Using citizen science data for conservation planning: methods for quality control and downscaling for use in stochastic patch occupancy modelling

The Incidence Function Model (IFM) has been put forward as a tool for assessing conservation plans. A key benefit of the IFM is low data requirements: widely available species occurrence data and information about land cover. Citizen science is a promising source of such data; however, to use these data in the IFM there are typically two problems. First, the spatial resolution is too coarse, but existing approaches to downscaling species data tend not to extend to patch level (as required by the IFM). Second, widely available citizen science data typically report species' presences only. We devise ten different downscaling methods based on theoretical ecological relationships (the species–area relationship and the distance decay of similarity), and test them against each other. The better performing downscaling methods were based on patch area, rather than distance from other occupied patches. These methods allow data at a coarse resolution to be used in the IFM for comparing conservation management and development plans. Further field testing is required to establish the degree to which results of these new methods can be treated as definitive spatially-explicit predictions. To address the issue of false absences, we present a method to estimate the probability that all species have been listed (and thus that a species' absence from the list represents a true absence), using the species-accumulation curve. This measure of confidence in absence helps both to objectively identify a habitat network for fitting the IFM, and to target areas for further species recording.

[1]  T. Caro,et al.  On the Use of Surrogate Species in Conservation Biology , 1999 .

[2]  H. Olff,et al.  Spatial scaling laws yield a synthetic theory of biodiversity , 1999, Nature.

[3]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  Implications of empirical data quality to metapopulation model parameter estimation and application , 2002 .

[4]  Karin Frank,et al.  META-X: Generic Software for Metapopulation Viability Analysis , 2004, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[5]  David N. Bonter,et al.  Citizen Science as an Ecological Research Tool: Challenges and Benefits , 2010 .

[6]  B. McGill,et al.  Scale dependency in the functional form of the distance decay relationship , 2014 .

[7]  Stephen R. Baillie,et al.  Patterns of natal and breeding dispersal in birds , 1998 .

[8]  Michael J. O. Pocock,et al.  Bias and information in biological records , 2015 .

[9]  Andrew K. Skidmore,et al.  Finessing atlas data for species distribution models , 2011 .

[10]  C. Ricotta,et al.  Accounting for uncertainty when mapping species distributions: The need for maps of ignorance , 2011 .

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

[12]  P. White,et al.  The distance decay of similarity in biogeography and ecology , 1999 .

[13]  J. Stenglein,et al.  A Metapopulation Approach to African Lion (Panthera leo) Conservation , 2014, PloS one.

[14]  A. Bodini,et al.  A novel approach based on information theory to rank conservation strategies: an application to amphibian metapopulations , 2008 .

[15]  Leon Bennun,et al.  Horizon scan of global conservation issues for 2011. , 2011, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[16]  H. Gleason Species and Area , 1925 .

[17]  R. Hill,et al.  Marsh Tit Poecile palustris territories in a British broad-leaved wood , 2006 .

[18]  J. Reeves,et al.  On the meaning and measurement of nestedness of species assemblages , 1992, Oecologia.

[19]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Realising the full potential of citizen science monitoring programs , 2013 .

[20]  Laura J. Graham,et al.  Where next for macroecology: citizen macroecology? , 2014 .

[21]  Bernice W. Polemis Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences , 1959 .

[22]  J. Schnoor,et al.  Citizen Science , 2017 .

[23]  Walter Jetz,et al.  Downscaling of species distribution models: a hierarchical approach , 2013 .

[24]  Astrid J.A. van Teeffelen,et al.  Species in a dynamic world: Consequences of habitat network dynamics on conservation planning , 2012 .

[25]  Robert K. Colwell,et al.  Estimating terrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation. , 1994, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[26]  Richard A. Wadsworth,et al.  Final Report for LCM2007 - the new UK land cover map. Countryside Survey Technical Report No 11/07 , 2011 .

[27]  Jorge SoberónM.,et al.  The Use of Species Accumulation Functions for the Prediction of Species Richness , 1993 .

[28]  R. L. Pressey,et al.  Representing biodiversity: Data and procedures for identifying priority areas for conservation , 2002, Journal of Biosciences.

[29]  Michael A. McCarthy,et al.  A Bayesian model of metapopulation viability, with application to an endangered amphibian , 2013 .

[30]  Shelley A. Hinsley,et al.  Dispersal, ranging and settling behaviour of Marsh Tits Poecile palustris in a fragmented landscape in lowland England , 2010 .

[31]  Gareth Jones,et al.  The new atlas of breeding birds in Britain and Ireland 1988-1991 , 1993 .

[32]  B. Meyer,et al.  A spatially explicit model for integrating species assessments into landscape planning as exemplified by the Corn Bunting (Emberiza calandra) , 2007 .

[33]  David B. Roy,et al.  Statistics for citizen science: extracting signals of change from noisy ecological data , 2014 .

[34]  P. Bright,et al.  Metapopulation dynamics and a landscape approach to conservation of lowland water voles (Arvicola amphibius) , 2011, Landscape Ecology.

[35]  Robert J. Wilson,et al.  Minimum viable metapopulation size, extinction debt, and the conservation of a declining species. , 2007, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[36]  W. Kunin,et al.  Extrapolating species abundance across spatial scales , 1998, Science.

[37]  Colin W. Rundel,et al.  Interface to Geometry Engine - Open Source (GEOS) , 2015 .

[38]  Lian Pin Koh,et al.  Free and open-access satellite data are key to biodiversity conservation , 2015 .

[39]  J. Lobo,et al.  An ED-based Protocol for Optimal Sampling of Biodiversity , 2005, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[40]  David R. B. Stockwell,et al.  Effects of sample size on accuracy of species distribution models , 2002 .

[41]  I. Hanski A Practical Model of Metapopulation Dynamics , 1994 .

[42]  J. Silvertown A new dawn for citizen science. , 2009, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[43]  S. Siegel,et al.  Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences , 2022, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[44]  J. Hortal,et al.  Butterfly species richness in mainland Portugal: predictive models of geographic distribution patterns , 2004 .

[45]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  The Quantitative Incidence Function Model and Persistence of an Endangered Butterfly Metapopulation , 1996 .

[46]  Rick Bonney,et al.  The current state of citizen science as a tool for ecological research and public engagement , 2012 .

[47]  Tomas J. Bird,et al.  Statistical solutions for error and bias in global citizen science datasets , 2014 .

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

[49]  W. Sutherland,et al.  A horizon scan of global conservation issues for 2015. , 2015, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[50]  David B. Lindenmayer,et al.  Arboreal marsupial incidence in eucalypt patches in south-eastern Australia: a test of Hanski's incidence function metapopulation model for patch occupancy , 1999 .

[51]  F. W. Preston The Canonical Distribution of Commonness and Rarity: Part I , 1962 .

[52]  Shelley A. Hinsley,et al.  Habitat and landscape factors influencing the presence of individual breeding bird species in woodland fragments , 1995 .

[53]  Sandro Azaele,et al.  Can coarse‐grain patterns in insect atlas data predict local occupancy? , 2014 .

[54]  R. Blair BIRDS AND BUTTERFLIES ALONG AN URBAN GRADIENT: SURROGATE TAXA FOR ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY? , 1999 .

[55]  J. Andrew Royle,et al.  Site‐Occupancy Distribution Modeling to Correct Population‐Trend Estimates Derived from Opportunistic Observations , 2010, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

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

[57]  D. W. Shimwell,et al.  Areography: Geographical Strategies of Species , 1983 .

[58]  R. Foppen,et al.  Bridging the gap between ecology and spatial planning in landscape ecology , 2004, Landscape Ecology.

[59]  S. Hartley,et al.  Uses and abuses of fractal methodology in ecology , 2004 .

[60]  O. Arrhenius,et al.  Species and Area , 1921 .

[61]  C.J.F. ter Braak,et al.  Application of Stochastic Patch Occupancy Models to Real Metapopulations , 2004 .

[62]  Jorge M. Lobo,et al.  Database records as a surrogate for sampling effort provide higher species richness estimations , 2008, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[63]  Georgina M. Mace,et al.  Distorted Views of Biodiversity: Spatial and Temporal Bias in Species Occurrence Data , 2010, PLoS biology.

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

[65]  W. Tobler A Computer Movie Simulating Urban Growth in the Detroit Region , 1970 .

[66]  Paul Opdam,et al.  Landscape cohesion: an index for the conservation potential of landscapes for biodiversity , 2003, Landscape Ecology.