Next Article in Journal
Using Social Media Camping Data for Evaluating, Quantifying, and Understanding Recreational Ecosystem Services in Post-COVID-19 Megacities: A Case Study from Beijing
Previous Article in Journal
Study on the Effects of Selected Factors on the Diagonal Tensile Strength of Oblique Corner Furniture Joints Constructed by Wood Dowel
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forests
Volume 14
Issue 6
10.3390/f14061150
forests-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Future Range Dynamics Suggest Increasing Threats of Grey Squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis) against Red Squirrels (Sciurus vulgaris) in Europe: A Perspective on Climatic Suitability

by
Peixiao Nie
1,2,3,
Rujing Yang
1,2 and
Jianmeng Feng
1,*
1
College of Agriculture and Biological Science, Dali University, Dali 671003, China
2
Research Center for Agroecology, Erhai Lake Watershed of Dali University, Dali 671003, China
3
Cangshan Forest Ecosystem Observation and Research Station of Yunnan Province, Dali University, Dali 671003, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2023, 14(6), 1150; https://doi.org/10.3390/f14061150
Submission received: 26 April 2023 / Revised: 26 May 2023 / Accepted: 28 May 2023 / Published: 2 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Forest Ecology and Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Interactions between the introduced gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) and the native red squirrel (S. vulgaris) play an important role in the ecological equilibrium of European forest ecosystems. However, the range dynamics of the grey squirrel and red squirrel under future climate change scenarios remain unknown. The present study examined the range dynamics of grey squirrels and red squirrels in Europe and their range overlap now and in the future based on climate change. Under the most optimistic climate change scenario (SSP126), expansion of the grey squirrel’s range was mainly predicted in Germany, France, Croatia, Serbia, and Bulgaria. Under the most pessimistic climate change scenario (SSP585), expansion of the grey squirrel’s range was predicted in vast and scattered regions. Additionally, France, Italy, and Germany were overlapping ranges for the grey squirrel and red squirrel in the future under the SSP126 scenario but not under the current conditions, suggesting that there will be new regions where grey squirrels may threaten red squirrels in the future under SSP126. The range overlaps under the SSP585 scenario but not under the current conditions were vast and scattered, suggesting that there will be new regions in the future where grey squirrel may displace red squirrels under SSP585. Despite considerable variation, we detected expansions in the grey squirrel and red squirrel ranges and an increase in overlapping ranges between grey squirrels and red squirrels in the future. Therefore, our prediction suggests increasing threats of grey squirrels toward red squirrels in Europe in the future under climate change, which may impact the ecological equilibrium of European forest ecosystems.

1. Introduction

Biological invasion causes adverse effects on ecosystems [1,2], the economy, and human health [3,4], particularly loss of global biodiversity [5,6]. Although human activities, such as international trade and transport, promote worldwide biological invasions [7], global climate change is also playing a role, and recent studies have shown that global climate change is a primary factor responsible for the global distribution of invasive species and their shifts in the future [8,9,10,11,12,13]. Therefore, understanding the impacts of climate change on biological invasions and the underlying mechanisms are key challenges for ecological research and conservation biology [9,14].
Investigating the range dynamics of alien invasive species (AIS) and the underlying mechanisms is of great significance since efficient strategies against biological invasions can be developed [15,16,17,18]. Therefore, an essential need is to project the range dynamics of AIS under future climate change scenarios [19,20,21]. Previous studies have shown that the ranges of AIS may be modified by future climate change, probably because AIS will track their once-occupied climatic-suitable habitats, and climate change could reallocate suitable habitats [12,22,23]. Most studies have shown that climate change will promote biological invasions [8,12,22,23,24]. However, de Albuquerque et al. (2019) reported that climate change may cause a contraction of the potential range of highly invasive buffelgrass (Cenchrus ciliaris L.) [25]. Additionally, Gong et al. (2020) showed that climate change could have two-sided effects on the potential ranges of AIS, possibly because the impacts of climate change on the potential ranges of AIS will be species-specific [20]. Therefore, the dynamics of the potential ranges of AIS under climate change remain controversial, so further investigations are needed [8].
Range overlap between AIS and native species is important since overlaps are generally closely associated with inter-specific competition [26], food web dynamics [27], the persistence of less competitive species [27,28], and conservation initiatives [29]. Therefore, it is essential to understand range overlaps between AIS and native species and the underlying mechanisms. As discussed above, climate change may change the range dynamics of AIS; hence, it is reasonable to infer that climate change could modify the range overlap of native species and AIS.
The introduced grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) is impacting the equilibrium of European forest ecosystems by breaking trophic cascades of European forest ecosystems between herbivores and plants [30]. As an invader from North America, the grey squirrel was first introduced into Europe in 1892 [31], and it has reportedly posed a huge threat to the red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris), a sympatric rodent native to Europe. In addition to competition against red squirrels [32,33,34], grey squirrels have considerably displaced red squirrels by passing helminth [35,36] and pathogenic squirrelpox virus (SQPV) infections [37,38,39]. Many studies have investigated the invasions of grey squirrels and their threats to the survival of red squirrel populations in Europe [34,37,40,41,42]. Additionally, a variety of studies have focused their attention on the interactions between red squirrels and grey squirrels [43], including the effects of habitat fragmentation on interspecific competition [42], the differentiation of niche use between grey squirrels and red squirrels [28], resource partitioning between grey squirrels and red squirrels [34], and the ranges of grey squirrels in Europe [44,45]. These studies have provided essential information for countering the competition between grey squirrels and red squirrels and developing conservation strategies for red squirrels in Europe.
Notably, many studies have explored the range dynamics or distribution patterns of grey squirrels [41,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51]. These studies have promoted our understanding of the spatial patterns of grey squirrels and threats against red squirrels. Nevertheless, most of these studies investigated the roles of non-climatic factors, such as population dynamic metrics, vegetation, and land cover, in the range dynamics or distribution patterns of grey squirrels, whereas the effects of climate have received little attention, despite vegetation patterns and land cover being closely associated with climate change [52,53,54], which in turn has shuffled the distribution or range dynamics of grey squirrels [55,56].
Di Febbraro et al. (2016, 2019) used species distribution models (SDMs) to investigate range dynamics of the grey squirrel and provided important information for developing strategies against grey squirrel invasions [44,45]. However, they did not investigate the potential range overlap between red squirrels and grey squirrels or shifts in the ranges under climate change. In the present study, we assumed that climate change will induce changes in the grey squirrel and red squirrel ranges, resulting in considerable shifts in range overlap between them.
In summary, climate change may induce changes in the ranges of grey squirrels and red squirrels, resulting in shifts in the range overlaps between them, which could modify their interactions and the survival of red squirrels in Europe. Here, from a perspective on climatic suitability, we developed range-dynamic models to examine the range dynamics of grey squirrels and red squirrels, and we determined the degree of range overlap between them under a climate change scenario. The results provide novel information for developing strategies to counter the invasion of grey squirrels and to conserve red squirrels in Europe in the future.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Species Occurrence Records

We downloaded 674,269 occurrence records for grey squirrels (176,095) and 497,874 records for red squirrels from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (accessed on 1 May 2021). Then, we refined the dataset by removing the occurrence records with uncertainty in the geographical coordinates >10 km. To account for the effects of spatial autocorrelation, we applied SDMtoolbox software, version 2.0, to spatially rarefy the occurrence records with a radius of 10 km [57,58]. We obtained 13,477 occurrence records, including the occurrence records for grey squirrels (1352) and red squirrels (12,125) in Europe (Figure 1, Online dataset 1).

