改进欧洲国家鸟类种群估计:从与地图集丰度数据的比较中获得启示

IF 1.5 4区 环境科学与生态学 Q3 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Sergi Herrando, Sara Fraixedas, Lluís Brotons, David Martí, Anna Staneva, Verena Keller, Petr Voříšek, Ian J. Burfield
{"title":"改进欧洲国家鸟类种群估计:从与地图集丰度数据的比较中获得启示","authors":"Sergi Herrando, Sara Fraixedas, Lluís Brotons, David Martí, Anna Staneva, Verena Keller, Petr Voříšek, Ian J. Burfield","doi":"10.1017/s0959270924000054","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Summary In Europe, population estimates of breeding birds are produced nationally and are periodically compiled at EU or pan-European scales. Until now, no other source was available to explore the robustness of these estimates. In this study, we compared population sizes reported in the latest edition of the European Red List of Birds (ERLoB) with those produced using data from the second European Breeding Bird Atlas (EBBA2) to assess their consistency and determine parameters behind variability in population estimates that deserve further attention in the future. In general, European population estimates derived from summing local abundance data from EBBA2 were similar to those obtained from ERLoB, although for some species they differed considerably, particularly in those distributed mainly in southern Europe. National population estimates from EBBA2 also did not differ markedly from those in ERLoB. However, we found that EBBA2 provided larger national population sizes than ERLoB for widespread species, suggesting that spatial information is more relevant for properly assessing their population size than for localised species. Our analysis also showed that, in general, population estimates based on robust methodological protocols (e.g. complete counts, statistical inference) contributed to reducing differences between ERLoB and EBBA2 values. Interestingly, EBBA2 and ERLoB estimates were quite similar for species classified in Europe as “Threatened” or “Near Threatened”, whereas the values for “Least Concern” species were consistently different between these two sources. Our results indicate which type of species would benefit from additional efforts to improve national population estimates and their consistency across countries, issues that are of paramount importance for guiding conservation strategies in Europe.","PeriodicalId":9275,"journal":{"name":"Bird Conservation International","volume":"81 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Improving national bird population estimates in Europe: insights from comparisons with atlas abundance data\",\"authors\":\"Sergi Herrando, Sara Fraixedas, Lluís Brotons, David Martí, Anna Staneva, Verena Keller, Petr Voříšek, Ian J. Burfield\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s0959270924000054\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Summary In Europe, population estimates of breeding birds are produced nationally and are periodically compiled at EU or pan-European scales. Until now, no other source was available to explore the robustness of these estimates. In this study, we compared population sizes reported in the latest edition of the European Red List of Birds (ERLoB) with those produced using data from the second European Breeding Bird Atlas (EBBA2) to assess their consistency and determine parameters behind variability in population estimates that deserve further attention in the future. In general, European population estimates derived from summing local abundance data from EBBA2 were similar to those obtained from ERLoB, although for some species they differed considerably, particularly in those distributed mainly in southern Europe. National population estimates from EBBA2 also did not differ markedly from those in ERLoB. However, we found that EBBA2 provided larger national population sizes than ERLoB for widespread species, suggesting that spatial information is more relevant for properly assessing their population size than for localised species. Our analysis also showed that, in general, population estimates based on robust methodological protocols (e.g. complete counts, statistical inference) contributed to reducing differences between ERLoB and EBBA2 values. Interestingly, EBBA2 and ERLoB estimates were quite similar for species classified in Europe as “Threatened” or “Near Threatened”, whereas the values for “Least Concern” species were consistently different between these two sources. Our results indicate which type of species would benefit from additional efforts to improve national population estimates and their consistency across countries, issues that are of paramount importance for guiding conservation strategies in Europe.\",\"PeriodicalId\":9275,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bird Conservation International\",\"volume\":\"81 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bird Conservation International\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0959270924000054\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bird Conservation International","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0959270924000054","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要 在欧洲,繁殖鸟类的种群数量估算由国家编制,并定期在欧盟或泛欧洲范围内进行汇编。到目前为止,还没有其他来源可用于探索这些估计值的稳健性。在这项研究中,我们比较了最新版《欧洲鸟类红色名录》(ERLoB)中报告的种群数量和利用第二版《欧洲繁殖鸟类图集》(EBBA2)中的数据得出的种群数量,以评估它们之间的一致性,并确定种群数量估计值变化背后的参数,这些参数值得在未来进一步关注。总体而言,通过汇总欧洲鸟类种群图集(EBBA2)的地方丰度数据得出的欧洲种群估计值与ERLoB得出的估计值相似,但某些物种的估计值差异较大,尤其是主要分布在南欧的物种。来自 EBBA2 的国家种群估计值与 ERLoB 的估计值也没有明显差异。然而,我们发现,对于分布广泛的物种,EBBA2 提供的国家种群数量要大于 ERLoB,这表明与局部物种相比,空间信息对于正确评估其种群数量更为重要。我们的分析还表明,一般来说,基于可靠方法规程(如完整计数、统计推断)的种群估计值有助于缩小ERLoB和EBBA2值之间的差异。有趣的是,对于在欧洲被归类为 "濒危 "或 "近危 "的物种,EBBA2 和 ERLoB 的估计值非常相似,而对于 "最不受关注 "的物种,这两个来源的估计值却一直存在差异。我们的研究结果表明,哪类物种可以从改进国家种群估计值及其国家间一致性的努力中获益,这些问题对于指导欧洲的保护战略至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Improving national bird population estimates in Europe: insights from comparisons with atlas abundance data
Summary In Europe, population estimates of breeding birds are produced nationally and are periodically compiled at EU or pan-European scales. Until now, no other source was available to explore the robustness of these estimates. In this study, we compared population sizes reported in the latest edition of the European Red List of Birds (ERLoB) with those produced using data from the second European Breeding Bird Atlas (EBBA2) to assess their consistency and determine parameters behind variability in population estimates that deserve further attention in the future. In general, European population estimates derived from summing local abundance data from EBBA2 were similar to those obtained from ERLoB, although for some species they differed considerably, particularly in those distributed mainly in southern Europe. National population estimates from EBBA2 also did not differ markedly from those in ERLoB. However, we found that EBBA2 provided larger national population sizes than ERLoB for widespread species, suggesting that spatial information is more relevant for properly assessing their population size than for localised species. Our analysis also showed that, in general, population estimates based on robust methodological protocols (e.g. complete counts, statistical inference) contributed to reducing differences between ERLoB and EBBA2 values. Interestingly, EBBA2 and ERLoB estimates were quite similar for species classified in Europe as “Threatened” or “Near Threatened”, whereas the values for “Least Concern” species were consistently different between these two sources. Our results indicate which type of species would benefit from additional efforts to improve national population estimates and their consistency across countries, issues that are of paramount importance for guiding conservation strategies in Europe.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
6.20%
发文量
50
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Bird Conservation International is a quarterly peer-reviewed journal that seeks to promote worldwide research and action for the conservation of birds and the habitats upon which they depend. The official journal of BirdLife International, it provides stimulating, international and up-to-date coverage of a broad range of conservation topics, using birds to illuminate wider issues of biodiversity, conservation and sustainable resource use. It publishes original papers and reviews, including targeted articles and recommendations by leading experts.
×
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