Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Modeling Animal Habitats Based on Cover Types: A Critical Review

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The simplest type of model describing animal habitats is a “cover-type model,” in which a species is assumed to be present in certain vegetation types and absent in others. Ecologists and managers use these models to predict animal distributions for gap analysis and conservation planning. Critics, however, have suggested that the models are overly simplistic and inaccurate. We reviewed the use of cover-type models including assessing their error rates, diagnosing the problems with these models, and determining how they should best be used by managers. To determine models’ accuracy rates, we conducted a meta-analysis of 35 studies in which cover-type models were tested against data on animal occurrences. Models had a mean accuracy rate of 0.71 ± 0.18 (SD). Rates of commission error averaged 0.20 ± 0.16, and omission errors averaged 0.09 ± 0.11. A review of the effects of errors in conservation planning suggests that the observed error rates were high enough to call into question any management decisions based on these models. Reasons for the high error rates of cover-type models include the fallibility of expert opinion, the fact that the models oversimplify how animals actually use habitats, and the dynamic nature of animal populations. Given the high rate of errors in cover-type models, any conclusions based on them should be taken with extreme caution. We suggest that these models are best used as coarse filters to identify locations for further study in the field.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adamus PR (1995) Validating a habitat evaluation method for predicting avian richness. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23:743–749

    Google Scholar 

  • Airola DA (1988) A guide to the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson M, Bourgeron P, Bryer M, Crawford R, Engelking L, Faber-Langendoen D et al (1998) International classification of ecological communities: terrestrial vegetation of the United States, vol II. The national vegetation classification system: list of types. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA

  • Askins R (2000) Restoring North America’s birds: lessons from landscape ecology. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, pp 320

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin M (2007) Species distribution models and ecological theory: a critical assessment and some possible new approaches. Ecological Modelling 200:1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avery ML, Van Riper C III (1990) Evaluation of wildlife-habitat relationships data base for predicting bird community composition in central California chaparral and blue oak woodlands. California Fish and Game 76:103–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Balmer O (2002) Species lists in ecology and conservation: abundances matter. Conservation Biology 16:1160–1161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barry S, Elith J (2006) Error and uncertainty in habitat models. Journal of Applied Ecology 43:413–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beard KH, Hengartner N, Skelly DK (1999) Effectiveness of predicting breeding bird distributions using probabilistic models. Conservation Biology 13:1108–1116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackburn TM, Gaston KJ (1998) Some methodological issues in macroecology. American Naturalist 151:68–83

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Block WM, Morrison ML, Verner J, Manley PN (1994) Assessing wildlife-habitat-relationships models: a case study with California oak woodlands. Wildlife Society Bulletin 22:549–561

    Google Scholar 

  • Boone RB, Krohn WB (1999) Modeling the occurrence of bird species: are the errors predictable? Ecological Applications 9:835–848

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boone RB, Krohn WB (2000) Predicting broad-scale occurrences of vertebrates in patchy landscapes. Landscape Ecology 15:63–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown JL (1969) The buffer effect and productivity in tit populations. American Naturalist 103:347–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chamberlain DE, Gough S, Vickery JA, Firbank LG, Petit S, Pywell R et al (2004) Rule-based predictive models are not cost-effective alternatives to bird monitoring on farmland. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 101:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Conroy MJ, Noon BR (1996) Mapping of species richness for conservation of biological diversity: conceptual and methodological issues. Ecological Applications 6:763–773

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crist P, Jennings M (2000) National gap analysis project standards. Available at: http://www.gapanalysis.nbii.gov

  • Csuti B, Crist P (1998) Methods for assessing the accuracy of animal distribution maps. Version 2.0.1. Available at: http://www.gapanalysis.nbii.gov

  • Csuti B, Crist P (2000) Methods for developing terrestrial vertebrate distribution maps for gap analysis. Version 2.0.0. Available at: http://www.gapanalysis.nbii.gov

  • Dedon MF, Laymon SA, Barrett RH (1986) Evaluating models of wildlife-habitat relationships of birds in black oak and mixed-conifer habitats. In: Verner J, Morrison M, Ralph CJ (eds) Wildlife 2000: modeling habitat relationships of terrestrial vertebrates. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI, pp 115–119

    Google Scholar 

  • DeGraaf RM, Hestbeck JB, Yamasaki M (1998) Associations between breeding bird abundance and stand structure in the White Mountains, New Hampshire and Maine, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 103:217–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeGraaf RM, Yamasaki M (2001) New England wildlife: habitat, natural history, and distribution. University Press of New England, Hanover, NH, p 482

    Google Scholar 

  • Dettmers R (2003) Status and conservation of shrubland birds in the northeastern US. Forest Ecology and Management 185:81–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dettmers R, Buehler DA, Franzreb KE (2002) Testing habitat-relationship models for forest birds of the southeastern United States. Journal of Wildlife Management 66:417–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drapeau P, Leduc A, Giroux JF, Savard JPL, Bergeron Y, Vickery WL (2000) Landscape-scale disturbances and changes in bird communities of boreal mixed-wood forests. Ecological Monographs 70:423–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards TC Jr, Deshler ET, Foster D, Moisen GG (1996) Adequacy of wildlife habitat relation models for estimating spatial distributions of terrestrial vertebrates. Conservation Biology 10:263–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fielding AH, Bell JF (1997) A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environmental Conservation 24:38–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flather CH, Wilson KR, Dean DJ, McComb WC (1997) Identifying gaps in conservation networks: of indicators and uncertainty in geographic-based analyses. Ecological Applications 7:531–542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freemark K, Collins B (1992) Landscape ecology of birds breeding in temperate forest fragments. In: Hagan JM, Johnston DW (eds) Ecology and conservation of neotropical migrant landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp 443–454

    Google Scholar 

  • Freitag S, Van Jaarsveld AS (1998) Sensitivity of selection procedures for priority conservation areas to survey extent, survey intensity and taxonomic knowledge. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B Biological Sciences 265:1475–1482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fretwell SD, Lucas HL (1970) On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. I. Theoretical development. Acta Biotheoretica 19:19–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrison BA, Erickson RA, Patten MA (2000) Accuracy of wildlife model predictions for bird species occurrences in California counties. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:667–674

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrison BA, Lupo T (2002) Accuracy of bird range maps based on habitat maps and habitat relationships models. In Scott JM, Heglund PJ, Morrison ML, Haufler JB, Raphael MG, Wall WA et al (eds) Predicting species occurrences: issues of accuracy and scale. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 367–375

  • Gill JA, Norris K, Potts PM, Gunnarsson TG, Atkinson PW, Sutherland WJ (2001) The buffer effect and large-scale population regulation in migratory birds. Nature 412:436–438

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gladstone W, Davis J (2003) Reduced survey intensity and its consequences for marine reserve selection. Biodiversity and Conservation 12:1525–1536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guisan A, Zimmermann NE (2000) Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecological Modelling 135:147–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halvorson WL, Thomas K, Graham L, Kunzmann MR, Bennett PS, Van Riper C et al (2002) The Arizona gap analysis project: final report. USGS Sonoran Desert Field Station, University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ

  • Hamel PB (1992) The land manager’s guide to the birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy, Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC

    Google Scholar 

  • Howell JA, Barrett RH (1998) California wildlife habitat relationships system: a test in coastal scrub and annual grassland habitats. California Fish and Game 84:74–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter WC, Buehler DA, Canterbury RA, Confer JL, Hamel PB (2001) Conservation of disturbance-dependent birds in eastern North America. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:440–455

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurley JF (1986) Development, testing, and application of wildlife-habitat models–the manager’s viewpoint. In: Verner J, Morrison ML, Ralph CJ (eds) Wildlife 2000: modeling habitat relationships of terrestrial vertebrates. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI, pp 151–153

    Google Scholar 

  • Jetz W, Wilcove DS, Dobson AP (2007) Projected impacts of climate and land-use change on the global diversity of birds. PLoS Biology 5:e157

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kagan JS, Hak JC, Csuti B, Kiilsgaard CW, Gaines EP (1999) Oregon gap analysis project final report: a geographic approach to planning for biological diversity. Oregon Natural Heritage Program, Portland, OR

    Google Scholar 

  • Karl JW, Heglund PJ, Garton EO, Scott JM, Wright NM, Hutto RL (2000) Sensitivity of species habitat-relationship model performance to factors of scale. Ecological Applications 10:1690–1705

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kearns LJ, Silverman ED, Hall KR (2006) Black-throated blue warbler and very abundance in relation to understory composition in northern Michigan forests. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 118:461–470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilgo JC, Gartner DL, Chapman BR, Dunning JB Jr, Franzreb KE, Gauthreaux SA et al (2002) A test of an expert-based bird-habitat relationship model in South Carolina. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:783–793

    Google Scholar 

  • Kodric-Brown A, Brown JH (1993) Incomplete data sets in community ecology and biogeography: a cautionary tale. Ecological Applications 3:736–742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korkeamäki E, Suhonen J (2002) Distribution and habitat specialization of species affect local extinction in dragonfly Odonata populations. Ecography 25:459–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer EA, Conroy MJ, Elliott MJ, Bumback W, Anderson E, Epstein J (2003) The Georgia gap analysis project: final report. University of Georgia Institute of Ecology, Athens, GA

    Google Scholar 

  • Krebs JR (1970) Regulation of numbers in the great tit (Aves: Passeriformes). Journal of Zoology 162:317–333

    Google Scholar 

  • Laymon SA (1989) A test of the California Wildlife-Habitat Relationship System for breeding birds in valley-foothill riparian habitat. In: Abell DL (ed) Proceedings of the California riparian systems conference: protection, management, and restoration for the 1990s. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, CA, pp 307–313

  • Lipsey MW, Wilson DB (2001) Practical meta-analysis. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, p 247

    Google Scholar 

  • Loiselle BA, Howell CA, Graham CH, Goerck JM, Brooks T, Smith KG et al (2003) Avoiding pitfalls of using species distribution models in conservation planning. Conservation Biology 17:1591–1600

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Royle JA, Pollock KH, Bailey LL, Hines JE (2006) Occupancy estimation and modeling: inferring patterns and dynamics of species occurrence. Elsevier/Academic Press, Burlington, MA, p 324

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Martin TG, Kuhnert PM, Mengersen K, Possingham HP (2005) The power of expert opinion in ecological models using Bayesian methods: impact of grazing on birds. Ecological Applications 15:266–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moisen GG, Edwards J, Thomas C, Osborne PE (2006) Further advances in predicting species distributions. Ecological Modelling 199:129–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison ML, Marcot BG, Mannan RW (1998) Wildlife-habitat relationships: concepts and applications. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI, p 416

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers WL, Bishop J, O’Connell T, Argent D, Storm G, Stauffer J et al (2000) The Pennsylvania gap analysis project. Final report. School of Forest Resources, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA

  • Newton I (1998) Population limitation in birds. Academic Press, New York, NY, p 597

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor RJ (2002) Gap conservation and science goals: rethinking the underlying biology. Gap Analysis Program Bulletin 11:2–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker NC, Allen K Arnold K, Baker R, Bradley R, Cameron G, Haskell S et al (2003) The Texas gap analysis project. Final report. Texas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX

  • Pearlstine L, Smith SE, Kitchens WM (2000) A gap analysis of Florida: final report. Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Gainesville, FL

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterjohn B, Sauer J (1993) North American breeding bird survey annual summary 1990–1991. Bird Populations 1:52–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Pulliam HR (2000) On the relationship between niche and distribution. Ecology Letters 3:349–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Purcell KL, Hejl SJ, Larson TA (1992) Evaluating avian habitat relationships models in mixed-conifer forests of the Sierra Nevada. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 28:120–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Raphael M, Marcot B (1986) Validation of a wildlife-habitat-relationships model: vertebrates in a Douglas-fir sere. In: Verner J, Morrison ML, Ralph CJ (eds) Wildlife 2000: modeling habitat relationships of terrestrial vertebrates. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI, pp 129–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Redmond RL, Hart MM, Winne JC, Williams WA, Thornton PC, Ma Z et al (1998) The Montana gap analysis project: final report. Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, University of Montana, Missoula, MN

  • Rich TD, Beardmore CJ, Berlanga H, Blancher PJ, Bradstreet MSW, Butcher GS et al (2004) Partners in flight North American landbird conservation plan. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, 84 pp

  • Robbins CS, Sauer JR, Greenberg RS, Droeger S (1989) Population declines in North American birds that migrate to the Neotropics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 86:7658–7662

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez JP, Brotons L, Bustamante J, Seoane J (2007) The application of predictive modelling of species distribution to biodiversity conservation. Diversity and Distributions 13:243–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rondinini C, Stuart S, Boitani L (2005) Habitat suitability models and the shortfall in conservation planning for African vertebrates. Conservation Biology 19:1488–1497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rondinini C, Wilson K, Boitani L, Grantham H, Possingham H (2006) Tradeoffs of different types of species occurrence data for use in systematic conservation planning. Ecology Letters 9:1136–1145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaefer S, Krohn W (2002) Predicting vertebrate occurrences from species habitat associations: improving the interpretation of commission error rates. In: Scott JM, Heglund PJ, Morrison ML, Haufler JB, Raphael MG, Wall WA et al (eds) Predicting species occurrences: issues of accuracy and scale. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 419–427

  • Schrupp DL, Reiners WA, Thompson T, D’Erschia F, Owens T, Driese K (2000) The Colorado gap analysis project: a geographic approach to planning for biological diversity. Final report. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Habitat Resources Section, Denver, CO

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott JM, Anderson H, Davis F, Caicoo S, Csuti B, Edwards, TC Jr et al (1993) Gap analysis: a geographic approach to protection of biological diversity. Wildlife Monographs 123:1–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott JM, Heglund PJ, Morrison ML, Haufler JB, Raphael MG, Wall WA et al (eds) (2002) Predicting species occurrences: issues of accuracy and scale. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 840

  • Seoane J, Bustamante J, Diaz-Delgado R (2005) Effect of expert opinion on the predictive ability of environmental models of bird distribution. Conservation Biology 19:512–522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Short HL, Hestbeck JB (1995) National biotic resource inventories and gap analysis: problems of scale and unproven assumptions limit a national program. Bioscience 45:535–539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith CR, DeGloria SD, Richmond ME, Gregory SK, Laba M, Smith SD et al (2001) The New York gap analysis project: final report. New York Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY

  • Smith KG, Dzur RS, Catanzaro DG, Garner ME, Limp WF (1998) The Arkansas gap analysis project: final report. Arkansas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Fayetteville, Arkansas

    Google Scholar 

  • Stauffer DF (2002) Linking populations and habitats: where have we been? Where are we going? In: Scott JM, Heglund PJ, Morrison ML, Haufler JB, Raphael MG, Wall WA et al (eds) Predicting species occurrences: issues of accuracy and scale. Island Press, Washington, DC., pp 53–61

  • Storch I (2002) On spatial resolution in habitat models: can small-scale forest structure explain capercaillie numbers? Conservation Ecology 6(1):6

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson BC, Crist PJ, Prior-Magee JS, Deitner RA, Garber DL, Hughes MA (1996) Gap analysis of biological diversity conservation in New Mexico using geographic information systems. New Mexico Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner MG (2005) Landscape ecology: what is the state of the science? Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics 36:319–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verner J, Boss A (1980) California wildlife and their habitats: western Sierra Nevada. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Vernon Schmidt E, Otis D, Aulbach C, Tian F, Scurry JD, Alger Y et al (2001) The South Carolina gap analysis project: final report. South Carolina Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Clemson University, Clemson, SC

  • Vilella FJ, Minnis FB, Elmore RD, Bowman JL, Evans DL, McCombs J (2003) The Mississippi gap analysis project: final report. Mississippi Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MI

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldon JL, Vaughan M, Klopfer SD, McClafferty J, Morton DD, Schairer G et al (2001) The Virginia gap analysis project final report. Conservation Management Institute, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA

  • Walker KJ, Preston CD (2006) Ecological predictors of extinction risk in the flora of lowland England, UK. Biodiversity and Conservation 15:1913–1942

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wethington K, Derting T, Kind T, Whiteman H, Cole M, Drew M et al (2003) The Kentucky gap analysis project: final report. Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, Frankfort, KY

  • Zuckerberg B, Griffin CR, Finn JT (2004) A gap analysis of southern New England. University of Massachusetts—Amherst, Amherst, MA

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank three anonymous reviewers, whose comments helped us to improve this manuscript. In addition, we thank M. Hunter, whose comments on an earlier manuscript inspired us to write this article. During preparation of this manuscript, S.S. was supported by the Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Natural Resources Conservation, University of Massachusetts, 201 Holdsworth Hall, Amherst, MA, 01003, USA

    Scott Schlossberg

  2. Northern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, University of Massachusetts, 201 Holdsworth Hall, Amherst, MA, 01003, USA

    David I. King

Authors
  1. Scott Schlossberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David I. King
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Scott Schlossberg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schlossberg, S., King, D.I. Modeling Animal Habitats Based on Cover Types: A Critical Review. Environmental Management 43, 609–618 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9159-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9159-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation