Jason M. Winiarski, Amy A. Shipley, Drew N. Fowler, Matthew D. Palumbo, Jacob N. Straub
{"title":"Evaluating approaches for integrating species distributions in spatial conservation planning","authors":"Jason M. Winiarski, Amy A. Shipley, Drew N. Fowler, Matthew D. Palumbo, Jacob N. Straub","doi":"10.1111/csp2.13281","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Map-based decision support tools (DSTs) that use species distributions are an important means of identifying priority areas for conservation. The Wisconsin Waterfowl Habitat Conservation Strategy (WWHCS) uses a DST to identify priority ecological landscapes and watersheds to guide waterfowl habitat projects. The WWHCS DST relies on waterfowl habitat suitability layers derived through expert opinion in lieu of species distributions, a common approach in DSTs. Given the subjectivity of expert opinion, model-driven species distributions such as those available from community science projects could provide more reliable information and better identify areas for waterfowl conservation. Here, we explore the application of relative abundance products available through the eBird Status and Trends project as an alternative to expert-derived habitat suitability layers in the WWHCS DST. Our objectives were to compare seasonal species distributions from habitat suitability models (expert-derived) and species distribution models (eBird-derived) and determine whether differences influenced DST prioritizations. Correlations between expert- and eBird-derived distributions were generally low to moderate for breeding and fall layers (<i>ρ</i>: −0.03–0.76), and lowest for spring (<i>ρ</i>: −0.49–0.72). There was also minimal agreement among top-ranked ecological landscapes (40%) and watersheds (28%) between the two versions of the DST. Finally, we compare tradeoffs and suggest a model-driven approach for the WWHCS DST. However, additional work validating eBird relative abundance against professional surveys and empirical studies evaluating waterfowl habitat selection and vital rates are important future considerations for the DST and waterfowl habitat conservation in Wisconsin.</p>","PeriodicalId":51337,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Science and Practice","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/csp2.13281","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conservation Science and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/csp2.13281","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Map-based decision support tools (DSTs) that use species distributions are an important means of identifying priority areas for conservation. The Wisconsin Waterfowl Habitat Conservation Strategy (WWHCS) uses a DST to identify priority ecological landscapes and watersheds to guide waterfowl habitat projects. The WWHCS DST relies on waterfowl habitat suitability layers derived through expert opinion in lieu of species distributions, a common approach in DSTs. Given the subjectivity of expert opinion, model-driven species distributions such as those available from community science projects could provide more reliable information and better identify areas for waterfowl conservation. Here, we explore the application of relative abundance products available through the eBird Status and Trends project as an alternative to expert-derived habitat suitability layers in the WWHCS DST. Our objectives were to compare seasonal species distributions from habitat suitability models (expert-derived) and species distribution models (eBird-derived) and determine whether differences influenced DST prioritizations. Correlations between expert- and eBird-derived distributions were generally low to moderate for breeding and fall layers (ρ: −0.03–0.76), and lowest for spring (ρ: −0.49–0.72). There was also minimal agreement among top-ranked ecological landscapes (40%) and watersheds (28%) between the two versions of the DST. Finally, we compare tradeoffs and suggest a model-driven approach for the WWHCS DST. However, additional work validating eBird relative abundance against professional surveys and empirical studies evaluating waterfowl habitat selection and vital rates are important future considerations for the DST and waterfowl habitat conservation in Wisconsin.
利用物种分布的基于地图的决策支持工具(DSTs)是确定优先保护区域的重要手段。威斯康星州水禽栖息地保护战略(WWHCS)使用DST来确定优先生态景观和流域,以指导水禽栖息地项目。WWHCS DST依赖于通过专家意见得出的水禽栖息地适宜性层,而不是物种分布,这是DSTs中常用的方法。考虑到专家意见的主观性,模型驱动的物种分布(如社区科学项目提供的物种分布)可以提供更可靠的信息,并更好地确定水禽的保护区域。在这里,我们探索了通过eBird Status and Trends项目提供的相对丰度产品的应用,作为WWHCS DST中专家推导的栖息地适宜性层的替代方案。我们的目标是比较栖息地适宜性模型(专家推导)和物种分布模型(ebird推导)的季节物种分布,并确定差异是否影响DST优先级。专家和ebird衍生分布之间的相关性在繁殖期和秋季通常为低至中等(ρ:−0.03-0.76),春季最低(ρ:−0.49-0.72)。在两个版本的DST之间,排名最高的生态景观(40%)和流域(28%)之间也有最小的一致性。最后,我们比较了权衡,并为WWHCS DST提出了一种模型驱动的方法。然而,通过专业调查和评估水禽栖息地选择和生存率的实证研究来验证鸟类相对丰度是未来威斯康星州DST和水禽栖息地保护的重要考虑因素。