Time filter

Source Type

Corvallis, OR, United States

Syphard A.D.,San Diego State University | Syphard A.D.,Conservation Biology Institute | Franklin J.,San Diego State University
Journal of Vegetation Science | Year: 2010

Questions: To what extent do plant species traits, including life history, life form, and disturbance response characteristics, affect the degree to which species distributions are determined by physical environmental factors? Is the strength of the relationship between species distribution and environment stronger in some disturbance-response types than in others? Location: California southwest ecoregion, USA. Methods: We developed species distribution models (SDMs) for 45 plant species using three primary modeling methods (GLMs, GAMs, and Random Forests). Using AUC as a performance measure of prediction accuracy, and measure of the strength of species-environment correlations, we used regression analyses to compare the effects of fire disturbance response type, longevity, dispersal mechanism, range size, cover, species prevalence, and model type. Results: Fire disturbance response type explained more variation in model performance than any other variable, but other species and range characteristics were also significant. Differences in prediction accuracy reflected variation in species life history, disturbance response, and rarity. AUC was significantly higher for longer-lived species, found at intermediate levels of abundance, and smaller range sizes. Models performed better for shrubs than sub-shrubs and perennial herbs. The disturbance response type with the highest SDM accuracy was obligate-seeding shrubs with ballistic dispersal that regenerate via fire-cued germination from a dormant seed bank. Conclusions: The effect of species characteristics on predictability of species distributions overrides any differences in modeling technique. Prediction accuracy may be related to how a suite of species characteristics co-varies along environmental gradients. Including disturbance response was important because SDMs predict the realized niche. Classification of plant species into disturbance response types may provide a strong framework for evaluating performance of SDMs. © 2009 International Association for Vegetation Science. Source

Conlisk E.,University of California at Riverside | Syphard A.D.,Conservation Biology Institute | Franklin J.,Arizona State University | Flint L.,U.S. Geological Survey | And 2 more authors.
Global Change Biology | Year: 2013

Concern over rapid global changes and the potential for interactions among multiple threats are prompting scientists to combine multiple modelling approaches to understand impacts on biodiversity. A relatively recent development is the combination of species distribution models, land-use change predictions, and dynamic population models to predict the relative and combined impacts of climate change, land-use change, and altered disturbance regimes on species' extinction risk. Each modelling component introduces its own source of uncertainty through different parameters and assumptions, which, when combined, can result in compounded uncertainty that can have major implications for management. Although some uncertainty analyses have been conducted separately on various model components - such as climate predictions, species distribution models, land-use change predictions, and population models - a unified sensitivity analysis comparing various sources of uncertainty in combined modelling approaches is needed to identify the most influential and problematic assumptions. We estimated the sensitivities of long-run population predictions to different ecological assumptions and parameter settings for a rare and endangered annual plant species (Acanthomintha ilicifolia, or San Diego thornmint). Uncertainty about habitat suitability predictions, due to the choice of species distribution model, contributed most to variation in predictions about long-run populations. © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Source

Franklin J.,Arizona State University | Davis F.W.,University of California at Santa Barbara | Ikegami M.,University of California at Santa Barbara | Syphard A.D.,Conservation Biology Institute | And 4 more authors.
Global Change Biology | Year: 2013

Recent studies suggest that species distribution models (SDMs) based on fine-scale climate data may provide markedly different estimates of climate-change impacts than coarse-scale models. However, these studies disagree in their conclusions of how scale influences projected species distributions. In rugged terrain, coarse-scale climate grids may not capture topographically controlled climate variation at the scale that constitutes microhabitat or refugia for some species. Although finer scale data are therefore considered to better reflect climatic conditions experienced by species, there have been few formal analyses of how modeled distributions differ with scale. We modeled distributions for 52 plant species endemic to the California Floristic Province of different life forms and range sizes under recent and future climate across a 2000-fold range of spatial scales (0.008-16 km2). We produced unique current and future climate datasets by separately downscaling 4 km climate models to three finer resolutions based on 800, 270, and 90 m digital elevation models and deriving bioclimatic predictors from them. As climate-data resolution became coarser, SDMs predicted larger habitat area with diminishing spatial congruence between fine- and coarse-scale predictions. These trends were most pronounced at the coarsest resolutions and depended on climate scenario and species' range size. On average, SDMs projected onto 4 km climate data predicted 42% more stable habitat (the amount of spatial overlap between predicted current and future climatically suitable habitat) compared with 800 m data. We found only modest agreement between areas predicted to be stable by 90 m models generalized to 4 km grids compared with areas classified as stable based on 4 km models, suggesting that some climate refugia captured at finer scales may be missed using coarser scale data. These differences in projected locations of habitat change may have more serious implications than net habitat area when predictive maps form the basis of conservation decision making. © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Source

