Evaluating approaches for integrating species distributions in spatial conservation planning

IF 2.8 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Jason M. Winiarski, Amy A. Shipley, Drew N. Fowler, Matthew D. Palumbo, Jacob N. Straub
{"title":"Evaluating approaches for integrating species distributions in spatial conservation planning","authors":"Jason M. Winiarski,&nbsp;Amy A. Shipley,&nbsp;Drew N. Fowler,&nbsp;Matthew D. Palumbo,&nbsp;Jacob N. Straub","doi":"10.1111/csp2.13281","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Map-based decision support tools (DSTs) that use species distributions are an important means of identifying priority areas for conservation. The Wisconsin Waterfowl Habitat Conservation Strategy (WWHCS) uses a DST to identify priority ecological landscapes and watersheds to guide waterfowl habitat projects. The WWHCS DST relies on waterfowl habitat suitability layers derived through expert opinion in lieu of species distributions, a common approach in DSTs. Given the subjectivity of expert opinion, model-driven species distributions such as those available from community science projects could provide more reliable information and better identify areas for waterfowl conservation. Here, we explore the application of relative abundance products available through the eBird Status and Trends project as an alternative to expert-derived habitat suitability layers in the WWHCS DST. Our objectives were to compare seasonal species distributions from habitat suitability models (expert-derived) and species distribution models (eBird-derived) and determine whether differences influenced DST prioritizations. Correlations between expert- and eBird-derived distributions were generally low to moderate for breeding and fall layers (<i>ρ</i>: −0.03–0.76), and lowest for spring (<i>ρ</i>: −0.49–0.72). There was also minimal agreement among top-ranked ecological landscapes (40%) and watersheds (28%) between the two versions of the DST. Finally, we compare tradeoffs and suggest a model-driven approach for the WWHCS DST. However, additional work validating eBird relative abundance against professional surveys and empirical studies evaluating waterfowl habitat selection and vital rates are important future considerations for the DST and waterfowl habitat conservation in Wisconsin.</p>","PeriodicalId":51337,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Science and Practice","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/csp2.13281","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conservation Science and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/csp2.13281","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Map-based decision support tools (DSTs) that use species distributions are an important means of identifying priority areas for conservation. The Wisconsin Waterfowl Habitat Conservation Strategy (WWHCS) uses a DST to identify priority ecological landscapes and watersheds to guide waterfowl habitat projects. The WWHCS DST relies on waterfowl habitat suitability layers derived through expert opinion in lieu of species distributions, a common approach in DSTs. Given the subjectivity of expert opinion, model-driven species distributions such as those available from community science projects could provide more reliable information and better identify areas for waterfowl conservation. Here, we explore the application of relative abundance products available through the eBird Status and Trends project as an alternative to expert-derived habitat suitability layers in the WWHCS DST. Our objectives were to compare seasonal species distributions from habitat suitability models (expert-derived) and species distribution models (eBird-derived) and determine whether differences influenced DST prioritizations. Correlations between expert- and eBird-derived distributions were generally low to moderate for breeding and fall layers (ρ: −0.03–0.76), and lowest for spring (ρ: −0.49–0.72). There was also minimal agreement among top-ranked ecological landscapes (40%) and watersheds (28%) between the two versions of the DST. Finally, we compare tradeoffs and suggest a model-driven approach for the WWHCS DST. However, additional work validating eBird relative abundance against professional surveys and empirical studies evaluating waterfowl habitat selection and vital rates are important future considerations for the DST and waterfowl habitat conservation in Wisconsin.

Abstract Image

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Conservation Science and Practice
Conservation Science and Practice BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
6.50%
发文量
240
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
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