1
|
Carroll KA, Farwell LS, Pidgeon AM, Razenkova E, Gudex-Cross D, Helmers DP, Lewińska KE, Elsen PR, Radeloff VC. Mapping breeding bird species richness at management-relevant resolutions across the United States. Ecol Appl 2022; 32:e2624. [PMID: 35404493 DOI: 10.1002/eap.2624] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/02/2021] [Revised: 01/26/2022] [Accepted: 02/01/2022] [Indexed: 06/14/2023]
Abstract
Human activities alter ecosystems everywhere, causing rapid biodiversity loss and biotic homogenization. These losses necessitate coordinated conservation actions guided by biodiversity and species distribution spatial data that cover large areas yet have fine-enough resolution to be management-relevant (i.e., ≤5 km). However, most biodiversity products are too coarse for management or are only available for small areas. Furthermore, many maps generated for biodiversity assessment and conservation do not explicitly quantify the inherent tradeoff between resolution and accuracy when predicting biodiversity patterns. Our goals were to generate predictive models of overall breeding bird species richness and species richness of different guilds based on nine functional or life-history-based traits across the conterminous United States at three resolutions (0.5, 2.5, and 5 km) and quantify the tradeoff between resolution and accuracy and, hence, relevance for management of the resulting biodiversity maps. We summarized 18 years of North American Breeding Bird Survey data (1992-2019) and modeled species richness using random forests, including 66 predictor variables (describing climate, vegetation, geomorphology, and anthropogenic conditions), 20 of which we newly derived. Among the three spatial resolutions, the percentage variance explained ranged from 27% to 60% (median = 54%; mean = 57%) for overall species richness and 12% to 87% (median = 61%; mean = 58%) for our different guilds. Overall species richness and guild-specific species richness were best explained at 5-km resolution using ~24 predictor variables based on percentage variance explained, symmetric mean absolute percentage error, and root mean square error values. However, our 2.5-km-resolution maps were almost as accurate and provided more spatially detailed information, which is why we recommend them for most management applications. Our results represent the first consistent, occurrence-based, and nationwide maps of breeding bird richness with a thorough accuracy assessment that are also spatially detailed enough to inform local management decisions. More broadly, our findings highlight the importance of explicitly considering tradeoffs between resolution and accuracy to create management-relevant biodiversity products for large areas.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kathleen A Carroll
- SILVIS Lab, Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Laura S Farwell
- SILVIS Lab, Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Anna M Pidgeon
- SILVIS Lab, Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Elena Razenkova
- SILVIS Lab, Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - David Gudex-Cross
- SILVIS Lab, Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - David P Helmers
- SILVIS Lab, Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Katarzyna E Lewińska
- SILVIS Lab, Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Paul R Elsen
- SILVIS Lab, Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Volker C Radeloff
- SILVIS Lab, Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Farwell LS, Elsen PR, Razenkova E, Pidgeon AM, Radeloff VC. Habitat heterogeneity captured by 30-m resolution satellite image texture predicts bird richness across the United States. Ecol Appl 2020; 30:e02157. [PMID: 32358975 DOI: 10.1002/eap.2157] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/22/2019] [Revised: 02/24/2020] [Accepted: 03/19/2020] [Indexed: 06/11/2023]
Abstract
Species loss is occurring globally at unprecedented rates, and effective conservation planning requires an understanding of landscape characteristics that determine biodiversity patterns. Habitat heterogeneity is an important determinant of species diversity, but is difficult to measure across large areas using field-based methods that are costly and logistically challenging. Satellite image texture analysis offers a cost-effective alternative for quantifying habitat heterogeneity across broad spatial scales. We tested the ability of texture measures derived from 30-m resolution Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI) data to capture habitat heterogeneity and predict bird species richness across the conterminous United States. We used Landsat 8 satellite imagery from 2013-2017 to derive a suite of texture measures characterizing vegetation heterogeneity. Individual texture measures explained up to 21% of the variance in bird richness patterns in North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data during the same time period. Texture measures were positively related to total breeding bird richness, but this relationship varied among forest, grassland, and shrubland habitat specialists. Multiple texture measures combined with mean EVI explained up to 41% of the variance in total bird richness, and models including EVI-based texture measures explained up to 10% more variance than those that included only EVI. Models that also incorporated topographic and land cover metrics further improved predictive performance, explaining up to 51% of the variance in total bird richness. A texture measure contributed predictive power and characterized landscape features that EVI and forest cover alone could not, even though the latter two were overall more important variables. Our results highlight the potential of texture measures for mapping habitat heterogeneity and species richness patterns across broad spatial extents, especially when used in conjunction with vegetation indices or land cover data. By generating 30-m resolution texture maps and modeling bird richness at a near-continental scale, we expand on previous applications of image texture measures for modeling biodiversity that were either limited in spatial extent or based on coarse-resolution imagery. Incorporating texture measures into broad-scale biodiversity models may advance our understanding of mechanisms underlying species richness patterns and improve predictions of species responses to rapid global change.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laura S Farwell
- SILVIS Lab, Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1630 Linden Drive, Madison, Wisconsin, 53706, USA
| | - Paul R Elsen
- SILVIS Lab, Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1630 Linden Drive, Madison, Wisconsin, 53706, USA
- Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, New York, 10460, USA
| | - Elena Razenkova
- SILVIS Lab, Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1630 Linden Drive, Madison, Wisconsin, 53706, USA
| | - Anna M Pidgeon
- SILVIS Lab, Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1630 Linden Drive, Madison, Wisconsin, 53706, USA
| | - Volker C Radeloff
- SILVIS Lab, Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1630 Linden Drive, Madison, Wisconsin, 53706, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Razenkova E, Radeloff VC, Dubinin M, Bragina EV, Allen AM, Clayton MK, Pidgeon AM, Baskin LM, Coops NC, Hobi ML. Vegetation productivity summarized by the Dynamic Habitat Indices explains broad-scale patterns of moose abundance across Russia. Sci Rep 2020; 10:836. [PMID: 31964926 PMCID: PMC6972780 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-57308-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/24/2019] [Accepted: 12/19/2019] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
Identifying the factors that determine habitat suitability and hence patterns of wildlife abundances over broad spatial scales is important for conservation. Ecosystem productivity is a key aspect of habitat suitability, especially for large mammals. Our goals were to a) explain patterns of moose (Alces alces) abundance across Russia based on remotely sensed measures of vegetation productivity using Dynamic Habitat Indices (DHIs), and b) examine if patterns of moose abundance and productivity differed before and after the collapse of the Soviet Union. We evaluated the utility of the DHIs using multiple regression models predicting moose abundance by administrative regions. Univariate models of the individual DHIs had lower predictive power than all three combined. The three DHIs together with environmental variables, explained 79% of variation in moose abundance. Interestingly, the predictive power of the models was highest for the 1980s, and decreased for the two subsequent decades. We speculate that the lower predictive power of our environmental variables in the later decades may be due to increasing human influence on moose densities. Overall, we were able to explain patterns in moose abundance in Russia well, which can inform wildlife managers on the long-term patterns of habitat use of the species.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elena Razenkova
- SILVIS Lab, Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1630 Linden Drive, Madison, WI, 53706, USA.
| | - Volker C Radeloff
- SILVIS Lab, Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1630 Linden Drive, Madison, WI, 53706, USA
| | - Maxim Dubinin
- SILVIS Lab, Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1630 Linden Drive, Madison, WI, 53706, USA.,NextGIS, Moscow, Russia
| | - Eugenia V Bragina
- Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 27607, USA
| | - Andrew M Allen
- Department of Wildlife, Fish and Environmental Studies, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, Sweden.,Department of Animal Ecology and Physiology, Institute for Water and Wetland Research, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, 6500GL, The Netherlands
| | - Murray K Clayton
- Department of Statistics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1300 University Ave, Madison, WI, 53706, USA
| | - Anna M Pidgeon
- SILVIS Lab, Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1630 Linden Drive, Madison, WI, 53706, USA
| | - Leonid M Baskin
- Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution, 33 Leninsky pr., Moscow, 117071, Russia
| | - Nicholas C Coops
- Integrated Remote Sensing Studio, Department of Forest Resources Management, University of British Columbia, 2424 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada
| | - Martina L Hobi
- SILVIS Lab, Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1630 Linden Drive, Madison, WI, 53706, USA.,Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSL, Stand Dynamics and Silviculture Group, 8903, Birmensdorf, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|