Export file:


  • RIS(for EndNote,Reference Manager,ProCite)
  • BibTex
  • Text


  • Citation Only
  • Citation and Abstract

Combining state-and-transition simulations and species distribution models to anticipate the effects of climate change

1 Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 80523-1499, USA;
2 Department of the Interior North Central Climate Science Center, Fort Collins, CO, 80523-1499, USA;
3 Apex Resource Management Solutions Ltd., Bowen Island, BC V0N 1G1, Canada;
4 Montana State University, Bozeman, MT, 59717, USA;
5 The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16802, USA;
6 U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior North Central Climate Science Center, Fort Collins, CO, 80523-1499, USA

Special Issues: 2nd State-and-Transition Simulation Modeling Conference

State-and-transition simulation models (STSMs) are known for their ability to explore the combined effects of multiple disturbances, ecological dynamics, and management actions on vegetation. However, integrating the additional impacts of climate change into STSMs remains a challenge. We address this challenge by combining an STSM with species distribution modeling (SDM). SDMs estimate the probability of occurrence of a given species based on observed presence and absence locations as well as environmental and climatic covariates. Thus, in order to account for changes in habitat suitability due to climate change, we used SDM to generate continuous surfaces of species occurrence probabilities. These data were imported into ST-Sim, an STSM platform, where they dictated the probability of each cell transitioning between alternate potential vegetation types at each time step. The STSM was parameterized to capture additional processes of vegetation growth and disturbance that are relevant to a keystone species in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem—whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis). We compared historical model runs against historical observations of whitebark pine and a key disturbance agent (mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae), and then projected the simulation into the future. Using this combination of correlative and stochastic simulation models, we were able to reproduce historical observations and identify key data gaps. Results indicated that SDMs and STSMs are complementary tools, and combining them is an effective way to account for the anticipated impacts of climate change, biotic interactions, and disturbances, while also allowing for the exploration of management options.
  Article Metrics

Keywords climate change; Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem; mountain pine beetle; spatially explicit simulation; ST-Sim; VisTrails:SAHM; whitebark pine

Citation: Brian W. Miller, Leonardo Frid, Tony Chang, Nathan Piekielek, Andrew J. Hansen, Jeffrey T. Morisette. Combining state-and-transition simulations and species distribution models to anticipate the effects of climate change. AIMS Environmental Science, 2015, 2(2): 400-426. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2015.2.400


  • 1. Miller BW, Morisette JT (2014) Integrating research tools to support resource management under climate change. Ecol Soc 19: 41.
  • 2. Guisan A, Thuiller W (2005) Predicting species distribution: Offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol Lett 8: 993-1009.    
  • 3. Sinclair SJ, White MD, Newell GR (2010) How useful are species distribution models for managing biodiversity under future climates? Ecol Soc 15: 8.
  • 4. Daniel CJ, Frid L (2012) Predicting landscape vegetation dynamics using state-and-transition simulation models, In: Kerns BK, Shlisky AJ, Daniel CJ, technical editors, Proc First Landscape State-and-Transition Sim Model Conf, June 14–16, 2011, Portland, OR, Gen Tech Rep PNW-GTR-869, Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 5-22.
  • 5. Franklin J (2009) Mapping species distributions: Spatial inference and prediction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • 6. Franklin J (2013) Species distribution models in conservation biogeography: Developments and challenges. Div Distr 19: 1217-1223.    
  • 7. Dobrowski SZ, Thorne JH, Greenberg JA, et al. (2011) Modeling plant ranges over 75 years of climate change in California, USA: Temporal transferability and species traits. Ecol Monogr 81:241-257.    
  • 8. Bell DM, Bradford JB, Lauenroth WK (2014) Early indicators of change: Divergent climate envelopes between tree life stages imply range shifts in the western United States. Global Ecol Biogeog 23: 168-180.    
  • 9. Stephenson NL (1998) Actual evapotranspiration and deficit: Biologically meaningful correlates of vegetation distribution across spatial scales. J Biogeogr 25: 855-870.    
  • 10. Benito-Garzón M, Ha-Duong M, Frascaria-Lacoste N, et al. (2013) Habitat restoration and climate change: Dealing with climate variability, incomplete data, and management decisions with tree translocations. Restor Ecol 21: 530-536.    
  • 11. Schwartz MW (2012) Using niche models with climate projections to inform conservation management decisions. Biol Cons 155: 149-156.    
  • 12. Iverson LR, Prasad AM, Matthews SN, et al. (2011) Lessons learned while integrating habitat, dispersal, disturbance, and life-history traits into species habitat models under climate change. Ecosystems 14: 1005-1020.    
  • 13. Westoby M, Walker B, Noy-Meir I (1989) Opportunistic management for rangelands not at equilibrium. J Range Manage 42: 266-274.    
  • 14. Bestelmeyer BT, Brown JR, Havstad KM, et al. (2003) Development and use of state-and-transition models for rangelands. J Range Manage 56: 114-126.    
  • 15. Stringham TK, Krueger WC, Shaver PL (2001) States, transitions, and thresholds: Further refinement for rangeland applications. Special Report Number 1024, Oregon State University Agricultural Experiment Station: 1-15.
  • 16. Parker DC, Manson SM, Janssen MA, et al. (2003) Multi-agent systems for the simulation of land-use and land-cover change: A review. Ann Assoc American Geogr 93: 314-337.    
  • 17. Li H, Reynolds JF (1997) Modeling effects of spatial pattern, drought, and grazing on rates of rangeland degradation: A combined Markov and cellular automaton approach, In: Quattrochi DA, Goodchild MF, editors, Scale in Remote Sensing and GIS, Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers,211-230.
  • 18. Balzter H, Braun PW, Köhler W (1998) Cellular automata models for vegetation dynamics. Ecol Model 107: 113-125.    
  • 19. Bestelmeyer BT, Goolsby DP, Archer SR (2011) Spatial perspectives in state-and-transition models: A missing link to land management? J Appl Ecol 48: 746-757.    
  • 20. Forbis TA, Provencher L, Frid L, et al. (2006) Great Basin land management planning using ecological modeling. Environ Manage 38: 62-83.    
  • 21. Provencher L, Forbis TA, Frid L, et al. (2007) Comparing alternative management strategies of fire, grazing, and weed control using spatial modeling. Ecol Model 209: 249-263.    
  • 22. Frid L, Wilmshurst JF (2009) Decision analysis to evaluate control strategies for Crested Wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum) in Grasslands National Park of Canada. Invasive Plant Sci Manage 2: 324-336.    
  • 23. Costanza JK, Hulcr J, Koch FH, et al. (2012) Simulating the effects of the southern pine beetle on regional dynamics 60 years into the future. Ecol Model 244: 93-103.    
  • 24. Keane RE, Holsinger LM, Parsons RA, et al. (2008) Climate change effects on historical range and variability of two large landscapes in western Montana, USA. Forest Ecol Manage 254:375-389.    
  • 25. Strand EK, Vierling LA, Bunting SC, et al. (2009) Quantifying successional rates in western aspen woodlands: Current conditions, future predictions. Forest Ecol Manage 257: 1705-1715.    
  • 26. Halofsky JE, Hemstrom MA, Conklin DR, et al. (2013) Assessing potential climate change effects on vegetation using a linked model approach. Ecol Model 266: 131-143.    
  • 27. Hemstrom MA, Halofsky JE, Conklin DR, et al. (2014) Developing climate-informed state-and-transition models, In: Halofsky JE, Creutzburg MK, Hemstrom MA, editors, Integrating Social, Economic, and Ecological Values Across Large Landscapes, Gen Tech Rep PNW-GTR-896, Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 175-202.
  • 28. Yospin GI, Bridgham SD, Neilson RP, et al. (2014) A new model to simulate climate change impacts on forest succession for local land management. Ecol Appl 25:226-242.
  • 29. Chang T, Hansen AJ, Piekielek N (2014) Patterns and variability of projected bioclimatic habitat for Pinus albicaulis in the Greater Yellowstone Area. PLoS ONE 9: e111669.    
  • 30. Whitlock C (1993) Postglacial vegetation and climate of Grand Teton and southern Yellowstone National Parks. Ecol Monogr 63: 173-198.    
  • 31. Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee Whitebark Pine Subcommittee (2011) Whitebark Pine Strategy for the Greater Yellowstone Area. US Dept of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Health Protection, and Grand Teton National Park.
  • 32. Gibson K, Skov K, Kegley S, et al. (2008) Mountain pine beetle impacts in high-elevation five-needle pines: current trends and challenges. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Health Protection.
  • 33. Larson ER, Kipfmueller KF (2012) Ecological disaster or the limits of observation? Reconciling modern declines with the long-term dynamics of whitebark pine communities. Geogr Compass 6:189-214.
  • 34. Romme WH, Turner MG (1991) Implications of global climate change for biogeographic patterns in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Conserv Biol 5: 373-386.    
  • 35. Bartlein PJ, Whitlock C, Shafer SL (1997) Future climate in the Yellowstone national park region and its potential impact on vegetation. Conserv Biol 11: 782-792.    
  • 36. Schrag AM, Bunn AG, Graumlich LJ (2008) Influence of bioclimatic variables on tree‐line conifer distribution in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem: Implications for species of conservation concern. J Biogeogr 35(4): 698-710.
