Frontiers of Earth Science

, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp 120–129 | Cite as

A habitat overlap analysis derived from maxent for tamarisk and the south-western willow flycatcher

  • Patricia YorkEmail author
  • Paul Evangelista
  • Sunil Kumar
  • James Graham
  • Curtis Flather
  • Thomas Stohlgren
Research Article


Biologic control of the introduced and invasive, woody plant tamarisk (Tamarix spp, saltcedar) in south-western states is controversial because it affects habitat of the federally endangered South-western Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). These songbirds sometimes nest in tamarisk where floodplain-level invasion replaces native habitats. Biologic control, with the saltcedar leaf beetle (Diorhabda elongate), began along the Virgin River, Utah, in 2006, enhancing the need for comprehensive understanding of the tamarisk-flycatcher relationship. We used maximum entropy (Maxent) modeling to separately quantify the current extent of dense tamarisk habitat (>50% cover) and the potential extent of habitat available for E. traillii extimus within the studied watersheds. We used transformations of 2008 Landsat Thematic Mapper images and a digital elevation model as environmental input variables. Maxent models performed well for the flycatcher and tamarisk with Area Under the ROC Curve (AUC) values of 0.960 and 0.982, respectively. Classification of thresholds and comparison of the two Maxent outputs indicated moderate spatial overlap between predicted suitable habitat for E. traillii extimus and predicted locations with dense tamarisk stands, where flycatcher habitat will potentially change flycatcher habitats. Dense tamarisk habitat comprised 500 km2 within the study area, of which 11.4% was also modeled as potential habitat for E. traillii extimus. Potential habitat modeled for the flycatcher constituted 190 km2, of which 30.7% also contained dense tamarisk habitat. Results showed that both native vegetation and dense tamarisk habitats exist in the study area and that most tamarisk infestations do not contain characteristics that satisfy the habitat requirements of E. traillii extimus. Based on this study, effective biologic control of Tamarix spp. may, in the short term, reduce suitable habitat available to E. traillii extimus, but also has the potential in the long term to increase suitable habitat if appropriate mixes of native woody vegetation replace tamarisk in biocontrol areas.


Niche modeling species interactions Tamarisk South-western Willow Flycatcher habitat overlap analysis 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bateman H L, Dudley T L, Bean D W, Ostoja S M, Hultine K R, Kuehn M J (2010). A river system to watch: Documenting the effects of saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) biocontrol in the Virgin River Valley. Ecol Res, 28(4): 405–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chapin F S III, Zavaleta E S, Eviner V T, Naylor R L, Vitousek P M, Reynolds H L, Hooper D U, Lavorel S, Sala O E, Hobbie S E, Mack M C, Díaz S (2000). Consequences of changing biodiversity. Nature, 405(6783): 234–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cory J S, Myers J H (2000). Direct and indirect ecological effects of biological control. Trends Ecol Evol, 15(4): 137–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Deloach C J, Carruthers R, Dudley T, Eberts D, Kazmer D (2004). First results for control of saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) in the open field in the Western United States. In: Cullen, J M, Briese D T, Kriticos D J, Lonsdale W M, Morin L, Scott J K, eds. Proceedings of the XI International Symposium on Biological Control Weeds. Canberra, Australia: CSIRO Entomology, 505–513Google Scholar
  5. Di Tomaso J M (1998). Impact, biology, and ecology of saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) in the southwestern United States. Weed Technol, 12: 326–336Google Scholar
  6. Dudley T L, DeLoach C J (2004). Saltcedar (Tamarix spp.), endangered species, and biological weed control — can they mix? Weed Technol, 18(sp1): 1542–1551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Durst S L, Sogge M K, Stump S D, Williams S O, Kus B E, Sferra S J (2007). Southwestern Willow Flycatcher breeding site and territory summary — 2006. USGS Open File Report 2007-1391Google Scholar
  8. Elith J, Graham C H (2009). Do they / How do they / Why do they differ? — On finding reasons for differing performances of species distribution models. Ecography, 32(1): 66–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elith J, Graham C H, Anderson R P, Dudík M, Ferrier S, Guisan A, Hijmans R J, Huettmann F, Leathwick J R, Lehmann A (2006). Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data. Ecography, 29: 129–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. ESRI ArcGIS 9.2 (2006). Redlands, CA, USA, available online:
  11. Evangelista P H, Stohlgren T J, Morisette J T, Kumar S (2009). Mapping invasive tamarisk (Tamarix): A comparison of single-scene and timeseries analyses of remotely sensed data. Remote Sens, 1(3): 519–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Everitt B L (1980). Ecology of saltcedar — a plea for research. Environmental Geology, 3(2): 77–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Everitt J H, Deloach C J (1990). Remote sensing of Chinese tamarisk (Tamarix chinensis) and associated vegetation. Weed Sci, 38: 273–278Google Scholar
  14. Fielding A H, Bell J F (1997). A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environ Conserv, 24(1): 38–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Finch D M, Stoleson S H (2000). Status, ecology, and conservation of the South-western Willow Flycatcher. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-60. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research StationGoogle Scholar
  16. Hatten J R, Paradzick C E (2003). A multiscaled model of South-western Willow Flycatcher breeding habitat. JWildl Manage, 67(4): 774–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hatten J R, Paxton E H, Sogge M K (2010). Modeling the dynamic habitat and breeding population of Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. Ecol Modell, 221(13–14): 1674–1686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hultine K R, Belnap J, van Riper C III, Ehleringer J R, Dennison P E, Lee M E, Nagler P L, Snyder K A, Uselman S M, West J B (2009). Tamarisk biocontrol in the western United States: Ecological and societal implications. Front Ecol Environ, 8(9): 467–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Innes J, Barker G (1999). Ecological consequences of toxin use for mammalian pest control in New Zealand: An overview. N Z J Ecol, 23: 111–127Google Scholar
  20. Jiménez-Valverde A, Lobo J M(2007). Threshold criteria for conversion of probability of species presence to either-or presence-absence. Acta Oecol, 31(3): 361–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kauth R J, Thomas G S (1976). The tasseled cap — a graphic description of the spectral-temporal development of agricultural crops as seen in Landsat. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Machine Processing of Remotely Sensed Data; LARS, Purdue University: West Lafayette, IN, USA, 41–51Google Scholar
  22. Kumar S, Spaulding S A, Stohlgren T J, Hermann K A, Schmidt T S, Bahls L L (2008). Potential habitat distribution for the freshwater diatom Didymosphenia geminata in the continental US. Front Ecol Environ, 7(8): 415–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kumar S, Stohlgren T J (2009). Maxent modeling for predicting suitable habitat for threatened and endangered tree Canacomyrica monticola in New Caledonia. Journal of Ecology and the Natural Environment, 1: 94–98Google Scholar
  24. Leica ERDAS Imagine 9.1 (2009). Leica Geosystems Geospatial Imaging, LLC: Atlanta G A, USA, 1991–2005; available online:
  25. Lite S J, Stromberg J C (2005). Surface water and ground-water thresholds for maintaining Populus-Salix forests, San Pedro River, Arizona. Biol Conserv, 125(2): 153–167Google Scholar
  26. Liu C, Berry P M, Dawson T P, Pearson R G (2005). Selecting thresholds of occurrence in the prediction of species distributions. Ecography, 28(3): 385–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lytle D A, Merritt D M (2004). Hydrologic regimes and riparian forests: A structured population model for cottonwood. Ecology, 85(9): 2493–2503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Matarczyk J A, Willis A J, Vranjic J A, Ash J E (2002). Herbicides, weeds and endangered species: Management of bitou bush (Chrysanthemoides monilifera spp. rotundata) with glyphosate and impacts on the endangered shrub, Pimelea spicata. Biol Conserv, 108(2): 133–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Merritt D M, Poff N L R (2010). Shifting dominance of riparian Populus and Tamarix along gradients of flow alteration in western North American rivers. Ecol Appl, 20(1): 135–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Morisette J T, Jarnevich C S, Ullah A, Cai W, Pedelty J A, Gentle J E, Stohlgren T J, Schnase J L (2006). A tamarisk habitat suitability map for the continental United States. Front Ecol Environ, 4(1): 11–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nagler P L, Glenn E P, Huete A R (2001). Assessment of spectral vegetation indices for riparian vegetation in the Colorado River delta, Mexico. J Arid Environ, 49(1): 91–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Naiman R J, Décamps H (1997). The ecology of interfaces: Riparian zones. Annu Rev Ecol Syst, 28(1): 621–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Naiman R J, Décamps H, Pollock M (1993). The role of riparian corridors in maintaining regional biodiversity. Ecol Appl, 3(2): 209–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Patten D T (1998). Riparian ecosystems of semi-arid North America: Diversity and human impacts. Wetlands, 18(4): 498–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Paxton E H, Sogge MK, Durst S L, Theimer T C, Hatten J R (2007). The ecology of the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher in central Arizona — a 10-year synthesis report: US. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1381Google Scholar
  36. Pearce J, Ferrier S (2000). Evaluating the predictive performance of habitat models developed using logistic regression. Ecol Modell, 133(3): 225–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Phillips S J, Anderson R P, Schapire R E (2006). Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol Modell, 190(3–4): 231–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Robinson TW(1965). Introduction, spread, and areal extent of saltcedar (Tamarix) in the western states. US Geological Survey, Washington D C, USAGoogle Scholar
  39. Shafroth P B, Briggs M K (2008). Restoration ecology and invasive riparian plants: An introduction to the special section on Tamarix spp. in western North America. Restor Ecol, 16(1): 94–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sogge M K, Marshall R M (2000). A survey of current breeding habitats. In: Finch D M, Stoleson S H, eds. Status, ecology, and conservation of the South-western Willow Flycatcher. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-60. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT, 43–56Google Scholar
  41. Sogge M K, Marshall R M, Sferra S J, Tibbitts T J (1997). A Southwestern Willow Flycatcher natural history summary and survey protocol. USGS Biological Resources Division, Colorado Plateau Research Station, Northern Arizona UniversityGoogle Scholar
  42. Sogge M K, Sferra S J, Paxton E H (2008). Tamarix as habitat for birds: Implications for riparian restoration in the southwestern United States. Restor Ecol, 16(1): 146–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Song C, Woodcock C E, Seto K C, Lenney M P, Macomber S A (2001). Classification and change detection using Landsat TM data: When and how to correct atmospheric effects? Remote Sens Environ, 75(2): 230–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Song C H, Woodcock C E (2003). Monitoring forest succession with multitemporal Landsat images: Factors of uncertainty. IEEE Trans Geosci Rem Sens, 41(11): 2557–2567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stohlgren T J, Bull K A, Otsuki Y, Villa C, Lee M (1998). Riparian zones as havens for exotic plant species in the central grasslands. Plant Ecol, 138(1): 113–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stromberg J C, Beauchamp V B, Dixon M D, Lite S J, Paradzick C (2007a). Importance of low-flow and high-flow characteristics to restoration of riparian vegetation along rivers in arid south-western United States. Freshw Biol, 52(4): 651–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stromberg J C, Lite S J, Marler R, Paradzick C, Shafroth P B, Shorrock D, White J M, White M S (2007). Altered stream-flow regimes and invasive plant species: the Tamarix case. Glob Ecol Biogeogr, 16(3): 381–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Szaro R C, Rinne J N (1988). Ecosystem approach to management of southwestern riparian communities. Transactions of the 53rd North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 53: 502–511Google Scholar
  49. Taylor J P, McDaniel K C (1998). Restoration of saltcedar (Tamarix sp.)-infested floodplains on the Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge. Weed Technol, 12: 345–352Google Scholar
  50. Unitt P (1987). Empidonax traillii extimus: an endangered subspecies. West Birds, 18: 137–162Google Scholar
  51. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (1995). Final rule determining endangered status for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. Fed Regist, 60: 10694–10715Google Scholar
  52. Vitousek P M, DAntonio C M, Loope L L, Rejmanek M, Westbrooks R. (1997). Introduced species: A significant component of humancaused global change. N Z J Ecol, 21: 1–16Google Scholar
  53. Zavaleta E S (2000). The economic value of controlling an invasive shrub. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 29: 462–467Google Scholar
  54. Zavaleta E S, Hobbs R J, Mooney H A (2001). Viewing invasive species removal in a whole-ecosystem context. Trends Ecol Evol, 16(8): 454–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patricia York
    • 1
    Email author
  • Paul Evangelista
    • 1
  • Sunil Kumar
    • 1
  • James Graham
    • 1
  • Curtis Flather
    • 2
  • Thomas Stohlgren
    • 3
  1. 1.Natural Resource Ecology LabColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  2. 2.Department of Agriculture, Forest ServiceRocky Mountain Research StationFort CollinsUSA
  3. 3.Geological SurveyFort Collins Science CenterFort CollinsUSA

Personalised recommendations