Can models of presence‐absence be used to scale abundance? Two case studies considering extremes in life history

Understanding patterns of species occurrence and abundance is a central theme of ecology, natural resource management, and conservation. Although occurrence models have been widely used for describing species distribution, particularly for rare species, abundance models are less common, despite greater information for conservation and management. Because presence-absence data are easier and less expensive to collect, predictions of abundance from patterns of occurrence could prove useful. We examined the relationship between occurrence and abundance for two species with very different life histories: bracken fern Pteridium aquilinum and moose Alces alces. We predicted that if occurrence and abundance were functionally related we should observe: 1) correlation between predicted probability of occurrence and observed abundance; 2) similar environmental covariates and estimated coefficients for occurrence models developed separately for low-density, high-density, and global data sites; and 3) parallel coefficients for the occurrence and abundance components of zero-inflated count models. Probability of occurrence was not correlated with abundance-when-present for bracken fern, while evidence for a relationship for moose was apparent at densities of animals below 7 individuals per cutblock. Coefficients for models at different levels of density did not vary significantly. However, once occurrence was accounted for, measured environmental data appeared less important in describing abundance. For bracken, covariates of zero-inflated count models differed in their expression of occurrence and abundance. Differences were less extreme for moose; however, results from the two-process models suggest that distribution and abundance may be a function of different processes. Environmental factors influencing abundance may differ from those limiting distribution. Life history, scale, site history, and socio-competitive processes further help shape patterns of abundance. Two-stage modeling provides a powerful tool for describing animal and plant distribution where the processes of occurrence and abundance are influenced by different factors.

[1]  T. A. Hanley,et al.  Habitat evaluation: do use/availability data reflect carrying capacity? , 1990 .

[2]  J. S. Long,et al.  Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata, 2nd Edition , 2005 .

[3]  C. Metz.  Basic principles of ROC analysis. , 1978, Seminars in nuclear medicine.

[4]  D. Lindenmayer,et al.  Modelling the abundance of rare species: statistical models for counts with extra zeros , 1996 .

[5]  S. Focardi,et al.  Sexual segregation in ungulates: individual behaviour and the missing link , 2003, Population Ecology.

[6]  M. Aldenderfer,et al.  Cluster Analysis. Sage University Paper Series On Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences 07-044 , 1984 .

[7]  David H. Wright,et al.  Correlations between incidence and abundance are expected by chance , 1991 .

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

[9]  Roy V. Rea,et al.  The impact of the timing of brush management on the nutritional value of woody browse for moose Alces alces , 2001 .

[10]  A. Watt.  CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE ECOLOGY OF BRACKEN (PTERIDIUM AQUILINUM). IV. THE STRUCTURE OF THE COMMUNITY , 1947 .

[11]  Simon Ferrier,et al.  The practical value of modelling relative abundance of species for regional conservation planning: a case study , 2001 .

[12]  A. J. Morris,et al.  Habitat characteristics affecting use of lowland agricultural grassland by birds in winter , 2000 .

[13]  Mark S. Boyce,et al.  A quantitative approach to conservation planning: using resource selection functions to map the distribution of mountain caribou at multiple spatial scales , 2004 .

[14]  K. Ochiai,et al.  EFFECTS OF TERRITORIALITY ON POPULATION DENSITY IN THE JAPANESE SEROW (CAPRICORNIS CRISPUS) , 2002 .

[15]  A. O. Nicholls,et al.  Measurement of the realized qualitative niche: environmental niches of five Eucalyptus species , 1990 .

[16]  R. Haight,et al.  A Regional Landscape Analysis and Prediction of Favorable Gray Wolf Habitat in the Northern Great Lakes Region , 1995 .

[17]  Kevin J. Gaston,et al.  Effects of scale and habitat on the relationship between regional distribution and local abundance , 1990 .

[18]  S. Fretwell,et al.  On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds , 1969 .

[19]  Trent L. McDonald,et al.  A new ecological risk assessment procedure using resource selection models and geographic information systems , 2002 .

[20]  B. Manly,et al.  Resource selection by animals: statistical design and analysis for field studies. , 1994 .

[21]  Q. Vuong.  Likelihood Ratio Tests for Model Selection and Non-Nested Hypotheses , 1989 .

[22]  Terri L. Moore,et al.  Regression Analysis by Example , 2001, Technometrics.

[23]  L. Edenius,et al.  Selectivity by moose vs the spatial distribution of aspen: a natural experiment , 2002 .

[24]  Larry Greenberg,et al.  Influence of water quality, habitat and species richness on brown trout populations , 1999 .

[25]  E. Oinonen.  The correlation between the size of Finnish bracken (Pteridium aquilinum (L.) Kuhn.) clones and certain periods of site history. , 1967 .

[26]  J. Kie,et al.  Birth-Site Selection by Alaskan Moose: Maternal Strategies for Coping with a Risky Environment , 1999 .

[27]  A. Watt.  CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE ECOLOGY OF BRACKEN (PTERIDIUM AQUILINUM) , 1971 .

[28]  A. Welsh,et al.  Generalized additive modelling and zero inflated count data , 2002 .

[29]  M. Boyce,et al.  Relating populations to habitats using resource selection functions. , 1999, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[30]  Anne Lohrli.  Chapman and Hall , 1985 .

[31]  Kevin J. Gaston,et al.  On species occupancy-abundance models , 2002 .

[32]  S. Manel,et al.  Evaluating presence-absence models in ecology: the need to account for prevalence , 2001 .

[33]  Roger Newson,et al.  Parameters behind “Nonparametric” Statistics: Kendall's tau, Somers’ D and Median Differences , 2002 .

[34]  J A Swets,et al.  Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. , 1988, Science.

[35]  David W. Hosmer,et al.  Applied Logistic Regression , 1991 .

[36]  Eric R. Ziegel,et al.  Generalized Linear Models , 2002, Technometrics.

[37]  Forestry Practices in Québec and Ontario in Relation to Moose Population Dynamics , 1988 .

[38]  Russell V. Lenth,et al.  Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata (rev.) , 2005 .

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

[40]  David R. Breininger,et al.  LINKING HABITAT SUITABILITY TO DEMOGRAPHIC SUCCESS IN FLORIDA SCRUB-JAYS , 1998 .

[41]  R. Wetzel,et al.  An ecological perspective of allelochemical interference in land–water interface communities , 2003, Plant and Soil.

[42]  P. McCullagh,et al.  Generalized Linear Models , 1992 .

[43]  Lars Westerberg,et al.  Predicting the spatial distribution of a population in a heterogeneous landscape , 2003 .

[44]  David R. Anderson,et al.  Null Hypothesis Testing: Problems, Prevalence, and an Alternative , 2000 .

[45]  J. Diniz‐Filho,et al.  Spatial autocorrelation and red herrings in geographical ecology , 2003 .

[46]  F. Kienast,et al.  Predicting the potential distribution of plant species in an alpine environment , 1998 .

[47]  A. Watt.  Contributions to the ecology of bracken (Pteridium aquilinum). VII. Bracken and litter. 3. The cycle of change. , 1970 .

[48]  Bryan F. J. Manly,et al.  Negative binomial models for abundance estimation of multiple closed populations , 2001 .

[49]  D. Kramer,et al.  DENSITY‐DEPENDENT ANTIPREDATOR TACTICS AND HABITAT SELECTION IN JUVENILE POLLOCK , 1998 .

[50]  Kevin J Gaston,et al.  Estimating Species Abundance from Occurrence , 2000, The American Naturalist.

[51]  S. Nielsen,et al.  Gradient Responses for Understory Species in a Bracken Grassland and Northern Dry Forest Ecosystem of Northeast Wisconsin , 1998 .

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

[53]  Patrick Royston,et al.  Flexible Parametric Alternatives to the Cox Model, and more , 2001 .

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

[55]  Kevin S. Raymond,et al.  Winter use of glyphosate-treated clearcuts by moose in Maine , 1996 .

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

[57]  F. Messier,et al.  Intraspecific Variation in Home Range Overlap with Habitat Quality: A Comparison among Brown Bear Populations , 2004, Evolutionary Ecology.

[58]  M. Whittingham,et al.  The selection of stubble fields by wintering granivorous birds reflects vegetation cover and food abundance , 2002 .

[59]  Jack J. Lennon,et al.  Red-shifts and red herrings in geographical ecology , 2000 .

[60]  M. Boyce,et al.  Grizzly bears for the Bitterroot: predicting potential abundance and distribution , 2003 .

[61]  H. White.  A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity , 1980 .

[62]  Population Effects of Habitat Change: A Quantitative Assessment , 1988 .

[63]  Robert H. Somers,et al.  A new asymmetric measure of association for ordinal variables. , 1962 .