Bayesian species distribution models integrate presence-only and presence-absence data to predict deer distribution and relative abundance

被引:13
|
作者
Morera-Pujol, Virginia [1 ]
Mostert, Philip S. [2 ]
Murphy, Kilian J. [1 ]
Burkitt, Tim [3 ]
Coad, Barry [4 ]
McMahon, Barry J. [5 ]
Nieuwenhuis, Maarten [6 ]
Morelle, Kevin [7 ,8 ]
Ward, Alastair I. [9 ]
Ciuti, Simone [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Coll Dublin, Sch Biol & Environm Sci, Lab Wildlife Ecol & Behav, Dublin, Ireland
[2] Norwegian Univ Sci & Technol NTNU, Ctr Biodivers Dynam, Dept Math Sci, Trondheim, Norway
[3] Killarney Co, Kerry, Ireland
[4] Newtownmountkennedy Co, Coillte Forest, Dublin Rd, Coillte, Wicklow, Ireland
[5] Univ Coll Dublin, UCD Sch Agr & Food Sci, Belfield, Dublin, Ireland
[6] Univ Coll Dublin, Sch Agr & Food Sci, UCD Forestry, Dublin, Ireland
[7] Max Planck Inst Anim Behav, Dept Migrat, Radolfzell am Bodensee, Germany
[8] Czech Univ Life Sci, Dept Game Management & Wildlife Biol, Prague, Czech Republic
[9] Univ Leeds, Sch Biol, Leeds, England
关键词
Bayesian statistics; fallow deer; INLA; integrated species distribution models; red deer; sika deer; RED;
D O I
10.1111/ecog.06451
中图分类号
X176 [生物多样性保护];
学科分类号
090705 ;
摘要
Using geospatial data of wildlife presence to predict a species distribution across a geographic area is among the most common tools in management and conservation. The collection of high-quality presence-absence (PA) data through structured surveys is, however, expensive, and managers usually have access to larger amounts of low-quality presence-only (PO) data collected by citizen scientists, opportunistic observations and culling returns for game species. Integrated species distribution models (ISDMs) have been developed to make the most of the data available by combining the higher-quality, but usually scarcer and more spatially restricted, PA data with the lower-quality, unstructured, but usually more extensive PO datasets. Joint-likelihood ISDMs can be run in a Bayesian context using integrated nested laplace approximation methods that allow the addition of a spatially structured random effect to account for data spatial autocorrelation. Here, we apply this innovative approach to fit ISDMs to empirical data, using PA and PO data for the three prevalent deer species in Ireland: red, fallow and sika deer. We collated all deer data available for the past 15 years and fitted models predicting distribution and relative abundance at a 25 km(2) resolution across the island. Model predictions were associated to spatial estimate of uncertainty, allowing us to assess the quality of the model and the effect that data scarcity has on the certainty of predictions. Furthermore, we checked the performance of the three species-specific models using two datasets, independent deer hunting returns and deer densities based on faecal pellet counts. Our work clearly demonstrates the applicability of spatially explicit ISDMs to empirical data in a Bayesian context, providing a blueprint for managers to exploit unexplored and seemingly unusable data that can, when modelled with the proper tools, serve to inform management and conservation policies.
引用
收藏
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Predicting abundance with presence-only models
    Bradley, Bethany A.
    LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY, 2016, 31 (01) : 19 - 30
  • [22] Comparison of the presence-only method and presence-absence method in landslide susceptibility mapping
    Zhu, A-Xing
    Miao, Yamin
    Yang, Lin
    Bai, Shibiao
    Liu, Junzhi
    Hong, Haoyuan
    CATENA, 2018, 171 : 222 - 233
  • [23] Preferential sampling for presence/absence data and for fusion of presence/absence data with presence-only data
    Gelfand, Alan E.
    Shirota, Shinichiro
    ECOLOGICAL MONOGRAPHS, 2019, 89 (03)
  • [24] A joint distribution framework to improve presence-only species distribution models by exploiting opportunistic surveys
    Molgora, Juan M. Escamilla
    Sedda, Luigi
    Diggle, Peter
    Atkinson, Peter M.
    JOURNAL OF BIOGEOGRAPHY, 2022, 49 (06) : 1176 - 1192
  • [25] Sample selection bias and presence-only distribution models: implications for background and pseudo-absence data
    Phillips, Steven J.
    Dudik, Miroslav
    Elith, Jane
    Graham, Catherine H.
    Lehmann, Anthony
    Leathwick, John
    Ferrier, Simon
    ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS, 2009, 19 (01) : 181 - 197
  • [26] Presence-absence versus abundance data for monitoring threatened species
    Joseph, Liana N.
    Field, Scott A.
    Wilcox, Chris
    Possingham, Hugh P.
    CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, 2006, 20 (06) : 1679 - 1687
  • [27] Presence-absence versus presence-only modelling methods for predicting bird habitat suitability
    Brotons, L
    Thuiller, W
    Araújo, MB
    Hirzel, AH
    ECOGRAPHY, 2004, 27 (04) : 437 - 448
  • [28] Comparative interpretation of count, presence-absence and point methods for species distribution models
    Aarts, Geert
    Fieberg, John
    Matthiopoulos, Jason
    METHODS IN ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION, 2012, 3 (01): : 177 - 187
  • [29] A null-model for significance testing of presence-only species distribution models
    Raes, Niels
    ter Steege, Hans
    ECOGRAPHY, 2007, 30 (05) : 727 - 736
  • [30] A taxonomic-based joint species distribution model for presence-only data
    Escamilla Molgora, Juan M.
    Sedda, Luigi
    Diggle, Peter J.
    Atkinson, Peter M.
    JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY INTERFACE, 2022, 19 (187)