See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/278188304

What are the roles of species distribution models in conservation planning?

Article  in  Environmental Conservation · June 2014

CITATIONS READS

20 896

1 author:

William McShea
Smithsonian Institution
219 PUBLICATIONS   5,174 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The Changing Landscapes Initiative View project

ecology of sichuan takin View project

All content following this page was uploaded by William McShea on 31 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

EDITORIAL

What are the roles of species distribution models in conservation planning?

The development of species distribution models (SDMs) has refugia, or which are so rare that they occupy only a small
benefited biodiversity conservation through their linkage of portion of their suitable habitat, the resulting distribution
science to policy and decision processes. These models have model does not reflect the true potential extent of the
evolved to provide scenarios of future landscapes based on species and thus exaggerates the lack of potential habitat
known and projected environmental parameters. Whereas (Sinclair et al. 2010; De Ornellas et al. 2011). Despite these
there are many caveats to their use, the persuasive power of limitations, SDMs have advanced conservation efforts by
the models for conveying the consequences of environmental allowing conservation planning for the current distribution
change to the non-science community is immense. Scientists of many critical species, such as large carnivores in North
are obliged to convey the uncertainty of the futures depicted America (Carroll et al. 2001) and Europe (Corsi et al. 1999),
in their models, but also to involve the stakeholders who will and riverine fish communities in Mesoamerica (Esselman &
shape those future conditions. Stakeholders can identify the Allan 2011).
natural resources they want to sustain, voice their priorities Once adopted by the conservation community, static SDMs
in environmental policy, and articulate the range of solutions were almost immediately used to project shifts in distribution
they are willing to accept. The creation of alternative futures into the future due to changes in climate parameters or land-
is an academic exercise if not linked to real viable decisions use activities (Guillan & Thuiller 2005). By using parameters
concerning important resources. SDMs only reach their that are either directly or indirectly linked to recently available
full potential when they bring together scientists, public world climate data (Hijmans et al. 2005), conservationists have
stakeholders and policy makers, and are used as an adaptive employed SDMs to predict future landscapes (Pereira et al.
management tool to understand complex landscapes that are 2010). SDMs have identified corridors between protected
undergoing short- and long-term change. areas that would allow movement across temperature gradients
Excellent reviews of the evolution of SDMs exist, and all (Nuñez et al. 2013), determined functional redundancy in
aspects of the models will not be covered here (Guisan & protected area establishment (Gallagher et al. 2013), linked
Thuiller 2005; Elith & Leatherwick 2009; Franklin 2009, 2010; key demographic metrics with global change models and
Iverson et al. 2011). The major points are that distribution prioritized critical habitats (Bonnot et al. 2011), and allowed
models for single or multiple species are created based planning for increased frequency of extreme weather events
on survey data across a range of environmental variables. in order to conserve an endangered species (Bateman et
The process identifies critical environmental variables for al. 2012). With effective conservation planning focused on
each species or community, and then extrapolates from the insuring redundancy and resiliency for sustainable future
known survey locations to the entire target landscape. These populations (Redford et al. 2011), SDMs are a valuable tool
static models either display the predicted distribution as a to the conservation community.
binary function or as a probability landscape. SDMs can This projection of SDMs into a contentious political
isolate variability due to imperfect detection of species from arena has generated critical review on how the models are
parameters shaping the species distribution. SDMs have been constructed and used to predict alternative futures. It is
used to identify suitable habitat for cryptic species (Wilting these future projections that have drawn the most criticism
et al. 2010), or for species distributed across broad and/or of SDMs, primarily because of inherent variability of the
difficult landscapes that preclude detailed surveys (McShea environmental parameters, the unknown migration ability of
et al. 2009; Liu et al. 2009). There is the caveat that mapping the species, and model uncertainty, which are not always
potential habitat should not be inferred to represent the incorporated into the predictions (Cayuela et al. 2009; Coreau
actual presence of the species (Guisan & Thuiller 2005). et al. 2009; Elith & Leatherwick 2009; Franklin 2010; Sinclair
For example, tropical wildlife are experiencing significant et al. 2010). Many of the same limits to static SDMs are at
poaching pressure within forest reserves (Harrison 2011), issue when linking SDMs to climate models. For example, the
and maps of suitable forest may not reflect the abundance of scale of a species’ environmental niche is often small relative
animals within that forest. An additional important limitation to outputs of climate models and undetected climate refugia
is that SDMs assume the surveys are detecting species will exist within these future landscapes (Weins & Bachelet
across their potential range and that important environmental 2010). In addition, anthropogenic stresses may have complex
variables (including species interactions) have been considered interactions with projected changes in climate parameters
in the model construction. For species currently confined to (Singh & Milner-Gulland 2011) and the uncertainty values
94 Editorial

of critical parameters makes future predictions challenging effectively used for conservation planning (Coreau et al. 2009;
for some species (Carvalho et al. 2011). Of particular note is Foster et al. 2010; Periera et al. 2010; Thompson et al. 2012).
that the persistence of organisms in future landscapes depends With scenario planning, alternative futures are presented to
partially on their ability to migrate into newly suitable habitats, stakeholders based on the policy actions available to them.
abilities that are poorly understood for most species (Franklin This has been tried at regional (Spies et al. 2007; Shaw
2009, 2010). 2009; Foster et al. 2010) and global (Millennium Ecosystem
These issues demand constant vigilance when selecting Assessment 2005; Periera et al. 2010) scales. In my opinion,
focal species and landscapes, but they are tractable with the regional efforts have been successful at conveying policy
the development of new techniques and a critical scientific impacts on environmental services.
community. Of primary concern is that this predictive For the conservation community focused on endangered
modelling often places species in future communities that species, these future SDMs are analogous to population
do not exist at present, or into a parameter space not habitat viability analysis (PHVA), where population
encompassed by the original SDMs (Coreau et al. 2009). parameters are used to determine the current population
Although most SDMs focus on single species, as the modelling growth rate and then are projected into future generations
environment approaches unique combinations of parameters, in the presence of known stressors (Akçakaya & Sjögren-
there is increased uncertainty over the interactions with other Gulve 2000; Linkie et al. 2006; Redford et al. 2011). PHVA
species and between the environmental variables, which can workshops for stakeholders then explore the minimum and
make predictions problematic (Carvalho et al. 2011). For maximum levels for each stressor that allow population
broad-ranging species that occur across diverse and varied persistence over the projected time span. The stakeholder
landscapes these conditions may never be reached, but for process strives to recognize and accept the limits within
specialist (or rare) species caution is advisable before mapping which land and animal usage will allow persistence of
future distributions. the target population. PHVAs have been incorporated into
SDMs linked to future landscapes are most credible a metapopulation schema, where sources and sinks for
when focused on well-studied species within systems where populations are temporally and spatially variable due to
the important parameters are understood. Temperate forest shifting resources (Bonnot et al. 2011). This linking of
communities are an excellent example where SDMs are population parameters with environmental change across a
linked to climate models to project future communities. landscape holds much potential for SDMs that seek to predict
Due in part to their large economic value, scientists have a the future viability of critical species (Elith & Leatherwick
better understanding of the physiology, species interactions 2009; Franklin 2010).
and dispersal capabilities of temperate tree species than SDMs can accomplish conservation aims through several
any other ecosystem (possibly temperate freshwater systems avenues:
come close). Several successful SDMs have created future
projections for forest (Iverson et al. 2011; Thompson et al. (1) Many environmental threats are imminent and operate
2011), lake (Peterson et al. 2003) or riverine (Esselman & within known parameters. For many species and
Allan 2011; Turak et al. 2011) communities. The challenge is communities, impacts of forest loss, increased road
to bring together the same level of knowledge when modelling density and dam construction are understood. Short-
other important communities, such as tropical forests or term projections of climate models do not bring species
marine communities. The next difficult step is linking forest outside the parameter limits used for model creation. For
communities, which can be mapped remotely at broad scales, many endangered communities, SDMs are of valuable
with animal communities, which are often loosely correlated assistance in projecting the short-term consequences of
to forest distributions and are often incompletely mapped policy decisions.
at a much smaller scale. There are few animal communities (2) For some situations it is best to consider these future
understood to the degree that the distribution and extent of models not as predictions, but as scenarios. This is with
forest communities can serve as a surrogate for SDM purposes the stipulation that, if known parameters stay within their
(Faaborg et al. 2010). limits, future landscapes can be projected, based on a
Modelling limitations should not dissuade conservationists limited number of policy decisions. These alternative
from using the predictive power of SDMs. A dynamic SDM, futures do not make predictions of how likely each future
based on well-surveyed populations responding to changes in landscape is, but provide a critical tool for stakeholders to
known-critical parameters, is one of the best tools available for discuss how today’s decisions shape future landscapes.
conservationists to visually convey future conditions. Users (3) Spatial distribution modelling is a rapidly evolving
should be aware of limitations, but the model insights are field, with advances in technology for species’ detection,
an important starting point for decision making (Carvalho modelling software and mathematical theorems, and an
et al. 2011). It may be unknown which projection best reflects understanding of important parameters for an increasing
reality 100 years in the future, but presenting a range of number of species. SDMs should result from an iterative
possible outcomes to stakeholders may trigger action today. process for the conservation community, with important
Scenario planning is a good example of how a SDM can be models revised and re-parametized on a regular basis. As
 Editorial 95