2.2. Climatic Predictors

We downloaded the spatial layers of 19 bioclimatic predictors for the current conditions (an average of the 1970–2000 values) with a spatial resolution of 5 arc min from WorldClim 2.1 [59]. Then, we retrieved the spatial layers of 19 bioclimatic predictors for the future climate change scenarios (2100) at a spatial resolution of 5 arc min, in which we adopted two General Circulation Models (GCMs), FIO-ESM-2-0 and MPI-ESM1-2-HR, which are robust and complementary [60]. Additionally, due to strong influences of climatic change (scenarios) on the range shifts of grey squirrels and red squirrels (and other small mammals of forests) [45,61], we selected SSP126 and SSP585 to represent the most optimistic and pessimistic climatic change scenarios, respectively. In summary, we obtained four climatic change scenarios, including SSP126 derived from FIO-ESM-2-0 (F126) and MPI-ESM1-2-HR (M126) and SSP585 derived from FIO-ESM-2-0 (F585) and MPI-ESM1-2-HR (M585).

2.3. Climatic Predictors in the Ecological Niche Models (ENMs)

With reference to Liu et al. (2020), we used the following methodologies to reduce the effects of multi-collinearity among the climatic predictors in the ecological niche models for projecting the potential grey squirrel and red squirrel ranges [17]. First, biomod2, an assembled ecological niche model platform [62], was used to build the preliminary ecological niche models to estimate the relative importance values of the 19 predictors (Table S1). Second, Pearson’s pairwise correlation analyses were conducted to identify the collinearity among the 19 predictors, in which the threshold of collinearity was a correlation coefficient ≥0.7 [63] (Table S2). Then, we removed the predictor with smaller relative importance in each pair of predictors that showed collinearity. We ended these processes when strong collinearity was not observed. The retained climatic predictors were found in Table S3.

2.4. Potential Ranges of Grey Squirrels and Red Squirrels

Using the occurrence records of grey squirrels and the current spatial layers of the retained climatic predictors for grey squirrels (Table S3), we applied Biomod2, an ensemble platform for ecological niche models [62], to develop ecological niche models to project the potential ranges of grey squirrels in Europe. Seven algorithms were applied: classification tree analysis, artificial neural networks, flexible discriminant analysis, a maximum entropy model, a generalized additive model, a generalized boosting model, and the random forest classifier [63]. We followed the method recommended by Barbet-Massin et al. (2012) to retrieve pseudo-existence records (PAs) [64]; i.e., if the number of occurrence records was <1000, we randomly selected 1000 PAs, or we randomly selected an equal number of PAs. We obtained the importance values for each predictor using these ecological niche models. A similar method was applied to project the potential ranges of grey squirrels in future scenarios, in which we used the occurrence records of grey squirrels and the retained climatic predictor spatial layers in future scenarios. This method was applicable for projecting the potential ranges of reds squirrel under the current conditions and in future scenarios.
We used a five-time cross-validation procedure to evaluate the reliability of the ecological niche models. In this procedure, we used 70% of the occurrence records to develop the ecological niche models and the remaining 30% to assess the reliability of the ecological niche models. To guarantee the reliability of the ensemble ecological niche models, we only retained the ecological niche models with areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) >0.8 or true skill statistics (TSS) >0.7 [65]. The maximization sensitivity-specificity sum threshold (MSS threshold) was applied to calibrate the potential ranges of each species. This MSS threshold approach considers both the sensitivity and specificity of models, as well their sum, and the threshold is determined by maximizing the sum of sensitivity and specificity [66]. This threshold approach has shown good performance in a comparative study of the thresholds [67].

2.5. Range Shifts and Overlap of Grey Squirrels and Red Squirrels

We developed a dynamic range model to investigate the range shifts in grey squirrels and red squirrels. In this model, we divided all ranges of a species into three elements: range unfilling (RU), range stability (RS), and range expansion (RE). RU was defined as the range potentially occupied only by a species under the current conditions. RS was defined as the range potentially occupied by a species under the current conditions and in future scenarios. RE was defined as the range potentially occupied by a species only in future scenarios. The range of a species in a future scenario (RF) was defined as the sum of RE and RS, and the range of a species under the current conditions (RC) was defined as the sum of RS and RU.
Range ratio (RR) [68] is an index reflecting the changes in range sizes of a species from current conditions to future scenarios, and it could be calculated as follows:
R R = R F R C
Range similarity index (RSI) [68] is an index representing the changes in range centroids of a species from current conditions to future scenarios, and it could be calculated as follows:
R S I = 2 R S R C + R F
Additionally, we overlapped the potential ranges of grey squirrels and red squirrels under the current conditions and in the future climate change scenarios to identify the regions requiring attention to strategize against grey squirrels under the current conditions and in future scenarios.

3. Results

3.1. Performance of Ecological Niche Models and the Maximization Sensitivity-Specificity Sum Threshold

All ecological niche models showed excellent performance: areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve and true skill statistics for grey squirrels (red squirrels) were 0.99 (0.92) and 0.97 (0.69), respectively, exceeding their respective thresholds. The maximization sensitivity–specificity sum thresholds for determining the potential ranges of grey squirrels and red squirrels under the current conditions were 0.49 and 0.50, respectively. Under the scenarios of F126, F585, M126, and M585, the maximization sensitivity-specificity sum thresholds for calibrating the potential ranges of grey squirrels were 0.32, 0.03, 0.43, and 0.01, respectively, and those under the scenarios of F126, F585, M126, and M585 were 0.40, 0.22, 0.43, and 0.34, respectively.

3.2. Predictors Responsible for the Potential Ranges of Grey Squirrels and Red Squirrels

Our ecological niche models showed that, for the potential ranges of grey squirrels, the mean temperature of the coldest quarter had the highest importance value (0.474), followed by temperature seasonality (0.328), while precipitation of the wettest quarter showed the lowest importance value (0.011), followed by the mean temperature of the wettest quarter (0.016) (Table S3). The species response curve indicated that grey squirrel habitat suitability increased with the increase in the mean temperature of the coldest quarter (Figure 2a). The most important predictors of the potential ranges of red squirrels were temperature seasonality (0.638), followed by mean temperature of the warmest quarter (0.109), whereas the mean diurnal range (0.032) and precipitation seasonality (0.031) were the least important predictors (Table S3). The species response curve showed that habitat suitability for red squirrels roughly decreased with the increase in temperature seasonality (Figure 2b). In summary, the most important predictors for the potential climatic change ranges of both species were temperature-related variables.

