当前位置: X-MOL 学术Condor Ornithol. Appl. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Lessons learned from comparing spatially explicit models and the Partners in Flight approach to estimate population sizes of boreal birds in Alberta, Canada
The Condor: Ornithological Applications ( IF 2.4 ) Pub Date : 2020-05-16 , DOI: 10.1093/condor/duaa007
Péter Sólymos 1, 2, 3 , Judith D Toms 1, 3, 4 , Steven M Matsuoka 1, 5 , Steven G Cumming 1, 6 , Nicole K S Barker 1, 4, 7 , Wayne E Thogmartin 8 , Diana Stralberg 1, 7 , Andrew D Crosby 1, 3 , Francisco V Dénes 1, 3, 7 , Samuel Haché 1, 9 , C Lisa Mahon 1, 3, 10 , Fiona K A Schmiegelow 1, 7 , Erin M Bayne 1, 3
Affiliation  

Estimating the population abundance of landbirds is a challenging task complicated by the amount, type, and quality of available data. Avian conservationists have relied on population estimates from Partners in Flight (PIF), which primarily uses roadside data from the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS). However, the BBS was not designed to estimate population sizes. Therefore, we set out to compare the PIF approach with spatially explicit models incorporating roadside and off-road point-count surveys. We calculated population estimates for 81 landbird species in Bird Conservation Region 6 in Alberta, Canada, using land cover and climate as predictors. We also developed a framework to evaluate how the differences between the detection distance, time-of-day, roadside count, and habitat representation adjustments explain discrepancies between the 2 estimators. We showed that the key assumptions of the PIF population estimator were commonly violated in this region, and that the 2 approaches provided different population estimates for most species. The average differences between estimators were explained by differences in the detection-distance and time-of-day components, but these adjustments left much unexplained variation among species. Differences in the roadside count and habitat representation components explained most of the among-species variation. The variation caused by these factors was large enough to change the population ranking of the species. The roadside count bias needs serious attention when roadside surveys are used to extrapolate over off-road areas. Habitat representation bias is likely prevalent in regions sparsely and non-representatively sampled by roadside surveys, such as the boreal region of North America, and thus population estimates for these regions need to be treated with caution for certain species. Additional sampling and integrated modeling of available data sources can contribute towards more accurate population estimates for conservation in remote areas of North America.

中文翻译:

通过比较空间显性模型和“飞行伙伴”方法来估计加拿大艾伯塔省北方鸟类种群数量的经验教训

估计陆鸟的种群数量是一项艰巨的任务,其复杂性在于可用数据的数量,类型和质量。鸟类保护主义者一直依赖飞行伙伴(PIF)的人口估计,该伙伴主要使用北美种禽调查(BBS)的路边数据。但是,BBS并非旨在估计人口规模。因此,我们着手将PIF方法与结合路边和越野点数调查的空间明确模型进行比较。我们使用土地覆盖率和气候作为预测因子,计算了加拿大艾伯塔省鸟类保护区6中81种陆鸟物种的种群估计。我们还开发了一个框架来评估检测距离,时段,路边计数,和栖息地代表性的调整解释了两个估计量之间的差异。我们表明,在该地区通常违反了PIF种群估计量的关键假设,并且这两种方法为大多数物种提供了不同的种群估计。估计量之间的平均差异由检测距离和时间组成部分的差异来解释,但是这些调整在物种之间留下了许多无法解释的变化。路旁计数和栖息地表示成分的差异解释了大多数物种间的差异。这些因素引起的变异很大,足以改变物种的种群排名。当使用路边调查来推断越野地区时,路边计数偏差需要引起重视。在通过路边调查(例如北美的北方地区)进行的稀疏和非代表性采样区域中,栖息地代表性偏见很可能普遍存在,因此,对于某些物种,应谨慎对待这些区域的种群估计。可用数据源的附加采样和集成建模可有助于更准确的人口估计,以保护北美偏远地区。
更新日期:2020-05-16
down
wechat
bug