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
  • [31] Combining conservation status and species distribution models for planning assisted colonisation under climate change
    Casazza, Gabriele
    Abeli, Thomas
    Bacchetta, Gianluigi
    Dagnino, Davide
    Fenu, Giuseppe
    Gargano, Domenico
    Minuto, Luigi
    Montagnani, Chiara
    Orsenigo, Simone
    Peruzzi, Lorenzo
    Varaldo, Lucia
    Rossi, Graziano
    JOURNAL OF ECOLOGY, 2021, 109 (06) : 2284 - 2295
  • [32] Species distribution modelling for conservation planning in Victoria of Australia
    Liu, C.
    White, M.
    Newell, G.
    Griffioen, P.
    19TH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON MODELLING AND SIMULATION (MODSIM2011), 2011, : 2247 - 2253
  • [33] Species distribution modelling for conservation planning in Victoria, Australia
    Liu, Canran
    White, Matt
    Newell, Graeme
    Griffioen, Peter
    ECOLOGICAL MODELLING, 2013, 249 : 68 - 74
  • [34] Landscape-based spatially explicit species index models for Everglades restoration
    Curnutt, JL
    Comiskey, J
    Nott, MP
    Gross, LJ
    ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS, 2000, 10 (06) : 1849 - 1860
  • [35] Using delta generalized additive models to produce distribution maps for spatially explicit ecosystem models
    Gruess, Arnaud
    Drexler, Michael
    Ainsworth, Cameron H.
    FISHERIES RESEARCH, 2014, 159 : 11 - 24
  • [36] Evaluating the performance of spatially explicit models
    Walker, R
    PHOTOGRAMMETRIC ENGINEERING AND REMOTE SENSING, 2003, 69 (11): : 1271 - 1278
  • [37] Spatially explicit models of forager interference
    Seth, Anil K.
    ADVANCES IN ARTIFICIAL LIFE, 2001, 2159 : 151 - 160
  • [38] SPATIALLY EXPLICIT POPULATION-MODELS
    PULLIAM, HR
    DUNNING, JB
    ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS, 1995, 5 (01) : 2 - 2
  • [39] Oral inflammation and reactive species: a missed opportunity?
    Halliwell, B
    ORAL DISEASES, 2000, 6 (03) : 136 - 137
  • [40] Uncertainty in spatially explicit population models
    Minor, E. S.
    McDonald, R. I.
    Treml, E. A.
    Urban, D. L.
    BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 2008, 141 (04) : 956 - 970