3.3. Potential Ranges of Grey Squirrels and Red Squirrels

Under the current conditions, the potential ranges of grey squirrels were mainly observed in the entire territory of the UK, Ireland, and scattered regions of northern Italy, covering 33.45 × 104 km2 (Figure 3a). The potential ranges of red squirrels under the current conditions were predicted to be western Europe, Estonia, and some scattered regions in eastern Europe, covering 262.41 × 104 km2 (Figure 3b).
The potential ranges of grey squirrels under the F126 scenario were identified in Iceland, Ireland, the UK, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Croatia, Serbia, and Bulgaria, covering 65.00 × 104 km2 (Figure 4a). Under the M126 scenario, the potential ranges of grey squirrels were observed in the UK, Ireland, Serbia, Italy, Croatia, and Bulgaria, covering 44.86 × 104 km2 (Figure 4b). Under the F585 scenario, the potential ranges of grey squirrels were in Iceland, Ireland, the UK, Spain, Portugal, France, Norway, Sweden, most of southern Europe, and the southwest part of Russia, covering 424.88 × 104 km2 (Figure 4c). The potential ranges of grey squirrels under the M585 scenario were similar to those under F585, covering 519.77 × 104 km2 (Figure 4d).
Under the F126 scenario, the potential ranges of red squirrels were mainly predicted to be in western Europe, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Estonia, covering 297.25 × 104 km2 (Figure 4e). The potential ranges of red squirrels under the M126 scenario were similar to those under the F126 scenario, covering 304.60 × 104 km2 (Figure 4f). Under the F585 scenario, the potential ranges of red squirrels were in western Europe, northern Europe, and northwest Russia, covering 449.87 × 104 km2 (Figure 4g). The potential ranges of red squirrels under the M585 scenario were similar to those under the F585 scenario, covering 328.21 × 104 km2(Figure 4h).

3.4. Range Dynamics of Grey Squirrels and Red Squirrels

Our range models showed that, under the F126 scenario, expansion of the grey squirrel ranges mainly occurred in Iceland, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Italy, Croatia, Serbia, and Bulgaria, covering 32.41 × 104 km2 (Figure 5a), and stable ranges were observed in Ireland and the UK, covering 32.59 × 104 km2 (Figure 5a). Range unfilling was mainly projected in a small part of the eastern UK, covering 0.85 × 104 km2 (Figure 5a). Additionally, the range ratio and range similarity index were 1.94 and 0.66, respectively. Expansion of the grey squirrel ranges was observed under the M126 scenario in Germany, France, Croatia, Serbia, and Bulgaria, covering 14.16 × 104 km2 (Figure 5b), and stable ranges were detected in Ireland and the UK, covering 30.69 × 104 km2 (Figure 5b). Range unfilling was projected in the UK and a small part of western France, and Italy, covering 2.75 × 104 km2 (Figure 5b). Additionally, the range ratio and range similarity index were 1.34 and 0.78, respectively. Under the F585 scenario, expansion of the grey squirrel range was observed in Iceland, southwest Russia, eastern Europe, Austria, Italy, eastern France, Spain, Portugal, eastern Germany, southern Sweden, and the coastal regions of Norway, covering 396.41 × 104 km2 (Figure 5c), and stable ranges were identified in Ireland and the UK, covering 28.40 × 104 km2 (Figure 5c). Range unfilling was mainly projected in the eastern part of the UK, covering 5.04 × 104 km2 (Figure 5c). Additionally, the range ratio and range similarity index were 12.70 and 0.12, respectively. The range dynamics of grey squirrels under the M585 scenario were similar to those under the F585 scenario, covering 486.39 × 104, 33.29 × 104, and 0.15 × 104 km2, respectively, and the range ratio and range similarity index were 15.54 and 0.12, respectively, (Figure 5d).
Under the F126 scenario, the red squirrel ranges expanded in a scattered pattern but were observed in Iceland, the UK, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, and the northwest coast of Russia, covering 65.69 × 104 km2 (Figure 5e), and range unfilling was also detected in a scattered pattern, and was mainly observed in Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, and Spain, covering 30.86 × 104 km2 (Figure 5e). The ranges were stable in most of western Europe, covering 231.50 × 104 km2 (Figure 5e). Additionally, the range ratio and range similarity index were 1.13 and 0.83, respectively. Under the M126 scenario, the red squirrel ranges expanded in eastern Europe, Finland, Sweden, and western Russia, covering 70.86 × 104 km2 (Figure 5f), and the pattern of the stable ranges was similar to those under the F126 scenario, covering 233.69 × 104 km2 (Figure 5f). Range unfilling was primarily observed in Spain, Finland, and Estonia, covering 28.68 × 104 km2 (Figure 5f). Additionally, the range ratio and range similarity index were 1.16 and 0.82, respectively. The red squirrel ranges expanded under the F585 scenario in Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Norway, Sweden, and northwest Russia, covering 242.54 × 104 km2 (Figure 5g), and the ranges were stable in western Europe, covering 207.25 × 104 km2 (Figure 5g). Range unfilling was detected in a scattered pattern and was mainly predicted in Portugal, Spain, southwest Finland, Sweden, East Germany, Romania, and Italy, covering 55.11 × 104 km2 (Figure 5g). Additionally, the range ratio and range similarity index were 1.71 and 0.58, respectively. Under the M585 scenario, the expansion, stability, and unfilling of the red squirrel ranges were similar to those under the F585 scenario, covering 142.58 × 104, 185.57 × 104, and 76.80 × 104 km2 (Figure 5h), respectively, with range ratio and range similarity index values of 1.25 and 0.63, respectively.

3.5. Range Overlap between Grey Squirrel and Red Squirrel

The ranges of grey squirrels and red squirrels overlapped under the current conditions in Ireland and the UK, covering 30.40 × 104 km2 (Figure 6a). Under the F126 scenario, the ranges of grey squirrels and red squirrels overlapped in Ireland, the UK, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Croatia, and peripheral regions of Iceland, covering 48.90 × 104 km2 (Figure 6b). Under the M126 scenario, the ranges of grey squirrels and red squirrels overlapped in Ireland, the UK, Italy, and Croatia, covering 35.64 × 104 km2 (Figure 6c). Under the F585 scenario, the ranges of grey squirrels and red squirrels ranges overlapped in a scattered pattern in Iceland, Ireland, the UK, France, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Italy, Austria, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Russia, and Slovenia, covering 128.86 × 104 km2 (Figure 6d). The overlap between the ranges of grey squirrels and red squirrels under the M585 scenario was also scattered and was similar to that under the F585 scenario with a larger area, covering 141.88 × 104 km2 (Figure 6e). In summary, compared with those between grey squirrels and red squirrels, overlapped ranges between them in the future showed larger range sizes, although considerable variation remained.
Under the F126 scenario, the future range overlap of the grey squirrel and red squirrel, but in the current conditions (expanded range overlap), was observed in France, Switzerland, Austria, Germany, Italy, Belgium, and the Netherlands, covering 19.34 × 104 km2 (Figure 7a). Under the M126 scenario, an expanded range overlap was observed in France, the UK, Italy, Croatia, Norway, and Germany, covering 7.47 × 104 km2 (Figure 7b). Under the F585 scenario, the expanded range overlap was scattered in Iceland, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Italy, Austria, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Russia, and Slovenia, covering 103.46 × 104 km2 (Figure 7c). Under the M585 scenario, the expanded range overlap was also scattered, and the spatial patterns were similar to those under the F585 scenario with a larger area, covering 113.27 × 104 km2 (Figure 7d).

