Modelling the environmental niche of a declining farmland bird species

Italian Journal of Zoology

Volumn 79, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 434-440

  Girardello, M ^a   Morelli, F ^b  

^a CENTRE FOR ECOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF URBINO   (Italy)

Author keywords

BIOMOD; GIS; Red backed shrike; species distribution modelling

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURAL LAND; ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK; BIRD; ENVIRONMENTAL MODELING; HABITAT SELECTION; NUMERICAL MODEL; SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

AVES; LANIUS COLLURIO;

EID: 84865814409     PISSN: 11250003     EISSN: 17485851     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/11250003.2012.666572     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. AA.VV. 2001. Land use map 1:10.000, Ancona, Italy: Marche Region. Regional Cartographic Office.
2. Araújo, MB and New, M. 2007. Ensemble forecasting of species distributions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 22: 42-47.
3. Araújo, MB, Pearson, R, Thuiller, W and Markus, E. 2005. Validation of species-climate impact models under climate change. Global Change Biology, 11: 1504-1513.
4. Bibby, CJ, Burgess, ND and Hill, DA. 2000. Bird census techniques, 302London: Elsevier.
5. Blondel, J and Frochot, B. 1987. Bird Census and Atlas studies. Proceedings of the IXth International Conference on Bird Census and Atlas Work, 2--6 September 1985, Dijon. Acta Oecologica, Oecologica Generalis, 8: 159
6. Brambilla, M, Casale, F, Bergero, V, Bogliani, G, Crovetto, GM, Falco, R, Roati, M and Negri, I. 2010. Glorious past, uncertain present, bad future? Assessing effects of land-use changes on habitat suitability for a threatened farmland bird species. Biological Conservation, 143: 2770-2778.
7. Brambilla, M, Casale, F, Bergero, V, Matteo Crovetto, G, Falco, R, Negri, I, Siccardi, P and Bogliani, G. 2009. GIS-models work well, but are not enough: Habitat preferences of Lanius collurio at multiple levels and conservation implications. Biological Conservation, 142: 2033-2042.
8. Breiman, L. 1984. Classification and regression trees, Vol. 19, 144London: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
9. Breiman, L. 2001. Random Forests. Machine Learning, 45: 5-32.
10. Buermann, W, Saatchi, S, Smith, TB, Zutta, BR, Chaves, J, Milá, B and Graham, CH. 2008. Predicting species distributions across the Amazonian and Andean regions using remote sensing data. Journal of Biogeography, 35: 1160-1176.
11. Burnham, KP and Anderson, DR. 2002. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference, New York: Springer.
12. Busby, JR. 1991. BIOCLIM-a bioclimate analysis and prediction system. In: Margules CR, Austin MP. Plant Protection Quarterly, 6: 64-68.
13. Congalton, R. 1991. A review of assessing the accuracy of classifications of remotely sensed data. Remote Sensing of Environment, 37: 35-46.
14. Elith, J, Ferrier, S, Huettmann, F and Leathwick, J. 2005. The evaluation strip: A new and robust method for plotting predicted responses from species distribution models. Ecological Modelling, 186: 280-289.
15. Elith, J and Graham, CH. 2009. Do they? How do they? Why do they differ? On finding reasons for differing performances of species distribution models. Ecography, 32: 66-77.
16. Fielding, AH and Bell, JF. 1997. A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environmental Conservation, 24: 38-49.
17. Foody, GM and Cutler, MEJ. 2006. Mapping the species richness and composition of tropical forests from remotely sensed data with neural networks. Ecological Modelling, 195: 37-42.
18. Friedman, JH. 1991. Multivariate adaptive regression splines. The annals of statistics 1-141.
19. Friedman, JH. 2001. Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine. Annals of Statistics, 29: 1189-1232.
20. Girardello, M, Griggio, M, Whittingham, MJ and Rushton, SP. 2009. Identifying important areas for butterfly conservation in Italy. Animal Conservation, 12(1): 20-28.
21. Girardello, M, Griggio, M, Whittingham, MJ and Rushton, SP. 2010. Models of climate associations and distributions of amphibians in Italy. Ecological Research, 25: 103-111.
22. Golawski, A and Meissner, W. 2008. The influence of territory characteristics and food supply on the breeding performance of the Red-backed Shrike (Lanius collurio) in an extensively farmed region of eastern Poland. Ecology Research, 23: 347-353.
23. Guisan, A and Thuiller, W. 2005. Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecology Letters, 8: 993-1009.
24. Hastie, T, Tibshirani, R and Buja, A. 1994. Flexible discriminant analysis by optimal scoring. Journal of the American statistical association, 89: 1255-1270.
25. Huntley, B, Green, RE, Collingham, YC, Hill, JK, Willis, SG, Bartlein, PJ, Cramer, W, Hagemeijer, WJM and Thomas, CJ. 2004. The performance of models relating species geographical distributions to climate is independent of trophic level. Ecology Letters, 7: 417-426.
26. Karlsson, S. 2004. Season-dependent diet composition and habitat use of Red-backed Shrikes Lanius collurio in SW Finland. Ornis Fennica, 81: 97-108.
