The following extract from p.7 of Stanton et al. 2011 includes a couple of suggestions for combining multiple probability maps (refs given at bottom).
"
A fourth option that we did not test is to create a separate
suitability layer based on the static variable (e.g. by assigning a
separate suitability value to each soil type or running a separate
SDM with the static variables only) and multiplying this map
with the probabilitymap that is output from the SDM with the
climatic variables. This is similar to masking, albeit with more
than two values for the ‘mask’ layer, and the multiplication
assumes that the two layers are independent or non-interacting;
thus, we believe the implications for bioclimatic modelling
are the same as masking.
A related approach, which has been used to integrate data at
different spatial scales (Pearson, Dawson & Liu 2004), is to
combine dynamic climate and static land cover data in a two step
process: (i) a climate-only model is built and shifts under
future climate scenarios are predicted; (ii) the output from the
climate-only model is used alongside land cover as inputs to a
second model. This approach uses both static and dynamic
variables in the same model, which is supported by our results
here, and may be a useful way to integrate the large scale effects
of climate with the more local effects of land cover (Pearson,
Dawson & Liu 2004).