4. Discussion

Using two robust and complementary GCMs, we developed range dynamic models to estimate the shifts in the potential ranges of grey squirrels and red squirrels under future climate change scenarios, and we identified the regions to which grey squirrels may expand in the future. Additionally, we predicted the regions in which the ranges of the two species would overlap in the future. Therefore, from the perspective of climatic suitability, our study provides important information for developing strategies to counter the invasion of grey squirrels and conserve red squirrels in Europe under future climate change.
Our ecological niche models showed that the mean temperature of the coldest quarter was the most important value predicting the potential ranges of grey squirrels, and a positive relationship was detected between the mean temperature of the coldest quarter and the habitat suitability of grey squirrels. This finding suggests that changes in the mean temperature during the coldest quarter in the future may play an essential role in the range dynamics of grey squirrels and that the grey squirrel range may expand by the increase in the mean temperature of the coldest quarter, which is similar also for some other Sciuridae species. For example, Stapp et al. (1991) found that winter energy was closely associated with the distribution of southern flying squirrels (Glaucomys volans) [69]. In addition, Jokinen et al. (2019) reported that winter temperatures had relatively large predictive power for the distribution patterns of the Siberian flying squirrel (Pteromys volans) [70].
The most important predictor of the potential ranges of red squirrels was temperature seasonality, and a negative relationship was observed between temperature seasonality and red squirrel habitat suitability. This result suggests that changes in temperature seasonality in the future will largely determine the range dynamics of red squirrels and that the future expansion of the red squirrel ranges observed in our study may be induced by a decrease in temperature seasonality, consistent with Aidoo et al. (2022) and Johovic et al. (2020), who found that decreasing temperature seasonality is closely associated with the range expansion of their target AIS [71,72]. In summary, climate change may play an important role in the range dynamics of AIS, and climatic predictors responsible for the dynamics may vary among AIS [20].
Our results showed that the range of grey squirrels expanded under the F126 scenario in Iceland, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Italy, Croatia, Serbia, and Bulgaria, covering 32.41 × 104 km2. Under the M126 scenario, expansion of the range of grey squirrels was observed in Germany, France, Croatia, Serbia, and Bulgaria, covering 14.16 × 104 km2. Although the sizes of the expanded ranges under the SSP126 scenario varied considerably with the GCM, the Netherlands, France, Germany, Croatia, Serbia, and Bulgaria consistently remained parts of the expanded grey squirrel ranges. Therefore, if we could efficiently control future climate change, these two regions would be focal regions for controlling the invasion of grey squirrels in the future. Under the F585 and M585 scenarios, expansion of the grey squirrel ranges included vast regions (396.41 × 104 and 486.39 × 104 km2, respectively), including Iceland, southwest Russia, eastern Europe, Austria, Italy, eastern France, Spain, Portugal, eastern Germany, southern Sweden, the Netherlands, Iceland, and the coastal regions of Norway, suggesting that we should efficiently control future climate change, or these vast regions will be invaded by grey squirrels in the future.
Under the current conditions and all of the climate change scenarios, Ireland and the UK were consistently in overlapping regions of the grey squirrel and red squirrel ranges in the future. Therefore, these two areas are the focal regions for controlling the grey squirrel threats against red squirrel conservation, and strict control management strategies are already ongoing in the UK and Ireland [43]. Additionally, under the SSP126 scenario, France, Italy, and Germany were in the overlap ranges of grey squirrels and red squirrels but not under the current conditions. This finding suggests that, under the most optimistic climate change scenario, grey squirrels may displace red squirrels in these three regions in the future. Therefore, these regions were the new regions where grey squirrels may displace red squirrels in the future. Under the SSP585 scenario, but not under the current conditions, range overlap was in scattered patterns in Iceland, France, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Italy, Austria, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Russia, and Slovenia, suggesting that, under the most pessimistic climate change scenario, these regions are the new regions where grey squirrels may displace red squirrels in the future, and the cost of controlling the threats of grey squirrels against red squirrels would be huge. Our future strategy for controlling the invasion of grey squirrels and conserving red squirrels should be modified for these regions.
A variety of studies have projected the range of grey squirrels at the local or country scale using spatially explicit population dynamics models and the vegetation distribution or land cover [41,48,49,50,51], with climatic change receiving little attention, although vegetation distribution or land cover used in spatially explicit population dynamics models may be affected by climate changes [52,53,54]. As a result, the grey squirrel and red squirrel distribution patterns were closely associated with vegetation distribution or land cover [55,56]. Nevertheless, our study projected the range dynamics of grey squirrels and red squirrels from a climatic suitability perspective and their potential range overlap on the European scale. Therefore, our European scale study provides novel information on controlling grey squirrel and red squirrel conservation in the future.
Using similar methods (i.e., ecological niche models), Febbraro et al. (2016) predicted the future patterns of alien squirrels under climate change scenarios and invasion hotspots at the global scale [44]. However, they did not investigate grey squirrel range dynamics under climate change scenarios. In contrast, our study developed range dynamic models to explore the potential expansion of the ranges, the stability of the ranges, and range unfilling by grey squirrels, as well as the range overlap between red squirrels at the European scale, which from a climatic suitability perspective may provide information for efficiently controlling the invasion of grey squirrels and conserving red squirrels in Europe.
The grey squirrel range ratio from current conditions to the future ranged from 1.34 to 15.54, suggesting an increase in the potential ranges of grey squirrels, suggesting that climate change will promote the invasion of grey squirrels in Europe, although great uncertainty remains. Additionally, the similarity index values for the current conditions and the future ranges were 0.12 to 0.66, suggesting that grey squirrels under future climate change scenarios may occupy different range positions across space from those under the current conditions, although great uncertainty remains. Therefore, future strategies against grey squirrel invasions may need to be modified to meet the shifts in the range positions of grey squirrels in the future.
Grey squirrels are impacting trophic cascades of European forest ecosystems, especially those between herbivores and plants, suggesting huge impacts on the ecological equilibrium of European forest ecosystems [30]. We observed amplification of the grey squirrel range under future climate scenarios, i.e., larger potential ranges compared with those under the current conditions, as well as larger range overlap between grey squirrels and red squirrels, suggesting a greater threat against the red squirrel in the future. However, our observations varied considerably with the two different GCMs used, i.e., FIO-ESM-2-0 and MPI-ESM1-2-HR. For example, under the F126 and M126 scenarios, the expanded areas of the grey squirrel range were 32.41 × 104 km2 and 14.16 × 104 km2, respectively, and the range overlaps were 48.90 × 104 km2 and 35.64 × 104 km2, respectively. Additionally, our observations varied considerably with these two climate change scenarios. For example, under the SSP126 and SSP585 climate change scenarios, the range overlap areas derived from MPI-ESM1-2-HR were 35.64 × 104 km2 and 141.88 × 104 km2, respectively. In summary, although we have observed increases in the potential ranges of grey squirrels and red squirrels and their overlap from current conditions to the future, the observations may vary considerably with the GCM and the climate change scenario.

