Structural uncertainty in models projecting the consequences of habitat loss and fragmentation on biodiversity

Ecography

Volumn 40, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 36-47

  Leroux, Shawn J ^a   Albert, Cécile H ^b   Lafuite, Anne Sophie ^c   Rayfield, Bronwyn ^d   Wang, Shaopeng ^e,f   Gravel, Dominique ^g  

^a MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY OF NEWFOUNDLAND   (Canada)

^b AVIGNON UNIVERSITÉ   (France)

^c Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique and Paul Sabatier University   (France)

^d UNIVERSITÉ DU QUÉBEC EN OUTAOUAIS   (Canada)

^e GERMAN CENTRE FOR INTEGRATIVE BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH IDIV HALLE JENA LEIPZIG   (Germany)

^f FRIEDRICH SCHILLER UNIVERSITY JENA   (Germany)

^g UNIVERSITÉ DE SHERBROOKE   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; CONSERVATION PLANNING; ECOSYSTEM STRUCTURE; ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS; GLOBAL CHANGE; HABITAT CONSERVATION; HABITAT FRAGMENTATION; HABITAT LOSS; LAND USE CHANGE; SPECIES RICHNESS; SPECIES-AREA RELATIONSHIP; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS; VERTEBRATE;

CANADA; QUEBEC [CANADA]; QUEBEC [QUEBEC (PRV)];

VERTEBRATA;

EID: 85001831585     PISSN: 09067590     EISSN: 16000587     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/ecog.02542     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Akçakaya, H. R. et al. 2006. The role of metapopulations in conservation. – In: MacDonald, D. and Service, K. (eds), Key topics in conservation biology. Blackwell, pp. 64–84.
2. Allouche, O. et al. 2006. Assessing the accuracy of species distribution models: prevalence, kappa and the true skill statistic (TSS): assessing the accuracy of distribution models. – J. Appl. Ecol. 43: 1223–1232.
3. Araújo, M. and New, M. 2007. Ensemble forecasting of species distributions. – Trends Ecol. Evol. 22: 42–47.
4. Araújo, M. B. and Peterson, A. T. 2012. Uses and misuses of bioclimatic envelope modeling. – Ecology 93: 1527–1539.
5. Arrhenius, O. 1921. Species and area. – J. Ecol. 9: 95.
6. Barraquand, F. et al. 2014. Lack of quantitative training among early-career ecologists: a survey of the problem and potential solutions. – PeerJ 2: e285.
7. Betts, M. G. et al. 2014. A species-centered approach for uncovering generalities in organism responses to habitat loss and fragmentation. – Ecography 37: 517–527.
8. Boulangeat, I. et al. 2012. Accounting for dispersal and biotic interactions to disentangle the drivers of species distributions and their abundances. – Ecol. Lett. 15: 584–593.
9. Brooks, T. M. et al. 1999. Threat from deforestation to montane and lowland birds and mammals in insular south-east Asia. – J. Anim. Ecol. 68: 1061–1078.
10. Brudvig, L. et al. in press. Evaluating conceptual models of landscape change. – Ecography.
11. Calabrese, J. M. et al. 2014. Stacking species distribution models and adjusting bias by linking them to macroecological models. – Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 23: 99–112.
12. Cardinale, B. J. et al. 2012. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. – Nature 486: 59–67.
13. Caswell, H. 1988. Theory and models in ecology: a different perspective. – Ecol. Model. 43: 33–44.
14. Chetkiewicz, C.-L. B. and Boyce, M. S. 2009. Use of resource selection functions to identify conservation corridors. – J. Appl. Ecol. 46: 1036–1047.
15. Codling, E. A. and Dumbrell, A. J. 2012. Mathematical and theoretical ecology: linking models with ecological processes. – Interf. Focus 2: 144–149.
16. Collins, C. et al. in press. Fragmentation affects plant community composition over time. – Ecography.
17. Connor, E. F. and McCoy, E. D. 1979. The statistics and biology of the species–area relationship. – Am. Nat. 113: 791–833.
18. Cord, A. and Rödder, D. 2011. Inclusion of habitat availability in species distribution models through multi-temporal remote-sensing data? – Ecol. Appl. 21: 3285–3298.
19. Crooks, K. R. and Sanjayan, M. 2006. Connectivity conservation. – Cambridge Univ. Press.
20. Coulon, A. et al. 2015. A stochastic movement simulator improves estimates of landscape connectivity. – Ecology 96: 2203–2213.
21. DeCamargo, R. X. and Currie, D. J. 2015. An empirical investigation of why species–area relationships overestimate species losses. – Ecology 96: 1253–1263.
22. Dengler, J. 2009. Which function describes the species–area relationship best? A review and empirical evaluation. – J. Biogeogr. 36: 728–744.
23. Distler, T. et al. 2015. Stacked species distribution models and macroecological models provide congruent projections of avian species richness under climate change. – J. Biogeogr. 42: 976–988.
24. Dornelas, M. et al. 2014. Assemblage time series reveal biodiversity change but not systematic loss. – Science 344: 296–299.
25. Dullinger, S. et al. 2011. Patch configuration affects alpine plant distribution. – Ecography 34: 576–587.
26. Elith, J. and Leathwick, J. R. 2009. Species distribution models: ecological explanation and prediction across space and time. – Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 40: 677–697.
27. Ewers, R. M. et al. in press. Predicted trajectories of tree community change in Amazonian rainforest fragments. – Ecography.
28. Fahrig, L. 2003. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. – Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 34: 487–515.
29. Fahrig, L. 2013. Rethinking patch size and isolation effects: the habitat amount hypothesis. – J. Biogeogr. 40: 1649–1663.
30. Fordham, D. A. et al. 2013. Tools for integrating range change, extinction risk and climate change information into conservation management. – Ecography 36: 956–964.
31. Gallien, L. et al. 2012. Invasive species distribution models – how violating the equilibrium assumption can create new insights: beyond the equilibrium assumption of SDMs. – Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 21: 1126–1136.
32. Gilarranz, L. and Bascompte, J. 2012. Spatial network structure and metapopulation persistence. – J. Theor. Biol. 297: 11–16.
33. Gravel, D. et al. 2011. Trophic theory of island biogeography. – Ecol. Lett. 14: 1010–1016.
34. Guisan, A. et al. 2006. Using niche-based models to improve the sampling of rare species. – Conserv. Biol. 20: 501–511.
35. Haby, N. A. et al. 2013. Scale dependency of metapopulation models used to predict climate change impacts on small mammals. – Ecography 36: 832–841.
36. Haddad, N. M. et al. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth's ecosystems. – Sci. Adv. 1: e1500052.
37. Haddad, N. M. et al. in press. Experimental evidence does not support the habitat amount hypothesis. – Ecography.
38. Hanski, I. 1999. Metapopulation ecology. – Oxford Univ. Press.
39. Hanski, I. et al. 2013. Species–fragmented area relationship. – Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110: 12715–12720.
40. Holland, M. D. and Hastings, A. 2008. Strong effect of dispersal network structure on ecological dynamics. – Nature 456: 792–794.
41. Kaufman, S. D. et al. 2009. Impacts of road access on lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) populations: regional scale effects of overexploitation and the introduction of smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu). – Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 66: 212–223.
42. Kearney, M. and Porter, W. 2009. Mechanistic niche modelling: combining physiological and spatial data to predict species’ ranges. – Ecol. Lett. 12: 334–350.
43. Keith, D. A. et al. 2008. Predicting extinction risks under climate change: coupling stochastic population models with dynamic bioclimatic habitat models. – Biol. Lett. 4: 560–563.
44. Kerr, J. T. et al. 2015. Climate change impacts on bumblebees converge across continents. – Science 349: 177–180.
45. Koh, L. P. and Ghazoul, J. 2010. A matrix-calibrated species–area model for predicting biodiversity losses due to land-use change: matrix-calibrated species–area model. – Conserv. Biol. 24: 994–1001.
46. Krosby, M. et al. 2015. Focal species and landscape “naturalness” corridor models offer complementary approaches for connectivity conservation planning. – Landscape Ecol. 30: 2121–2132.
47. Kukkala, A. S. and Moilanen, A. 2013. Core concepts of spatial prioritisation in systematic conservation planning: concepts of systematic conservation planning. – Biol. Rev. 88: 443–464.
48. Kulkarni, M. A. et al. 2010. High resolution niche models of malaria vectors in northern Tanzania: a new capacity to predict malaria risk? – PLoS One 5: e9396.
49. Lande, R. et al. 2003. Stochastic population dynamics in ecology and conservation. – Oxford Univ. Press.
50. Leroux, S. J. et al. 2007. Accounting for system dynamics in reserve design. – Ecol. Appl. 17: 1954–1966.
51. Leroux, S. J. et al. 2013. Mechanistic models for the spatial spread of species under climate change. – Ecol. Appl. 23: 815–828.
52. Levins, R. 1969. Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control. – Bull. Entomol. Soc. Am. 15: 237–240.
53. Liu, C. et al. 2005. Selecting thresholds of occurrence in the prediction of species distributions. – Ecography 28: 385–393.
54. MacArthur, R. H. and Wilson, E. O. 1967. The theory of island biogeography. – Princeton Univ. Press.
55. McCune, J. L. 2016. Species distribution models predict rare species occurrences despite significant effects of landscape context. – J. Appl. Ecol. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12702
56. Meller, L. et al. 2014. Ensemble distribution models in conservation prioritization: from consensus predictions to consensus reserve networks. – Divers. Distrib. 20: 309–321.
57. Mendenhall, C. D. et al. 2014. Predicting biodiversity change and averting collapse in agricultural landscapes. – Nature 509: 213–217.
58. Merow, C. et al. 2014. What do we gain from simplicity versus complexity in species distribution models? – Ecography 37: 1267–1281.
59. Meynard, C. N. and Quinn, J. F. 2007. Predicting species distributions: a critical comparison of the most common statistical models using artificial species: comparison of species-distribution models. – J. Biogeogr. 34: 1455–1469.
60. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis. – World Resources Inst., Washington, D.C.
61. Moilanen, A. and Hanski, I. 1998. Metapopulation dynamics: effects of habitat quality and landscape structure. – Ecology 79: 2503–2515.
62. Newbold, T. et al. 2015. Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. – Nature 520: 45–50.
63. Pereira, H. M. et al. 2010. Scenarios for global biodiversity in the 21st century. – Science 330: 1496–1501.
64. Pollock, L. J. et al. 2014. Understanding co-occurrence by modelling species simultaneously with a joint species distribution model (JSDM). – Methods Ecol. Evol. 5: 397–406.
65. Resasco, J. et al. in press. Theory, experiments, and the conservation of fragmented landscapes. – Ecography.
66. Rosenzweig, M. L. 1995. Species diversity in space and time. – Cambridge Univ. Press.
67. Talluto, M. et al. 2016. Cross-scale integration of knowledge for predicting species ranges: a metamodeling framework. – Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 25: 238–249.
68. Tanentzap, A. J. et al. 2012. A framework for predicting species extinction by linking population dynamics with habitat loss. – Conserv. Lett. 5: 149–156.
69. Thompson, P. et al. 2014. Robustness of the spatial insurance effects of biodiversity to habitat loss. – Evol. Ecol. Res. 16: 445–460.
70. Thuiller, W. et al. 2009. BIOMOD – a platform for ensemble forecasting of species distributions. – Ecography 32: 369–373.
71. Thuiller, W. et al. 2013. A road map for integrating eco-evolutionary processes into biodiversity models. – Ecol. Lett. 16: 94–105.
72. Thuiller, W. et al. 2014. Does probability of occurrence relate to population dynamics? – Ecography 37: 1155–1166.
73. Tjørve, E. and Turner, W. R. 2009. The importance of samples and isolates for species–area relationships. – Ecography 32: 391–400.
74. Trainor, A. M. and Schmitz, O. J. 2014. Infusing considerations of trophic dependencies into species distribution modelling. – Ecol. Lett. 17: 1507–1517.
75. Vasudev, D. et al. 2015. From dispersal constraints to landscape connectivity: lessons from species distribution modeling. – Ecography 38: 967–978.
76. Vellend, M. et al. 2013. Global meta-analysis reveals no net change in local-scale plant biodiversity over time. – Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110: 19456–19459.
77. Whittaker, R. J. et al. 2005. Conservation biogeography: assessment and prospect. – Divers. Distrib. 11: 3–23.