Skip to main content
Log in

A theory for ecological survey methods to map individual distributions

  • ORIGINAL PAPER
  • Published:
Theoretical Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 23 June 2018

This article has been updated

Abstract

Spatially explicit approaches are widely recommended for ecosystem management. The quality of the data, such as presence/absence or habitat maps, affects the management actions recommended and is, therefore, key to management success. However, available data are often biased and incomplete. Previous studies have advanced ways to resolve data bias and missing data, but questions remain about how we design ecological surveys to develop a dataset through field surveys. Ecological surveys may have multiple spatial scales, including the spatial extent of the target ecosystem (observation window), the resolution for mapping individual distributions (mapping unit), and the survey area within each mapping unit (sampling unit). We developed an ecological survey method for mapping individual distributions by applying spatially explicit stochastic models. We used spatial point processes to describe individual spatial placements using either random or clustering processes. We then designed ecological surveys with different spatial scales and individual detectability. We found that the choice of mapping unit affected the presence mapped fraction, and the fraction of the total individuals covered by the presence mapped patches. Tradeoffs were found between these quantities and the map resolution, associated with equivalent asymptotic behaviors for both metrics at sufficiently small and large mapping unit scales. Our approach enabled consideration of the effect of multiple spatial scales in surveys, and estimation of the survey outcomes such as the presence mapped fraction and the number of individuals situated in the presence detected units. The developed theory may facilitate management decision-making and inform the design of monitoring and data gathering.

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

Access this article

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

Change history

  • 23 June 2018

    The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. The x-axis in Figs. 4-6 in the original version of this article should be replaced with the x-axis shown in the improved figures below. This does not change the calculations and conclusions.

References

  • Azaele S, Cornell SJ, William EK (2012) Downscaling species occupancy from coarse spatial scales. Ecol Appl 22(3):1004–1014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bayard TS, Elphick CS (2010) Using spatial point-pattern assessment to understand the social and environmental mechanisms that drive avian habitat selection. Auk 127(3):485–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellhouse DR (1977) Biometrika. Biometrika 64(3):605–611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bode M, Sanchirico JN, Armsworth PR (2016) Returns from matching management resolution to ecological variation in a coral reef fishery. Proc R Soc B 283(1826):20152828

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chiu SN, Stoyan D, Kendall WS, Mecke J (2013) Stochastic geometry and its applications. Wiley, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Condit R, Ashton PS, Baker P, Bunyavejchewin S, Gunatilleke S, Gunatilleke N, Hubbell SP, Foster RB, Itoh A, LaFrankie JV, Lee HS, Losos E, Manokaran N, Sukumar R, Yamakura T (2000) Spatial patterns in the distribution of tropical tree species. Science 288(1982):1414–1418

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cressie NAC (1993) Statistics for spatial data. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • De Ornellas P, Milner-Gulland EJ, Nicholson E (2011) The impact of data realities on conservation planning. Biol Conserv 144(7):1980–1988

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epanchin-Niell RS, Haight RG, Berec L, Kean JM, Liebhold AM (2012) Optimal surveillance and eradication of invasive species in heterogeneous landscapes. Ecol Lett 15(8):803–812

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Field SA, Tyre AJ, Possingham HP (2005) Optimizing allocation of monitoring effort under economic and observational constraints. J Wildl Manag 69(2):473–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiske IJ, Bruna EM (2010) Alternative spatial sampling in studies of plant demography: consequences for estimates of population growth rate. Plant Ecol 207(2):213–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrard GE, Bekessy SA, McCarthy MA, Wintle BA (2008) When have we looked hard enough? A novel method for setting minimum survey effort protocols for flora surveys. Austral Ecol 33(8):986–998

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillison AN, Brewer RWK (1985) The use of gradient directed transects or gradsects in natural resource surveys. J Environ Manage 20:103–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Grilli J, Azaele S, Banavar JR, Maritan A (2012) Spatial aggregation and the species-area relationship across scales. J Theor Biol 313:87–97

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gu̇ler B, Jentsch A, Apostolova I, Bartha S, Juliette Bloor MG, Campetella G, Canullo R, Hȧzi J, Kreyling J, Pottier J, Szabȯ G, Terziyska T, Uğurlu E, Wellstein C, Zimmermann Z, Dengler J (2016) How plot shape and spatial arrangement affect plant species richness counts: implications for sampling design and rarefaction analyses. J Veg Sci

  • Hartley S, Kunin W E, Lennon JJ, Pocock M J O (2004) Coherence and discontinuity in the scaling of species’ distribution patterns. Proc Biol Sci 271(1534):81–88

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • He F, Kevin JG (2000) Estimating species abundance from occurrence. Am Nat 156(5):553–559

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang WH, He F (2011) Estimating abundance from presence/absence maps. Methods Ecol Evol 2 (5):550–559

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunin WE (1998) Extrapolating species abundance across spatial scales. Science 281(5382):1513–1315

