Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-45ctf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-16T00:04:50.776Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Habitat representativeness score (HRS): a novel concept for objectively assessing the suitability of survey coverage for modelling the distribution of marine species

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2010

Colin D. MacLeod
Colin D. MacLeod*
Affiliation:
Institute of Biological and Environmental Studies (IBES), University of Aberdeen, Tillydrone Avenue, Aberdeen, AB24 3JG, UK
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: C.D. MacLeodInstitute of Biological and Environmental Studies (IBES), University of Aberdeen, Tillydrone Avenue, Aberdeen, AB24 3JG, UK email: c.d.macleod@abdn.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The occurrence of most species is linked to the distribution of specific combinations of environmental variables that define their occupied niche. As a result, the relationship between environmental variables and species occurrence can be used to model species distribution. However, when collecting data to construct such models, it is preferable to ensure that the survey coverage is representative of all available habitat combinations within the area as a whole to ensure that the model does not under- or over-estimate the actual species distribution. By using multi-variate statistical techniques, a habitat representativeness score (HRS) can be calculated to provide an objective assessment of whether a specific survey coverage will collect (or has collected) data that are representative of all available habitat variable combinations in an area. To demonstrate this approach, HRSs calculated using principal component analysis were used to assess the minimum number of evenly-spaced parallel north–south surveys required to adequately survey two study areas with differing levels of environmental heterogeneity for all available combinations of four habitat variables. For the more environmentally homogeneous study area, the HRS suggests that for this survey design a minimum of five evenly-spaced parallel transects, covering around 5% of the study area, would be required to obtain representative survey coverage for these four variables. However, for the more heterogeneous study area, at least eight evenly-spaced parallel transects, covering around 9% of the study area, would be required. Therefore, for a given survey design, more survey effort is required to obtain a representative survey coverage when the survey area is more variable. In both cases, conducting fewer surveys than these minimum values would produce an unrepresentative data set and this could potentially lead to the production of species distribution models that do not accurately reflect the true species distribution.

Keywords

spatial modellingsurvey designecological nichehabitat preferencesmulti-variate statistical techniques

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 90 , Issue 7 , November 2010 , pp. 1269 - 1277
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Bräger, S., Harraway, J.A. and Manly, B.F.J. (2003) Habitat selection in a coastal dolphin species (Cephalorhynchus hectori). Marine Biology 143, 233–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J.H., Mehlman, D.W. and Stevens, G.C. (1995) Spatial variation in abundance. Ecology 76, 2028–2043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckland, S.T., Anderson, D.R., Burnham, K.P., Laake, J.L., Borchers, D.L. and Thomas, L. (2001) An introduction to distance sampling. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chase, J.M. and Leibold, M.A. (2003) Ecological niches: linking classical and contemporary approaches. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, R.D., Christensen, J.D., Monaco, M.E., Caldwell, P.A., Matthews, G.A. and Minello, T.J. (2004) A habitat-use model to determine essential fish habitat for juvenile brown shrimp (Farfantepenaeus aztecus) in Galveston Bay, Texas. Fishery Bulletin 102, 264–277.Google Scholar
Fielding, A.H. and Bell, J.F. (1997) A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environmental Conservation 24, 38–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guisan, A. and Thuiller, W. (2005) Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecology Letters 8, 993–1009.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guisan, A. and Zimmerman, N.E. (2000) Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecological Modelling 135, 147–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hastie, G.D., Swift, R.J., Slesser, G., Thompson, P.M. and Turrell, W.R. (2005) Environmental models for predicting oceanic dolphin habitat in the Northeast Atlantic. ICES Journal of Marine Science 62, 760–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirzel, A. and Guisan, A. (2002) Which is the optimal sampling strategy for habitat suitability modelling? Ecological Modelling 157, 331–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirzel, A.H., Hausser, J., Chessel, D. and Perrin, N. (2002) Ecological niche factor analysis: how to compute habitat-suitability maps without absence data? Ecology 87, 2027–2036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchinson, G.E. (1957) Concluding remarks. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 22, 415–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacArthur, R.H. (1972) Geographical ecology. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
MacLeod, C.D., Weir, C.R., Pierpoint, C. and Harland, E.J. (2007) The habitat preferences of marine mammals west of Scotland (UK). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 87, 157–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, R.I. and Smith, S.J. (1994) Identifying habitat associations of marine fishes using survey data: an application to the northwest Atlantic. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51, 589–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, A.T. (2001) Predicting species' geographic distributions based on ecological niche modelling. Condor 103, 599–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rieser, A. (2000) Essential fish habitat as a basis for marine protected areas in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. Bulletin of Marine Science 66, 889–899.Google Scholar
Robertson, M.P., Caithness, N. and Villet, M.H. (2001) A PCA-based modelling technique for predicting environmental suitability for organisms from presence records. Diversity and Distributions 7, 15–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strindberg, S. and Buckland, S.T. (2004) Zigzag survey designs in line transect sampling. Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics 9, 443–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vadas, R.L. and Orth, D.J. (2001) Formulation of habitat suitability models for stream fish guilds: do the standard methods work? Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 130, 217–235.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar