Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 421–437 | Cite as

High-resolution species-distribution model based on systematic sampling and indirect observations

  • Oded Nezer
  • Shirli Bar-David
  • Tomer Gueta
  • Yohay Carmel
Original Paper

Abstract

Species distribution models (SDMs) are often limited by the use of coarse-resolution environmental variables and by the number of observations required for their calibration. This is particularly true in the case of elusive animals. Here, we developed a SDM by combining three elements: a database of explanatory variables, mapped at a fine resolution; a systematic sampling scheme; and an intensive survey of indirect observations. Using MaxEnt, we developed the SDM for the population of the Asiatic wild ass (Equus hemionus), a rare and elusive species, at three spatial scales: 10, 100, and 1000 m per pixel. We used indirect observations of feces mounds. We constructed 14 layers of explanatory variables, in five categories: water, topography, biotic conditions, climatic variables and anthropogenic variables. Woody vegetation cover and slopes were found to have the strongest effect on the distribution of wild ass and were included as the main predictors in the SDM. Model validation revealed that an intensive survey of feces mounds and high-resolution predictor layers resulted in a highly accurate and informative SDM. Fine-grain (10 and 100 m) SDMs can be utilized to: (1) characterize the variables influencing species distribution at high resolution and local scale, including anthropogenic effects and geomorphologic features; (2) detect potential population activity centers; (3) locate potential corridors of movement and possible isolated habitat patches. Such information may be useful for the conservation efforts of the Asiatic wild ass. This approach could be applied to other elusive species, particularly large mammals.

Keywords

Equus hemionus Wild Ass Habitat preferences Feces MAXENT Species distribution model 

Supplementary material

10531_2016_1251_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.4 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1470 kb)

References

  1. Bar-David S, Saltz D, Dayan T, Shkedy Y (2008) Using spatially expanding populations as a tool for evaluating landscape planning: the reintroduced persian fallow deer as a case study. J Nat Conserv 16:164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barry S, Elith J (2006) Error and uncertainty in habitat models. J Appl Ecol 43:413–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beier P, Penrod K, Luke C, Spencer W, Cabañero C (2006) South coast missing linkages: Restoring connectivity to wildlands in the largest metropolitan area in the united states. In: Crooks KR, Sanjayan M (eds) Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 555–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bellamy C, Scott C, Altringham J (2013) Multiscale presence-only habitat suitability models: fine-resolution maps for eight bat species. J Appl Ecol 50:892–901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Belsky A, Mwonga S, Amundson R, Duxbury J, Ali A (1993) Comparative effects of isolated trees on their undercanopy environments in high- and low-rainfall savannas. J Appl Ecol 30:143–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blank L, Carmel Y (2012) Woody vegetation patch types affect herbaceous species richness and composition in a mediterranean ecosystem. Community Ecol 13:72–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carmel Y, Stoller-Cavari L (2006) Comparing environmental and biological surrogates for biodiversity at a local scale. Isr J Ecol Evol 52:11–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Colbert T et al (2001) High-throughput screening for induced point mutations. Plant Physiol 126:480–484CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Crawley M, Harral J (2001) Scale dependence in plant biodiversity. Science 291:864–868CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Danin A (1999) Desert rocks as plant refugia in the near east. Bot Rev 65:93–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davidson A, Carmel Y, Bar-David S (2013) Characterizing wild ass pathways using a non-invasive approach: applying least-cost path modelling to guide field surveys and a model selection analysis. Landsc Ecol 28:1465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duff A, Morrell T (2007) Predictive occurrence models for bat species in california. J Wildl Manag 71:693–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elith J et al (2006) Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data. Ecography 29:129–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Elith J, Phillips SJ, Hastie T, Dudík M, Chee YE, Yates CJ (2011) A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists. Divers distrib 17:43–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fernandez N, Delibes M, Palomares F (2006) Landscape evaluation in conservation: molecular sampling and habitat modeling for the Iberian lynx. Ecol Appl 16:1037–1049CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Gallant D, Vasseur L, Berube C (2007) Unveiling the limitations of scat surveys to monitor social species: a case study on river otters. J Wildl Manag 71:258–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Giotto N, Gerard JF, Ziv A, Bouskila A, Bar-David S (2015) Space-use patterns of the Asiatic Wild Ass (Equus hemionus): complementary insights from displacement, Recursion movement and habitat selection analyses. PLoS ONE 10(12):e0143279CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Graham C, Ferrier S, Huettman F, Moritz C, Peterson A (2004) New developments in museum-based informatics and applications in biodiversity analysis. Trends Ecol Evol 19:497–503CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Groves C (1986) The taxonomy, distribution, and adaptations of recent equids. In: Meadow RH, Uerpmann HP (eds) Equids in the ancient world. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
  20. Gueta T, Carmel Y (2016) Quantifying the value of user-level data cleaning for big data: a case study using mammal distribution models. Ecol Inform. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12701 Google Scholar
  21. Gueta T, Templeton A, Bar-David S (2014) Development of genetic structure in a heterogeneous landscape over a short time frame: the reintroduced asiatic wild ass. Conserv Genet 15:1231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Guisan A, Zimmermann N (2000) Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecol Model 135:147–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Guisan A, Graham C, Elith J, Huettmann F (2007) Sensitivity of predictive species distribution models to change in grain size. Divers Distrib 13:332–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Guisan A et al (2013) Predicting species distributions for conservation decisions. Ecol Lett 16:1424–1435CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Henley S, Ward D (2006) An evaluation of diet quality in two desert ungulates exposed to hyper-arid conditions. Afr J Range Forage Sci 23:185–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Henley S, Ward D, Schmidt I (2007) Habitat selection by two desert-adapted ungulates. J Arid Environ 70:39–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hernandez P, Graham C, Master L, Albert D (2006) The effect of sample size and species characteristics on performance of different species distribution modeling methods. Ecography 29:773–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hess GR, Bartel RA, Leidner AK, Rosenfeld KM, Rubino MJ, Snider SB, Ricketts TH (2006) Effectiveness of biodiversity indicators varies with extent, grain, and region. Biol Conserv 132:448–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hughes A, Inouye B, Johnson M, Underwood N, Vellend M (2008) Ecological consequences of genetic diversity. Ecol Lett 11:609CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Jeschke J, Strayer D (2008) Usefulness of bioclimatic models for studying climate change and invasive species. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1134:1–24CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Jiménez-Valverde A, Acevedo P, Barbosa AM, Lobo JM, Real R (2013) Discrimination capacity in species distribution models depends on the representativeness of the environmental domain. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 22:508–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kays R, Gompper M, Ray J (2008) Landscape ecology of eastern coyotes based on large-scale estimates of abundance. Ecol Appl 18:1014–1027CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Kent R, Bar-Massada A, Carmel Y (2011) Multiscale analyses of mammal species composition-environment relationship in the contiguous USA. PloS ONE 6:e25440CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Kramer-Schadt S et al (2013) The importance of correcting for sampling bias in MaxEnt species distribution models. Divers Distrib 19:1366–1379. doi:10.1111/ddi.12096 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kumar S, Spaulding S, Stohlgren T, Hermann K, Schmidt T, Bahls L (2009) Potential habitat distribution for the freshwater diatom didymosphenia geminata in the continental US. Front Ecol Environ 7:415–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lobo JM, Jiménez-Valverde A, Real R (2008) AUC: a misleading measure of the performance of predictive distribution models. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 17:145–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Manel S, Dias J, Buckton S, Ormerod S (1999) Alternative methods for predicting species distribution: an illustration with himalayan river birds. J Appl Ecol 36:734–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Manel S, Williams H, Ormerod S (2001) Evaluating presence-absence models in ecology: the need to account for prevalence. J Appl Ecol 38:921–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Marmion M, Parviainen M, Luoto M, Heikkinen R, Thuiller W (2009) Evaluation of consensus methods in predictive species distribution modelling. Divers Distrib 15:59–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Moehlman P, Shah N, Feh C (2008) Equus hemionus. IUCN. http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/full/7951/0. Accessed Aug 2016
  41. Moran PA (1950) Notes on continuous stochastic phenomena. Biometrika 37:17–23CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Norris D (2014) Model thresholds are more important than presence location type: understanding the distribution of lowland tapir (Tapirus terrestris) in a continuous Atlantic forest of southeast Brazil tropical conservation. Science 7:529–547Google Scholar
  43. Pearce J, Boyce M (2006) Modelling distribution and abundance with presence-only data. J Appl Ecol 43:405–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Perinchery A, Jathanna D, Kumar A (2011) Factors determining occupancy and habitat use by Asian small-clawed otters in the Western Ghats India. J Mamm 92:796–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Peterson AT (2011) Ecological niches and geographic distributions (MPB-49), vol 49. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  46. Phillips S (2006) A brief tutorial on Maxent. AT & T Research. http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~schapire/maxent/tutorial/tutorial.doc
  47. Phillips S, Dudik M (2008) Modeling of species distributions with maxent: new extensions and a comprehensive evaluation. Ecography 31:161–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Phillips SJ, Elith J (2013) On estimating probability of presence from use-availability or presence-background data. Ecology 94:1409–1419CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Phillips S, Anderson R, Schapire R (2006) Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol Model 190:231–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Polak T, Gutterman Y, Hoffman I, Saltz D (2014) Redundancy in seed dispersal by three sympatric ungulates: a reintroduction perspective. Anim Conserv 17:565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Radosavljevic A, Anderson RP (2014) Making better Maxent models of species distributions: complexity, overfitting and evaluation. J Biogeogr 41:629–643. doi:10.1111/jbi.12227 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Renan S, Greenbaum G, Shahar N, Templeton A, Bouskila A, Bar-David S (2015) Stochastic modelling of shifts in allele frequencies reveals a strongly polygynous mating system in the re-introduced asiatic wild ass. Mol Ecol 24:1433CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Saccheri I, Kuussaari M, Kankare M, Vikman P, Fortelius W, Hanski I (1998) Inbreeding and extinction in a butterfly metapopulation. Nature 392:491–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Saltz D, Rubenstein D (1995) Population-dynamics of a reintroduced asiatic wild ass Equus hemionus herd. Ecol Appl 5:327–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Saltz D, Schmidt H, Rowen M, Karnieli A, Ward D, Schmidt I (1999) Assessing grazing impacts by remote sensing in hyper-arid environments. J Range Manag 52:500–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Saltz D, Rowen M, Rubenstein D (2000) The effect of space-use patterns of reintroduced asiatic wild ass on effective population size. Conserv Biol 14:1852–1861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schulz E, Kaiser TM (2013) Historical distribution, habitat requirements and feeding ecology of the genus Equus (Perissodactyla). Mamm Review 43:111–123. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2907.2012.00210.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stauffer D, Best L (1986) Nest-site characteristics of open-nesting birds in riparian habitats in iowa. Wilson Bull 98(2):231–242Google Scholar
  59. Stern E, Gardus Y, Meir A, Krakover S, Tzoar H (1986) Atlas of the Negev. Keter Publishing House, JerusalemGoogle Scholar
  60. St-Louis A, Côté SD (2014) Resource selection in a high-altitude rangeland equid, the kiang (Equus kiang): influence of forage abundance and quality at multiple spatial scales. Can J Zool 92:239–249. doi:10.1139/cjz-2013-0191 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tsoar A, Allouche O, Steinitz O, Rotem D, Kadmon R (2007) A comparative evaluation of presence-only methods for modelling species distribution. Divers Distrib 13:397–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Valverde AJ, Lobo J, Hortal J (2008) Not as good as they seem: the importance of concepts in species distribution modelling. Divers Distrib 14:885–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vina A, Tuanmu M, Xu W, Li Y, Ouyang Z, DeFries R, Liu J (2010) Range-wide analysis of wildlife habitat: implications for conservation. Biol Conserv 143:1960–1969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Yackulic CB, Chandler R, Zipkin EF, Royle JA, Nichols JD, Campbell Grant EH, Veran S (2013) Presence-only modelling using MAXENT: when can we trust the inferences? Methods Ecol Evol 4:236–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental EngineeringTechnion – Israel Institute of TechnologyHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.Mitrani Department of Desert Ecology, Jacob Blaustein Institutes for Desert ResearchBen Gurion University of the NegevMidreshet Ben-GurionIsrael

Personalised recommendations