Cargando…

Evaluation of the ecological niche model approach in spatial conservation prioritization

Ecological niche models (ENMs) are widely used in spatial prioritization for biodiversity conservation (e.g. selecting conservation areas). However, it is unclear whether ENMs are always beneficial for such purposes. We quantified the benefit of using ENMs in conservation prioritization, comparing t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ishihama, Fumiko, Takenaka, Akio, Yokomizo, Hiroyuki, Kadoya, Taku
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6924678/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31860663
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226971
_version_ 1783481763312435200
author Ishihama, Fumiko
Takenaka, Akio
Yokomizo, Hiroyuki
Kadoya, Taku
author_facet Ishihama, Fumiko
Takenaka, Akio
Yokomizo, Hiroyuki
Kadoya, Taku
author_sort Ishihama, Fumiko
collection PubMed
description Ecological niche models (ENMs) are widely used in spatial prioritization for biodiversity conservation (e.g. selecting conservation areas). However, it is unclear whether ENMs are always beneficial for such purposes. We quantified the benefit of using ENMs in conservation prioritization, comparing the numbers of species covered by conservation areas selected on the basis of probabilities estimated by ENMs (ENM approach) and those selected on the basis of raw observation data (raw-data approach), while controlling survey range, survey bias, and target size of conservation area. We evaluated three ENM algorithms (GLM, GAM, and random forests). We used virtual community data generated by simulation for the evaluation. ENM approach was effective when survey bias is strong, survey range is narrow, and target size of conservation area is moderate. The percentage of cases in which the ENM approach outperformed the raw-data approach ranged from 0.0 to 33% (GLM), 31% (GAM), and 75% (random forests) depending on conditions. The number of rare species (< 20 presence records) included in the conservation area based on the ENM approach was less than, or the same as, that of the raw-data approach. The unexpectedly limited cases in which the ENM approach was effective in the present research may depend on the conservation target we used (to cover as many species as possible in conservation area). Our results highlight urgent need for evaluating ENM’s effectiveness under other conservation targets for wise use of ENM in conservation prioritization.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6924678
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69246782020-01-07 Evaluation of the ecological niche model approach in spatial conservation prioritization Ishihama, Fumiko Takenaka, Akio Yokomizo, Hiroyuki Kadoya, Taku PLoS One Research Article Ecological niche models (ENMs) are widely used in spatial prioritization for biodiversity conservation (e.g. selecting conservation areas). However, it is unclear whether ENMs are always beneficial for such purposes. We quantified the benefit of using ENMs in conservation prioritization, comparing the numbers of species covered by conservation areas selected on the basis of probabilities estimated by ENMs (ENM approach) and those selected on the basis of raw observation data (raw-data approach), while controlling survey range, survey bias, and target size of conservation area. We evaluated three ENM algorithms (GLM, GAM, and random forests). We used virtual community data generated by simulation for the evaluation. ENM approach was effective when survey bias is strong, survey range is narrow, and target size of conservation area is moderate. The percentage of cases in which the ENM approach outperformed the raw-data approach ranged from 0.0 to 33% (GLM), 31% (GAM), and 75% (random forests) depending on conditions. The number of rare species (< 20 presence records) included in the conservation area based on the ENM approach was less than, or the same as, that of the raw-data approach. The unexpectedly limited cases in which the ENM approach was effective in the present research may depend on the conservation target we used (to cover as many species as possible in conservation area). Our results highlight urgent need for evaluating ENM’s effectiveness under other conservation targets for wise use of ENM in conservation prioritization. Public Library of Science 2019-12-20 /pmc/articles/PMC6924678/ /pubmed/31860663 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226971 Text en © 2019 Ishihama et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Ishihama, Fumiko
Takenaka, Akio
Yokomizo, Hiroyuki
Kadoya, Taku
Evaluation of the ecological niche model approach in spatial conservation prioritization
title Evaluation of the ecological niche model approach in spatial conservation prioritization
title_full Evaluation of the ecological niche model approach in spatial conservation prioritization
title_fullStr Evaluation of the ecological niche model approach in spatial conservation prioritization
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of the ecological niche model approach in spatial conservation prioritization
title_short Evaluation of the ecological niche model approach in spatial conservation prioritization
title_sort evaluation of the ecological niche model approach in spatial conservation prioritization
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6924678/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31860663
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226971
work_keys_str_mv AT ishihamafumiko evaluationoftheecologicalnichemodelapproachinspatialconservationprioritization
AT takenakaakio evaluationoftheecologicalnichemodelapproachinspatialconservationprioritization
AT yokomizohiroyuki evaluationoftheecologicalnichemodelapproachinspatialconservationprioritization
AT kadoyataku evaluationoftheecologicalnichemodelapproachinspatialconservationprioritization