5. Conclusions

The present study detected expansions in the grey squirrel and red squirrel ranges under both the most optimistic and pessimistic climate change scenario in the future. Despite the considerable variation, overlapped ranges between grey squirrels and red squirrels in the future showed larger sizes than those under current conditions. Therefore, the range dynamics of grey squirrels and red squirrels and their overlap suggest increasing threats of grey squirrels against red squirrels in Europe, which may result in the accelerating decline of red squirrel populations in Europe and impact the biodiversity and ecological equilibrium of European forest ecosystems, although great uncertainty remains, and further investigations are needed.

Supplementary Materials

The data (Online dataset 1) that support the findings of this study are available at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.23180948 (accessed on 25 May 2023). The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/f14061150/s1, Table S1: Importance value of each predictor in the preliminary ecological niche models. Table S2: Correlations among the 19 climatic predictors. Table S3: The retained predictors in the final ecological niche models.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.F.; methodology, J.F. and P.N.; software, P.N. and R.Y.; validation, P.N. and R.Y.; formal analysis, P.N.; investigation, P.N. and R.Y.; resources, P.N.; data curation, P.N.; writing—original draft preparation, P.N. and J.F.; writing—review and editing, P.N., J.F., and R.Y.; visualization, P.N. and R.Y.; supervision, J.F.; project administration, J.F.; funding acquisition, J.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by the National Science Foundation of China (Grant ID: 31560178).

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Youjun Chen and Junjie Wu for their valuable comments on this study. We would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers’ valuable comments.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Vila, M.; Basnou, C.; Pyšek, P.; Josefsson, M.; Genovesi, P.; Gollasch, S.; Hulme, P.E. How well do we understand the impacts of alien species on ecosystem services? A pan–European, cross–taxa assessment. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2010, 8, 135–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Vila, M.; Hulme, P.E. Impact of Biological Invasions on Ecosystem Services. Invading Nature–Springer Series in Invasion Ecology, 1st ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  3. Early, R.; Bradley, B.A.; Dukes, J.S.; Lawler, J.J.; Olden, J.D.; Blumenthal, D.M.; Gonzalez, P.; Grosholz, E.D.; Ibañez, I.; Miller, L.P.; et al. Global threats from invasive alien species in the twenty first century and national response capacities. Nat. Commun. 2016, 7, 12485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Diagne, C.; Leroy, B.; Vaissiere, A.C.; Gozlan, R.E.; Roize, D.; Jarić, I.; Salles, J.M.; Bradshaw, C.J.A.; Courchamp, F. High and rising economic costs of biological invasions worldwide. Nature 2021, 592, 571–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Barney, J.N.; Tekiela, D.R.; Barrios-Garcia, M.N.; Dimarco, R.D.; Hufbauer, R.A.; Leipzig-Scott, P.; Nuñez, M.A.; Pauchard, A.; Pyšek, P.; Vítková, M.; et al. Global Invader Impact Network (GIIN): Toward standardized evaluation of the ecological impacts of invasive plants. Ecol. Evol. 2015, 5, 2878–2889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Blackburn, T.M.; Bellard, C.; Ricciardi, A. Alien versus native species as drivers of recent extinctions. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2019, 17, 203–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Van Kleunen, M.; Dawson, W.; Maurel, N. Characteristics of successful alien plants. Mol. Ecol. 2015, 24, 1954–1968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Bellard, C.; Thuiller, W.; Leroy, B.; Genovesi, P.; Bakkenes, M.; Courchamp, F. Will climate change promote future invasions? Glob. Chang. Biol. 2013, 19, 3740–3748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bellard, C.; Jeschke, J.M.; Leroy, B.; Mace, G.M. Insights from modelling studies on how climate change affects invasive alien species geography. Ecol. Evol. 2018, 8, 5688–5700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Jia, J.; Dai, Z.; Li, F.; Liu, Y. How will global environmental changes affect the growth of alien plants? Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 1623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Hulme, P.E. Climate change and biological invasions: Evidence, expectations, and response options. Biol. Rev. 2017, 92, 1297–1313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Hernández-Lambraño, R.E.; González-Moreno, P.; Sánchez-Agudo, J.Á. Towards the top: Niche expansion of Taraxacum officinale and Ulex europaeus in mountain regions of South America. Austral Ecol. 2017, 42, 577–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Christina, M.; Limbada, F.; Atlan, A. Climatic niche shift of an invasive shrub (Ulex europaeus): A global scale comparison in native and introduced regions. J. Plant Ecol. 2019, 13, 42–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sutherland, W.J.; Armstrong-Brown, S.; Armsworth, P.R.; Tom, B.; Brickland, J.; Campbell, C.D.; Chamberlain, D.E.; Cooke, A.I.; Dulvy, N.K.; Dusic, N.R.; et al. The identification of 100 ecological questions of high policy relevance in the UK. J. Appl. Ecol. 2006, 43, 617–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Chapman, D.S.; Haynes, T.; Beal, S.; Essl, F.; Bullock, J.M. Phenology predicts the native and invasive range limits of common ragweed. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2014, 20, 192–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Wagner, N.K.; Ochocki, B.M.; Crawford, K.M.; Compagnoni, A.; Miller, T.E.X. Genetic mixture of multiple source populations accelerates invasive range expansion. J. Anim. Ecol. 2017, 86, 21–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Liu, T.M.; Wang, J.M.; Hu, X.K.; Feng, J.M. Land–use change drives present and future distributions of Fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 706, 135872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Tang, X.G.; Yuan, Y.D.; Liu, X.F.; Zhang, J.C. Potential range expansion and niche shift of the invasive Hyphantria cunea between native and invasive countries. Ecol. Entomol. 2021, 46, 910–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Thomas, S.M.; Moloney, K.A. Combining the effects of surrounding land–use and propagule pressure to predict the distribution of an invasive plant. Biol. Invasions 2015, 17, 477–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gong, X.; Chen, Y.J.; Wang, T.; Jiang, X.F.; Hu, X.K.; Feng, J.M. Double–edged effects of climate change on plant invasions: Ecological niche modeling global distributions of two invasive alien plants. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 740, 139933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Cao, R.Y.; Gong, X.; Feng, J.M.; Yang, R.J. Niche and range dynamics of Tasmanian blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus Labill.) a globally cultivated invasive tree. Ecol. Evol. 2022, 12, e9305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Colautti, R.I.; Barrett, S.C.H. Rapid Adaptation to Climate Facilitates Range Expansion of an Invasive Plant. Science 2013, 342, 364–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Jourdan, J.; Riesch, R.; Cunze, S. Off to new shores: Climate niche expansion in invasive mosquitofish (Gambusia spp.). Ecol. Evol. 2021, 11, 18369–18400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Osland, M.J.; Feher, L.C. Winter climate change and the poleward range expansion of a tropical invasive tree (Brazilian pepper–Schinus terebinthifolius). Glob. Chang. Biol. 2020, 26, 607–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. de Albuquerque, F.S.; Macias-Rodriguez, M.A.; Burquez, A.; Astudillo-Scalia, Y. Climate change and the potential expansion of buffelgrass (Cenchrus ciliaris L., Poaceae) in biotic communities of Southwest United States and northern Mexico. Biol. Invasions 2019, 21, 3335–3347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kelly, B.P.; Whiteley, A.; Tallmon, D. The arctic melting pot. Nature 2010, 468, 891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Schmidt, N.M.; Hardwick, B.; Gilg, O.; Høye, T.T.; Krogh, P.H.; Meltofte, H.; Michelsen, A.; Mosbacher, J.B.; Raundrup, K.; Reneerkens, J.; et al. Interaction webs in arctic ecosystems: Determinants of arctic change? Ambio 2017, 46, 12–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Bryce, S.J.; Johnson, P.J.; Macdonald, D.W. Can niche use in red and grey squirrels offer clues for their apparent coexistence? J. Appl. Ecol. 2002, 39, 875–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Elsen, M.P.R.; Monahan, W.B.; Dougherty, E.R.; Merenlender, A.M. Keeping pace with climate change in global terrestrial protected areas. Sci. Adv. 2020, 6, e0814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bamber, J.A.; Shuttleworth, C.M.; Hayward, M.W.; Everest, D.J. Reinstating trophic cascades as an applied conservation tool to protect forest ecosystems from invasive grey squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis). Food Webs 2020, 25, 00164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Middleton, A.D. The grey squirrel: The introduction and spread of the American grey squirrel in the British Isles, its habits, food, and relations with the native fauna of the country. Nature 1933, 131, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wauters, L.A.; Gurnell, J.; Martinoli, A.; Tosi, G. Interspecific competition between native Eurasian red squirrels and alien grey squirrels: Does resource partitioning occur? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2002, 52, 332–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wauters, L.A.; Mazzamuto, M.V.; Santicchia, F.; Van, D.; Preatoni, D.G.; Martinoli, A. Interspecific competition affects the expression of personality–traits in natural populations. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 11189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Johnston, A.N.; Vander Haegen, W.M.; West, S.D. Differential Resource Use between Native and Introduced Gray Squirrels. J. Wildl. Manag. 2020, 84, 726–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Santicchia, F.; Wauters, L.A.; Piscitelli, A.P.; Dongen, S.V.; Martinoli, A.; Preatoni, D.; Romeo, C.; Ferrari, N. Spillover of an alien parasite reduces expression of costly behaviour in native host species. J. Anim. Ecol. 2020, 89, 1559–1569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Romeo, C.; Piscitelli, A.P.; Santicchia, F.; Martinoli, A.; Ferrari, N.; Wauters, L.A. Invading parasites: Spillover of an alien nematode reduces survival in a native species. Biol. Invasions 2021, 23, 3847–3857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. White, A.; Bell, S.S.; Lurz, P.W.W.; Boots, M. Conservation management within strongholds in the face of disease–mediated invasions: Red and grey squirrels as a case study. J. Appl. Ecol. 2014, 51, 1631–1642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Chantrey, J.; Dale, T.; Jones, D.; Begon, M.; Fenton, A. The drivers of squirrelpox virus dynamics in its grey squirrel reservoir host. Epidemics 2019, 28, 100352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Shuttleworth, C.M.; Robinson, N.; Halliwell, E.C.; Clews-Roberts, R.; Peek, H.; Podgornik, G.; Stinson, M.; Rice, S.; Finlay, C.; McKinney, C.; et al. Evolving grey squirrel management techniques in Europe. Manag. Biol. Invasions 2020, 11, 747–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Schuchert, P.; Shuttleworth, C.M.; McInnes, C.J.; Everest, D.J.; Rushton, S.P. Landscape scale impacts of culling upon a European grey squirrel population: Can trapping reduce population size and decrease the threat of squirrelpox virus infection for the native red squirrel? Biol. Invasions 2014, 16, 2381–2391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Goldstein, E.A.; Butler, F.; Lawton, C. Modeling future range expansion and management strategies for an invasive squirrel species. Biol. Invasions 2016, 18, 1431–1450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Jessen, T.; Wang, Y.; Wilmers, C.C. Habitat fragmentation provides a competitive advantage to an invasive tree squirrel, Sciurus carolinensis. Biol. Invasions 2018, 20, 607–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wauters, L.A.; Lurz, P.W.W.; Santicchia, F.; Romeo, C.; Ferrari, N.; Martinoli, A.; Gurnell, J. Interactions between native and invasive species: A systematic review of the red squirrel-gray squirrel paradigm. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2023, 11, 1083008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Di Febbraro, M.; Martinoli, A.; Russo, D.; Preatoni, D.; Bertolino, S. Modelling the effects of climate change on the risk of invasion by alien squirrels. Hystrix 2016, 27, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Di Febbraro, M.; Menchetti, M.; Russo, D.; Ancillotto, L.; Aloise, G.; Roscioni, F.; Preatoni, D.G.; Loy, A.; Martinoli, A.; Bertolino, S.; et al. Integrating climate and land–use change scenarios in modelling the future spread of invasive squirrels in Italy. Divers. Distrib. 2019, 25, 644–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Gurnell, J.; Clark, M.J.; Lurz, P.W.W.; Shirley, M.D.F.; Rushton, S.P. Conserving red squirrels (Sciurus vulgaris): Mapping and forecasting habitat suitability using a Geographic Information Systems Approach. Biol. Conserv. 2002, 105, 53–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Rushton, S.P.; Lurz, P.W.W.; Fuller, R.; Garson, P.J. Modelling the distribution of the red and grey squirrel at the landscape scale: A combined GIS and population dynamics approach. J. Appl. Ecol. 1997, 34, 1137–1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Rushton, S.P.; Lurz, P.W.W.; South, A.B.; Mitchell-Jones, A. Modelling the distribution of red squirrels (Sciurus vulgaris) on the Isle of Wight. Anim. Conserv. 1999, 2, 111–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lurz, P.W.W.; Rushton, S.P.; Wauters, L.A.; Bertolino, S.; Currado, I.; Mazzoglio, P.; Shirley, M.D.F. Predicting grey squirrel expansion in North Italy: A spatially explicit modelling approach. Landsc. Ecol. 2001, 16, 407–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Tattoni, C.; Preatoni, D.G.; Lurz, P.W.W.; Rushton, S.P.; Tosi, G.; Bertolino, S.; Martinoli, A.; Wauters, L.A. Modelling the expansion of a grey squirrel population: Implications for squirrel control. Biol. Invasions 2006, 8, 1605–1619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bertolino, S.; Lurz, P.W.W.; Sanderson, R.; Rushton, S. Predicting the spread of the American grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) in Europe: A call for a co–ordinated European approach. Biol. Conserv. 2008, 141, 2564–2575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Anav, A.; Mariotti, A. Sensitivity of natural vegetation to climate change in the Euro–Mediterranean area. Clim. Res. 2011, 46, 277–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Garamvoelgyi, A.; Hufnagel, L. Impacts of climate change on vegetation distribution No. 1 climate change induced vegetation shifts in the palearctic region. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2013, 11, 79–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ward, D.S.; Mahowald, N.M.; Kloster, S. Potential climate forcing of land use and land cover change. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2014, 14, 12701–12724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Gurnell, J. The Natural History of Squirrels, 1st ed.; Christopher Helm Publishers: Bromley, UK, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  56. Wauters, L.A.; Gurnell, J.; Currado, I.; Mazzoglio, P. Grey squirrel Sciurus carolinensis management in Italy–squirrel distribution in a highly fragmented landscape. Wildl. Biol. 1997, 3, 117–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Brown, J.L. SDMtoolbox: A python–based GIS toolkit for landscape genetic, biogeographic and species distribution model analyses. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2014, 5, 694–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Brown, J.L.; Bennett, J.R.; French, C.M. SDMtoolbox 2.0: The next generation Python–based GIS toolkit for landscape genetic, biogeographic and species distribution model analyses. PeerJ 2017, 5, e4095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Fick, S.E.; Hijmans, R.J. WorldClim2: New 1km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 2017, 37, 4302–4315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Zhang, M.Z.; Xu, Z.F.; Han, Y.; Guo, W.D. Evaluation of CMIP6 models toward dynamical downscaling over 14 CORDEX domains. Clim. Dyn. 2022, 2022, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Myers, P.; Lundrigan, B.L.; Hoffman, S.M.G.; Haraminac, A.P.; Seto, S.H. Climate-induced changes in the small mammal communities of the Northern Great Lakes Region. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2009, 15, 1434–1454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Thuiller, W.; Lafourcade, B.; Engler, R.; Araújo, M.B. BIOMOD–A platform for ensemble forecasting of species distributions. Ecography 2009, 32, 369–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Dormann, C.F.; Elith, J.; Bacher, S.; Buchmann, C.; Carl, G.; Carré, G.; García Marquéz, J.R.; Gruber, B.; Lafourcade, B.; Leitão, P.J.; et al. Collinearity: A review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography 2013, 36, 7–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Barbet-Massin, M.; Jiguet, F.; Albert, C.H.; Thuiller, W. Selecting pseudo–absences for species distribution models: How, where and how many? Methods Ecol. Evol. 2012, 3, 27–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Gallien, L.; Douzet, R.; Pratte, S.; Zimmermann, N.E.; Thuiller, W. Invasive species distribution models–how violating the equilibrium assumption can create new insights. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2012, 21, 1126–1136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Cantor, S.B.; Sun, C.C.; Tortolero-Lunaet, G.; Richards-Kortum, R.; Follen, M. A comparison of C/B ratios from studies using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 1999, 52, 885–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Liu, C.R.; Berry, P.M.; Dawson, T.P.; Pearson, R.G. Selecting thresholds of occurrence in the prediction of species distributions. Ecography 2005, 28, 385–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Yang, R.J.; Cao, R.Y.; Gong, X.; Feng, J.M. Large shifts of niche and range in the golden apple snail (Pomacea canaliculata), an aquatic invasive species. Ecosphere 2023, 14, e4391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Stapp, P.; Pekins, P.J.; Mautz, W.W. Winter Energy-Expenditure and The Distribution Of Southern Flying Squirrels. Can. J. Zool. 1991, 69, 2548–2555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Jokinen, M.; Hanski, I.; Numminen, E.; Valkama, J.; Selonen, V. Promoting species protection with predictive modelling: Effects of habitat, predators and climate on the occurrence of the Siberian flying squirrel. Biol. Conserv. 2019, 230, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Aidoo, O.F.; Souza, P.G.C.; da Silva, R.S.; Santana, P.A.; Picanco, M.C.; Kyerematen, R.; Setamou, M.; Ekesi, S.; Borgemeister, C. Climate-induced range shifts of invasive species (Diaphorina citri Kuwayama). Pest Manag. Sci. 2022, 78, 2534–2549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Johovic, I.; Gama, M.; Banha, F.; Tricarico, E.; Anastacio, P.M. A potential threat to amphibians in the European Natura 2000 network: Forecasting the distribution of the American bullfrog Lithobates catesbeianus. Biol. Conserv. 2020, 245, 108551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Forests 14 01150 g001 550
Figure 1. Occurrence records of the grey and red squirrels. Black points in (a,b) indicate the occurrence records of grey and red squirrels in Europe, respectively. After spatial rarefication and time stamp filtering, we retrieved totals of 1354 and 12,125 records of grey and red squirrels, respectively.
Figure 1. Occurrence records of the grey and red squirrels. Black points in (a,b) indicate the occurrence records of grey and red squirrels in Europe, respectively. After spatial rarefication and time stamp filtering, we retrieved totals of 1354 and 12,125 records of grey and red squirrels, respectively.
Forests 14 01150 g001
Forests 14 01150 g002 550
Figure 2. Responses curves of squirrels to the most important predictors. (a,b) indicate grey squirrels to mean temperature of the coldest quarter and red squirrels to temperature seasonality, respectively. With the increase in mean temperature of the coldest quarter, habitat suitability for grey squirrels increased. With the increase in temperature seasonality, habitat suitability for red squirrels roughly decreased.
Figure 2. Responses curves of squirrels to the most important predictors. (a,b) indicate grey squirrels to mean temperature of the coldest quarter and red squirrels to temperature seasonality, respectively. With the increase in mean temperature of the coldest quarter, habitat suitability for grey squirrels increased. With the increase in temperature seasonality, habitat suitability for red squirrels roughly decreased.
Forests 14 01150 g002
Forests 14 01150 g003 550
Figure 3. Potential ranges of grey and red squirrels under the current conditions. (a,b) indicate the potential ranges of grey and red squirrels under the current conditions, respectively. Red and grey indicate the potential ranges and no potential, respectively.
Figure 3. Potential ranges of grey and red squirrels under the current conditions. (a,b) indicate the potential ranges of grey and red squirrels under the current conditions, respectively. Red and grey indicate the potential ranges and no potential, respectively.
Forests 14 01150 g003
Forests 14 01150 g004 550
Figure 4. Potential ranges of grey squirrels under the future climate change scenarios. (a,b) indicate the potential ranges of grey squirrels under the scenarios of SSP126 derived from two General Circulation Models (GCMs), i.e., FIO-ESM-2-0 and MPI-ESM1-2-HR, respectively. (c,d) indicate the potential ranges of grey squirrels under the scenarios of SSP585 derived from two General Circulation Models (GCMs), i.e., FIO-ESM-2-0 and MPI-ESM1-2-HR, respectively. (e,f) indicate the potential ranges of red squirrels under the scenarios of SSP126 derived from two General Circulation Models (GCMs), i.e., FIO-ESM-2-0 and MPI-ESM1-2-HR, respectively. (g,h) indicate the potential ranges of red squirrels under the scenarios of SSP585 derived from two General Circulation Models (GCMs), i.e., FIO-ESM-2-0 and MPI-ESM1-2-HR, respectively. Red and grey indicate the potential ranges and no potential, respectively.
Figure 4. Potential ranges of grey squirrels under the future climate change scenarios. (a,b) indicate the potential ranges of grey squirrels under the scenarios of SSP126 derived from two General Circulation Models (GCMs), i.e., FIO-ESM-2-0 and MPI-ESM1-2-HR, respectively. (c,d) indicate the potential ranges of grey squirrels under the scenarios of SSP585 derived from two General Circulation Models (GCMs), i.e., FIO-ESM-2-0 and MPI-ESM1-2-HR, respectively. (e,f) indicate the potential ranges of red squirrels under the scenarios of SSP126 derived from two General Circulation Models (GCMs), i.e., FIO-ESM-2-0 and MPI-ESM1-2-HR, respectively. (g,h) indicate the potential ranges of red squirrels under the scenarios of SSP585 derived from two General Circulation Models (GCMs), i.e., FIO-ESM-2-0 and MPI-ESM1-2-HR, respectively. Red and grey indicate the potential ranges and no potential, respectively.
Forests 14 01150 g004
Forests 14 01150 g005 550
Figure 5. Range dynamics of grey squirrels under the future climate change scenarios. (a,b) indicate range dynamics of grey squirrels under the scenarios of SSP126 derived from two General Circulation Models (GCMs), i.e., FIO-ESM-2-0 and MPI-ESM1-2-HR, respectively. (c,d) indicate range dynamics of grey squirrels under the scenarios of SSP585 derived from two General Circulation Models (GCMs), i.e., FIO-ESM-2-0 and MPI-ESM1-2-HR, respectively. (e,f) indicate range dynamics of red squirrels under the scenarios of SSP126 derived from two General Circulation Models (GCMs), i.e., FIO-ESM-2-0 and MPI-ESM1-2-HR, respectively. (g,h) indicate range dynamics of red squirrels under the scenarios of SSP585 derived from two General Circulation Models (GCMs), i.e., FIO-ESM-2-0 and MPI-ESM1-2-HR, respectively. Red, orange, and blue indicated range expansion, range stability, and range unfilling, respectively.
Figure 5. Range dynamics of grey squirrels under the future climate change scenarios. (a,b) indicate range dynamics of grey squirrels under the scenarios of SSP126 derived from two General Circulation Models (GCMs), i.e., FIO-ESM-2-0 and MPI-ESM1-2-HR, respectively. (c,d) indicate range dynamics of grey squirrels under the scenarios of SSP585 derived from two General Circulation Models (GCMs), i.e., FIO-ESM-2-0 and MPI-ESM1-2-HR, respectively. (e,f) indicate range dynamics of red squirrels under the scenarios of SSP126 derived from two General Circulation Models (GCMs), i.e., FIO-ESM-2-0 and MPI-ESM1-2-HR, respectively. (g,h) indicate range dynamics of red squirrels under the scenarios of SSP585 derived from two General Circulation Models (GCMs), i.e., FIO-ESM-2-0 and MPI-ESM1-2-HR, respectively. Red, orange, and blue indicated range expansion, range stability, and range unfilling, respectively.
Forests 14 01150 g005
Forests 14 01150 g006 550
Figure 6. Range overlap between grey and red squirrels. (a) indicates range overlap between grey and red squirrels under the current conditions. (b,c) indicate range overlap under the scenarios of SSP126 derived from two General Circulation Models (GCMs), i.e., FIO-ESM-2-0 and MPI-ESM1-2-HR, respectively. (d,e) indicate range overlap under the scenarios of SSP585 derived from two General Circulation Models (GCMs), i.e., FIO-ESM-2-0 and MPI-ESM1-2-HR, respectively. Red and grey indicate the range overlap and no overlap, respectively.
Figure 6. Range overlap between grey and red squirrels. (a) indicates range overlap between grey and red squirrels under the current conditions. (b,c) indicate range overlap under the scenarios of SSP126 derived from two General Circulation Models (GCMs), i.e., FIO-ESM-2-0 and MPI-ESM1-2-HR, respectively. (d,e) indicate range overlap under the scenarios of SSP585 derived from two General Circulation Models (GCMs), i.e., FIO-ESM-2-0 and MPI-ESM1-2-HR, respectively. Red and grey indicate the range overlap and no overlap, respectively.
Forests 14 01150 g006
Forests 14 01150 g007 550
Figure 7. Expanded range overlap in future, but not current, conditions. (a–d) indicate the range overlap in future, but not in current, conditions under SSP126 derived from FIO-ESM-2-0, SSP126 derived from MPI-ESM1-2-HR, SSP585 derived from FIO-ESM-2-0, and SSP585 derived from MPI-ESM1-2-HR, respectively.
Figure 7. Expanded range overlap in future, but not current, conditions. (a–d) indicate the range overlap in future, but not in current, conditions under SSP126 derived from FIO-ESM-2-0, SSP126 derived from MPI-ESM1-2-HR, SSP585 derived from FIO-ESM-2-0, and SSP585 derived from MPI-ESM1-2-HR, respectively.
Forests 14 01150 g007
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nie, P.; Yang, R.; Feng, J. Future Range Dynamics Suggest Increasing Threats of Grey Squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis) against Red Squirrels (Sciurus vulgaris) in Europe: A Perspective on Climatic Suitability. Forests 2023, 14, 1150. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14061150

AMA Style

Nie P, Yang R, Feng J. Future Range Dynamics Suggest Increasing Threats of Grey Squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis) against Red Squirrels (Sciurus vulgaris) in Europe: A Perspective on Climatic Suitability. Forests. 2023; 14(6):1150. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14061150

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nie, Peixiao, Rujing Yang, and Jianmeng Feng. 2023. "Future Range Dynamics Suggest Increasing Threats of Grey Squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis) against Red Squirrels (Sciurus vulgaris) in Europe: A Perspective on Climatic Suitability" Forests 14, no. 6: 1150. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14061150

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop