Quantifying the relative importance of biotic and abiotic factors in landscape-based models of stream fish distributions

被引:0
|
作者
Custer, Christopher A. [1 ]
Fischer, Douglas P. [2 ]
Smith, Geoffrey [2 ]
Henning, Aaron [3 ]
Schall, Megan Kepler [4 ]
Shank, Matthew K. [5 ]
Wertz, Timothy A. [5 ]
Wagner, Tyler [6 ]
机构
[1] Penn State Univ, Intercoll Grad Degree Program Ecol, Penn Cooperat Fish & Wildlife Res Unit, University Pk, PA 16801 USA
[2] Penn Fish & Boat Commiss, Bellefonte, PA USA
[3] Susquehanna River Basin Commiss, Harrisburg, PA USA
[4] Penn State Univ, Biol Serv, Hazleton, PA USA
[5] Penn Dept Environm Protect, Harrisburg, PA USA
[6] Penn State Univ, Penn Cooperat Fish & Wildlife Res Unit, US Geol Survey, University Pk, PA USA
关键词
Lotic fish assemblages; Conditional random fields; Species distributions; Landscape-scale; SPECIES DISTRIBUTION MODELS; BROOK TROUT; BROWN TROUT; LAND-USE; ASSEMBLAGES; EFFICIENCY; ECOLOGY; NETWORK; SCALE;
D O I
10.1007/s42974-024-00183-9
中图分类号
Q14 [生态学(生物生态学)];
学科分类号
071012 ; 0713 ;
摘要
Lotic fish species distributions are frequently predicted using remotely sensed habitat variables that characterize the adjacent landscape and serve as proxies for instream habitat. Recent advancements in statistical methodology, however, allow for leveraging fish assemblage data when predicting distributions. This is important because assemblage composition likely provides better information about instream habitat compared to landscape-derived metrics and therefore may improve predictions. To better understand the value of using multi-species fish data in species distribution modeling, we fit two conditional random fields (CRF) models to quantify the relative importance of fish assemblage co-occurrence, landscape-derived habitat variables, and interactions between these two predictor groups (i.e., effects of co-occurrence could be context-dependent) at over 1200 stream catchments in Pennsylvania, USA. We first compared predictive performance of CRF models against traditionally used single-species logistic regressions (generalized linear models; GLMs) and found that inclusion of fish assemblage data often improved predictive performance. The multi-species CRF models performed significantly better at predicting occurrence for 63% of species with an average percent increase in AUC of 25% compared to GLMs. Furthermore, the CRF identified species co-occurrences as more informative, and thus relatively more important, at predicting occurrence than the other effect types. The CRF also suggested that allowing these biotic effects to be context-dependent was important for predicting occurrence of many species. These findings illustrate the value of fish assemblage data for landscape-scale species distribution modeling and leveraging this information can improve predictions and inferences to help inform the management and conservation of freshwater fishes.
引用
收藏
页码:145 / 196
页数:52
相关论文
共 27 条
  • [1] Influence of Sampling Extent on the Relative Importance of Biotic and Abiotic Factors in Explaining Variation in Stream Fish Density
    Zorn, Troy G.
    Wiley, Michael J.
    [J]. COMMUNITY ECOLOGY OF STREAM FISHES: CONCEPTS, APPROACHES, AND TECHNIQUES, 2010, 73 : 487 - 502
  • [2] Modeling Advance Oak Reproduction at Landscape Scale: The Relative Importance of Abiotic and Biotic Factors
    Rittenhouse, Joshua W.
    Leites, Laura P.
    [J]. FOREST SCIENCE, 2022, 68 (03) : 353 - 363
  • [3] The relative importance of abiotic, biotic, and spatial factors in structuring the stream macroinvertebrate metacommunity in a temperate rainforest
    Toskey, Elsa K.
    Bollens, Stephen M.
    Kiffney, Peter M.
    Martens, Kyle D.
    Rollwagen-Bollens, Gretchen
    [J]. AQUATIC SCIENCES, 2024, 86 (04)
  • [4] The influence of spatial and temporal scale on the relative importance of biotic vs. abiotic factors for species distributions
    King, Travis W.
    Vynne, Carly
    Miller, David
    Fisher, Scott
    Fitkin, Scott
    Rohrer, John
    Ransom, Jason, I
    Thornton, Daniel H.
    [J]. DIVERSITY AND DISTRIBUTIONS, 2021, 27 (02) : 327 - 343
  • [5] Comparing the relative contributions of biotic and abiotic factors as mediators of species' distributions
    Gonzalez-Salazar, Constantino
    Stephens, Christopher R.
    Marquet, Pablo A.
    [J]. ECOLOGICAL MODELLING, 2013, 248 : 57 - 70
  • [6] The relative importance of biotic and abiotic factors influencing aspen recruitment in Arizona
    Clement, Matthew J.
    Harding, Larisa E.
    Lucas, Richard W.
    Rubin, Esther S.
    [J]. FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT, 2019, 441 : 32 - 41
  • [7] INTERACTION OF ABIOTIC AND BIOTIC FACTORS INFLUENCES LARVAL FISH SURVIVAL IN AN OKLAHOMA STREAM
    HARVEY, BC
    [J]. CANADIAN JOURNAL OF FISHERIES AND AQUATIC SCIENCES, 1991, 48 (08) : 1476 - 1480
  • [8] Seasonally varying importance of abiotic and biotic factors in marsh-pond fish communities
    Layman, CA
    Smith, DE
    Herod, JD
    [J]. MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES, 2000, 207 : 155 - 169
  • [9] Habitat suitability models of five keynote Bulgarian Black Sea fish species relative to specific abiotic and biotic factors
    Zlateva, Ivelina
    Raykov, Violin
    Slabakova, Violeta
    Stefanova, Elitsa
    Stefanova, Kremena
    [J]. OCEANOLOGIA, 2022, 64 (04) : 665 - 674
  • [10] Quantifying the Importance of Abiotic and Biotic Factors Governing the Succession of Gut Microbiota Over Shrimp Ontogeny
    Zhang, Wenqian
    Zhu, Zidong
    Chen, Jiong
    Qiu, Qiongfen
    Xiong, Jinbo
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN MICROBIOLOGY, 2021, 12