de Limnología; ArgentinaFil: Giraudo, Alejandro Raul. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Santa Fe. Instituto Nacional de Limnología. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Instituto Nacional de Limnología; Argentin