Evaluating models for estimating introduction rates of alien species from discovery records

IF 6.3 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ECOLOGY
Yehezkel Buba, Moshe Kiflawi, Melodie A. McGeoch, Jonathan Belmaker
{"title":"Evaluating models for estimating introduction rates of alien species from discovery records","authors":"Yehezkel Buba,&nbsp;Moshe Kiflawi,&nbsp;Melodie A. McGeoch,&nbsp;Jonathan Belmaker","doi":"10.1111/geb.13859","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>Reducing the rate of alien species introductions is a major conservation aim. However, accurately quantifying the rate at which species are introduced into new regions remains a challenge due to the confounding effect of observation efforts on discovery records. Despite the recognition of this issue, most analyses are still based on raw discovery records, leading to biased inferences. In this study, we evaluate different models for estimating introduction rates, including new models that use auxiliary data on observation effort, and identify their strengths and weaknesses.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Innovation</h3>\n \n <p>We compare four models: (1) a <i>naïve model</i> which assumes perfect detection; (2) a model proposed by Solow and Costello (the <i>S&amp;C model</i>); (3) <i>constant detection model</i>: a modified version of the S&amp;C model with constant detection probabilities and (4) <i>a novel sampling proxy model</i>: a model that uses external data on observation effort. We simulate discovery records of varying lengths, introduction rates and temporal patterns of detection probabilities to explore scenarios under which these models accurately estimate underlying introduction rates. (5) We also include code to perform a model based on Belmaker using independent data on the number of native species.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Main conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>We found that the length of the discovery records and the annual number of recorded species play a crucial role in the performance of all models. Under simulated scenarios of high detection, the naïve model is usually the best-performing model, but it falls short when detection is low. Moreover, we find that in simulations which most likely mimic most real-world cases (i.e. non-monotonic probability of detection), incorporating external data on observation effort using the sampling proxy model, substantially improve estimates. This highlights the importance of considering observation effort when estimating introduction rates of alien species. To facilitate the use of these models, we provide a decision workflow and a dedicated R package (‘alien’).</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":176,"journal":{"name":"Global Ecology and Biogeography","volume":"33 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Ecology and Biogeography","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/geb.13859","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim

Reducing the rate of alien species introductions is a major conservation aim. However, accurately quantifying the rate at which species are introduced into new regions remains a challenge due to the confounding effect of observation efforts on discovery records. Despite the recognition of this issue, most analyses are still based on raw discovery records, leading to biased inferences. In this study, we evaluate different models for estimating introduction rates, including new models that use auxiliary data on observation effort, and identify their strengths and weaknesses.

Innovation

We compare four models: (1) a naïve model which assumes perfect detection; (2) a model proposed by Solow and Costello (the S&C model); (3) constant detection model: a modified version of the S&C model with constant detection probabilities and (4) a novel sampling proxy model: a model that uses external data on observation effort. We simulate discovery records of varying lengths, introduction rates and temporal patterns of detection probabilities to explore scenarios under which these models accurately estimate underlying introduction rates. (5) We also include code to perform a model based on Belmaker using independent data on the number of native species.

Main conclusion

We found that the length of the discovery records and the annual number of recorded species play a crucial role in the performance of all models. Under simulated scenarios of high detection, the naïve model is usually the best-performing model, but it falls short when detection is low. Moreover, we find that in simulations which most likely mimic most real-world cases (i.e. non-monotonic probability of detection), incorporating external data on observation effort using the sampling proxy model, substantially improve estimates. This highlights the importance of considering observation effort when estimating introduction rates of alien species. To facilitate the use of these models, we provide a decision workflow and a dedicated R package (‘alien’).

评估根据发现记录估算外来物种引进率的模型
降低外来物种引入率是一项重要的保护目标。然而,由于观察工作对发现记录的干扰效应,准确量化物种引入新地区的速度仍是一项挑战。尽管认识到了这一问题,但大多数分析仍以原始发现记录为基础,导致推论有失偏颇。在这项研究中,我们评估了估算引入率的不同模型,包括使用观测工作辅助数据的新模型,并找出了它们的优缺点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Global Ecology and Biogeography
Global Ecology and Biogeography 环境科学-生态学
CiteScore
12.10
自引率
3.10%
发文量
170
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Global Ecology and Biogeography (GEB) welcomes papers that investigate broad-scale (in space, time and/or taxonomy), general patterns in the organization of ecological systems and assemblages, and the processes that underlie them. In particular, GEB welcomes studies that use macroecological methods, comparative analyses, meta-analyses, reviews, spatial analyses and modelling to arrive at general, conceptual conclusions. Studies in GEB need not be global in spatial extent, but the conclusions and implications of the study must be relevant to ecologists and biogeographers globally, rather than being limited to local areas, or specific taxa. Similarly, GEB is not limited to spatial studies; we are equally interested in the general patterns of nature through time, among taxa (e.g., body sizes, dispersal abilities), through the course of evolution, etc. Further, GEB welcomes papers that investigate general impacts of human activities on ecological systems in accordance with the above criteria.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信