  • 37. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2011) Whitebark pine to be designated a candidate for endangered species protection. Available from: http://www.fws.gov/Wyominges/Pages/Species/Findings/2011_WBP.html
  • 38. Freire J (2012) Making computations and publications reproducible with VisTrails. Comput Sci Eng 14: 18-25.    
  • 39. Morisette JT, Jarnevich CS, Holcombe TR, et al. (2013) VisTrails SAHM: Visualization and workflow management for species habitat modeling. Ecography 36: 129-135.    
  • 40. Lockman IB, DeNitto GA, Courter A, et al. (2007) WLIS: The whitebarklimber pine information system and what it can do for you. In: Proceedings of the Conference Whitebark Pine: A Pacific Coast Perspective. Ashland, OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 146-147.
  • 41. Greater Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring Working Group (2011) Interagency Whitebark Pine Monitoring Protocol for the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, Version 1.1. Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee, Bozeman, MT. Available from: http://fedgycc.org/documents/GYE.WBP.MonitoringProtocol.V1.1June2011.pdf
  • 42. Smith WB (2002) FIA: Forest inventory and analysis: a national inventory and monitoring program. Environ Pollut 116: S233-S242.    
  • 43. Gibson J, Moisen G, Frescino T, et al. (2014) Using publicly available forest inventory data in climate-based models of tree species distribution: Examining effects of true versus altered location coordinates. Ecosystems 17: 43-53.    
  • 44. Drake BG, Gonzàlez-Meler MA, Long SP (1997) More efficient plants: A consequence of rising atmospheric CO2? Annu Rev Plant Biol 48: 609-639.    
  • 45. 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.    
  • 46. Voldoire A, Sanchez-Gomez E, Salas y Mélia, et al. (2013) The CNRM-CM5. 1 global climate model: Description and basic evaluation. Clim Dynam 40: 2091-2121.
  • 47. Martin GM, Bellouin N, Collins WJ, et al. (2011) The HadGEM2 family of met office unified model climate configurations. Geosci Model Dev 4: 723-757.    
  • 48. Deser C, Phillips AS, Alexander MA, et al. (2014) Projecting North American climate over the next 50 years: Uncertainty due to internal variability. J Climate 27: 2271-2296.    
  • 49. Apex Resource Management Solutions (2014) ST-Sim state-and-transition simulation model software. Available from: www.apexrms.com/stsm
  • 50. Rollins MG (2009) LANDFIRE: A nationally consistent vegetation, wildland fire, and fuel assessment. Int J Wildland Fire 18: 235-249.    
  • 51. Landenburger L, Lawrence RL, Podruzny S, et al. (2008) Mapping regional distribution of a single tree species: Whitebark Pine in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Sensors 8: 4983-4994.    
  • 52. Aukema BH, Carroll AL, Zhu J, et al. (2006) Landscape level analysis of mountain pine beetle in British Columbia, Canada: Spatiotemporal development and spatial synchrony within the present outbreak. Ecography 29: 427-441.    
  • 53. An L, Linderman M, Qi J, et al. (2005) Exploring complexity in a human-environment system: An agent-based spatial model for multidisciplinary and multiscale integration. Ann Assoc American Geogr 95, 54-79.
  • 54. Miller BW, Breckheimer I, McCleary AL, et al. (2010) Using stylized agent-based models for population-environment research: a case study from the Galápagos Islands. Popul Environ 31:401-426.    
  • 55. Frid L, Hanna D, Korb N, et al. (2013) Evaluating alternative weed management strategies for three Montana landscapes. Invasive Plant Sci Manage 6: 48-59.    
  • 56. Frid L, Holcombe T, Morisette JT, et al. (2013) Using state-and-transition modeling to account for imperfect detection in invasive species management. Invasive Plant Sci Manage 6: 36-47.    
  • 57. Windrum P, Fagiolo G, Moneta A (2007) Empirical validation of agent-based models: Alternatives and prospects. J Artif Soc Soc Simulat 10: 8.
  • 58. Oreskes N, Shrader-Frechette K, Belitz K (1994) Verification, validation, and confirmation of numerical models in the earth sciences. Science 263: 641-646.    
  • 59. Oreskes N (1998) Evaluation (not validation) of quantitative models. Environmental Health Perspectives 106: 1453-1460.    
  • 60. Grimm V, Revilla E, Berger U, et al. (2005) Pattern-oriented modeling of agent-based complex systems: Lessons from ecology. Science 310: 987-991.    
  • 61. Jørgensen SE (1986) Fundamentals of Ecological Modelling. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  • 62. Macfarlane WW, Logan JA, Kern WR (2009) Using the landscape assessment system (LAS) to assess mountain pine beetle-caused mortality of whitebark pine, Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, 2009. Project report prepared for the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee, Whitebark Pine Subcommittee, Jackson, WY.
  • 63. Shanahan E, Irvine KM, Roberts D, et al. (2014) Status of whitebark pine in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem: A step-trend analysis comparing 2004-2007 to 2008- 2011. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/GRYN/NRTR—2014/917. Fort Collins, CO: National Park Service.
  • 64. Régnière J, Bentz BJ (2007) Modeling cold tolerance in the mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus pondersoae. J Insect Physiol 53: 559-572.    
  • 65. Logan JA, Macfarlane WW, Wilcox L (2010) Whitebark pine vulnerability to climate-driven mountain pine beetle disturbance in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Ecol Appl 20: 895-902.    
  • 66. Keane RE (2001) Successional dynamics: Modeling an anthropogenic threat, In: Tomback DF, Arno SF, Keane RE, editors, Whitebark Pine Communities: Ecology and Restoration. Washington, DC: Island Press, 159-192.
  • 67. Whitlock C, Millspaugh, SH (2001) A paleoecologic perspective on past plant invasions in Yellowstone. West N Am Naturalist 61: 316-327.
  • 68. LANDFIRE (Landscape Fire and Resource Management Planning Tools Project) dataset. Available online at www.landfire.gov.
  • 69. Teste FP, Lieffers VJ, Landhausser SM (2011) Viability of forest floor and canopy seed banks in Pinus contorta var. latifoia (Pinaceas) forests after a mountain pine beetle outbreak. American Journal of Botany 98: 630-637.
  • 70. MTBS (Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity) dataset. Available from: at www.mtbs.gov.
  • 71. USFS (United States Forest Service), Species life history information. Available from: www.fs.fed.us.
  • 72. Johnson EA, Fryer GI (1996) Why Engelmann spruce does not have a persistent seed bank. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 26: 872-878    
  • 73. Hatala JA, Crabtree, RL (2009) Modelling the spread of blister rust in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Nutcracker Notes, Whitebark Pine Ecosystem Foundation 16: 17-18.


This article has been cited by

  • 1. Catherine S. Jarnevich, Tracy R. Holcombe, Catherine Cullinane Thomas, Leonardo Frid, Aaryn Olsson, Simulating long-term effectiveness and efficiency of management scenarios for an invasive grass, AIMS Environmental Science, 2015, 2, 2, 427, 10.3934/environsci.2015.2.427
  • 2. Colin J. Daniel, Leonardo Frid, Benjamin M. Sleeter, Marie-Josée Fortin, Darren Kriticos, State-and-transition simulation models: a framework for forecasting landscape change, Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 2016, 10.1111/2041-210X.12597
  • 3. R. S. SILVA, L. KUMAR, F. SHABANI, M. C. PICANÇO, Assessing the impact of global warming on worldwide open field tomato cultivation through CSIRO-Mk3·0 global climate model, The Journal of Agricultural Science, 2016, 1, 10.1017/S0021859616000654
  • 4. Helen R. Sofaer, Joseph J. Barsugli, Catherine S. Jarnevich, John T. Abatzoglou, Marian K. Talbert, Brian W. Miller, Jeffrey T. Morisette, Designing ecological climate change impact assessments to reflect key climatic drivers, Global Change Biology, 2017, 10.1111/gcb.13653
  • 5. Colin J. Daniel, Michael T. Ter-Mikaelian, B. Mike Wotton, Bronwyn Rayfield, Marie-Josée Fortin, Incorporating uncertainty into forest management planning: Timber harvest, wildfire and climate change in the boreal forest, Forest Ecology and Management, 2017, 400, 542, 10.1016/j.foreco.2017.06.039
  • 6. Brian W. Miller, Amy J. Symstad, Leonardo Frid, Nicholas A. Fisichelli, Gregor W. Schuurman, Co-producing simulation models to inform resource management: a case study from southwest South Dakota, Ecosphere, 2017, 8, 12, e02020, 10.1002/ecs2.2020
  • 7. Tyler A. Beeton, Shannon M. McNeeley, Brian W. Miller, Dennis S. Ojima, Grounding simulation models with qualitative case studies: Toward a holistic framework to make climate science usable for US public land management, Climate Risk Management, 2018, 10.1016/j.crm.2018.09.002
  • 8. Paulette L. Ford, Matthew C. Reeves, Leonardo Frid, A Tool for Projecting Rangeland Vegetation Response to Management and Climate, Rangelands, 2018, 10.1016/j.rala.2018.10.010
  • 9. Arjun Adhikari, Andrew J. Hansen, Imtiaz Rangwala, Ecological Water Stress under Projected Climate Change across Hydroclimate Gradients in the North-Central United States, Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 2019, 58, 9, 2103, 10.1175/JAMC-D-18-0149.1
  • 10. Virgil Iordache, , Plant Microbiome Paradigm, 2020, Chapter 11, 191, 10.1007/978-3-030-50395-6_11

Reader Comments

your name: *   your email: *  

Copyright Info: 2015, Brian W. Miller, et al., licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licese (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)

Download full text in PDF

Export Citation

Copyright © AIMS Press All Rights Reserved