Tradeoffs of different types of species occurrence data for use in systematic conservation planning.

Data on the occurrence of species are widely used to inform the design of reserve networks. These data contain commission errors (when a species is mistakenly thought to be present) and omission errors (when a species is mistakenly thought to be absent), and the rates of the two types of error are inversely related. Point locality data can minimize commission errors, but those obtained from museum collections are generally sparse, suffer from substantial spatial bias and contain large omission errors. Geographic ranges generate large commission errors because they assume homogenous species distributions. Predicted distribution data make explicit inferences on species occurrence and their commission and omission errors depend on model structure, on the omission of variables that determine species distribution and on data resolution. Omission errors lead to identifying networks of areas for conservation action that are smaller than required and centred on known species occurrences, thus affecting the comprehensiveness, representativeness and efficiency of selected areas. Commission errors lead to selecting areas not relevant to conservation, thus affecting the representativeness and adequacy of reserve networks. Conservation plans should include an estimation of commission and omission errors in underlying species data and explicitly use this information to influence conservation planning outcomes.

[1]  V. Funk,et al.  Systematic data in biodiversity studies: use it or lose it. , 2002, Systematic biology.

[2]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  Methods for reserve selection: Interior point search , 2005 .

[3]  Paul H. Williams,et al.  Downscaling European species atlas distributions to a finer resolution: implications for conservation planning , 2005 .

[4]  Christopher J. Schneider,et al.  Biodiversity hotspots and beyond: the need for preserving environmental transitions , 2001 .

[5]  S. Reddy,et al.  Geographical sampling bias and its implications for conservation priorities in Africa , 2003 .

[6]  Richard D. Gregory,et al.  National‐scale conservation assessments at an appropriate resolution , 2000 .

[7]  Helen M. Regan,et al.  Mapping epistemic uncertainties and vague concepts in predictions of species distribution , 2002 .

[8]  J. A. Harrison,et al.  The atlas of southern African birds , 1997 .

[9]  D. Lindenmayer,et al.  INFERRING PROCESS FROM PATTERN: CAN TERRITORY OCCUPANCY PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT LIFE HISTORY PARAMETERS? , 2001 .

[10]  Jamie B. Kirkpatrick,et al.  An iterative method for establishing priorities for the selection of nature reserves: An example from Tasmania , 1983 .

[11]  Ana S. L. Rodrigues,et al.  Species, Data, and Conservation Planning , 2004 .

[12]  Andrew Balmford,et al.  Complementarity and the use of indicator groups for reserve selection in Uganda , 1998, Nature.

[13]  Torsten Dikow,et al.  Significance of Specimen Databases from Taxonomic Revisions for Estimating and Mapping the Global Species Diversity of Invertebrates and Repatriating Reliable Specimen Data , 2004 .

[14]  John Bell,et al.  A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models , 1997, Environmental Conservation.

[15]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  Combining probabilities of occurrence with spatial reserve design , 2004 .

[16]  S. Ferrier.  Mapping spatial pattern in biodiversity for regional conservation planning: where to from here? , 2002, Systematic biology.

[17]  Belinda Reyers,et al.  Incorporating land cover information into regional biodiversity assessments in South Africa , 2000 .

[18]  Kevin J. Gaston,et al.  Scale and conservation planning in the real world , 1999, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[19]  Robert L. Pressey,et al.  Formulating conservation targets for biodiversity pattern and process in the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa , 2003 .

[20]  Luigi Boitani,et al.  Differences in the Umbrella Effects of African Amphibians and Mammals Based on Two Estimators of the Area of Occupancy , 2006, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[21]  Miguel B. Araújo,et al.  Biodiversity Hotspots and Zones of Ecological Transition , 2002 .

[22]  Brendan A. Wintle,et al.  The Use of Bayesian Model Averaging to Better Represent Uncertainty in Ecological Models , 2003 .

[23]  Miguel B. Araújo,et al.  Distribution patterns of biodiversity and the design of a representative reserve network in Portugal , 1999 .

[24]  H. Biggs,et al.  Testing for potential survey bias: the effect of roads, urban areas and nature reserves on a southern African mammal data set , 1998 .

[25]  David M. Stoms.  Effects of habitat map generalization in biodiversity assessment , 1992 .

[26]  Jane Elith,et al.  Sensitivity of conservation planning to different approaches to using predicted species distribution data , 2005 .

[27]  Jennifer R. Davis,et al.  Reduced survey intensity and its consequences for marine reserve selection , 2003, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[28]  Mark E. Jakubauskas,et al.  Beyond Species Richness: Community Similarity as a Measure of Cross‐Taxon Congruence for Coarse‐Filter Conservation , 2004 .

[29]  Mike P. Austin,et al.  Vegetation survey design for conservation: Gradsect sampling of forests in North-eastern New South Wales , 1989 .

[30]  Kevin J. Gaston,et al.  The structure and dynamics of geographic ranges , 2003 .

[31]  Kevin J. Gaston,et al.  How Large Is a Species' Geographic Range? , 1991 .

[32]  S. Sarkar,et al.  Systematic conservation planning , 2000, Nature.

[33]  Matthew E. Watts,et al.  Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity , 2004, Nature.

[34]  A. Stattersfield,et al.  Threatened birds of the world : the official source for birds on the IUCN Red List , 2000 .

[35]  M. McCarthy,et al.  PRECISION AND BIAS OF METHODS FOR ESTIMATING POINT SURVEY DETECTION PROBABILITIES , 2004 .

[36]  J. Michael Scott,et al.  Predicting Species Occurrences: Issues of Accuracy and Scale , 2002 .

[37]  Ian Phillip Vaughan,et al.  The continuing challenges of testing species distribution models , 2005 .

[38]  Carsten Rahbek,et al.  Influence of scale on conservation priority setting – a test on African mammals , 2003, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[39]  Robert L. Pressey,et al.  Conservation Planning and Biodiversity: Assembling the Best Data for the Job , 2004 .

[40]  A. Clevenger,et al.  GIS‐Generated, Expert‐Based Models for Identifying Wildlife Habitat Linkages and Planning Mitigation Passages , 2002 .

[41]  Paul H. Williams,et al.  Using probability of persistence to identify important areas for biodiversity conservation , 2000, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[42]  L. Hannah,et al.  Would climate change drive species out of reserves? An assessment of existing reserve‐selection methods , 2004 .

[43]  G. Powell,et al.  Mapping More of Terrestrial Biodiversity for Global Conservation Assessment , 2004 .

[44]  Sindhu George,et al.  Principles of Geographic Information Systems , 2002 .

[45]  V. Parker,et al.  The atlas of southern African birds , 1997 .

[46]  C. Margules,et al.  Data requirements and data sources for biodiversity priority area selection , 2002, Journal of Biosciences.

[47]  T. Brooks,et al.  Protected Areas and Species , 2004 .

[48]  Simon N. Stuart,et al.  Habitat Suitability Models and the Shortfall in Conservation Planning for African Vertebrates , 2005 .

[49]  W. Ponder,et al.  Evaluation of Museum Collection Data for Use in Biodiversity Assessment , 2001 .

[50]  R. Dunn,et al.  Positional accuracy and measurement error in digital databases of land use: an empirical study , 1990, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[51]  Frank W. Davis,et al.  An information systems approach to the preservation of biological diversity , 1990, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[52]  Kevin J. Gaston,et al.  The geographical structure of British bird distributions: diversity, spatial turnover and scale , 2001 .

[53]  B. V. Horne,et al.  DENSITY AS A MISLEADING INDICATOR OF HABITAT QUALITY , 1983 .

[54]  Brendan A. Wintle,et al.  ESTIMATING AND DEALING WITH DETECTABILITY IN OCCUPANCY SURVEYS FOR FOREST OWLS AND ARBOREAL MARSUPIALS , 2005 .

[55]  R. Swihart,et al.  Absent or undetected? Effects of non-detection of species occurrence on wildlife-habitat models , 2004 .

[56]  H. Possingham,et al.  IMPROVING PRECISION AND REDUCING BIAS IN BIOLOGICAL SURVEYS: ESTIMATING FALSE‐NEGATIVE ERROR RATES , 2003 .

[57]  A. Peterson,et al.  New developments in museum-based informatics and applications in biodiversity analysis. , 2004, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[58]  Yrjö Haila,et al.  Survey research in conservation biology , 1996 .

[59]  Kevin J. Gaston,et al.  Reserve Selection in Regions with Poor Biological Data , 2003 .

[60]  M. Austin.  Spatial prediction of species distribution: an interface between ecological theory and statistical modelling , 2002 .

[61]  M. Araújo,et al.  The Bias of Complementarity Hotspots toward Marginal Populations , 2001 .

[62]  Kevin J. Gaston,et al.  Threatened and endemic species: are they good indicators of patterns of biodiversity on a national scale? , 2002 .

[63]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Protected areas: Goals, limitations, and design , 2006 .

[64]  Bette A. Loiselle,et al.  Avoiding Pitfalls of Using Species Distribution Models in Conservation Planning , 2003 .

[65]  A. V. van Jaarsveld,et al.  Sensitivity of selection procedures for priority conservation areas to survey extent, survey intensity and taxonomic knowledge , 1998, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[66]  Robert L. Pressey,et al.  Effectiveness of land classes as surrogates for species in conservation planning for the Cape Floristic Region , 2003 .

[67]  Kevin J. Gaston,et al.  Using presence–absence data to establish reserve selection procedures that are robust to temporal species turnover , 2000, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[68]  Simon Ferrier,et al.  Evaluating the predictive performance of habitat models developed using logistic regression , 2000 .

[69]  K. Gaston,et al.  Robustness of reserve selection procedures under temporal species turnover , 2000, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[70]  Daniel P. Faith,et al.  The ED strategy: how species‐level surrogates indicate general biodiversity patterns through an ‘environmental diversity’ perspective , 2004 .

[71]  M. Lawes,et al.  THERE IS LESS TO BINARY MAPS THAN MEETS THE EYE : THE USE OF SPECIES DISTRIBUTION DATA IN THE SOUTHERN AFRICAN SUB-REGION , 1998 .

[72]  R. Kadmon,et al.  EFFECT OF ROADSIDE BIAS ON THE ACCURACY OF PREDICTIVE MAPS PRODUCED BY BIOCLIMATIC MODELS , 2004 .

[73]  Antoine Guisan,et al.  Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology , 2000 .

[74]  Andrew R. Solow,et al.  Choosing reserve networks with incomplete species information , 2000 .

[75]  J. Leathwick.  Are New Zealand's Nothofagus species in equilibrium with their environment? , 1998 .

[76]  Ian Phillip Vaughan,et al.  Improving the Quality of Distribution Models for Conservation by Addressing Shortcomings in the Field Collection of Training Data , 2003 .

[77]  J. Andrew Royle,et al.  ESTIMATING SITE OCCUPANCY RATES WHEN DETECTION PROBABILITIES ARE LESS THAN ONE , 2002, Ecology.

[78]  B. Nelson,et al.  Endemism centres, refugia and botanical collection density in Brazilian Amazonia , 1990, Nature.

[79]  Miguel B. Araújo,et al.  Matching Species with Reserves – Uncertainties from Using Data at Different Resolutions , 2002 .

[80]  Kevin J. Gaston,et al.  Complementary representation and zones of ecological transition , 2001 .

[81]  David B. Lindenmayer,et al.  MANAGING LANDSCAPES FOR CONSERVATION UNDER UNCERTAINTY , 2005 .

[82]  C. Keller,et al.  Potential roadside biases due to habitat changes along Breeding Bird Survey routes , 1999 .

[83]  W. Darwall,et al.  Key Biodiversity Areas as Site Conservation Targets , 2004 .

[84]  A. Townsend Peterson,et al.  Novel methods improve prediction of species' distributions from occurrence data , 2006 .

[85]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  Reserve Selection Using Nonlinear Species Distribution Models , 2005, The American Naturalist.