Differences in predictions of marine species distribution models based on expert maps and opportunistic occurrences.

IF 5.2 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Zhixin Zhang, Jamie M Kass, Ákos Bede-Fazekas, Stefano Mammola, Junmei Qu, Jorge García Molinos, Jiqi Gu, Hongwei Huang, Meng Qu, Ying Yue, Geng Qin, Qiang Lin
{"title":"Differences in predictions of marine species distribution models based on expert maps and opportunistic occurrences.","authors":"Zhixin Zhang, Jamie M Kass, Ákos Bede-Fazekas, Stefano Mammola, Junmei Qu, Jorge García Molinos, Jiqi Gu, Hongwei Huang, Meng Qu, Ying Yue, Geng Qin, Qiang Lin","doi":"10.1111/cobi.70015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Species distribution models (SDMs) are important tools for assessing biodiversity change. These models require high-quality occurrence data, which are not always available. Therefore, it is increasingly important to determine how data choice affects predictions of species' ranges. Opportunistic occurrence records and expert maps are both widely used sources of species data for SDMs. However, it is unclear how SDMs based on these data differ in performance, particularly for the marine realm. We built SDMs for 233 marine fish species from 2 families with these 2 occurrence data types and compared their performances and potential distribution predictions. Opportunistic occurrences were sourced from field surveys in the South China Sea and online repositories and expert maps from the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List database. We used generalized linear models to explore drivers of differences in prediction between the 2 model types. When projecting to distinct regions with no occurrence data, models calibrated using opportunistic occurrences performed better than those using expert maps, indicating better transferability to new environments. Differences in marine predictor values between the 2 data types accounted for the dissimilarity in model predictions, likely because expert maps included large areas with unsuitable environmental conditions. Dissimilarity levels among fish families differed, suggesting a taxonomic bias in biodiversity data between data sources. Our findings highlight the sensitivity of species distribution predictions to the choice of distributional data. Although expert maps have an important role in biodiversity modeling, we suggest researchers assess the accuracy of these maps and reduce commission errors based on knowledge of target species.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":" ","pages":"e70015"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conservation Biology","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.70015","RegionNum":1,"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

Species distribution models (SDMs) are important tools for assessing biodiversity change. These models require high-quality occurrence data, which are not always available. Therefore, it is increasingly important to determine how data choice affects predictions of species' ranges. Opportunistic occurrence records and expert maps are both widely used sources of species data for SDMs. However, it is unclear how SDMs based on these data differ in performance, particularly for the marine realm. We built SDMs for 233 marine fish species from 2 families with these 2 occurrence data types and compared their performances and potential distribution predictions. Opportunistic occurrences were sourced from field surveys in the South China Sea and online repositories and expert maps from the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List database. We used generalized linear models to explore drivers of differences in prediction between the 2 model types. When projecting to distinct regions with no occurrence data, models calibrated using opportunistic occurrences performed better than those using expert maps, indicating better transferability to new environments. Differences in marine predictor values between the 2 data types accounted for the dissimilarity in model predictions, likely because expert maps included large areas with unsuitable environmental conditions. Dissimilarity levels among fish families differed, suggesting a taxonomic bias in biodiversity data between data sources. Our findings highlight the sensitivity of species distribution predictions to the choice of distributional data. Although expert maps have an important role in biodiversity modeling, we suggest researchers assess the accuracy of these maps and reduce commission errors based on knowledge of target species.

基于专家地图和机会事件的海洋物种分布模型预测的差异。
物种分布模型(SDMs)是评价生物多样性变化的重要工具。这些模型需要高质量的发生数据,而这些数据并不总是可用的。因此,确定数据选择如何影响物种范围的预测变得越来越重要。机会发生记录和专家地图都是sdm广泛使用的物种数据来源。然而,目前还不清楚基于这些数据的sdm在性能上有何不同,特别是在海洋领域。我们利用这两种数据类型对2科233种海洋鱼类建立了sdm模型,并比较了它们的表现和潜在的分布预测。机会事件来源于南海的实地调查以及国际自然保护联盟红色名录数据库的在线知识库和专家地图。我们使用广义线性模型来探索两种模型类型之间预测差异的驱动因素。当预测到没有发生数据的不同区域时,使用机会事件校准的模型比使用专家地图的模型表现得更好,这表明在新环境中的可转移性更好。两种数据类型之间海洋预测值的差异解释了模式预测的差异,可能是因为专家地图包含了环境条件不合适的大面积区域。不同鱼类科间的差异水平存在差异,表明不同数据源之间的生物多样性数据存在分类偏差。我们的发现突出了物种分布预测对分布数据选择的敏感性。尽管专家地图在生物多样性建模中发挥着重要作用,但我们建议研究人员评估这些地图的准确性,并根据目标物种的知识减少委托错误。
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
Conservation Biology
Conservation Biology 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
12.70
自引率
3.20%
发文量
175
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Conservation Biology welcomes submissions that address the science and practice of conserving Earth's biological diversity. We encourage submissions that emphasize issues germane to any of Earth''s ecosystems or geographic regions and that apply diverse approaches to analyses and problem solving. Nevertheless, manuscripts with relevance to conservation that transcend the particular ecosystem, species, or situation described will be prioritized for publication.
×
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