Eryn K. Turney , Gregory C. Goodrum , W. Carl Saunders , Timothy E. Walsworth , Sarah E. Null
{"title":"比较常用的本地鱼类水生生境建模方法","authors":"Eryn K. Turney , Gregory C. Goodrum , W. Carl Saunders , Timothy E. Walsworth , Sarah E. Null","doi":"10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2024.110909","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Aquatic habitat suitability models are increasingly coupled with water management models to estimate environmental effects of water management. Many types of habitat models exist, but there are no standard methods to compare predictive performance of habitat model types for use with water management models. In this study, we compared three common aquatic habitat model types: a hydraulic-habitat model, a habitat threshold model, and a geospatial model. Each of the models predicted native Bonneville Cutthroat Trout distribution in the Bear River Watershed (Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming, USA) at a monthly timestep. We compared the differences in predictive performance among models by validating 1) environmental predictors of the models with field observations from summer 2022, using the coefficient of determination (R²), Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) index, and percent bias (PBIAS) and 2) habitat suitability estimates generated by each model with fish presence data and three accuracy metrics developed for this study. Validation of environmental predictors revealed observed conditions were not well represented by any of the three models—a function of either outdated, incorrect, or over-generalized input data. Validation of habitat suitability predictions using Bonneville Cutthroat Trout presence data showed the habitat threshold model most accurately classified fish presence observations in suitable habitat, but suitable habitat was likely overpredicted. While more precise habitat modeling methods may be useful to support generalized habitat estimates for native fish, overall, simple models, like the habitat threshold model, are promising for incorporating ecological objectives into water management models.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51043,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Modelling","volume":"499 ","pages":"Article 110909"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing commonly used aquatic habitat modeling methods for native fish\",\"authors\":\"Eryn K. Turney , Gregory C. Goodrum , W. Carl Saunders , Timothy E. Walsworth , Sarah E. Null\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2024.110909\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Aquatic habitat suitability models are increasingly coupled with water management models to estimate environmental effects of water management. Many types of habitat models exist, but there are no standard methods to compare predictive performance of habitat model types for use with water management models. In this study, we compared three common aquatic habitat model types: a hydraulic-habitat model, a habitat threshold model, and a geospatial model. Each of the models predicted native Bonneville Cutthroat Trout distribution in the Bear River Watershed (Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming, USA) at a monthly timestep. We compared the differences in predictive performance among models by validating 1) environmental predictors of the models with field observations from summer 2022, using the coefficient of determination (R²), Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) index, and percent bias (PBIAS) and 2) habitat suitability estimates generated by each model with fish presence data and three accuracy metrics developed for this study. Validation of environmental predictors revealed observed conditions were not well represented by any of the three models—a function of either outdated, incorrect, or over-generalized input data. Validation of habitat suitability predictions using Bonneville Cutthroat Trout presence data showed the habitat threshold model most accurately classified fish presence observations in suitable habitat, but suitable habitat was likely overpredicted. While more precise habitat modeling methods may be useful to support generalized habitat estimates for native fish, overall, simple models, like the habitat threshold model, are promising for incorporating ecological objectives into water management models.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51043,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ecological Modelling\",\"volume\":\"499 \",\"pages\":\"Article 110909\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ecological Modelling\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380024002977\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecological Modelling","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380024002977","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparing commonly used aquatic habitat modeling methods for native fish
Aquatic habitat suitability models are increasingly coupled with water management models to estimate environmental effects of water management. Many types of habitat models exist, but there are no standard methods to compare predictive performance of habitat model types for use with water management models. In this study, we compared three common aquatic habitat model types: a hydraulic-habitat model, a habitat threshold model, and a geospatial model. Each of the models predicted native Bonneville Cutthroat Trout distribution in the Bear River Watershed (Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming, USA) at a monthly timestep. We compared the differences in predictive performance among models by validating 1) environmental predictors of the models with field observations from summer 2022, using the coefficient of determination (R²), Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) index, and percent bias (PBIAS) and 2) habitat suitability estimates generated by each model with fish presence data and three accuracy metrics developed for this study. Validation of environmental predictors revealed observed conditions were not well represented by any of the three models—a function of either outdated, incorrect, or over-generalized input data. Validation of habitat suitability predictions using Bonneville Cutthroat Trout presence data showed the habitat threshold model most accurately classified fish presence observations in suitable habitat, but suitable habitat was likely overpredicted. While more precise habitat modeling methods may be useful to support generalized habitat estimates for native fish, overall, simple models, like the habitat threshold model, are promising for incorporating ecological objectives into water management models.
期刊介绍:
The journal is concerned with the use of mathematical models and systems analysis for the description of ecological processes and for the sustainable management of resources. Human activity and well-being are dependent on and integrated with the functioning of ecosystems and the services they provide. We aim to understand these basic ecosystem functions using mathematical and conceptual modelling, systems analysis, thermodynamics, computer simulations, and ecological theory. This leads to a preference for process-based models embedded in theory with explicit causative agents as opposed to strictly statistical or correlative descriptions. These modelling methods can be applied to a wide spectrum of issues ranging from basic ecology to human ecology to socio-ecological systems. The journal welcomes research articles, short communications, review articles, letters to the editor, book reviews, and other communications. The journal also supports the activities of the [International Society of Ecological Modelling (ISEM)](http://www.isemna.org/).