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Levin SA (1992) The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73(6):1943–1967

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur RH, Wilson EO (1967) The theory of island biogeography, vol 1. Princeton University Press

  • Mackenzie D, Royle JA (2005) Designing occupancy studies: general advice and allocating survey effort

  • Margules CR, Pressey RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405(6783):243–53

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy M A, Moore JL, Morris WK, Parris KM, Garrard GE, Vesk PA , Rumpff L, Giljohann KM, Camac JS, Sana Bau S, Friend T, Harrison B, Yue B (2013) The influence of abundance on detectability. Oikos 122(5):717–726

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mellin C, Andrefouet S, Ponton D (2007) Spatial predictability of juvenile fish species richness and abundance in a coral reef environment. Coral Reefs 26(4):895–907

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moilanen A (2002) Implications of empirical data quality to metapopulation model parameter estimation and application. Oikos 96:516–530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muko S, Shimatani K, Nozawa Y (2014) Spatial analyses for nonoverlapping objects with size variations and their application to coral communities

  • Neave HM, Cunningham RB, Norton TW, Nix HA (1997) Preliminary evaluation of sampling strategies to estimate the species richness of diurnal, terrestrial birds using Monte Carlo simulation. Ecol Modell 95 (1):17–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips S, Anderson R, Schapire R (2006) Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol Modell 190(3–4):231–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pielou EC (1969) An introduction to mathematical ecology. Wiley-Interscience, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Pielou EC (1975) Ecological diversity. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Pikitch EK, Santora C, Babcock E, Bakun A, Ramȯn Bonfil D, Conover O, Dayton P, Doukakis P, Fluharty D, Heneman B, Houde ED, Link J (2004) Ecosystem-based fishery management. Science 300:2003–2003

    Google Scholar 

  • Plotkin JB, Potts MD, Leslie N, Manokaran N, Lafrankie J, Ashton PS (2000) Species-area curves, spatial aggregation, and habitat specialization in tropical forests. J Theor Biol 207(1):81–99

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Possingham H, Ball I, Andelman S (2000) Mathematical methods for identifying representative reserve networks. In: Quant. Methods Conserv. Biol. Springer, New York, pp 291–306

  • Takashina N, Mougi A (2015) Maximum sustainable yields from a spatially-explicit harvest model. J Theor Biol 383(21):87–92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Takashina N, Baskett ML (2016) Exploring the effect of the spatial scale of fishery management. J Theor Biol 390:14–22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Takashina N, Kusumoto B, Beger M, Rathnayake S, Possingham HP (2017) Spatially explicit approach to population abundance estimation. In: Field surveys. bioRxiv

  • Taylor LR, Woiwod IP, Perry JN (1978) The density-dependence of spatial behaviour and the rarity of randomness. J Anim Ecol 47(2):383–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyre AJ, Tenhumberg B, Field SA, Niejalke D, Parris K, Possingham HP (2003) Improving precision and reducing bias in biological surveys: estimating false-negative error rates

  • White C, Halpern BS, Carrie VK (2012) Ecosystem service tradeoff analysis reveals the value of marine spatial planning for multiple ocean uses. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109(12):4696–4701

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson KA, Westphal MI, Possingham HP, Jane Elith (2005) Sensitivity of conservation planning to different approaches to using predicted species distribution data. Biol Conserv 122(1):99–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wintle BA, McCarthy MA, Parris KM, Burgman MA (2004) Precision and bias of methods for estimating point survey detection probabilities

  • Yamakita T, Yamamoto H, Nakaoka M, Yamano H, Fujikura K, Hidaka K, Hirota Y, Ichikawa T, Kakehi S, Kameda T, Kitajima S, Kogure K, Komatsu T, Kumagai NH, Miyamoto H, Miyashita K, Morimoto H, Nakajima R, Nishida S, Nishiuchi K, Sakamoto S, Sano M, Sudo K, Sugisaki H, Tadokoro K, Tanaka K, Jintsu-Uchifune Y, Watanabe K, Watanabe H, Yara Y, Yotsukura N, Shirayama Y (2015) Identification of important marine areas around the Japanese archipelago: establishment of a protocol for evaluating a broad area using ecologically and biologically significant areas selection criteria. Mar Policy 51:136–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank M. Akasaka, B. Stewart-Koster, T. Fung, R.A. Chisholm, L.R. Carrasco, and S. Azaele for their thoughtful comments and discussions. NT and BK were funded by the Program for Advancing Strategic International Networks to Accelerate the Circulation of Talented Researchers of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. They acknowledge the support for coordinating the research program from Dr Yasuhiro Kubota and Dr James D. Reimer. BK was also funded by The University of the Ryukyus President’s Research Award for Leading Scientists.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nao Takashina.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Takashina, N., Beger, M., Kusumoto, B. et al. A theory for ecological survey methods to map individual distributions. Theor Ecol 11, 213–223 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12080-017-0359-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12080-017-0359-7

Keywords

Navigation