Spatially explicit species distribution models: A missed opportunity in conservation planning?

被引:40
|
作者
Domisch, Sami [1 ]
Friedrichs, Martin [1 ,2 ]
Hein, Thomas [3 ]
Borgwardt, Florian [3 ]
Wetzig, Annett [1 ]
Jaehnig, Sonja C. [1 ]
Langhans, Simone D. [1 ,4 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Leibniz Inst Freshwater Ecol & Inland Fisheries, Berlin, Germany
[2] Free Univ Berlin, Dept Biol, Berlin, Germany
[3] Univ Nat Resources & Life Sci, Inst Hydrobiol & Aquat Ecosyst Management, Vienna, Austria
[4] Univ Otago, Dept Zool, Dunedin, New Zealand
[5] BC3, Leioa, Spain
基金
欧盟地平线“2020”;
关键词
Bayesian hierarchical modelling; connectivity; gurobi; integer linear programming; spatial autocorrelation; spatial unit; BIOCLIMATE ENVELOPE MODELS; AUTOCORRELATION; MARINE; CONNECTIVITY; INFORMATION; ACCURACY; NETWORK; DESIGN;
D O I
10.1111/ddi.12891
中图分类号
X176 [生物多样性保护];
学科分类号
090705 ;
摘要
Aim Systematic conservation planning is vital for allocating protected areas given the spatial distribution of conservation features, such as species. Due to incomplete species inventories, species distribution models (SDMs) are often used for predicting species' habitat suitability and species' probability of occurrence. Currently, SDMs mostly ignore spatial dependencies in species and predictor data. Here, we provide a comparative evaluation of how accounting for spatial dependencies, that is, autocorrelation, affects the delineation of optimized protected areas. Location Southeast Australia, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Danube River Basin. Methods We employ Bayesian spatially explicit and non-spatial SDMs for terrestrial, marine and freshwater species, using realm-specific planning unit shapes (grid, hexagon and subcatchment, respectively). We then apply the software gurobi to optimize conservation plans based on species targets derived from spatial and non-spatial SDMs (10%-50% each to analyse sensitivity), and compare the delineation of the plans. Results Across realms and irrespective of the planning unit shape, spatially explicit SDMs (a) produce on average more accurate predictions in terms of AUC, TSS, sensitivity and specificity, along with a higher species detection probability. All spatial optimizations meet the species conservation targets. Spatial conservation plans that use predictions from spatially explicit SDMs (b) are spatially substantially different compared to those that use non-spatial SDM predictions, but (c) encompass a similar amount of planning units. The overlap in the selection of planning units is smallest for conservation plans based on the lowest targets and vice versa. Main conclusions Species distribution models are core tools in conservation planning. Not surprisingly, accounting for the spatial characteristics in SDMs has drastic impacts on the delineation of optimized conservation plans. We therefore encourage practitioners to consider spatial dependencies in conservation features to improve the spatial representation of future protected areas.
引用
收藏
页码:758 / 769
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Agent-based models as laboratories for spatially explicit planning policies
    Ligmann-Zielinska, Arika
    Jankowski, Piotr
    ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING B-PLANNING & DESIGN, 2007, 34 (02): : 316 - 335
  • [22] Varying dataset resolution alters predictive accuracy of spatially explicit ensemble models for avian species distribution
    Curry, Claire M.
    Ross, Jeremy D.
    Contina, Andrea J.
    Bridge, Eli S.
    ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION, 2018, 8 (24): : 12867 - 12878
  • [23] The shadow model: how and why small choices in spatially explicit species distribution models affect predictions
    Commander, Christian J. C.
    Barnett, Lewis A. K.
    Ward, Eric J.
    Anderson, Sean C.
    Essington, Timothy E.
    PEERJ, 2022, 10
  • [24] Spatially explicit conservation issues for threatened bird species in Mediterranean farmland landscapes
    Chiatante, Gianpasquale
    Brambilla, Mattia
    Bogliani, Giuseppe
    JOURNAL FOR NATURE CONSERVATION, 2014, 22 (02) : 103 - 112
  • [25] Socialscape Ecology: Integrating Social Features and Processes into Spatially Explicit Marine Conservation Planning
    Baker-Medard, Merrill
    Concannon, Katherine
    Gantt, Courtney
    Moen, Sierra
    White, Easton R.
    SUSTAINABILITY, 2024, 16 (14)
  • [26] Improving the Use of Species Distribution Models in Conservation Planning and Management under Climate Change
    Porfirio, Luciana L.
    Harris, Rebecca M. B.
    Lefroy, Edward C.
    Hugh, Sonia
    Gould, Susan F.
    Lee, Greg
    Bindoff, Nathaniel L.
    Mackey, Brendan
    PLOS ONE, 2014, 9 (11):
  • [27] Scale effects in species distribution models: implications for conservation planning under climate change
    Seo, Changwan
    Thorne, James H.
    Hannah, Lee
    Thuiller, Wilfried
    BIOLOGY LETTERS, 2009, 5 (01) : 39 - 43
  • [28] Overprediction of species distribution models in conservation planning: A still neglected issue with strong effects
    Elias Velazco, Santiago Jose
    Ribeiro, Bruno R.
    Orlandi Laureto, Livia Maira
    De Marco Junior, Paulo
    BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 2020, 252
  • [29] Planning under a Scottish Parliament: A missed opportunity?
    Allmendinger, P
    EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES, 2002, 10 (06) : 793 - 798
  • [30] Spatially explicit estimation of occupancy, detection probability and survey effort needed to inform conservation planning
    Olea, Pedro P.
    Mateo-Tomas, Patricia
    DIVERSITY AND DISTRIBUTIONS, 2011, 17 (04) : 714 - 724