Evaluating approaches for integrating species distributions in spatial conservation planning

IF 2.8 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION Conservation Science and Practice Pub Date : 2024-12-19 DOI:10.1111/csp2.13281
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,&nbsp;Amy A. Shipley,&nbsp;Drew N. Fowler,&nbsp;Matthew D. Palumbo,&nbsp;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.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
空间保护规划中整合物种分布的评价方法
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。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Conservation Science and Practice
Conservation Science and Practice BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
6.50%
发文量
240
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Introduced mona monkey Cercopithecus mona is a key predator of bird nests in the endemic-rich Príncipe Island Habitat use and diel activity of insectivorous bats across land-cover types on an Afrotropical oceanic island Participatory approaches to improving recreational fisheries management in a remote island system Island-restricted reptiles are more threatened but less studied than their mainland counterparts
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1