27. Landis, JR and Koch, GG. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33: 159-174.
28. Lefranc, N and Worfolk, T. 1997. Shrikes. A guide to the shrikes of the world, Sussex, United Kingdom: Pica Press.
29. Manel, S and Williams, H. 2001. Evaluating presence-absence models in ecology: the need to account for prevalence. Journal of Applied Ecology, 38: 921-931.
30. Martinez, I, Carreno, F, Escudero, A and Rubio, A. 2006. Are threatened lichen species well-protected in Spain? Effectiveness of a protected areas network. Biological Conservation, 133: 500-511.
31. McCullagh, P and Nelder, J.A. 1989. Generalized linear models, London: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
32. Morelli, F. 2012. Plasticity of habitat selection by Red-backed Shrikes Lanius collurio breeding in different landscapes. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology, 124: 52-57.
33. Olsson, V. 1995. The Red-backed Shrike Lanius collurio in southeastern Sweden: habitat and territory. Ornis Svecica, 5: 31-41.
34. Ortega-Huerta, MA and Peterson, AT. 2004. Modelling spatial patterns of biodiversity for conservation prioritization in North-eastern Mexico. Diversity and Distributions, 10: 39-54.
35. Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). 2009. The state of Europe's common birds 2008. CSO/RSPB, Prague, Czech Republic. http://www.birdlife.cz/index.php?ID=1320 (Accessed: 1 February 2012).
36. Pawar, S, Koo, M, Kelley, C, Ahmed, M, Chaudhuri, S and Sarkar, S. 2007. Conservation assessment and prioritization of areas in Northeast India: Priorities for amphibians and reptiles. Biological Conservation, 136: 346-361.
37. Pearce, J. 2000. Evaluating the predictive performance of habitat models developed using logistic regression. Ecological Modelling, 133: 225-245.
38. Pearce-Higgins, JW, Stephen, L, Langston, RHW, Bainbridge, IP and Bullman, R. 2009. The distribution of breeding birds around upland wind farms. Journal of Applied Ecology, 46: 1323-1331.
39. Pearson, RG and Dawson, TP. 2003. Predicting the impacts of climate change on the distribution of species. are bioclimate envelope models useful? Global Ecology and Biogeography, 12: 361-371.
40. Pearson, RG, Thuiller, W, Araújo, MB, Brotons, L, Martínez-Meyer, E, McClean, C, Miles, L, Segurado, P, Dawson, TP and Lees, D. 2006. Model-based uncertainty in species' range prediction. Journal of Biogeography, 33: 1704-1711.
41. Randin, CF, Dirnböck, T, Dullinger, S, Zimmermann, NE, Zappa, M and Guisan, A. 1703. 2006. Are niche-based species distribution models transferable in space? Journal of Biogeography, 33: 1689
42. Rayner, M, Clout, M, Stamp, R, Imber, M, Brunton, D and Hauber, M. 2007. Predictive habitat modelling for the population census of a burrowing seabird: A study of the endangered Cook's petrel. Biological Conservation, 138: 235-247.
43. Ridgeway, G. 1999. "The state of boosting". In Computing Science and Statistics 31, Edited by: Berk, K and Pourahmadi, M. 172-181. Fairfax, VA: Interface Foundation of North America.
44. Santos, X, Brito, J, Sillero, N, Pleguezuelos, J, Llorente, G, Fahd, S and Parellada, X. 2006. Inferring habitat-suitability areas with ecological modelling techniques and GIS: A contribution to assess the conservation status of Vipera latastei. Biological Conservation, 130: 416-425.
45. Seiler, A. 2005. Predicting locations of moose-vehicle collisions in Sweden. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42: 371-382.
46. Swets, JA. 1988. Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science, 240: 1285-1293.
47. Thuiller, W. 2003. BIOMOD - optimizing predictions of species distributions and projecting potential future shifts under global change. Global Change Biology, 9: 1353-1362.
48. Thuiller, W. 2004. Patterns and uncertainties of species' range shifts under climate change. Global Change Biology, 10: 2020-2027.
49. Thuiller, W, Brotons, L, Araújo, MB and Lavorel, S. 2004. Effects of restricting environmental range of data to project current and future species distributions. Ecography, 27: 165-172.
50. Thuiller, W, Lafourcade, B, Engler, R and Araújo, MB. 2009. BIOMOD - a platform for ensemble forecasting of species distributions. Ecography, 32: 369-373.
51. Tryjanowski, P and Golawski, A. 2004. Sex differences in nest defence by the redbacked Shrike Lanius collurio: effects of offspring age, brood size, and stage of breeding season. Journal of Ethology, 22: 13-16.
52. Tryjanowski, P and Kuzniak, S. 1999. Effect of research activity on the success of red-backed shrike Lanius collurio nests. Ornis Fennica, 76: 41-43.
53. Tryjanowski, P, Kuzniak, S and Diehl, B. 2000. Does breeding performance of Red-backed Shrike, Lanius collurio. depend on nest site selection? Ornis Fennica, 77: 137-141.
54. Vanhinsbergh, D and Evans, A. 2002. Habitat associations of the Red-backed Shrike Lanius collurio in Carinthia, Austria. Journal of Ornithology, 143: 405-415.
55. Yosef, R. 1994. Conservation commentary: evaluation of the global decline in the true shrike, family Lanidae. Auk, 111: 228-233.