Study of relationship between threshold and habitat patches of brown bears (Ursus arctos Linnaeus, 1758) in Sephid-Koh protected area by using land scape approach

Document Type : (original research)

Authors

Department of Environmental Science, Faculty of Natural Resources and Environment, Malayer University, Malayer, Iran

Abstract

Protection of habitat connectivity is a major goal of the protection project, especially for large predators. Habitat patches are desirable zones with different distribution in landscape. These patches with various dimensions and sizes include high-performance segments for presence and establishment. Therefore, investigation of the identification process and changes in the patches for different species of wildlife will provide a correct and accurate picture of their distribution status. This study was conducted to investigate the distribution of habitat patches of brown bear on the landscape scale of Sefidkoh area in Lorestan province. In this regard, habitat suitability was first calculated by maximum entropy method using 10 replicates. After validation of the model using the AUC, different thresholds of logistic output were applied to continuous habitat suitability map. NP, PD, ED, LPI, LSI, SHDI and CONTAG metrics were used to evaluate the continuity. The trend of changes in different metrics showed that by decreasing and increasing the threshold value applied to the continuous map, the suitability of the values related to landscape metrics would be affected. High threshold values represent the key habitat and low threshold values give an optimistic view of the distribution of patches. The results showed that the identification of the appropriate threshold for hot spots analysis is prior to analysis of landscape metrics since this threshold depending on the purpose of the study, the number of presence points, model types, and species conditions will be of different utility.

Keywords

References

  1. Allouche, O.; Tsoar, A. and Kadmon, R., 2006. Assessing the accuracy of species distribution models: prevalence, Kappa and the true skill statistic (TSS). Journal of Applied Ecology. Vol. 43, pp: 1223-1232.
  2. Bedia, J.; Busque, J. and Gutie´rrez, J.M., 2011. Predicting plant species distribution across an alpine rangeland in Northern Spain. A comparison of probabilistic methods. Applied Vegetation Science. Vol. 14, pp: 415-432.
  3. Crooks, K.R.; Burdett, C.L.; Theobald, D.M.; King, S.R.; Di Marco, M.; Rondinini, C. and Boitani, L., 2017. Quantification of habitat fragmentation reveals extinction risk in terrestrial mammals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Vol. 114, No. 29, pp: 7635-7640.
  4. Georgian, S.E.; Anderson, O.F. and Rowden, A.A., 2019. Ensemble habitat suitability modeling of vulnerable marine ecosystem indicator taxa to inform deep-sea fisheries management in the South Pacific Ocean. Fisheries research. Vol. 211, pp: 256-274.
  5. Girvetz, E.H.; Thorne, J.H.; Berry, A.M. and Jeager, J.A.G., 2008. Integration of landscape fragmentation analysis into regional planning: A statewide multi-scale case study from California, USA. Vol. 86, No. 3-4, pp: 205-218.
  6. Kramer-Schadt, S.; Niedballa, J.; Pilgrim, J.D.; Schröder, B.; Lindenborn, J.; Reinfelder, V.; Stillfried, M.; Heckmann, I.; Scharf, A.K.; Augeri, D.M.; Cheyne, S.M.; Hearn, A.J.; Ross, J.; Macdonald, D.W.; Mathai, J.; Eaton, J.; Marshall, A.J.; Semiadi, G.; Rustam, R.; Bernard, H.; Alfred, R.; Samejima, H.; Duckworth, J.W.; Breitenmoser- Wuersten, C.; Belant, J.L.; Hofer, H. and Wilting, A., 2013. The importance of correcting for sampling bias in Maxent Species distribution models. Diversity and Distributions. Vol. 19, pp: 1366-1379.
  7. Liu, C.; White, M. and Newell, G., 2013. Selecting thresholds for the prediction of species occurrence with presence‐only data. Journal of biogeography. Vol. 40, No. 4, pp: 778-789.
  8. Loiselle, B.A.; Howell, C.A.; Graham, C.H.; Goerck, J.M.; Brooks, T.; Smith, K.G. and Williams, P.H., 2003. Avoiding pitfalls of using species distribution models in conservation planning. Conservation Biology. Vol. 17, pp: 1591-1600.
  9. Mairota, P.; Cafarelli, B.; Boccaccio, L.; Leronni, V.; Labadessa, R.; Kosmidou, V. and Nagendra, H., 2013. Using landscape structure to develop quantitative baselines for protected area monitoring. Ecological indicators. Vol. 33, pp: 82-95.
  10. Manel, S.; Dias, J.M. and Ormerod, S.J., 1999. Comparing discriminant analysis, neural networks and logistic regression for predicting species distributions: a case study with a Himalayan river bird. Ecol. Model. Vol. 120, pp: 337-347.
  11. Pascual-Hortal, L. and Saura, S., 2007. Impact of spatial scale on the identification of critical habitat patches for the maintenance of landscape connectivity. Landsc. Urban Plan. Vol. 83, pp: 176-186.
  12. Pearson, R.G.; Raxworthy, C.J.; Nakamura, M. and Peterson, A.T., 2007. Predicting species distributions from small Numbers of occurrence records: a test case using cryptic geckos in Madagascar. Biogeography. Vol.34, pp: 102-117.
  13. Phillips, S.J.; Anderson, R.P. and Schapire, R.E., 2006. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic Distributions. Ecol. Model. Vol. 190, pp: 231-259.
  14. Ramirez-Reyes, C.; Bateman, B.L. and Radeloff, V.C., 2016. Effects of habitat suitability and minimum patch size thresholds on the assessment of landscape connectivity for jaguars in the Sierra Gorda, Mexico. Biologicalconservation. Vol. 204, pp: 296-305.
  15. Wang, X.; Blanchet, F.G. and Koper, N., 2014. Measuring habitat fragmentation: an evaluation of landscape pattern metrics. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. Vol. 5, No. 7, pp: 634-646.
  16. Warren, D.L. and Seifert, S.N., 2010. Environmental niche modeling in Maxent: the importance of model Complexity and the performance of model selection criteria. Ecological Applications. Vol. 21, pp: 335-342.
Journal of Animal Environment
Volume 12, Issue 4
December 2020
Pages 33-40

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics