Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

How well do proxy species models inform conservation of surrogate species?

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Context

Proxy species, which represent suites of organisms with similar habitat requirements, are common in conservation. Landscape Capability (LC) models aim to quantify the spatially-explicit capability of landscapes to support proxy species that represent suites of forest birds.

Objectives

We evaluated the North Atlantic Landscape Conservation Cooperative (NALCC) proxy models of LC and represented species framework across 13 states in the northeastern United States from Virginia to Maine. We validated a suite of questions related to co-occurrence of proxy and represented species with a compilation of independent datasets.

Methods

We tested proxy species LC models ability to explain represented species’ occurrences, including using multiple proxies together, and benchmarked against empirical data and land cover type classifications. We tested effect of several factors on predictive ability including relative range overlap and ecological and taxonomic dissimilarity between proxy and represented species.

Results

LC models performed variably, but represented species occurrences were rarely predicted as accurately as proxy species. Models improved predictions over macrohabitat classifications. Using multiple proxies together occasionally improved predictions of represented species. Considerable range overlap was needed for models to be predictive of represented species. Ecological and taxonomic similarity had no effect on predictive ability. LC models worked similarly to using empirical observations, suggesting shortcomings were because of imperfect surrogacy.

Conclusions

Conservation proxies as representatives of species groups that are associated with macrohabitats are useful, but empirical data are necessary to evaluate proxy species’ effectiveness. Habitat-based models can provide similar predictive ability as empirical observations of proxies and represent a useful tool in conservation planning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Accessibility

A list of data sources is provided in Online Appendix 1.

References

  • Allouche O, Tsoar A, Kadmon R (2006) Assessing the accuracy of species distribution models: prevalance, kappa, and the true skill statistic (TSS). J Appl Ecol 43:1223–1232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson MG, Clark M, Ferree CE, Jospe A, Olivero Sheldon A, Weaver KJ (2013) Northeast Habitat Guides: a companion to the terrestrial and aquatic habitat maps. The Nature Conservancy, Eastern Conservation Science, Eastern Regional Office, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachand M, Pellerin S, Côté SD, Moretti M, De Cáceres M, Brousseau PM, Poulin M (2014) Species indicators of ecosystem recovery after reducing large herbivore density: comparing taxa and testing species combinations. Ecol Indic 38:12–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barton PS, Pierson JC, Westgate MJ, Lane PW, Lindenmayer DB (2015) Learning from clinical medicine to improve the use of surrogates in ecology. Oikos 124:391–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell GP, Yanoff S, Karges J, Montoya JA, Najera S, Ma. Arango A, Sada AG (2014) Conservation blueprint for the Chihuahuan Desert ecoregion. In: Hoyt CA, Karges J (eds) Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium on the Natural Resources of the Chihuahuan Desert Region. October 14–17. Chihuahuan Desert Research Institute Fort Davis, TX, pp 1–36

  • Beier P, Noss RF (1998) Do habitat corridors provide connectivity? Conserv Biol 12:1241–1252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BirdLife International and Handbook of the Birds of the World (2016) Bird species distribution maps of the world. Version 6.0. http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/requestdis

  • Block WM, Brennan LA, Gutiérrez RJ (1987) Evaluation of guild-indicator species for use in resource management. Environ Manag 11:265–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonn A, Schröder B (2001) Habitat models and their transfer for single and multi species groups: a case study of carabids in an alluvial forest. Ecography 24:483–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown DG, Johnson KM, Loveland TR, Theobald DM (2005) Rural land-use trends in the conterminous United States, 1950–2000. Ecol Appl 15:1851–1863

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carignan V, Villard M-A (2002) Selecting indicator species to monitor ecological integrity: a review. Environ Monit Assess 78:45–61

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Caro TM (2010) Conservation by Proxy. Island Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Coppolillo P, Gomez H, Maisels F, Wallace R (2004) Selection criteria for suites of landscape species as a basis for site-based conservation. Biol Conserv 115:419–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Cáceres M, Legendre P, Wiswer SK, Brotons L (2012) Using species combinations in indicator value analyses. Methods Ecology Evol 3:973–982

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drummond MA, Loveland TR (2010) Land-use pressure and a transition to forest-cover loss in the eastern United States. Bioscience 60:286–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleishman E, Murphy DD (2009) A realistic assessment of the indicator potential of butterflies and other charismatic taxonomic groups. Conserv Biol 23:1109–1116

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fleishman E, Murphy DD, Brussard PF (2000a) A new method for selection of umbrella species for conservation planning. Ecol Appl 10:569–579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleishman E, Jonsson BG, Sjogren-Gulve P (2000b) Focal species modeling for biodiversity conservation. Ecol Bull 48:85–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleishman ER, Blair B, Murphy DD (2001) Empirical validation of a method for umbrella species selection. Ecol Appl 11:1489–1501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gawler SC (2008) Northeastern Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Classification. Report to the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries on behalf of the Northeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. NatureServ, Boston

  • Groves C, Valutis L, Vosick D, Neely B, Wheaton K, Runnels TJB (2000) Designing a geography of hope: a practitioner’s handbook for ecoregional conservation planning, 2nd edn. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardin G (1960) The competitive exclusion principle. Science 131:1292–1297

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter ML (1991) Coping with ignorance: the coarse filter strategy for maintaining biodiversity. In: Kohm KA (ed) Balancing on the brink of extinction: the Endangered Species Act and lessons for the future. Island Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutto RL (1998) Using landbirds as an indicator species group. In: Marzluff JM, Sallabanks R (eds) Avian conservation: research and management. Island Press, Washington, pp 75–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Loman ZG, Deluca WV, Harrison DJ, Loftin CS, Rolek BW, Wood PB (2017a) Landscape capability models as a tool to predict fine-scale forest bird occupancy and abundance. Landsc Ecol 33:77–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loman ZG, Blomberg EJ, Deluca WV, Harrison DJ, Loftin CS, Wood PB (2017b) Landscape capability predicts upland game bird abundance and occurrence. J Wildl Manag 81:1110–1116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mannan RW, Morrison ML, Meslow EC (1984) The use of guilds in forest bird management. Wildl Soc B 12:426–430

    Google Scholar 

  • Manton MG, Angelstam P, Mikusiński G (2005) Modelling habitat suitability for deciduous forest focal species—a sensitivity analysis using different satellite land cover data. Landsc Ecol 20:827–839

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margules CR, Pressey RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243–253

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Maslo B, Leua K, Faillace C, Weston MA, Pover T, Schlacher TA (2016) Selecting umbrella species for conservation: a test of habitat models and niche overlap for beach-nesting birds. Biol Conserv 203:233–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal K, McComb WC (1999) Forest fragmentation effects on breeding birds in the Oregon Coast Range. In: Rochelle JA, Lehman LA, Wisniewski J (eds) Forest fragmentation: wildlife and management implications. Leiden, Koninklijke Brill NV, pp 223–246

    Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal K, Deluca WV, Compton BW, Plunkett EB, Grand J (2016) Designing sustainable landscapes: modeling focal species. Report to the North Atlantic Conservation Cooperative. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Northeast Region, Hadley. http://jamba.provost.ads.umass.edu/web/lcc/DSL_documentation_species.pdf

  • Meynard CN, Devictor V, Mouillot D, Thuiller W, Jiguet F, Mouquet N (2011) Beyond taxonomic diversity patterns: how do α, β and γ components of bird functional and phylogenetic diversity respond to environmental gradients across France? Glob Ecol Biogeogr 20:893–903

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mouchet M, Guilhaumon F, Villéger S, Mason NW, Tomasini JA, Mouillot D (2008) Towards a consensus for calculating dendrogram-based functional diversity indices. Oikos 117:794–800

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson E, Westphal MI, Frank K, Rochester WA, Pressey RL, Lindenmayer DB, Possingham HP (2006) A new method for conservation planning for the persistence of multiple species. Ecol Lett 9:1049–1060

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Niemeijer D, de Groot RS (2008) A conceptual framework for selecting environmental indicator sets. Ecol Indic 8:4–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noss RF (1983) A regional landscape approach to maintain diversity. Bioscience 33:700–706

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noss RF (1997) Assessing and monitoring forest biodiversity: a suggested framework and indicators. For Ecol Manag 115:135–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petchey OL, Gaston KJ (2006) Functional diversity: back to basics and looking forward. Ecol Lett 9:741–758

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Petchey OL, Evans KL, Fishburn IS, Gaston KJ (2007) Low functional diversity and no redundancy in British avian assemblages. J Anim Ecol 76:977–985

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pidgeon AM, Flather CH, Radeloff VC, Lepczyk CA, Keuler NS, Wood EM, Stewart SI, Hammer RB (2014) Systematic temporal patterns in the relationship between housing development and forest bird biodiversity. Conserv Biol 28:1291–1301

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Poiani KA, Richter BD, Anderson MG, Richter HE (2000) Biodiversity conservation at multiple scales: functional sites, landscapes, and networks. Bioscience 50:133–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potter KM, Crane BS, Hargrove WW (2017) A United States national prioritization framework for tree species vulnerability to climate change. New for 48:275–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powers DMW (2007) Evaluation: from precision, recall and F-factor to ROC, informedness, markedness & correlation. J Mach Learn Tech 2:37–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Prendergast JR, Eversham BC (1997) Species covariance in higher taxa: empirical tests of the biodiversity indicator concept. Ecography 20:210–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prendergast JR, Quinn RM, Lawton JH, Eversham B, Gibbons DH (1993) Rare species, the coincidence of diversity hotspots and conservation strategies. Nature 365:335–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressey RL, Cabeza M, Watts ME, Cowling RM, Wilson KA (2007) Conservation planning in a changing world. Trends Ecol Evol 22:583–592

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team (2020) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available from https://www.R-project.org/. Accessed September 2020

  • Ralph CJ, Droege S, Sauer JR (1995) Managing and monitoring birds using point counts: standards and applications. In: Ralph CJ, Sauer JR, Droege S (eds) Monitoring bird populations by point counts. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-149. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA, pp 161–169

  • Robbins CS, Sauer JR, Greenberg RS, Droege S (1989) Population declines in North American birds that migrate to the neotropics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 86:7658–7662

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Roberge J-M, Angelstam P (2006) Indicator species among resident forest birds—a cross-regional evaluation in northern Europe. Biol Conserv 130:134–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodewald P (ed) (2016) The Birds of North America. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca. https://birdsna.org. Accessed 1 Feb 2018

  • Rowland MM, Wisdom MJ, Suring LH, Meinke CW (2006) Greater sage-grouse as an umbrella species for sagebrush-associated vertebrates. Biol Conserv 129:323–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sæther B-E, Lande R, Engen S, Weimerskirch H, Lillegård M, Altwegg R, Becker PH, Bregnballe T, Brommer JE, McCleery RH, Merilä J (2005) Generation time and temporal scaling of bird population dynamics. Nature 436:99–102

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sauer JR, Niven DK, Hines JE, Ziolkowski DJ, Jr, Pardieck KL, Fallon JE, Link WA (2017) The North American Breeding Bird Survey, results and analysis 1966–2015. (Version 2.07.2017). USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel

  • Sattler T, Pezzatti GB, Nobis MP, Obrist MK, Roth T, Moretti M (2014) Selection of multiple umbrella species for functional and taxonomic diversity to represent urban biodiversity. Conserv Biol 28:414–426

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schipper AM, Belmaker J, de Miranda MD, Navarro LM, Böhning-Gaese K, Costello MJ, Dornelas M, Foppen R, Hortal J, Huijbregts MA, Martín-López B (2016) Contrasting changes in the abundance and diversity of North American bird assemblages from 1971 to 2010. Glob Change Biol 22:3948–3959

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seddon PJ, Leech T (2008) Conservation short cut, or long and winding road? A critique of umbrella species criteria. Oryx 42:240–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sohl TL (2014) The relative impacts of climate and land-use change on conterminous United States bird species from 2001 to 2075. PLoS ONE 9(11):e112251

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry, 3rd edn. W.H. Freeman, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson JR, Carpenter DN, Cogbill CV, Foster DR (2013) Four centuries of change in Northeastern United States forests. PLoS ONE 8(9):e72540

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tulloch AIT, Chadès I, Possingham HP (2013) Accounting for complementarity to maximize monitoring power for species management. Conserv Biol 27:988–999

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • van Dorp D, Opdam PFM (1987) Effects of patch size, isolation and regional abundance on forest bird communities. Landsc Ecol 1:59–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warwick RM, Clarke KR (1995) New ‘biodiversity’ index measures reveal a decrease in taxonomic distinctness with increasing stress. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 129:301–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver JC (1995) Indicator species and scale of observation. Conserv Biol 9:939–942

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiens JA, Hayard GD, Holthausen RS, Wisdom MJ (2008) Using surrogate species and groups for conservation planning and management. Bioscience 56:241–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodall CW, Oswalt CM, Westfall JA, Perry CH, Nelson MD, Finley AO (2009) An indicator of tree migration in forests of the eastern United States. For Ecol Manag 257:1434–1444

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the many data sources listed in Online Appendix 1, and Birdlife International and Handbook of Birds of the World for GIS files of species ranges. We thank Kevin McGarigal, Ethan Plunkett, Joanna Grand and Brad Compton from the Designing Sustainable Landscapes Project at the UMass Amherst-Landscape Ecology Lab, the North Atlantic Landscape Conservation Cooperative, and all those who provided field data: Brian Rolek, West Virginia U. Division of Forestry and Natural Resources graduate students Kyle Aldinger, Douglas Becker, Laura Farwell, Gretchen Nareff, and Jim Sheehan; Evan Adams, Biodiversity Research Institute; Erin King and Bill Thompson, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service; Carol Croy U. S. Forest Service; Rich Bailey, West Virginia DNR; Alan Williams, Geoffrey Sanders and Adam Kozlowski, National Park Service; Frank Ammer, Frostburg State U., Emily Thomas and Margaret Brittingham, Penn State U.; David Yeaney, Western Pennsylvania Conservancy, and David King and Tim Duclos, U. Mass Amherst. The manuscript was improved with review by Stephen Matthews and two anonymous reviewers. Requests for data may be made to sources indicated in Online Appendix 1. Funding was provided by the U.S. Geological Survey-Science Support Program and the University of Maine through the Cooperative Agreement with the U.S. Geological Survey-Maine Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Wildlife Fisheries and Conservation Biology, University of Maine, Orono, ME, USA

    Zachary G. Loman & Daniel J. Harrison

  2. Department of Environmental Conservation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 160 Holdsworth Way, Amherst, MA, USA

    William V. Deluca

  3. U.S. Geological Survey, Maine Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Orono, ME, USA

    Cynthia S. Loftin

  4. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, North Atlantic Conservation Cooperative, 300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, MA, USA

    W. Scott Schwenk

  5. U.S. Geological Survey, West Virginia Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA

    Petra B. Wood

Authors
  1. Zachary G. Loman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. William V. Deluca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniel J. Harrison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cynthia S. Loftin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. W. Scott Schwenk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Petra B. Wood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zachary G. Loman.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Loman, Z.G., Deluca, W.V., Harrison, D.J. et al. How well do proxy species models inform conservation of surrogate species?. Landscape Ecol 36, 2863–2877 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-021-01294-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-021-01294-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation