在使用发生率和丰度数据时,对海洋鱼类地理范围变化的估计有何不同?

IF 4.6 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Yin-Zheng Lai, Ying-Chung Jimmy Lin, Chia-Ying Ko
{"title":"在使用发生率和丰度数据时,对海洋鱼类地理范围变化的估计有何不同?","authors":"Yin-Zheng Lai,&nbsp;Ying-Chung Jimmy Lin,&nbsp;Chia-Ying Ko","doi":"10.1111/ddi.13919","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>Geographic range shifts are a common species' response to climate change. While occurrence data are commonly used to estimate species' geographical range shifts, ongoing debate suggests that local abundance data may be increasingly important for the estimates, but few studies have investigated differences between the above two types of data. We aimed to explore whether occurrence and abundance data would result in different patterns of geographic range shifts for marine fishes.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Location</h3>\n \n <p>Northeast US Continental Shelf, North Sea, and East Bering Sea.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We used bottom trawl datasets since 1968 in the three large marine communities to assess whether data types would affect estimated shifts in marine fish species. The range centroids of individual species were first estimated every year and linear regressions were fitted to estimate shift rates in both longitudinal and latitudinal directions. The average range centroids of the last 5 years were used to compare differences between the data types in species' shifts. We then grouped species by traits to overview species compositions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Significant differences in shift trends between regressions based on annual occurrence- and abundance-based range centroids were found in species' longitudinal shifts, particularly in the Northeast US Continental Shelf and North Sea. Approximately 38.5%–45.9% of fish species in the large marine communities had inconsistent shift directions when estimated by different data types. In comparison with the average range centroids of the last 5 years between the two data types, large changes were identified in the magnitudes of the shift distances towards the east and west. Fish species with inconsistent shifts between the two data types were mostly composed of commercial and demersal species.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Main Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The results provide observed differences over decades and suggest caution on the estimation of species' geographic range shifts using occurrence and abundance data and highlight the differences for future assessments of marine species shifts under climate change.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":51018,"journal":{"name":"Diversity and Distributions","volume":"30 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ddi.13919","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How would estimation of geographic range shifts of marine fishes be different when using occurrence and abundance data?\",\"authors\":\"Yin-Zheng Lai,&nbsp;Ying-Chung Jimmy Lin,&nbsp;Chia-Ying Ko\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ddi.13919\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Aim</h3>\\n \\n <p>Geographic range shifts are a common species' response to climate change. While occurrence data are commonly used to estimate species' geographical range shifts, ongoing debate suggests that local abundance data may be increasingly important for the estimates, but few studies have investigated differences between the above two types of data. We aimed to explore whether occurrence and abundance data would result in different patterns of geographic range shifts for marine fishes.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Location</h3>\\n \\n <p>Northeast US Continental Shelf, North Sea, and East Bering Sea.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We used bottom trawl datasets since 1968 in the three large marine communities to assess whether data types would affect estimated shifts in marine fish species. The range centroids of individual species were first estimated every year and linear regressions were fitted to estimate shift rates in both longitudinal and latitudinal directions. The average range centroids of the last 5 years were used to compare differences between the data types in species' shifts. We then grouped species by traits to overview species compositions.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Significant differences in shift trends between regressions based on annual occurrence- and abundance-based range centroids were found in species' longitudinal shifts, particularly in the Northeast US Continental Shelf and North Sea. Approximately 38.5%–45.9% of fish species in the large marine communities had inconsistent shift directions when estimated by different data types. In comparison with the average range centroids of the last 5 years between the two data types, large changes were identified in the magnitudes of the shift distances towards the east and west. Fish species with inconsistent shifts between the two data types were mostly composed of commercial and demersal species.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Main Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>The results provide observed differences over decades and suggest caution on the estimation of species' geographic range shifts using occurrence and abundance data and highlight the differences for future assessments of marine species shifts under climate change.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51018,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diversity and Distributions\",\"volume\":\"30 10\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ddi.13919\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diversity and Distributions\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ddi.13919\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diversity and Distributions","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ddi.13919","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

摘要

目的 地理分布范围变化是物种对气候变化的常见反应。虽然发生数据通常用于估算物种的地理范围变化,但目前的争论表明,当地的丰度数据对于估算可能越来越重要,但很少有研究调查上述两类数据之间的差异。我们的目的是探讨发生率和丰度数据是否会导致海洋鱼类地理范围移动的不同模式。方法我们使用了自 1968 年以来这三个大型海洋群落的底拖网数据集,以评估数据类型是否会影响海洋鱼类物种的估计移动。首先每年估算单个物种的范围中心点,然后进行线性回归,以估算经度和纬度方向的迁移率。用过去 5 年的平均范围中心值来比较不同数据类型在物种迁移方面的差异。结果发现,在物种的纵向移动中,基于年出现量和基于丰度的范围中心值的回归结果在移动趋势上存在显著差异,尤其是在美国东北部大陆架和北海。在大型海洋群落中,约有 38.5%-45.9%的鱼类物种在不同数据类型的估算下具有不一致的移动方向。与两种数据类型最近 5 年的平均范围中心值相比,发现向东和向西移动距离的幅度变化很大。主要结论 这些结果提供了几十年来观察到的差异,建议谨慎使用物种出现和丰度数据估计物种的地理范围变化,并强调了未来评估气候变化下海洋物种变化的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

How would estimation of geographic range shifts of marine fishes be different when using occurrence and abundance data?

How would estimation of geographic range shifts of marine fishes be different when using occurrence and abundance data?

Aim

Geographic range shifts are a common species' response to climate change. While occurrence data are commonly used to estimate species' geographical range shifts, ongoing debate suggests that local abundance data may be increasingly important for the estimates, but few studies have investigated differences between the above two types of data. We aimed to explore whether occurrence and abundance data would result in different patterns of geographic range shifts for marine fishes.

Location

Northeast US Continental Shelf, North Sea, and East Bering Sea.

Methods

We used bottom trawl datasets since 1968 in the three large marine communities to assess whether data types would affect estimated shifts in marine fish species. The range centroids of individual species were first estimated every year and linear regressions were fitted to estimate shift rates in both longitudinal and latitudinal directions. The average range centroids of the last 5 years were used to compare differences between the data types in species' shifts. We then grouped species by traits to overview species compositions.

Results

Significant differences in shift trends between regressions based on annual occurrence- and abundance-based range centroids were found in species' longitudinal shifts, particularly in the Northeast US Continental Shelf and North Sea. Approximately 38.5%–45.9% of fish species in the large marine communities had inconsistent shift directions when estimated by different data types. In comparison with the average range centroids of the last 5 years between the two data types, large changes were identified in the magnitudes of the shift distances towards the east and west. Fish species with inconsistent shifts between the two data types were mostly composed of commercial and demersal species.

Main Conclusions

The results provide observed differences over decades and suggest caution on the estimation of species' geographic range shifts using occurrence and abundance data and highlight the differences for future assessments of marine species shifts under climate change.

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
Diversity and Distributions
Diversity and Distributions 环境科学-生态学
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
4.30%
发文量
195
审稿时长
8-16 weeks
期刊介绍: Diversity and Distributions is a journal of conservation biogeography. We publish papers that deal with the application of biogeographical principles, theories, and analyses (being those concerned with the distributional dynamics of taxa and assemblages) to problems concerning the conservation of biodiversity. We no longer consider papers the sole aim of which is to describe or analyze patterns of biodiversity or to elucidate processes that generate biodiversity.
×
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