1
|
Rocchini D, Tordoni E, Marchetto E, Marcantonio M, Barbosa AM, Bazzichetto M, Beierkuhnlein C, Castelnuovo E, Gatti RC, Chiarucci A, Chieffallo L, Da Re D, Di Musciano M, Foody GM, Gabor L, Garzon-Lopez CX, Guisan A, Hattab T, Hortal J, Kunin WE, Jordán F, Lenoir J, Mirri S, Moudrý V, Naimi B, Nowosad J, Sabatini FM, Schweiger AH, Šímová P, Tessarolo G, Zannini P, Malavasi M. A quixotic view of spatial bias in modelling the distribution of species and their diversity. NPJ BIODIVERSITY 2023; 2:10. [PMID: 39242713 PMCID: PMC11332097 DOI: 10.1038/s44185-023-00014-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/08/2022] [Accepted: 03/23/2023] [Indexed: 09/09/2024]
Abstract
Ecological processes are often spatially and temporally structured, potentially leading to autocorrelation either in environmental variables or species distribution data. Because of that, spatially-biased in-situ samples or predictors might affect the outcomes of ecological models used to infer the geographic distribution of species and diversity. There is a vast heterogeneity of methods and approaches to assess and measure spatial bias; this paper aims at addressing the spatial component of data-driven biases in species distribution modelling, and to propose potential solutions to explicitly test and account for them. Our major goal is not to propose methods to remove spatial bias from the modelling procedure, which would be impossible without proper knowledge of all the processes generating it, but rather to propose alternatives to explore and handle it. In particular, we propose and describe three main strategies that may provide a fair account of spatial bias, namely: (i) how to represent spatial bias; (ii) how to simulate null models based on virtual species for testing biogeographical and species distribution hypotheses; and (iii) how to make use of spatial bias - in particular related to sampling effort - as a leverage instead of a hindrance in species distribution modelling. We link these strategies with good practice in accounting for spatial bias in species distribution modelling.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Duccio Rocchini
- BIOME Lab, Department of Biological, Geological and Environmental Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, via Irnerio 42, 40126, Bologna, Italy.
- Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Department of Spatial Sciences, Kamýcka 129, Praha - Suchdol, 16500, Czech Republic.
| | - Enrico Tordoni
- Department of Botany, Institute of Ecology and Earth Science, University of Tartu, J. Liivi 2, 50409, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Elisa Marchetto
- BIOME Lab, Department of Biological, Geological and Environmental Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, via Irnerio 42, 40126, Bologna, Italy
| | - Matteo Marcantonio
- Evolutionary Ecology and Genetics Group, Earth and Life Institute, UCLouvain, 1348, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
| | - A Márcia Barbosa
- CICGE (Centro de Investigação em Ciências Geo-Espaciais), Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal
| | - Manuele Bazzichetto
- Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Department of Spatial Sciences, Kamýcka 129, Praha - Suchdol, 16500, Czech Republic
| | - Carl Beierkuhnlein
- Biogeography, BayCEER, University of Bayreuth, Universitaetsstraße 30, 95440, Bayreuth, Germany
| | - Elisa Castelnuovo
- BIOME Lab, Department of Biological, Geological and Environmental Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, via Irnerio 42, 40126, Bologna, Italy
| | - Roberto Cazzolla Gatti
- BIOME Lab, Department of Biological, Geological and Environmental Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, via Irnerio 42, 40126, Bologna, Italy
| | - Alessandro Chiarucci
- BIOME Lab, Department of Biological, Geological and Environmental Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, via Irnerio 42, 40126, Bologna, Italy
| | - Ludovico Chieffallo
- BIOME Lab, Department of Biological, Geological and Environmental Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, via Irnerio 42, 40126, Bologna, Italy
| | - Daniele Da Re
- Georges Lemaître Center for Earth and Climate Research, Earth and Life Institute, UCLouvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
| | - Michele Di Musciano
- BIOME Lab, Department of Biological, Geological and Environmental Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, via Irnerio 42, 40126, Bologna, Italy
- Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, Piazzale Salvatore Tommasi 1, 67100, L'Aquila, Italy
| | - Giles M Foody
- School of Geography, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Lukas Gabor
- Dept of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA
- Center for Biodiversity and Global Change, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA
| | - Carol X Garzon-Lopez
- Knowledge Infrastructures, Campus Fryslan University of Groningen, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands
| | - Antoine Guisan
- Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Lausanne, 1015, Lausanne, Switzerland
- Institute of Earth Surface Dynamics, University of Lausanne, 1015, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Tarek Hattab
- MARBEC, Univ Montpellier, CNRS, Ifremer, IRD, Sète, France
| | - Joaquin Hortal
- Department of Biogeography and Global Change, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales (MNCN-CSIC), Madrid, Spain
| | | | | | - Jonathan Lenoir
- UMR CNRS 7058 "Ecologie et Dynamique des Systèmes Anthropisés" (EDYSAN), Université de Picardie Jules Verne, 1 Rue des Louvels, 80000, Amiens, France
| | - Silvia Mirri
- Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, via Irnerio 42, 40126, Bologna, Italy
| | - Vítězslav Moudrý
- Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Department of Spatial Sciences, Kamýcka 129, Praha - Suchdol, 16500, Czech Republic
| | - Babak Naimi
- Rui Nabeiro Biodiversity Chair, MED Institute, University of Évora, Évora, Portugal
| | - Jakub Nowosad
- Institute of Geoecology and Geoinformation, Adam Mickiewicz University, Krygowskiego 10, 61-680, Poznan, Poland
| | - Francesco Maria Sabatini
- BIOME Lab, Department of Biological, Geological and Environmental Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, via Irnerio 42, 40126, Bologna, Italy
- Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague - Suchdol, Czech Republic
| | - Andreas H Schweiger
- Department of Plant Ecology, Institute of Landscape and Plant Ecology, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany
| | - Petra Šímová
- Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Department of Spatial Sciences, Kamýcka 129, Praha - Suchdol, 16500, Czech Republic
| | | | - Piero Zannini
- BIOME Lab, Department of Biological, Geological and Environmental Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, via Irnerio 42, 40126, Bologna, Italy
| | - Marco Malavasi
- University of Sassari, Department of Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Sassari, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Kot CY, Åkesson S, Alfaro‐Shigueto J, Amorocho Llanos DF, Antonopoulou M, Balazs GH, Baverstock WR, Blumenthal JM, Broderick AC, Bruno I, Canbolat AF, Casale P, Cejudo D, Coyne MS, Curtice C, DeLand S, DiMatteo A, Dodge K, Dunn DC, Esteban N, Formia A, Fuentes MMPB, Fujioka E, Garnier J, Godfrey MH, Godley BJ, González Carman V, Harrison A, Hart CE, Hawkes LA, Hays GC, Hill N, Hochscheid S, Kaska Y, Levy Y, Ley‐Quiñónez CP, Lockhart GG, López‐Mendilaharsu M, Luschi P, Mangel JC, Margaritoulis D, Maxwell SM, McClellan CM, Metcalfe K, Mingozzi A, Moncada FG, Nichols WJ, Parker DM, Patel SH, Pilcher NJ, Poulin S, Read AJ, Rees ALF, Robinson DP, Robinson NJ, Sandoval‐Lugo AG, Schofield G, Seminoff JA, Seney EE, Snape RTE, Sözbilen D, Tomás J, Varo‐Cruz N, Wallace BP, Wildermann NE, Witt MJ, Zavala‐Norzagaray AA, Halpin PN. Network analysis of sea turtle movements and connectivity: A tool for conservation prioritization. DIVERS DISTRIB 2022. [DOI: 10.1111/ddi.13485] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022] Open
|
7
|
García-Antón A, Garza V, Traba J. Connectivity in Spanish metapopulation of Dupont's lark may be maintained by dispersal over medium-distance range and stepping stones. PeerJ 2021; 9:e11925. [PMID: 34466286 PMCID: PMC8380426 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.11925] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/13/2021] [Accepted: 07/16/2021] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Dupont’s Lark is an endangered bird, whose fragmented distribution in Europe is entirely restricted to Spain. This lark, suffering pronounced population decline and range contraction, inhabits steppes that have long been used for grazing sheep and are now threatened by rural abandonment and land use changes. Thus, for conservation of the lark, increasing knowledge about the connectivity of the Spanish metapopulation and identifying the most important connectivity nodes are crucial. Methods The study was carried out in Spain, using over 16,000 Dupont’s Lark georeferenced observations. We used distance buffers to define populations and subpopulations, based on the available scientific information. We identified potential stepping stones using a MaxEnt probability of presence model. Connectivity was assessed using Conefor software, using the centroid of each subpopulation and stepping stone as nodes. Each node was assigned a quantitative attribute based on total habitat area, within-node habitat quality and internal fragmentation. We evaluated different connectivity scenarios by potential movement thresholds (5–20–100 km) and presence or absence of stepping stones in the network. Results Dupont’s Lark Iberian metapopulation comprises 24 populations and 100 subpopulations, plus 294 potential stepping stones. Movement thresholds and stepping stones had a strong influence in the potential network connectivity. The most important nodes are located in the core of the metapopulation, which shows connectivity among subpopulations in the different indices and scenarios evaluated. Peripheral populations are more isolated and require stepping stones or medium (20 km) or long (100 km) potential movement thresholds to join the network. Discussion Metapopulation connectivity may be greater than expected, thanks to stepping stones and potential medium-distance movements. Connectivity is crucial for conservation and can be increased by preserving or improving adequate habitat in the most important nodes. Given the current species decline, steppe habitat should be urgently protected from land use changes and agriculture intensification, at least in the critical subpopulations and stepping stones. Long-term conservation of steppe lands and Dupont’s Lark in Spain requires the recovery of traditional grazing and more research on juvenile dispersion. Meanwhile, the conservation of potentially critical stepping stones should be incorporated to management plans.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander García-Antón
- Terrestrial Ecology Group (TEG-UAM), Department of Ecology, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Madrid, Spain
| | - Vicente Garza
- Terrestrial Ecology Group (TEG-UAM), Department of Ecology, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Madrid, Spain
| | - Juan Traba
- Terrestrial Ecology Group (TEG-UAM), Department of Ecology, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Madrid, Spain.,Centro de Investigación en Biodiversidad y Cambio Global, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Madrid, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Cappellari A, Marini L. Improving insect conservation across heterogeneous landscapes using species-habitat networks. PeerJ 2021; 9:e10563. [PMID: 33505794 PMCID: PMC7792512 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10563] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/25/2020] [Accepted: 11/22/2020] [Indexed: 02/03/2023] Open
Abstract
Background One of the biggest challenges in conservation is to manage multiple habitats for the effective conservation of multiple species, especially when the focal species are mobile and use multiple resources across heterogeneous protected areas. The application of ecological network tools and the analysis of the resulting species–habitat networks can help to describe such complex spatial associations and improve the conservation of species at the landscape scale. Methods To exemplify the application of species–habitat networks, we present a case study on butterflies inhabiting multiple grassland types across a heterogeneous protected area in North-East Italy. We sampled adult butterflies in 44 sites, each belonging to one of the five major habitat types in the protected area, that is, disturbed grasslands, continuous grasslands, evolved grasslands, hay meadows and wet meadows. First, we applied traditional diversity analyses to explore butterfly species richness and evenness. Second, we built and analyzed both the unipartite network, linking habitat patches via shared species, and the bipartite network, linking species to individual habitat patches. Aims (i) To describe the emerging properties (connectance, modularity, nestedness, and robustness) of the species–habitat network at the scale of the whole protected area, and (ii) to identify the key habitats patches for butterfly conservation across the protected area, that is, those supporting the highest number of species and those with unique species assemblages (e.g., hosting specialist species). Results The species–habitat network appeared to have a weak modular structure, meaning that the main habitat types tended to host different species assemblages. However, the habitats also shared a large proportion of species that were able to visit multiple habitats and use resources across the whole study area. Even butterfly species typically considered as habitat specialists were actually observed across multiple habitat patches, suggesting that protecting them only within their focal habitat might be ineffective. Our species–habitat network approach helped identifying both central habitat patches that were able to support the highest number of species, and habitat patches that supported rare specialist species.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andree Cappellari
- Department of Agronomy, Food, Natural Resources, Animals and Environment (DAFNAE), University of Padua, Legnaro, Padua, Italy
| | - Lorenzo Marini
- Department of Agronomy, Food, Natural Resources, Animals and Environment (DAFNAE), University of Padua, Legnaro, Padua, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Rozylowicz L, Nita A, Manolache S, Popescu VD, Hartel T. Navigating protected areas networks for improving diffusion of conservation practices. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 2019; 230:413-421. [PMID: 30296679 DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.09.088] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/18/2018] [Revised: 09/20/2018] [Accepted: 09/24/2018] [Indexed: 06/08/2023]
Abstract
The Natura 2000 protected area network is the cornerstone of European Union's biodiversity conservation strategy. These protected areas range across multiple biogeographic regions, and they include a diversity of species assemblages along with a diversity of managing organizations, altogether making difficult to pool relevant sites to facilitate the flow of knowledge significant to their management. Here we introduce an approach to navigating protected area networks that has the potential to foster systematic identification of key sites for facilitating the exchange of knowledge and diffusion of information within the network. To demonstrate our approach, we abstractly represented Romanian Natura 2000 network as a co-occurrence network, with individual sites as nodes and shared species as edges, further combining into our analysis network topology, community detection, and network reduction methods. We identified most representative Natura 2000 sites that may increase the transfer of information within the national network of protected areas, detected clusters of sites and key sites for maintaining network cohesiveness, and highlighted the subsample of sites that retain the characteristics of the entire network. Our analysis provides implications for protected area prioritization by proposing a network perspective approach to collaboration rooted in ecological principles.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laurentiu Rozylowicz
- Centre for Environmental Research and Impact Studies, University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania
| | - Andreea Nita
- Centre for Environmental Research and Impact Studies, University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania.
| | - Steluta Manolache
- Centre for Environmental Research and Impact Studies, University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania
| | - Viorel D Popescu
- Centre for Environmental Research and Impact Studies, University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania; Department of Biological Sciences, Ohio University, Athens, OH, USA
| | - Tibor Hartel
- Centre for Environmental Research and Impact Studies, University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania; Department of Biology and Ecology in Hungarian, Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
| |
Collapse
|