Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32761934›Full record

ArticleEcological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America2021

Validation of presence-only models for conservation planning and the application to whales in a multiple-use marine park.

Joshua N Smith, Natalie Kelly, Ian W Renner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Validation of presence-only models for conservation planning and the application to whales in a multiple-use marine park.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Joshua N SmithCollege of Science, Health, Engineering and Education, Environmental and Conservation Sciences, Murdoch University, 90 South Street, Perth, Western Australia, 6150, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9912-422X
Natalie KellyAustralian Antarctic Division, Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, 203 Channel Highway, Kingston, Tasmania, 7000, Australia.
Ian W RennerSchool of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, The University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan, New South Wales, 2308, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Identification of species' Biologically Important Areas (BIAs) is fundamental to conservation planning and species distribution models (SDMs) are a powerful tool commonly used to do this. Presence-only data are increasingly being used to develop SDMs to aid the conservation decision-making process. The application of presence-only SDMs for marine species' is particularly attractive due to often logistical and economic costs of obtaining systematic species' distribution data. However, robust model validation is important for conservation management applications that require accurate and reliable species' occurrence data (e.g., spatially explicit risk assessments). This is commonly done using a random subset of the data and less commonly with fully independent test data. Here, we apply a spatial block cross-validation (CV) approach to validate a MaxEnt presence-only model using independent presence/absence survey data for a highly mobile, marine species (humpback whale, Megaptera novaengliae) in the Great Barrier Reef (GBR). A MaxEnt model was developed using opportunistic whale sightings (2003-2007) and then used to identify areas differing in habitat suitability (low, medium, high) to conduct a systematic, line-transect, aerial survey (2012) and derive a density surface model. A spatial block CV buffering strategy was used to validate the MaxEnt model, using the opportunistic sightings as training data and independent aerial survey sightings data as test data. Moderate performance measures indicate MaxEnt was reliable in identifying the distribution patterns of a mobile whale species on their breeding ground, indicated by areas of high density aligned to areas of high habitat suitability. Furthermore, we demonstrate that MaxEnt models can be useful and cost-effective for designing a sampling scheme to undertake systematic surveys that significantly reduces sampling effort. In this study, higher quality information on whale reproductive class (calf vs. non-calf groups) was obtained that the presence-only data lacked, while sampling only 18% of the GBR World Heritage Area. The validation approach using fully independent data provides greater confidence in the MaxEnt model, which indicates significant overlap with the main breeding ground of humpback whales and the inner shipping route. This is important when evaluating presence-only models within certain conservation management applications, such as spatial risk assessments.

Indexed as

Humpback WhaleAnimalsEcosystemShipsdensity surface modelgeneralized additive modelGreat Barrier Reefhabitat modelhumpback whaleMaxEntship strikespatial cross-validationspatial risk assessmentspecies distribution modeling

Identifiers

PMID32761934
PMCPMC7816265

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.