Discussion and Final Considerations

In this chapter, we discuss briefly some issues and limitations related to model bird species and High Nature Value (HNV) farmlands. We mention spatial autocorrelation (SAC) issues and necessary corrections in the modelling procedure, and the alternative of the multimodel inference (MMI) approach when working on models with many covariates. We discuss the importance of the transferability or adaptability of models. Finally, we highlight the potentialities related to the use of few common species as indicators for monitoring programmes: use of a citizen science approach as a cost-effective monitoring tool.

[1]  F. Rousset,et al.  On the use of the simple and partial Mantel tests in presence of spatial auto-correlation , 2011 .

[2]  P. Tryjanowski,et al.  Birds as useful indicators of high nature value (HNV) farmland in Central Italy , 2014 .

[3]  M. Hunziker,et al.  Selection criteria for flagship species by conservation organizations , 2009, Environmental Conservation.

[4]  Ryo Sakurai,et al.  Citizen science: a new approach to advance ecology, education, and conservation , 2015, Ecological Research.

[5]  R. G. Davies,et al.  Methods to account for spatial autocorrelation in the analysis of species distributional data : a review , 2007 .

[6]  M. Pocock,et al.  Focal Plant Observations as a Standardised Method for Pollinator Monitoring: Opportunities and Limitations for Mass Participation Citizen Science , 2016, PloS one.

[7]  Luis Mauricio Bini,et al.  Mantel test in population genetics , 2013, Genetics and molecular biology.

[8]  K. Kujawa.  Population density and species composition changes for breeding bird species in farmland woodlots in western Poland between 1964 and 1994 , 2002 .

[9]  R. Bonney,et al.  Citizen Science as a Tool for Conservation in Residential Ecosystems , 2007 .

[10]  V. Wolters,et al.  How High Nature Value (HNV) farmland is related to bird diversity in agro-ecosystems – Towards a versatile tool for biodiversity monitoring and conservation planning , 2014 .

[11]  Emilio Padoa-Schioppa,et al.  Bird communities as bioindicators: the focal species concept in agricultural landscapes. , 2006 .

[12]  Denis Couvet,et al.  French citizens monitoring ordinary birds provide tools for conservation and ecological sciences , 2012 .

[13]  Martin J. Westgate,et al.  A new framework for selecting environmental surrogates. , 2015, The Science of the total environment.

[14]  R. Whittaker,et al.  Beyond scarcity: citizen science programmes as useful tools for conservation biogeography , 2010 .

[15]  Robert R. Sokal,et al.  Spatial autocorrelation in biology: 2. Some biological implications and four applications of evolutionary and ecological interest , 1978 .

[16]  P. Legendre.  Spatial Autocorrelation: Trouble or New Paradigm? , 1993 .

[17]  T. Carpenter,et al.  Spatial analytical methods and geographic information systems: use in health research and epidemiology. , 1999, Epidemiologic reviews.

[18]  Brendan A. Wintle,et al.  Is my species distribution model fit for purpose? Matching data and models to applications , 2015 .

[19]  P. Legendre,et al.  Statistical methods for temporal and space–time analysis of community composition data† , 2014, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[20]  Bart Kempenaers,et al.  Spatial autocorrelation: an overlooked concept in behavioral ecology , 2010, Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology.

[21]  N. Mantel.  The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. , 1967, Cancer research.