Abstract

To assess the importance of variation in observer effort between and within bird atlas projects and demonstrate the use of relatively simple conditional autoregressive (CAR) models for analyzing grid‐based atlas data with varying effort. Pennsylvania and West Virginia, United States of America. We used varying proportions of randomly selected training data to assess whether variations in observer effort can be accounted for using CAR models and whether such models would still be useful for atlases with incomplete data. We then evaluated whether the application of these models influenced our assessment of distribution change between two atlas projects separated by twenty years (Pennsylvania), and tested our modeling methodology on a state bird atlas with incomplete coverage (West Virginia). Conditional Autoregressive models which included observer effort and landscape covariates were able to make robust predictions of species distributions in cases of sparse data coverage. Further, we found that CAR models without landscape covariates performed favorably. These models also account for variation in observer effort between atlas projects and can have a profound effect on the overall assessment of distribution change. Accounting for variation in observer effort in atlas projects is critically important. CAR models provide a useful modeling framework for accounting for variation in observer effort in bird atlas data because they are relatively simple to apply, and quick to run.

Highlights

  • We evaluated whether the application of these models influenced our assessment of distribution change between two atlas projects separated by twenty years (Pennsylvania), and tested our modeling methodology on a state bird atlas with incomplete coverage (West Virginia)

  • Our results suggest that conditional autoregressive (CAR) models incorporating coarse landscape and effort effects are successful at predicting species’ occupancy probabilities in bird atlas blocks with little to no observer effort

  • Because our model testing was limited to only six species in a relatively homogenous state, we caution against assuming that our findings would apply to all species and regions

Read more

Summary

| INTRODUCTION

Grid-­based biological atlases, especially of birds, have become increasingly popular ways of documenting species’ status and distributions since the first large-­scale efforts were initiated in the 1960s (Gibbons, Donald, Bauer, Fornasari, & Dawson, 2007). Because most bird atlas projects rely on citizen scientists to complete the majority of the field surveys, field methods are designed to promote mass participation with the aim of achieving comprehensive spatial coverage (Greenwood, 2007) This leads to trade-­offs between data quality and coverage (Robertson, Cumming, & Erasmus, 2010; Szabo, Butchart, Possingham, & Garnett, 2012), such as the adoption of somewhat flexible field protocols which often do not impose standardization of survey effort. When repeat atlases projects are used to assess shifts in species’ distributions, changes in survey effort can result in biased measures of changes in range margins (Kujala, Vepsäläinen, Zuckerberg, & Brommer, 2013) It is especially important, that estimates of changes in distribution between atlas periods include an assessment of changes in survey effort. Application of occupancy models is not always feasible, and such models can be computationally challenging (Broms et al, 2014; Kéry, Gardner, & Monnerat, 2010), which is a major hurdle if practitioners with limited resources are to apply them to large numbers of species

| Aims
Findings
| DISCUSSION
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call