Spatial heterogeneity in statistical power to detect changes in lake area in Alaskan National Wildlife Refuges
- 319 Downloads
Over the past 50 years, the number and size of high-latitude lakes have decreased throughout many regions; however, individual lake trends have been variable in direction and magnitude. This spatial heterogeneity in lake change makes statistical detection of temporal trends challenging, particularly in small analysis areas where weak trends are difficult to separate from inter- and intra-annual variability. Factors affecting trend detection include inherent variability, trend magnitude, and sample size. In this paper, we investigated how the statistical power to detect average linear trends in lake size of 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 %/year was affected by the size of the analysis area and the number of years of monitoring in National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska. We estimated power for large (930–4,560 sq km) study areas within refuges and for 2.6, 12.9, and 25.9 sq km cells nested within study areas over temporal extents of 4–50 years. We found that: (1) trends in study areas could be detected within 5–15 years, (2) trends smaller than 2.0 %/year would take >50 years to detect in cells within study areas, and (3) there was substantial spatial variation in the time required to detect change among cells. Power was particularly low in the smallest cells which typically had the fewest lakes. Because small but ecologically meaningful trends may take decades to detect, early establishment of long-term monitoring will enhance power to detect change. Our results have broad applicability and our method is useful for any study involving change detection among variable spatial and temporal extents.
KeywordsStatistical power Mixed model Lake drying Alaska Temporal sampling Regional trend Trend detection Climate change
Funding was provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Geological Survey. Special thanks to Jay Ver Hoef for his comments on an early draft of this manuscript. Use of trade names does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey.
- Hinzman L, Bettez N, Bolton W, Chapin F, Dyurgerov M, Fastie C, Griffith B, Hollister R, Hope A, Huntington H, Jensen A, Jia G, Jorgenson T, Kane D, Klein D, Kofinas G, Lynch A, Lloyd A, McGuire A, Nelson F, Oechel W, Osterkamp T, Racine C, Romanovsky V, Stone R, Stow D, Sturm M, Tweedie C, Vourlitis G, Walker M, Walker D, Webber P, Welker J, Winker K, Yoshikawa K (2005) Evidence and implications of recent climate change in northern Alaska and other arctic regions. Clim Chang 72(3):251–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hodges JI, King JG, Conant B, Hanson HA (1996) Aerial surveys of waterbirds in Alaska 1957–94: population trends and observer variability. National Biological Service Information and Technology, Report 4Google Scholar
- Johnson DH, Grier JW (1988) Determinants of breeding distributions of ducks. Wildlife Monogr 100:3–37Google Scholar
- Overpeck J, Hughen K, Hardy D, Bradley R, Case R, Douglas M, Finney B, Gajewski K, Jacoby G, Jennings A, Lamoureux S, Lasca A, MacDonald G, Moore J, Retelle M, Smith S, Wolfe A, Zielinski G (1997) Arctic environmental change of the last four centuries. Science 278(5341):1251–1256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Pospahala R, Anderson D, Henny C (1974) Population ecology of the mallard: breeding habitat conditions, size of the breeding populations, and production indices. US Fish and Wildlife Service Resources 115Google Scholar
- R Development Core Team (2011) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
- Roach J (2011) Lake area change in Alaskan National Wildlife Refuges: magnitude, mechanisms and heterogeneity. University of Alaska Fairbanks, DissertationGoogle Scholar
- Roach J, Griffith B, Verbyla D (2012) Comparison of three methods for long-term monitoring of boreal lake area using Landsat TM and ETM + imagery. Can J Remote Sens 38(4):427–440Google Scholar
- Urquhart NS, Paulsen SG, Larsen DP (1998) Monitoring for policy-relevant regional trends over time. Ecol Appl 8(2):246–257Google Scholar
- Weatherhead EC, Reinsel GC, Meng XL, Tiao GC, Choi D, Cheang WK, Keller T, DeLuisi J, Wuebbles DJ, Kerr JB, Miller AJ, Oltmans SJ, Frederick JE (1998) Factors affecting the detection of trends: statistical considerations and applications to environmental data. J Geophys Res 103(D14):17149–17161CrossRefGoogle Scholar