Modeling Approaches in Avian Conservation and the Role of Field Biologists

University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln USGS Staff -- Published Research US Geological Survey 2006 Modeling Approaches in Avian Conservation and the Role of Field Biologists Steven R. Beissinger University of California - Berkeley, [email protected] Jeffrey R. Walters Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Donald G. Catanzaro University of Arkansas - Main Campus Kimberly G. Smith University of Arkansas - Main Campus John B. Dunning Jr. Purdue University See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub Beissinger, Steven R.; Walters, Jeffrey R.; Catanzaro, Donald G.; Smith, Kimberly G.; Dunning, John B. Jr.; Haig, Susan M.; Noon, Barry R.; and Stith, Bradley M., "Modeling Approaches in Avian Conservation and the Role of Field Biologists" (2006). USGS Staff -- Published Research. 688. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/688 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the US Geological Survey at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in USGS Staff -- Published Research by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Authors Steven R. Beissinger, Jeffrey R. Walters, Donald G. Catanzaro, Kimberly G. Smith, John B. Dunning Jr., Susan M. Haig, Barry R. Noon, and Bradley M. Stith This article is available at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ usgsstaffpub/688 MODELINGAPPROACHES IN AVIAN CONSERVATION AND THE ROLEOF FIELDBIOLOGISTS By Steven R. Beissinger,1 Jeffrey R. Walters,2 Donald G. Catanzaro,3 Kimberly G. Smith,3 John B. Dunning, Jr.,4 Susan M. Haig,5 Barry R. Noon,6 and Bradley M. Stith7 department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management, University of California,Berkeley, California94720, USA; department of Biology, VirginiaPolytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg,Virginia 24061, USA; Kenterfor Advanced Spatial Technologiesand Department of Biological Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701, USA; ^Departmentof Forestry and Natural Resources,Purdue University, West Lafayette,Indiana 47907, USA; 5U.S. Geological Survey Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center,3200 SW JeffersonWay, Corvallis, Oregon 97331, USA; and department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology, ColoradoState University, Fort Collins, Colorado80523, USA; USA department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611, ORNITHOLOGICAL MONOGRAPHS NO. 59 PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS'UNION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2006 This content downloaded on Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:46:37 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TABLE OF CONTENTS Lists of Tables and Figures vi From the Editor vii ABSTRACT 1 INTRODUCTION 2 THE FORM OF ECOLOGICAL MODELS 3 DETERMINISTICSINGLE-POPULATION MATRIX MODELS 4 Structure of Matrix Population Models 5 Use of Matrix Population Models in Conservation 8 STOCHASTIC POPULATION VIABILITYANALYSIS MODELS FOR SINGLE POPULATIONS 10 Structure of Stochastic Population Viability Analysis Models for Single Populations 11 Conservation Use of Stochastic Population Viability Analysis Models for Single Populations 12 METAPOPULATION MODELS 15 Structure of Metapopulation Models 15 Use of Metapopulation Models in Conservation 19 SPATIALLYEXPLICIT MODELS 20 Structure of Spatially Explicit Models 20 Use of Spatially Explicit Models in Conservation 23 GENETIC MODELS 26 Structure of Genetic Models 26 Effective-population size 26 Pedigreeanalyses 27 Use of Genetic Models in Conservation 30 SPECIES DISTRIBUTION MODELS 31 Structure of Species Distribution Models 32 Use of Species Distribution Models in Conservation 35 INTELLIGENT USE OF MODELS TO MAKE CONSERVATION DECISIONS .... 37 Attributes of Useful Models 37 Working with Multiple Models in a Decision-theoretic Framework 39 HOW FIELD BIOLOGISTSCAN INTERACT WITH MODELERS TO IMPROVE CONSERVATION DECISIONS 40 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 41 LITERATURECITED 42 v This content downloaded on Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:46:37 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LISTOF TABLES 1. Structureof the standard input file ("Me,Ma, Pa" file) used to keep studbooks, to construct pedigrees, and for gene-drop analyses 29 2. Considerationof genetic factors in common population viability models used in conservation planning 30 LISTOF FIGURES 1. Matrixpopulation models for prebreedingand postbreedinglife cycles, and elasticity calculations 6 2. Simplified example of the structureand outcomes from a stochasticsingle- population PVAmodel 11 3. DemographicPVA models with various degrees of spatial explicitness 17 4. Gene-droppedigree model and analysis for a small population 28 5. Exampleof a gap modeling process for the Ovenbird (Seiurusaurocapilla) in Arkansas 33 vi This content downloaded on Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:46:37 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions From the Editor Likemany membersof the AmericanOrnithologists' Union, I developed a passion for birds early in life and have been trying to make a living from this passion ever since. As you get to know fellow AOU members, particularlyover drinks, you hear stories about that moment in their lives when they discovered this incrediblefeeling about birds that could not be ignored. Some of us started at age six or seven, others in high school or college. Some of us, lacking the artisticskills of David Sibley or the humor of Pete Dunne, have had to fall back on doing research.Our field work allows us to earn a paycheck in pursuit of our passion. We get to see and catch and count birds in what are sometimes exciting, and hopefully always interest- ing, places. We are paid to write reports, scientific papers, and books that present our results from the field. In many cases, our work has direct or indirect implications for bird conservation. Unfortunately,we cannot simply write papers about anything that catches our fancy. Rather, we need to justify our work on the basis of prior studies and present our results using up-to-date methodologies. For many of us, this is where the ugly concepts of hypotheses, models, and statistics come into play and turn our lives of passion into actual work and sometimes drudgery.During my career,the profession has become more and more based on the testing of models, usually with associated quantitativemeasures. I took a single statistics course during eight years of college; my graduate students take at least three or four, and often more. One even has a Master's degree in statistics to go along with her MS in ecology. More and more, our field work is only as good as the model being tested, and the test only as good as the calculationsprovided. Of course, doing field work requiresa lot of skill, though usually of the "naturalhistory" catego- ry that involves details about birds, plants, and so forth. Doing modeling and developing statistical methods obviously requires a high comfort level with conceptual thinking and mathematics.Few ornithologistsare experts in both areas;field people are always trying to figure out what is current- ly the best way to measure their area of specialty,while modelers are trying to provide methods for the analyticalquestions posed by the field people. The goal of both groups is to develop the best science possible, with the appropriatescientific models tested with the best quantitativetechniques. All these areas within ornithologicalresearch change over time, so it is difficult for field people to stay currentwith the latest models and for modelers to ensure that field people are providing the best data possible and analyzing it properly. OrnithologicalMonograph No. 59 addresses this problemby serving as a bridge between field biologists and modelers. It provides a state-of-the-art review by a set of experts of the models they consider most relevant to currentavian conservation. It explains why these models are relevant and then shows how they can be quantitatively tested with field data. In addition, it promotes interactionbetween field workers and modelers, because models are of little use if they are not tested and supported with the right data from the field. This monographshould be of great value to beginning graduatestudents who are planning field studies and handy for us older folks who may need to catch up on things. Adding to the authors' acknowledgments, I wish to thank my students in the Avian Ecology Laboratoryat the University of Missouri- in particular,Judith Toms, she of the degrees in both stats and ecology- whose reviews greatly improved this monograph. Comments from Marissa Ahlering, Andrew Cox, and ErnestoRuelas Inzunza were helpful to the authors in making this as user-friendlyas possible. JohnFaaborg vii This content downloaded on Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:46:37 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ."^ OrnithologicalMonographs *k Volume(2006), No. 59, 1-56 ^V © The AmericanOrnithologists' Union, 2006. ^Jl?*r Printedin USA. MODELINGAPPROACHES IN AVIAN CONSERVATION AND THE ROLEOF FIELDBIOLOGISTS Steven R. Beissinger,18 Jeffrey R. Walters,2 Donald G. Catanzaro,3 Kimberly G. Smith,3 John B. Dunning, Jr.,4 Susan M. Haig,5 Barry R. Noon,6 and Bradley M. Stith7 ^Departmentof EnvironmentalScience, Policy and Management,University of California,Berkeley, California 94720, USA; department of Biology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg,Virginia 24061, USA; Center for Advanced Spatial Technologiesand

Load more