Wiens J.A.,PRBO Conservation Science | Bachelet D.,Oregon State University | Bachelet D.,Conservation Biology Institute
Conservation Biology | Year: 2010

To anticipate the rapidly changing world resulting from global climate change, the projections of climate models must be incorporated into conservation. This requires that the scales of conservation be aligned with the scales of climate-change projections. We considered how conservation has incorporated spatial scale into protecting biodiversity, how the projections of climate-change models vary with scale, and how the two do or do not align. Conservation planners use information about past and current ecological conditions at multiple scales to identify conservation targets and threats and guide conservation actions. Projections of climate change are also made at multiple scales, from global and regional circulation models to projections downscaled to local scales. These downscaled projections carry with them the uncertainties associated with the broad-scale models from which they are derived; thus, their high resolution may be more apparent than real. Conservation at regional or global scales is about establishing priorities and influencing policy. At these scales, the coarseness and uncertainties of global and regional climate models may be less important than what they reveal about possible futures. At the ecoregional scale, the uncertainties associated with downscaling climate models become more critical because the distributions of conservation targets on which plans are founded may shift under future climates. At a local scale, variations in topography and land cover influence local climate, often overriding the projections of broad-scale climate models and increasing uncertainty. Despite the uncertainties, ecologists and conservationists must work with climate-change modelers to focus on the most likely projections. The future will be different from the past and full of surprises; judicious use of model projections at appropriate scales may help us prepare. © 2009 Society for Conservation Biology. Source

Beier P.,Northern Arizona University | Spencer W.,Conservation Biology Institute | Baldwin R.F.,Clemson University | Mcrae B.H.,The Nature Conservancy
Conservation Biology | Year: 2011

To conserve ecological connectivity (the ability to support animal movement, gene flow, range shifts, and other ecological and evolutionary processes that require large areas), conservation professionals need coarse-grained maps to serve as decision-support tools or vision statements and fine-grained maps to prescribe site-specific interventions. To date, research has focused primarily on fine-grained maps (linkage designs) covering small areas. In contrast, we devised 7 steps to coarsely map dozens to hundreds of linkages over a large area, such as a nation, province, or ecoregion. We provide recommendations on how to perform each step on the basis of our experiences with 6 projects: California Missing Linkages (2001), Arizona Wildlife Linkage Assessment (2006), California Essential Habitat Connectivity (2010), Two Countries, One Forest (northeastern United States and southeastern Canada) (2010), Washington State Connected Landscapes (2010), and the Bhutan Biological Corridor Complex (2010). The 2 most difficult steps are mapping natural landscape blocks (areas whose conservation value derives from the species and ecological processes within them) and determining which pairs of blocks can feasibly be connected in a way that promotes conservation. Decision rules for mapping natural landscape blocks and determining which pairs of blocks to connect must reflect not only technical criteria, but also the values and priorities of stakeholders. We recommend blocks be mapped on the basis of a combination of naturalness, protection status, linear barriers, and habitat quality for selected species. We describe manual and automated procedures to identify currently functioning or restorable linkages. Once pairs of blocks have been identified, linkage polygons can be mapped by least-cost modeling, other approaches from graph theory, or individual-based movement models. The approaches we outline make assumptions explicit, have outputs that can be improved as underlying data are improved, and help implementers focus strictly on ecological connectivity. © 2011 Society for Conservation Biology. Source

Discover hidden collaborations