Monitoring species abundance and distribution at the landscape scale

Summary 1. The abundance and distribution of a species are affected by processes which operate at multiple scales. Large-scale dynamics are increasingly recognized in conservation responses such as metapopulation management, transfrontier protected areas and softening the agricultural matrix. Landscape-scale monitoring is needed both to inform and judge their efficacy. In this Special Profile we address some of the challenges presented by monitoring at the landscape scale, how models of species distribution can be used to inform policy, and we discuss how monitoring at the global-scale could be approached. 2. Collecting data over a large area is inherently costly, so methods which can provide robust information at low-cost are particularly valuable. We present two papers which test low-cost approaches against more data-hungry methods (indices of abundance vs. direct density estimates, and species distribution models built from presence-only vs. presence/absence data). 3. Occupancy modelling is a useful approach for landscape-scale monitoring due to the relatively low-cost of collecting detection/non-detection data. We discuss challenges, such as non-random sampling locations and periodical unavailability for detection, in using detection/non-detection data for monitoring species distribution. Such data can also provide estimates of abundance and we show how existing models have been modified to allow the abundance of multiple species to be estimated simultaneously. 4. Models of species distribution can be used to project likely future scenarios and thus inform conservation planning where distributions are likely to change because of climate change or changing disturbance patterns. We also discuss how an optimization framework can be used to make efficient management decisions for invasive species management in the light of imperfect information. 5. Synthesis and applications. Monitoring is needed for many purposes including auditing past management decisions and informing future choices. Much monitoring data are collected at the site scale, although management authorities increasingly recognize landscape-scale dynamics. Recent global targets for conservation require monitoring which can report trends at the global-scale. Integrating data collected at a variety of scales to draw robust inference at the scale required is a challenge which deserves more attention from applied ecologists.

[1]  A. Bennett,et al.  The relative importance of landscape properties for woodland birds in agricultural environments , 2007 .

[2]  P. Griffioen,et al.  Using presence-only and presence–absence data to estimate the current and potential distributions of established invasive species , 2011, The Journal of applied ecology.

[3]  P. Hulme Beyond control : wider implications for the management of biological invasions , 2006 .

[4]  Julia P. G. Jones,et al.  The Why, What, and How of Global Biodiversity Indicators Beyond the 2010 Target , 2011, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[5]  Robert M. Dorazio,et al.  Occupancy estimation and the closure assumption , 2009 .

[6]  Andrew J. Tyre,et al.  Making better sense of monitoring data from low density species using a spatially explicit modelling approach , 2011 .

[7]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  How useful is expert opinion for predicting the distribution of a species within and beyond the region of expertise? A case study using brush-tailed rock-wallabies Petrogale penicillata , 2009 .

[8]  Hugh P Possingham,et al.  Presence–Absence versus Abundance Data for Monitoring Threatened Species , 2006, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[9]  Robert E. Clark,et al.  Going ... Going ... Gone , 1978 .

[10]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Optimizing search strategies for invasive pests: learn before you leap , 2011 .

[11]  Darryl I. MacKenzie,et al.  Designing occupancy studies: general advice and allocating survey effort , 2005 .

[12]  Roberta Chirichella,et al.  Comparing opportunistic and systematic sampling methods for non‐invasive genetic monitoring of a small translocated brown bear population , 2010 .

[13]  Ivette Perfecto,et al.  The agroecological matrix as alternative to the land-sparing/agriculture intensification model , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[14]  Ara Monadjem,et al.  Designing a transfrontier conservation landscape for the Maputaland centre of endemism using biodiversity, economic and threat data , 2008 .

[15]  Douglas W. Yu,et al.  Modelling the long-term sustainability of indigenous hunting in Manu National Park, Peru: Landscape-scale management implications for Amazonia , 2009 .

[16]  Samuel T. Turvey,et al.  Estimating animal density using camera traps without the need for individual recognition , 2008 .

[17]  James D Nichols,et al.  Assessing tiger population dynamics using photographic capture-recapture sampling. , 2006, Ecology.

[18]  B. Mattsson,et al.  Addressing challenges when studying mobile or episodic species: hierarchical Bayes estimation of occupancy and use , 2011 .