‘current-state-of-knowledge’, SDMs are one step toward Bonnot, T.W., Thompson III, F.R. & Millspaugh, J.J. (2011)
bringing science into policy making. Extension of landscape-based population viability models
(4) Hundreds of SDMs exist, from marine to terrestrial to ecoregional scales for conservation planning. Biological
systems, yet the science is not well used by the Conservation 144: 2041–2053.
conservation community. This community needs to take Carroll, C., Noss, R.F. & Paquet, P.C. (2001) Carnivores as focal
species for conservation planning in the Rocky Mountain region.
a more proactive role in the funding of SDM research.
Ecological Applications 11: 961–980.
The research community is currently driving most Carvalho, S.B., Brito, J.C., Crespo, E.G., Watts, M.E. &
SDM development, and the products are relevant to Possingham, H.P. (2011) Conservation planning under climate
ecologists (understanding basic population and ecosystem change: toward accounting for uncertainty in predicted
principles) and produce meaningful products within species distributions to increase confidence in conservation
the science community (namely papers for scientific investments in space and time. Biological Conservation 144: 2020–
journals and conference presentations). The conservation 2030.
community often needs different products, such as usable Cayuela, L, Golicher, D., Newton, A., Kolb, H., de Alburquerque,
applications and scientific input into policy development. F.S., Arets, E.J.M.M., Alkemade, J.R.M. & Pérez, A.M.
Explicitly creating SDMs for policy development is more (2009) Species distribution modeling in the tropics: problems,
likely to produce applications that are useable and used potentialities, and the role of biological data for effective species
conservation. Tropical Conservation Science 2: 319–352.
by practitioners, and make better use of visualization
Coreau, A., Pinay, G., Thompson, J.D., Cheptou, P.-O. & Mermet,
tools (McIntyre & Strauss 2013). The development of
L. (2009) The rise of research on futures in ecology: rebalancing
joint ventures based around ecosystems (Bonnott et al. scenarios and predictions. Ecology Letters 12: 1277–1286.
2011) or species (Lynch & Taylor 2010), or multi-agency Corsi, F., Duprè, E. & Boitani, L. (1999) A large-scale model of
partnerships for migratory bird conservation (Faaborg et wolf distribution in Italy for conservation planning. Conservation
al. 2010), is a promising avenue for merging the science Biology 13: 150–159.
and management communities. De Ornellas, P., Milner-Gulland, E.J. & Nicholson, E. (2011)
(5) The conservation community is not the final user of any The impact of data realities on conservation planning. Biological
SDM. The goal is to link the modelling to policy makers Conservation 144: 1980–1988.
and managers (Euliss et al. 2011). There is insufficient Driscoll, C.T., Lambert, K.F., Chapin III, F.S., Nowak, D.J., Spies,
effort to convey SDM outputs to decision-makers. Even T.A., Swanson, F.J., Kittredge Jr, D.B. & Hart, C.M. (2012)
Science and society: the role of long-term studies in environmental
this volume had limited success in finding research that
stewardship. Bioscience 62: 354–366.
moved from theory to practice. More research is needed on
Elith, J. & Leathwick, J.R. (2009) Species distribution models:
how to use SDMs in the service of informing public policy, ecological explanation and prediction across space and time.
stakeholder scenario analysis and applied conservation Annual Review Ecology Evolution Systematics 40: 677–697.
(Driscoll et al. 2012). The conservation community needs Esselman, P.C. & Allan, J.D. (2011) Application of species
improved understanding of the relative merits of different distribution models and conservation planning software to the
modelling approaches in terms of their ability to influence design of a reserve network for the riverine fishes of northeastern
policy and management. Mesoamerica. Freshwater Biology 56: 71–88.
Euliss Jr, N.H., Smith, L.M., Liu, S., Duffy, W.G., Faulkner,
The purpose of this thematic issue is to highlight the S.P., Gleason, R.A. & Eckles, S.D. (2011) Integrating estimates of
role of spatial simulation models in informing conservation ecosystem services from conservation programs and practices into
models for decision makers. Ecological Applications 21: S128–S134.
planning for global change. The issue encompasses specialist
Faaborg, J., Holmes, R.T., Anders, A.D., Bildstein, K.L., Dugger,
organisms that require narrow environmental envelopes,
K.M., Gauthreaux Jr, S.A., Heglund, P., Hobson, K.A., Jahn,
mobile terrestrial species that rely on unrestricted movements A.E., Johnson, D.H., Latta, S.C., Levey, D.J., Marra, P.P.,
across landscapes, and landscape-scale simulation studies Merkord, C.L., Nol, E., Rothstein, S.I., Sherry, T.W., Sillett,
that quantify changes in ecosystem services. I encourage the T.S., Thompson III, F.R. & Warnock, N. (2010) Conserving
conservation community to embrace a reasoned use of species migratory land birds in the New World: do we know enough?
distribution model throughout the planning process as a means Ecological Applications 20: 398–418.
of engaging stakeholders in discussions of future scenarios and Franklin, J. (2009) Mapping Species Distributions: Spatial Inference
the decisions needed to reach their desired outcomes. and Prediction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Franklin, J. (2010) Moving beyond static species distribution
models in support of conservation biogeography. Diversity and
References Distributions 16: 321–330.
Foster, D.R., Donohue, B.M., Kitteredge, D.B., Lambert, K.F.,
Akçakaya, H.R. & Sjögren-Gulve, P. (2000) Population viability Hunter, M.L., Hall, B.R., Irland, L.C., Liliehom, R.J., Orwig,
analyses in conservation planning: an overview. Ecological Bulletins D.A., D’Amaot, A.W., Colburn, E.A., Thompson, J.R., Levitt,
48: 9–21. J.N., Ellison, A.M., Keeton, W.S., Aber, J.D., Cogbill, C.V.,
Bateman, B.L., VanDerWal, J. & Johnson, C.N. (2012) Nice weather Driscoll, C.T., Fahey, T.J. & Hart, C.M. (2010) Wildlands and
for bettongs: using weather events, not climate means, in species Woodlands: A Vision for the New England Landscape. Petersham,
distribution models. Ecography 35: 306–314. MA, USA: Harvard Forest, Harvard University.
96 Editorial

Gallagher, R.V., Hughes, L. & Leishman, M.R. (2013) Species Redford, K.H., Amato, G., Baillie, J., Beldomenico, P., Bennett,
loss and gain in communities under future climate change: E.L., Clum, N., Cook, R., Fonseca, G., Hedges, S., Launay,
consequences for functional diversity. Ecography 36: 531–540. F., Lieberman, S., Mace, G.M., Murayama, A., Putnam, A.,
Guisan, A. & Thuiller, W. (2005) Predicting species distribution: Robinson, J.G., Rosenbaum, H., Sanderson, E.W., Stuart, S.N.,
offering more than simple habitat models. Ecology Letters 8: 993– Thomas, P. & Thorbjarnarson, J. (2011) What does it mean to
1009. successfully conserve a (vertebrate) species? BioScience 61: 39–48.
Harrison, R.D. (2011) Emptying the forest: hunting and the Shaw, A., Sheppard, S., Burch, S., Flanders, D., Wiek, A.,
extirpation of wildlife from tropical nature reserves. Bioscience Carmichael, J., Robinson, J. & Cohen, S. (2009) Making
61: 919–924. local futures tangible. Synthesizing, downscaling and visualizing
Hijmans, R.J., Cameron, S.E., Parra, J.L., Jones, P.G. & Jarvis, A. climate change scenarios for participatory capacity building.
(2005) Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global Global Environmental Change 19: 447–463.
land areas. International Journal of Climatology 25: 1965–1978. Sinclair, S.J., White, M.D. & Newell, G.R. (2010) How useful
Iverson, L.R., Prasad, A.M., Matthews, S.N. & Peters, M.P. (2011) are species distribution models for managing biodiversity under
Lessons learned while integrating habitat, dispersal, disturbance, future climates? Ecology and Society 15: 8 [www document]. URL
and life-history traits into species habitat models under climate [Link]
change. Ecosystems 14: 1005–1020. Singh, N.J. & Milner-Gulland, E.J. (2011) Conserving a moving
Linkie, M., Chapron, G., Martyr, D.J., Holden, J. & Leader- target: planning protection for a migratory species as its
Williams, N. (2006) Assessing the viability of tiger subpopulations distribution changes. Journal of Applied Ecology 48: 35–46.
in a fragmented landscape. Journal of Applied Ecology 43: 576–586. Spies, T.A., Johnson, K.N., Burnett, K.M., Ohmann, J.L.,
Liu, F., McShea, W.J., Garshelis, D.L., Zhu, X., Wang, D., Gong, J. McComb, B.C., Reeves, G.C., Bettinger, P., Kline, J.D. & Garber-
& Chen, Y. (2009) Spatial distribution as a measure of conservation Younts, B. (2007) Cumulative ecological and socioeconomic effects
needs: an example with Asiatic black bears in Southwestern China. of forest policies in coastal Oregon. Ecological Applications 17: 5–
Biodiversity and Distribution 15: 649–659. 17.
Lynch, A.J. & Taylor, W.W. (2010) Evaluating a science-based Thompson, J.R., Foster, D.R., Scheller, R. & Kittredge, D. (2011)
decision support tool used to prioritize brook charr conservation The influence of land use and climate change on forest biomass
project proposals in the eastern United States. Hydrobiologia 650: and composition in Massachusetts, USA. Ecological Applications
233–241. 21: 2425–2444.
McIntyre, N.E. & Strauss, R.E. (2013) A new multi-scaled graph Thompson, J.R., Wiek, A., Swanson, F.J., Carpenter, S.R., Fresco,
visualization approach: an example with the playa wetland network N., Hollingsworth, T., Spies, T.A. & Foster, D.A. (2012) Scenario
in the great plains. Landscape Ecology 28: 769–782. studies as a synthetic and integrative research activity for long-
McShea, W.J., Stewart, C., Peterson, L., Erb, P., Stuebing, R. & term ecological research. BioScience 62: 367–376.
Giman, B. (2009) The importance of secondary forest blocks for Turak, E., Ferrier, S., Barrett, T., Mesley, E., Driesma, M., Manion,
terrestrial mammals within an Acacia/secondary forest matrix in G., Doyle, G., Stein, J. & Gordon, G. (2011) Planning for the
Sarawak, Malaysia. Biological Conservation 142: 3108–3119. persistence of river biodiversity: exploring alternative futures
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and Human using process-based models. Freshwater Biology 56: 39–56.
Well-being: Scenarios. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press Weins, J.A. & Bachelet, D. (2010) Matching the multiple scales
Nuñez, T.A., Lawler, J.J., McRae, B.H., Pierce, D.J., Krosby, of conservation with the multiple scales of climate change.
M.B., Kavanagh, D.M., Singleton, P.H. & Tewksbury, J.J. (2013) Conservation Biology 24: 51–62.
Connectivity planning to address climate change. Conservation Wilting, A., Cord, A., Hearn, A.J., Hesse, D., Mohamed, A.,
Biology 27: 407–416. Traehold, C., Cheryne, S.M., Sunarto, S., Jayaslin, M.-A., Ross,
Peterson, G.D., Cumming, G.S. & Carpenter, S. (2003) Scenario J., Shapiro, A.C., Sebastian, A., Dech, S., Breitenmoser, C.,
planning: a tool for conservation in an uncertain world. Sanderson, J., Duckworth, J.W. & Hofer, H. (2010) Modeling
Conservation Biology 17: 358–366. the species distribution of flat-headed cats (Prionailurus planiceps),
Pereira, H.M., Leadley, P.W., Proença, V., Alkemade, R., an endangered south-east Asian small felid. PLoS ONE 5: e9612.
Scharlemann, J.P.W., Fernandez-Manjarrés, J.F., Araújo, M.B.,
Balvanera, P., Biggs, R., Cheung, W.W.L., Chini, L., Cooper, WILLIAM J. McSHEA
H.D., Gilman, E.L., Guénette, S., Hurtt, G.C., Huntington, Conservation Ecology Center, Conservation Biology Institute,
H.P., Mace, G.M., Oberdorff, T., Revenga, C., Rodrigues, P., Smithsonian’s National Zoological Park, 1500 Remount Road, Front
Scholes, R.J., Sumaila, U.R. & Walpole, M. (2010) Scenarios for Royal, VA 22630, USA,
global biodiversity in the 21st century. Science 330: 1496–1501. e-mail: mcsheaw@[Link]

View publication stats