Geology ReportsSearch

USGS · 70208671

A pragmatic approach for comparing species distribution models to increasing confidence in managing piping plover habitat

Abstract

Conservation management often requires decision-making without perfect knowledge of the at-risk species or ecosystem. Species distribution models (SDMs) are useful but largely under-utilized due to model uncertainty. We provide a case study that utilizes an ensemble modeling approach of two independently derived SDMs to explicitly address common modeling impediments and to directly inform conservation decision-making for piping plovers in a heavily populated mid-Atlantic (USA) coastal zone. We summarized previously published Bayesian network and maximum entropy modeling approaches to highlight similarities and differences in model structure, and we compared the relative importance of predictors used. Despite marked differences in analytical approach, the relative importance of factors driving nest-site selection was consistent. Comparison of raw suitability scores revealed high dissimilarity between modeling approaches, but models demonstrated considerable agreement when comparing a binary (suitable/unsuitable) measure of suitability. Instances of model consensus (i.e., overlapping areas of predicted piping plover nesting habitat between models) provide a stronger ‘signal’ in model results, reducing uncertainty related to biases or errors associated with either model. We tested model accuracy using a common dataset of plover nests initiated within the focal areas between 2013 and 2015, and we examined congruency in model outputs. Nearly 90% of all nests occurred in areas predicted suitable by at least one model, and at least 33% of the total nests were predicted in areas suitable by both. Because models predominantly agreed on what drives piping plover nest-site selection, areas predicted suitable by a single model should not be discounted. This case study demonstrates how models can effectively inform conservation planning by explicitly identifying the management objective, presenting robust evidence to allow managers to evaluate outcomes of alternative management decisions, and clearly communicating results that address real-world conservation problems. The results presented here can greatly increase the piping plover management community’s ability to prioritize candidate sites for future protection, manage existing nesting habitat appropriately, and make a compelling case for conservation actions against competing land use objectives.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 39.27266344858914° to 40.697299008636755° latitude; -74.67681884765624° to -73.23211669921875° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Brooke Maslo, Sara L. Zeigler, Evan Drake, Todd Pover, Nathaniel G. Plant. 2019-12-11. A pragmatic approach for comparing species distribution models to increasing confidence in managing piping plover habitat. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.150

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Successes and opportunities for solutions-oriented conservation research: Lessons learned from avian science

Conservation science struggles with an ongoing divide between research and action. Given its history of broad public engagement and multi-scale management coordination, avian conservation typifies many of the challenges, successes, and opportunities across the broader field of conservation and is rich with examples that may guide solutions-oriented conservation science. In semi-structured focus groups composed of bird conservation scientists and practitioners from various backgrounds, we discussed the definition, characteristics, and examples of solutions-oriented conservation science. Our discussions highlighted several examples where successful application of avian conservation science led to change in programs, policy, regulations, and social systems, including several with co-benefits for local communities. These successes were characterized by communication, collaboration, and co-development with local communities, decision-makers, practitioners, and Indigenous communities. We identified remaining opportunities for improvement, including aligning incentives and priorities between research and practice, working across disciplines to mobilize solutions, dismantling barriers to inclusion, and emphasizing the importance of relationship-building in conservation science. We outline suggestions that researchers can use to incorporate these lessons from solutions-oriented avian conservation science into training and mentoring programs.

Conservation Science and Practice

Connecting and coordinating conservation action across landscapes through regional planning processes and syntheses

Modern threats to conservation are often global; however, relevant conservation decisions and actions typically occur within local jurisdictions. The socio-ecological complexity of these problems requires collaboration across large landscapes, diverse community interests, and geopolitical boundaries, yet a lack of interoperability of planning products among decision makers, jurisdictions, and objectives impedes collaboration. Here, we provide a working model for the collaborative, iterative development of a landscape conservation design (LCD) in the Midwest region of the United States, the Midwest Conservation Blueprint, and demonstrate its applicability to the coordination of voluntary conservation actions and investments across jurisdictional boundaries. We used spatial prioritization software to synthesize over 20 datasets to develop a basemap of priority lands and waters for conservation across a diverse set of societal and ecological values (e.g., water quality, biodiversity, recreation). The Midwest Conservation Blueprint is a living plan, updated annually based on improvements in underlying data, understanding of local conditions, and public input. Landscape-scale planning is not designed to replace local knowledge or supersede decision-making authorities. However, by synthesizing existing data that represent diverse socio-ecological values and planning at a broader scale, the Midwest Conservation Blueprint documents where there are shared priorities and opportunities for collaborative landscape conservation.

Midwest

Debunking the myth of the quintessential resource manager: Precision in actionable science

“Actionable science” is a widely held standard for identifying the merits of natural resources research. Yet, science is often framed as actionable to a vaguely identified quintessential “manager” without defining either the intended manager or use. Generic descriptions lack precision for identifying end users or their needs, limiting methodological rigor in research design and leading to contextual misalignments of outputs with the need they intended to serve. Further, imprecise terminology limits the ability to evaluate impact, replicate efforts, or foster adoption and implementation of findings. This perspective article presents the heuristic of “who, what, when, where, why, how” to help researchers be more precise when describing their actionable science. Through intentional reflection, researchers can move beyond generic framings of “managers” representing monolithic organizations. “Managers” become individuals, with unique responsibilities, functions, worldviews, and levels of authority, all influencing their use of and need for scientific information and data.

Conservation Science and Practice