[19]  James D. Nichols,et al.  Monitoring of biological diversity in space and time , 2001 .

[20]  S. Ormerod,et al.  New paradigms for modelling species distributions , 2004 .

[21]  W. Kendall,et al.  HOW SHOULD DETECTION PROBABILITY BE INCORPORATED INTO ESTIMATES OF RELATIVE ABUNDANCE , 2002 .

[22]  Paul F. Donald,et al.  Habitat connectivity and matrix restoration: the wider implications of agri‐environment schemes , 2006 .

[23]  E. Milner‐Gulland,et al.  Conservation: Reproductive collapse in saiga antelope harems , 2003, Nature.

[24]  P. Burkill,et al.  Ecosystem Services for 2020 , 2010, Science.

[25]  W. Sutherland,et al.  Consequences of large‐scale processes for the conservation of bird populations , 2000 .

[26]  James D. Nichols,et al.  Science deficiency in conservation practice: the monitoring of tiger populations in India , 2003 .

[27]  D. Bailey,et al.  Effects of habitat amount and isolation on biodiversity in fragmented traditional orchards , 2010 .

[28]  J. Andrew Royle,et al.  Modelling community dynamics based on species‐level abundance models from detection/nondetection data , 2011 .

[29]  J. Lamarque,et al.  Global Biodiversity: Indicators of Recent Declines , 2010, Science.

[30]  N. Leader‐Williams,et al.  Assessing the viability of tiger subpopulations in a fragmented landscape , 2006 .

[31]  Laszlo Nagy,et al.  Why most conservation monitoring is, but need not be, a waste of time. , 2006, Journal of environmental management.

[32]  E. Milner‐Gulland,et al.  Reconstructing the observation process to correct for changing detection probability of a critically endangered species , 2009 .

[33]  A. F. O'connell,et al.  Multi-scale occupancy estimation and modelling using multiple detection methods , 2008 .

[34]  Lian Pin Koh,et al.  An overhaul of the species–area approach for predicting biodiversity loss: incorporating matrix and edge effects , 2010 .

[35]  I. Chades,et al.  Optimally managing under imperfect detection: A method for plant invasions , 2011 .

[36]  Qamar Qureshi,et al.  Can the abundance of tigers be assessed from their signs , 2011 .

[37]  R. Hobbs,et al.  A checklist for ecological management of landscapes for conservation. , 2007, Ecology letters.

[38]  Tiger. Tiger Task Force Joining the dots : the report of the Tiger Task Force , 2005 .

[39]  D. Esler Applying Metapopulation Theory to Conservation of Migratory Birds , 2000 .

[40]  William J. Sutherland,et al.  The effect of local change in habitat quality on populations of migratory species , 1998 .

[41]  J. Andrew Royle,et al.  ESTIMATING ABUNDANCE FROM REPEATED PRESENCE–ABSENCE DATA OR POINT COUNTS , 2003 .

[42]  H. Mooney,et al.  Toward a Global Biodiversity Observing System , 2008, Science.

[43]  E. J. Milner-Gulland,et al.  Testing the use of interviews as a tool for monitoring trends in the harvesting of wild species , 2008 .

[44]  Navinder J. Singh,et al.  Conserving a moving target: planning protection for a migratory species as its distribution changes , 2011 .

[45]  J. Nichols,et al.  ESTIMATING SITE OCCUPANCY, COLONIZATION, AND LOCAL EXTINCTION WHEN A SPECIES IS DETECTED IMPERFECTLY , 2003 .

[46]  Martin Wikelski,et al.  Going, Going, Gone: Is Animal Migration Disappearing , 2008, PLoS biology.

[47]  David J. Thompson,et al.  Patterns of movement and dispersal in an endangered damselfly and the consequences for its management , 2007 .

[48]  José J. Lahoz-Monfort,et al.  Using occupancy as a state variable for monitoring the Critically Endangered Alaotran gentle lemur Hapalemur alaotrensis , 2010 .

[49]  Kerry A. Brown,et al.  Multi‐scale analysis of species introductions: combining landscape and demographic models to improve management decisions about non‐native species , 2008 .