Species Distribution Models at Regional Scale: Cymodocea nodosa Seagrasses
"> Figure 1
<p>Canarian Archipelago. Mean Sea Surface Temperature (SST) during cold season (February–March) taken from NASA GHRSST Level 4 MUR Global Foundation Sea Surface Temperature Analysis (<a href="https://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/dataset/MUR-JPL-L4-GLOB-v4.1" target="_blank">https://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/dataset/MUR-JPL-L4-GLOB-v4.1</a>, accessed on 4 July 2022).</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Working flow diagram.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Human coastal activities. Zoom in Tenerife Island.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Habitat suitability response to environmental predictors variability according the selected MaxEnt model.</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Correlation between AUC and TSS values for models run with EPA pseudo-absences (blue) and APA pseudo-absences (red). Red line depicts the TSS value threshold for model selection.</p> "> Figure 6
<p><span class="html-italic">Cymodocea nodosa</span>’s habitat suitability. Green: Species’ potential distribution.</p> "> Figure 7
<p><span class="html-italic">Cymodocea nodosa</span>’s habitat degradation index in the Canary Islands. Red: Areas presenting habitat degradation due to the presence of human disturbances. Points locate the main ports of the archipelago.</p> "> Figure 8
<p><span class="html-italic">Cymodocea nodosa</span>’s Carbon sequestration estimation for potential (<b>A</b>) and degraded (<b>B</b>) species’ distribution. Zoom in north-east of Tenerife Island.</p> "> Figure 9
<p><span class="html-italic">Cymodocea nodosa</span>’s total nursery ground value estimation for potential (<b>A</b>) and degraded (<b>B</b>) species’ distribution. Zoom in south-east of Lanzarote Island.</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Distribution Model
2.2.1. Presence and Pseudo-Absence Data
2.2.2. Environmental Variables
2.2.3. Model Fitting
2.2.4. Model Evaluation
2.2.5. Model Ensemble and Potential Habitat Suitability Mapping
2.3. Assessing Ecosystem Services (ES) Supply
2.3.1. Carbon Stock Estimation
2.3.2. Nursery Grounds Estimation
3. Results
3.1. Distribution Model’s Testing and Evaluation
3.2. Ensemble Model and Potential Habitat Suitability Map
3.3. ES Supply Estimation
3.3.1. Blue Carbon Sequestration Assessment
3.3.2. Nursery Grounds Assessment
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Green, E.P.; Short, F.T. World Atlas of Seagrasses; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Nordlund, L.M.; Jackson, E.L.; Nakaoka, M.; Samper-Villarreal, J.; Beca-Carretero, P.; Creed, J.C. Seagrass Ecosystem Services—What’s Next? Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 134, 145–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nordlund, L.M.; Unsworth, R.K.F.; Gullström, M.; Cullen-Unsworth, L.C. Global Significance of Seagrass Fishery Activity. Fish Fish. 2018, 19, 399–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tuya, F.; Haroun, R.; Espino, F. Economic Assessment of Ecosystem Services: Monetary Value of Seagrass Meadows for Coastal Fisheries. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2014, 96, 181–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waycott, M.; Duarte, C.M.; Carruthers, T.J.B.; Orth, R.J.; Dennison, W.C.; Olyarnik, S.; Calladine, A.; Fourqurean, J.W.; Heck, K.L.; Hughes, A.R.; et al. Accelerating Loss of Seagrasses across the Globe Threatens Coastal Ecosystems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 12377–12381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Short, F.T.; Polidoro, B.; Livingstone, S.R.; Carpenter, K.E.; Bandeira, S.; Bujang, J.S.; Calumpong, H.P.; Carruthers, T.J.B.; Coles, R.G.; Dennison, W.C.; et al. Extinction Risk Assessment of the World’s Seagrass Species. Biol. Conserv. 2011, 144, 1961–1971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jordà, G.; Marbà, N.; Duarte, C.M. Mediterranean Seagrass Vulnerable to Regional Climate Warming. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2012, 2, 821–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- González-Correa, J.M.; Bayle Sempere, J.T.; Sánchez-Jerez, P.; Valle, C. Posidonia Oceanica Meadows Are Not Declining Globally. Analysis of Population Dynamics in Marine Protected Areas of the Mediterranean Sea. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2007, 336, 111–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Afonso, J.; Gil, M.C. Cymodocea nodosa (Ucria) Ascherson (Zannichelliaceae) y Las Praderas Submarinas o “Sebadales” En El Archipiélago Canario. Vieraea 1980, 8, 365–376. [Google Scholar]
- Oliva, S.; Mascaró, O.; Llagostera, I.; Pérez, M.; Romero, J. Selection of Metrics Based on the Seagrass Cymodocea nodosa and Development of a Biotic Index (CYMOX) for Assessing Ecological Status of Coastal and Transitional Waters. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2012, 114, 7–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tuya, F.; Ribeiro-Leite, L.; Arto-Cuesta, N.; Coca, J.; Haroun, R.; Espino, F. Decadal Changes in the Structure of Cymodocea nodosa Seagrass Meadows: Natural vs. Human Influences. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2014, 137, 41–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reyes, J.; Sansón, M.; Afonso-Carrillo, J. Distribution and Reproductive Phenology of the Seagrass Cymodocea nodosa (Ucria) Ascherson in the Canary Islands. Aquat. Bot. 1995, 50, 171–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barbera, C.; Tuya, F.; Boyra, A.; Sanchez-Jerez, P.; Blanch, I.; Haroun, R.J. Spatial Variation in the Structural Parameters of Cymodocea nodosa Seagrass Meadows in the Canary Islands: A Multiscaled Approach. Bot. Mar. 2005, 48, 122–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barquín-Diez, J.; González-Lorenzo, G.; Martín-Garc¡a, L.; Gil-Rodr¡guez, M.C.; Brito-Hernández, A. Distribución Espacial de Las Comunidades Bent¢nicas Submareales de Los Fondos Someros de Canarias. I: Las Comunidades de Sustrato Blando de Las Costas de Tenerife. Vieraea 2005, 33, 435–448. [Google Scholar]
- Martín-García, L.; Sangil, C.; Brito, A.; Barquín-Diez, J. Identification of Conservation Gaps and Redesign of Island Marine Protected Areas. Biodivers. Conserv. 2015, 24, 511–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Casas, E.; Martín-García, L.; Otero-Ferrer, F.; Tuya, F.; Haroun, R.; Arbelo, M. Economic Mapping and Assessment of Cymodocea nodosa Meadows as Nursery Grounds for Commercially Important Fish Species. A Case Study in the Canary Islands. One Ecosyst. 2021, 6, 70919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guidetti, P.; Lorenti, M.; Buia, M.C.; Mazzella, L. Temporal Dynamics and Biomass Partitioning in Three Adriatic Seagrass Species: Posidonia Oceanica, Cymodocea nodosa, Zostera Marina. Mar. Ecol. 2002, 23, 51–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chefaoui, R.M.; Assis, J.; Duarte, C.M.; Serrão, E.A. Large-Scale Prediction of Seagrass Distribution Integrating Landscape Metrics and Environmental Factors: The Case of Cymodocea nodosa (Mediterranean–Atlantic). Estuaries Coasts 2016, 39, 123–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elith, J.; Leathwick, J.R. Species Distribution Models: Ecological Explanation and Prediction across Space and Time. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2009, 40, 677–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loiselle, B.A.; Howell, C.A.; Graham, C.H.; Goerck, J.M.; Brooks, T.; Smith, K.G.; Williams, P.H. Avoiding Pitfalls of Using Species Distribution Models in Conservation Planning. Conserv. Biol. 2003, 17, 1591–1600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warton, D.I.; Shepherd, L.C. Poisson Point Process Models Solve the “Pseudo-Absence Problem” for Presence-Only Data in Ecology. Ann. Appl. Stat. 2010, 4, 1383–1402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elith, J.; Leathwick, J. Predicting Species Distributions from Museum and Herbarium Records Using Multiresponse Models Fitted with Multivariate Adaptive Regression Splines. Divers. Distrib. 2007, 13, 265–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stockwell, D.; Peters, D. The GARP Modelling System: Problems and Solutions to Automated Spatial Prediction. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 1999, 13, 143–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barbet-Massin, M.; Jiguet, F.; Albert, C.H.; Thuiller, W. Selecting Pseudo-absences for Species Distribution Models: How, Where and How Many? Methods Ecol. Evol. 2012, 3, 327–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Senay, S.D.; Worner, S.P.; Ikeda, T. Novel Three-Step Pseudo-Absence Selection Technique for Improved Species Distribution Modelling. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, 71218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zaniewski, A.E.; Lehmann, A.; Overton, J.M.C. Predicting Species Spatial Distributions Using Presence-Only Data: A Case Study of Native New Zealand Ferns. Ecol. Modell. 2002, 157, 261–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tracy, J.L.; Trabucco, A.; Lawing, A.M.; Giermakowski, J.T.; Tchakerian, M.; Drus, G.M.; Coulson, R.N. Random Subset Feature Selection for Ecological Niche Models of Wildfire Activity in Western North America. Ecol. Modell. 2018, 383, 52–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diniz Filho, J.A.F.; Ferro, V.G.; Santos, T.; Nabout, J.C.; Dobrovolski, R.; De Marco, P., Jr. The Three Phases of the Ensemble Forecasting of Niche Models: Geographic Range and Shifts in Climatically Suitable Areas of Utetheisa Ornatrix (Lepidoptera, Arctiidae). Rev. Bras. Entomol. 2010, 54, 339–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scales, K.L.; Miller, P.I.; Ingram, S.N.; Hazen, E.L.; Bograd, S.J.; Phillips, R.A. Identifying Predictable Foraging Habitats for a Wide-Ranging Marine Predator Using Ensemble Ecological Niche Models. Divers. Distrib. 2016, 22, 212–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diniz Filho, J.A.F.; Nabout, J.C.; Bini, L.M.; Loyola, R.D.; Rangel, T.F.; Nogues-Bravo, D.; Araújo, M.B. Ensemble Forecasting Shifts in Climatically Suitable Areas for Tropidacris Cristata (Orthoptera: Acridoidea: Romaleidae). Insect Conserv. Divers. 2010, 3, 213–221. [Google Scholar]
- Diniz Filho, J.A.F.; Rodrigues, H.; Telles, M.P.D.C.; Oliveira, G.G.; Terrible, L.C.; Soares, T.N.; Nabout, J.C. Correlation between Genetic Diversity and Environmental Suitability: Taking Uncertainty from Ecological Niche Models into Account. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 2015, 15, 1059–1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henrys, P.A.; Smart, S.M.; Rowe, E.C.; Jarvis, S.G.; Fang, Z.; Evans, C.D.; Emmett, B.A.; Butler, A. Niche Models for British Plants and Lichens Obtained Using an Ensemble Approach. New J. Bot. 2015, 5, 89–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaky, E.; Nolan, V.; Alatawi, A.; Gilbert, F. A Comparison between Ensemble and MaxEnt Species Distribution Modelling Approaches for Conservation: A Case Study with Egyptian Medicinal Plants. Ecol. Inform. 2020, 60, 101150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Araújo, M.B.; New, M. Ensemble Forecasting of Species Distributions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2007, 22, 42–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marmion, M.; Parviainen, M.; Luoto, M.; Heikkinen, R.K.; Thuiller, W. Evaluation of Consensus Methods in Predictive Species Distribution Modelling. Divers. Distrib. 2009, 15, 59–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Böhnke-Henrichs, A.; Baulcomb, C.; Koss, R.; Hussain, S.S.; de Groot, R.S. Typology and Indicators of Ecosystem Services for Marine Spatial Planning and Management. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 130, 135–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hattam, C.; Atkins, J.P.; Beaumont, N.; Börger, T.; Böhnke-Henrichs, A.; Burdon, D.; De Groot, R.; Hoefnagel, E.; Nunes, P.A.L.D.; Piwowarczyk, J.; et al. Marine Ecosystem Services: Linking Indicators to Their Classification. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 49, 61–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilberg, M.J.; Miller, T.J. Comment on “Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services”. Science 2007, 316, 787–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruiz-Frau, A.; Gelcich, S.; Hendriks, I.E.; Duarte, C.M.; Marbà, N. Current State of Seagrass Ecosystem Services: Research and Policy Integration. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2017, 149, 107–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- González-García, A.; Arias, M.; García-Tiscar, S.; Alcorlo, P.; Santos-Martín, F. National Blue Carbon Assessment in Spain Using InVEST: Current State and Future Perspectives. Ecosyst. Serv. 2022, 53, 101397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maren Sieber, I.; Av Borges, P.; Burkhard, B. Hotspots of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: The Outermost Regions and Overseas Countries and Territories of the European Union. One Ecosyst. 2018, 3, 24719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borges, P.A.V.; Azevedo, E.B.; Borba, A.; Dinis, F.O.; Gabriel, R.; Silva, E. Ilhas Oceânicas; Escolar: Lisboa, Portugal, 2009; ISBN 978-972-592-274-3. [Google Scholar]
- Fiekas, V.; Elken, J.; Muller, T.J.; Aitsam, A.; Zenk, W. A View of the Canary Basin Thermocline Circulation in Winter. J. Geophys. Res. 1992, 97, 12495–12510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Braun, J.G. Estudios de produccion en aguas de las Islas Canarias I-Hidrografia, nutrientes y produccion primaria. Bol. Inst. Esp. Oceanogr. 1980, 5, 147–154. [Google Scholar]
- Barton, E.D.; Aristegui, J.; Tett, P.; Canton, M.; García-Braun, J.; Hernández-León, S.; Nykjaer, L.; Almeida, C.; Almunia, J.; Ballesteros, S.; et al. The Transition Zone of the Canary Current Upwelling Region. Prog. Oceanogr. 1998, 41, 455–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Engler, R.; Guisan, A.; Rechsteiner, L. An Improved Approach for Predicting the Distribution of Rare and Endangered Species from Occurrence and Pseudo-Absence Data. J. Appl. Ecol. 2004, 41, 263–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lobo, J.M.; Verdú, J.R.; Numa, C. Environmental and Geographical Factors Affecting the Iberian Distribution of Flightless Jekelius Species (Coleoptera: Geotrupidae). Divers. Distrib. 2006, 12, 179–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, K.S.; Bradley, B.A.; Cord, A.F.; Rocchini, D.; Tuanmu, M.N.; Schmidtlein, S.; Turner, W.; Wegmann, M.; Pettorelli, N. Will Remote Sensing Shape the next Generation of Species Distribution Models? Remote Sens. Ecol. Conserv. 2015, 1, 4–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leitão, P.J.; Santos, M.J. Improving Models of Species Ecological Niches: A Remote Sensing Overview. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2019, 7, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kachelriess, D.; Wegmann, M.; Gollock, M.; Pettorelli, N. The Application of Remote Sensing for Marine Protected Area Management. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 36, 169–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hastings, R.; Cummins, V.; Holloway, P. Assessing the Impact of Physical and Anthropogenic Environmental Factors in Determining the Habitat Suitability of Seagrass Ecosystems. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bittner, R.E.; Roesler, E.L.; Barnes, M.A. Using Species Distribution Models to Guide Seagrass Management. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2020, 240, 106790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, W.; Zhang, D.; Chen, B.; Liu, X.; Ye, X.; Jiang, Q.; Zheng, X.; Du, J.; Chen, S. Mapping the Seagrass Conservation and Restoration Priorities: Coupling Habitat Suitability and Anthropogenic Pressures. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 129, 107960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Downie, A.L.; Von Numers, M.; Boström, C. Influence of Model Selection on the Predicted Distribution of the Seagrass Zostera Marina. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2013, 121, 8–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beca-Carretero, P.; Varela, S.; Stengel, D.B. A Novel Method Combining Species Distribution Models, Remote Sensing, and Field Surveys for Detecting and Mapping Subtidal Seagrass Meadows. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 2020, 30, 1098–1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministerio Medio Ambiente (Ed.) Estudio Ecocartográfico del Litoral de Las Islas de Lanzarote, Graciosa y Alegranza (Las Palmas). In Dirección General de Costas; Plan de Ecocartografías del litoral español; Ministerio Medio Ambiente: Madrid, España, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Ministerio Medio Ambiente (Ed.) Estudio Ecocartogrfico de la zona sur del litoral de la Isla de Gran Canaria (Las Palmas). In Secretaría de Estado de Aguas y Costas; Dirección General de Costas; Plan de Ecocartografías del litoral español; Ministerio Medio Ambiente: Madrid, España, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Ministerio Medio Ambiente (Ed.) Estudio Ecocartográfico del litoral de la Isla de La Palma (Tenerife). In Dirección General de Costas; Plan de Ecocartografías del litoral español; Ministerio Medio Ambiente: Madrid, España, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Ministerio Medio Ambiente (Ed.) Estudio Ecocartográfico del litoral de las islas de Fuerteventura y Lobos (Las Palmas). In Dirección General de Costas; Plan de Ecocartografías del litoral español; Ministerio Medio Ambiente: Madrid, España, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Ministerio Medio Ambiente (Ed.) Estudio Ecocartográfico del litoral de la isla de La Palma. In Dirección General de Costas; Plan de Ecocartografías del litoral español; Ministerio Medio Ambiente: Madrid, España, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Ministerio Medio Ambiente (Ed.) Estudio Ecocartofráfico del la zona norte del litoral de la isla de Gran Canaria. In Dirección General de Costas; lan de Ecocartografías del litoral español; PMinisterio Medio Ambiente: Madrid, España, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Martín-García, L.; Barquín-Diez, J.; Brito-Izquierdo, I.T. Atlas Bionómico de Las Islas Canarias; Recopilación de Los Estudios Ecocartográficos de Las Costas Canarias; Ministerio De Agricultura y Pesca, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente: Madrid, Spain, 2016; ISBN 280-16-322-7. [Google Scholar]
- Yesson, C.; Bush, L.E.; Davies, A.J.; Maggs, C.A.; Brodie, J. Large Brown Seaweeds of the British Isles: Evidence of Changes in Abundance over Four Decades. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2015, 155, 167–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sotillo, M.G.; Levier, B.; Lorente, P.; Guihou, K.; Aznar, R.; Amo, A.; Ghantous, M. Quality information document for Atlantic-Iberian Biscay Irish-Ocean Physics Analysis and Forecasting Product (CMEMS-IBI-QUID-005-001), Copernicus Marine Environment Monitoring Service. Tech, rep. 2021. Available online: https://catalogue.marine.copernicus.eu/documents/QUID/CMEMS-IBI-QUID-005-001.pdf (accessed on 4 July 2022).
- Marchand, P.; David, G. Waver: Calculate Fetch and Wave Energy. R Package Version 0.2.1. Cran 2018, 1, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Lorente, P.; Sotillo, M.G.; Aouf, L.; Amo-Baladrón, A.; Barrera, E.; Dalphinet, A.; Toledano, C.; Rainaud, R.; De Alfonso, M.; Piedracoba, S.; et al. ExtremeWave Height Events in NW Spain: A Combined Multi-Sensor and Model Approach. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scott, A.J.; Hosmer, D.W.; Lemeshow, S. Applied Logistic Regression. Biometrics 2012, 47, 1632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rao, S.J. Regression Modeling Strategies: With Applications to Linear Models, Logistic Regression, and Survival Analysis. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 2003, 98, 257–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guisan, A.; Lehmann, A.; Ferrier, S.; Austin, M.; Overton, J.M.C.; Aspinall, R.; Hastie, T. Making Better Biogeographical Predictions of Species’ Distributions. J. Appl. Ecol. 2006, 43, 386–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phillips, S.B.; Aneja, V.P.; Kang, D.; Arya, S.P. Modelling and Analysis of the Atmospheric Nitrogen Deposition in North Carolina. Int. J. Glob. Environ. Issues 2006, 6, 231–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cobos, M.E.; Townsend Peterson, A.; Barve, N.; Osorio-Olvera, L. Kuenm: An R Package for Detailed Development of Ecological Niche Models Using Maxent. PeerJ 2019, 7, 6281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Thuiller, A.W.; Georges, D.; Engler, R.; Georges, M.D.; Thuiller, C.W. The Biomod2 Package: The Updated Object-Oriented Version of BIOMOD Package. Cran 2016, 1, 1–104. [Google Scholar]
- Guisan, A.; Thuiller, W.; Zimmermann, N.E. Habitat Suitability and Distribution Models; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Hastie, T.; Tibshirani, R.; Friedman, J.H. (Eds.) The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2009; Volume 2, ISBN 9780387848570. [Google Scholar]
- Snipes, M.; Taylor, D.C. Model Selection and Akaike Information Criteria: An Example from Wine Ratings and Prices. Wine Econ. Policy 2014, 3, 3–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Escobar, L.E.; Qiao, H.; Cabello, J.; Peterson, A.T. Ecological Niche Modeling Re-Examined: A Case Study with the Darwin’s Fox. Ecol. Evol. 2018, 8, 4757–4770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Elith, J.; Graham, C.H. Do They? How Do They? WHY Do They Differ? On Finding Reasons for Differing Performances of Species Distribution Models. Ecography 2009, 32, 66–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pottier, J.; Dubuis, A.; Pellissier, L.; Maiorano, L.; Rossier, L.; Randin, C.F.; Vittoz, P.; Guisan, A. The Accuracy of Plant Assemblage Prediction from Species Distribution Models Varies along Environmental Gradients. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2013, 22, 52–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fourcade, Y.; Besnard, A.G.; Secondi, J. Paintings Predict the Distribution of Species, or the Challenge of Selecting Environmental Predictors and Evaluation Statistics. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2018, 27, 245–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rangel, T.F.; Loyola, R.D. Labeling Ecological Niche Models. Nat. Conserv. 2012, 10, 119–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Araújo, M.B.; Whittaker, R.J.; Ladle, R.J.; Erhard, M. Reducing Uncertainty in Projections of Extinction Risk from Climate Change. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2005, 14, 529–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharp, R.; Douglass, J.; Wolny, S.; Arkema, K.; Bernhardt, J.; Bierbower, W.; Chaumont, N.; Denu, D.; Fisher, D.; Glowinski, K.; et al. InVEST 3.11.0.post88+ug.gbbddbb6 User’s Guide; The Natural Capital Project; Stanford University: Stanford, CA, USA; University of Minnesota: Minneapolis, MN, USA; The Nature Conservancy: Arlington, VA, USA; World Wildlife Fund: Washington, DC, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Gervasi, O.; Murgante, B.; Misra, S.; Gavrilova, M.L.; Torre, C.; Taniar, D.; Hutchison, D. And Its Applications—ICCSA 2015; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; ISBN 9783319214092. [Google Scholar]
- Houghton, R.A. Revised Estimates of the Annual Net Flux of Carbon to the Atmosphere from Changes in Land Use and Land Management 1850–2000. Tellus Ser. B Chem. Phys. Meteorol. 2003, 55, 378–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wedding, L.M.; Moritsch, M.; Verutes, G.; Arkema, K.; Hartge, E.; Reiblich, J.; Douglass, J.; Taylor, S.; Strong, A.L. Incorporating Blue Carbon Sequestration Benefits into Sub-National Climate Policies. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2021, 69, 102206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bank, W. State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2021; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Marbà, N.; Duarte, C.M. Growth and Sediment Space Occupation by Seagrass Cymodocea nodosa Roots. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2001, 224, 291–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pearce, J.L.; Boyce, M.S. Modelling Distribution and Abundance with Presence-Only Data. J. Appl. Ecol. 2006, 43, 405–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, L.; Huettmann, F.; Liu, S.; Sun, P.; Yu, Z.; Zhang, X.; Mi, C. Classification and Regression with Random Forests as a Standard Method for Presence-Only Data SDMs: A Future Conservation Example Using China Tree Species. Ecol. Inform. 2019, 52, 46–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harrell, F.E. Regression Modeling Strategies: With Applications to Linear Models, Logistic and Ordinal Regression, and Survival Analysis; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2015; ISBN 978-0-387-95232-1. [Google Scholar]
- Lobo, J.M.; Jiménez-Valverde, A.; Hortal, J. The Uncertain Nature of Absences and Their Importance in Species Distribution Modelling. Ecography 2010, 33, 103–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brauner, N.; Shacham, M. Role of Range and Precision of the Independent Variable in Regression of Data. AIChE J. 1998, 44, 603–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guisan, A.; Edwards, T.C.; Hastie, T. Generalized Linear and Generalized Additive Models in Studies of Species Distributions: Setting the Scene. Ecol. Modell. 2002, 157, 89–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peterson, A.T.; Cobos, M.E.; Jiménez-García, D. Major Challenges for Correlational Ecological Niche Model Projections to Future Climate Conditions. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2018, 1429, 66–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peterson, A.T.; Papeş, M.; Soberón, J. Rethinking Receiver Operating Characteristic Analysis Applications in Ecological Niche Modeling. Ecol. Modell. 2008, 213, 63–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burnham, K.P.; Anderson, D.R.; Huyvaert, K.P. AIC Model Selection and Multimodel Inference in Behavioral Ecology: Some Background, Observations, and Comparisons. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2011, 65, 23–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warren, D.L.; Seifert, S.N. Ecological Niche Modeling in Maxent: The Importance of Model Complexity and the Performance of Model Selection Criteria. Ecol. Appl. 2011, 21, 335–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, R.P.; Lew, D.; Peterson, A.T. Evaluating Predictive Models of Species’ Distributions: Criteria for Selecting Optimal Models. Commun. Theor. Phys. 2003, 162, 211–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Effrosynidis, D.; Arampatzis, A.; Sylaios, G. Seagrass Detection in the Mediterranean: A Supervised Learning Approach. Ecol. Inform. 2018, 48, 158–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stankovic, M.; Kaewsrikhaw, R.; Rattanachot, E.; Prathep, A. Modeling of Suitable Habitat for Small-Scale Seagrass Restoration in Tropical Ecosystems. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2019, 231, 106465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santana-Falcón, Y.; Mason, E.; Arístegui, J. Offshore Transport of Organic Carbon by Upwelling Filaments in the Canary Current System. Prog. Oceanogr. 2020, 186, 102322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bjrök, M.; Short, F.T.; Mcleod, E.; Beer, S. Managing Seagrasses for Resilience to Climate Change; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 2008; ISBN 9782831710891. [Google Scholar]
- Graham, C.H.; Ferrier, S.; Huettman, F.; Moritz, C.; Peterson, A.T. New Developments in Museum-Based Informatics and Applications in Biodiversity Analysis. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2004, 19, 497–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Boudouresque, C.F.; Bernard, G.; Pergent, G.; Shili, A.; Verlaque, M. Regression of Mediterranean Seagrasses Caused by Natural Processes and Anthropogenic Disturbances and Stress: A Critical Review. Bot. Mar. 2009, 52, 395–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruiz, J.; Guillén, E.; Ramos Segura, A.; Otero, M. Atlas de Las Praderas Marinas de España; Instituto Español de Oceanografía: Madrid, Spain, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Luisetti, T.; Jackson, E.L.; Turner, R.K. Valuing the European “coastal Blue Carbon” Storage Benefit. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2013, 71, 101–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Spatial Data/RS Product | Derived Variables | Source | |
---|---|---|---|
Digital Terrain Model (DTM) | Depth (m) | Spanish Ministry of Environment [56,57,58,59,60,61] | |
Slope (°) | |||
Aspect (Northness & Eastness) | |||
Fetch Length (m) | |||
Canarian benthic bionomic map | Distance to soft substrate (m) | [62] | |
NASA Level-3 MODIS-Aqua monthly chlorophyll concentration | Mean Chlorophyll concentration of cold months (mg·m−3) | https://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi/l3, accessed on 4 July 2022 | |
Mean Chlorophyll concentration of warm months (mg·m−3) | |||
NASA GHRSST Level 4 MUR Global Foundation Sea Surface Temperature Analysis | Mean Sea Surface Temperature (SST) of cold months (°C) | https://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/dataset/MUR-JPL-L4-GLOB-v4.1, accessed on 4 July 2022 | |
Mean Sea Surface Temperature (SST) of warm months (°C) | |||
Atlantic-Iberian Biscay Irish- Ocean Wave Analysis and Forecast | Wave mean direction (°) | https://resources.marine.copernicus.eu/product-detail/IBI_ANALYSIS_FORECAST_WAV_005_005/DATA-ACCESS, accessed on 4 July 2022 | |
Wave period peak (s) | Wave energy (kW·m−1) | ||
Maximum wave height (m) | |||
Iberia-Biscay-Ireland Significant Wave Height extreme variability | 99th percentile of Significant wave height (m) | https://resources.marine.copernicus.eu/product-detail/IBI_OMI_SEASTATE_extreme_var_swh_mean_and_anomaly/DATA-ACCESS, accessed on 4 July 2022 |
Variable | Set 1 | Set 2 | Set 3 | Set 4 | Set 5 | Set 6 | Set 7 | Set 8 | Set 9 | Set 10 | Set 11 | Set 12 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Depth | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
Slope | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
Aspect (Northness) | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
Aspect (Eastness) | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
Distance to soft substrate | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
Sea surface wave mean direction | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
Fetch | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
99th percentile Significant Wave Height | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
Mean Chlorophyll-a of cold months | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||
Mean Chlorophyll-a of warm months | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||
Mean SST of cold months | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||
Mean SST of warm months | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||
Period peak | X | X | X | X | ||||||||
Sea surface wave significant height | X | X | X | X | ||||||||
Max. wave energy | X | X | X | X |
User-defined parameter settings | Beta Multiplier | 1 |
Selected features | “Quadratic”, “Product” and “Threshold” | |
Regularization threshold | 1.160 | |
Feature regularization parameter | 0.164 | |
Evaluation metric | Omission rate | 0.029 |
deltaAIC | 0.991 | |
AIC | 2858.445 | |
AUC | 0.933 |
Variable | Permutation Importance (%) | Variables’ Values Range |
---|---|---|
Depth | 59.4 | 5 to 25 m |
Distance to Soft substrate | 9.1 | 0 to 50 m |
SST | 6.6 | (17.9–18.3) and (19–19.2) °C |
Northness | 5.9 | −0.5 to 0 |
Fetch length | 5.7 | 10 to 500 m |
Wave mean direction | 3.9 | 90 to 130° |
Pseudo-Absence/Background | Prevalence | TSS | AUC | Sensitivity | Specificity | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RF | EPA | 1 | 0.808 | 0.941 | 0.847 | 0.964 |
RF | APA | 0.25 | 0.881 | 0.932 | 0.918 | 0.941 |
GAM | APA | 1 | 0.853 | 0.946 | 0.914 | 0.944 |
ANN | APA | 1 | 0.828 | 0.977 | 0.953 | 0.896 |
Variable | Permutation Importance (%) | Variables’ Values Range * |
---|---|---|
Depth | 43.4 | 4 to 27 m |
Distance to Soft substrate | 12.38 | 0 to 43 m |
SST | 9.88 | (18–18.5) and (19.1–19.4) °C |
Fetch length | 9.43 | 15 to 625 m |
Northness | 8.93 | −0.3 to 0 |
Wave mean direction | 7.18 | 90 to 138° |
Sequestered Carbon | ||
---|---|---|
Pristine scenario | 3,961,254 Mg CO2 | 192,715,007€ |
Degraded scenario | 2,574,942 Mg CO2 | 125,270,928€ |
Fish Species | Monetary Value Per ha (€·ha−1·year−1) | Pristine Scenario Monetary Value (€·year−1) | Degraded Scenario Monetary Value (€·year−1) |
---|---|---|---|
Sparisoma cretense | 43.50 | 611,044 | 397,198 |
Mullus surmuletus | 42.67 | 599,385 | 389,619 |
Pagellus erythrinus | 5.30 | 74,449 | 48,394 |
Spondyliosoma cantharus | 3.01 | 42,281 | 27,484 |
Diplodus annularis | 2.09 | 29,358 | 19,083 |
Dicentrarchus punctatus | 0.95 | 13,344 | 8674 |
total | 97.52 | 1,369,863 | 890,455 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Casas, E.; Martín-García, L.; Hernández-Leal, P.; Arbelo, M. Species Distribution Models at Regional Scale: Cymodocea nodosa Seagrasses. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 4334. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14174334
Casas E, Martín-García L, Hernández-Leal P, Arbelo M. Species Distribution Models at Regional Scale: Cymodocea nodosa Seagrasses. Remote Sensing. 2022; 14(17):4334. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14174334
Chicago/Turabian StyleCasas, Enrique, Laura Martín-García, Pedro Hernández-Leal, and Manuel Arbelo. 2022. "Species Distribution Models at Regional Scale: Cymodocea nodosa Seagrasses" Remote Sensing 14, no. 17: 4334. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14174334