This site needs JavaScript to work properly. Please enable it to take advantage of the complete set of features!
Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

NIH NLM Logo
Log in
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Dec;16(12):1424-35.
doi: 10.1111/ele.12189. Epub 2013 Oct 17.

Predicting species distributions for conservation decisions

Affiliations

Predicting species distributions for conservation decisions

Antoine Guisan et al. Ecol Lett. 2013 Dec.

Abstract

Species distribution models (SDMs) are increasingly proposed to support conservation decision making. However, evidence of SDMs supporting solutions for on-ground conservation problems is still scarce in the scientific literature. Here, we show that successful examples exist but are still largely hidden in the grey literature, and thus less accessible for analysis and learning. Furthermore, the decision framework within which SDMs are used is rarely made explicit. Using case studies from biological invasions, identification of critical habitats, reserve selection and translocation of endangered species, we propose that SDMs may be tailored to suit a range of decision-making contexts when used within a structured and transparent decision-making process. To construct appropriate SDMs to more effectively guide conservation actions, modellers need to better understand the decision process, and decision makers need to provide feedback to modellers regarding the actual use of SDMs to support conservation decisions. This could be facilitated by individuals or institutions playing the role of 'translators' between modellers and decision makers. We encourage species distribution modellers to get involved in real decision-making processes that will benefit from their technical input; this strategy has the potential to better bridge theory and practice, and contribute to improve both scientific knowledge and conservation outcomes.

Keywords: Biological invasions; conservation planning; critical habitats; environmental suitability; reserve selection; species distribution model; structured decision making; translocation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Cumulative trends over the last 20 years extracted from the Web of Science (WoS), showing the increasing number of peer-reviewed papers related to SDMs (keyword search). Curves are drawn as proportions (%00) of the cumulative number of papers published in the WoS category ‘Ecology’. The cumulative number of papers for each year is indicated on the curves. (a) All SDM papers. (b) Only SDM papers in the four important conservation domains (biological invasions, critical habitat, reserve selection, translocation) discussed in the paper, without (solid line) or with (dashed line) the keyword ‘decision’. For choice of keywords see Appendix S3.
Figure 2
Figure 2
A structured decision-making process (Gregory et al. 2012) with indication of potential entry points for the use of SDMs. See main text and Table 1 for details. The black arrows indicate where SDMs can contribute to steps in the decision-making process.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Four examples of maps used in conservation decision making based on SDMs. (a) Declaration of gamba grass (Andropogon gayanus, picture by Samantha Setterfield) as a weed using the weed risk assessment process in the Northern Territory of Australia (NTA 2009). (b) Identifying critical habitats (red) for three endangered bird species in Catalonia, Spain, as used in a legal decree (DMAH 2010) (picture of Tetrax tetra by Blake Matheson). (c) E-RMS tool windows and spatial query result for an endangered frog (Philoria loveridgei), as used in the conservation planning project for northeast New South Wales forests (Brown et al. 2000). (d) Identification of habitat use by the Bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis sierra, picture by Lynette Schimming) in the Sierra Nevada, California, based on historical records only (NPS Seki 2011); SDM were not used to plan current translocation efforts but to predict the future distribution of potential translocation sites (Johnson et al. 2007).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Proposed role of ‘Translators’ (being individuals, groups or institutions; Cash et al. ; Soberón 2004) as bridges between SDM development and conservation decision making. See Figure 2 for details of the steps of the structured decision-making process and where SDM can provide support.

References

    1. Addison PFE, Rumpff L, Bau SS, Carey JM, Chee YE, Jarrad FC, et al. Practical solutions for making models indispensable in conservation decision-making. Divers. Distrib. 2013;19:490–502.
    1. Araujo MB, Alagador D, Cabeza M, Nogues-Bravo D. Thuiller W. Climate change threatens European conservation areas. Ecol. Lett. 2011;14:484–492. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Austin M. Species distribution models and ecological theory: a critical assessment and some possible new approaches. Ecol. Model. 2007;200:1–19.
    1. Barry SC. Elith J. Error and uncertainty in habitat models. J. Appl. Ecol. 2006;43:413–423.
    1. Baxter PWJ. Possingham HP. Optimizing search strategies for invasive pests: Learn before you leap. J. Appl. Ecol. 2011;48:86–95.

Publication types

Cite

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /