Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Using species distribution models to guide conservation at the state level: the endangered American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) in Oklahoma

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Insect Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The goal of the Endangered Species Act is to improve the chances of listed species’ survival by increasing population levels (US Fish and Wildlife Service in American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) recovery plan. Newton Corner, MA, p 80, 1991). If successful, a species will be delisted, but in order to achieve the goal of species recovery the demography, habitat preferences, reproductive biology, and cause of the species decline must be understood. Like many rare invertebrates, information about the endangered American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) prior to listing consisted of the taxonomic description and morphological characterization. Surveys for N. americanus provide data that can be integrated into spatial models to help predict suitable habitat. Our objective was to model the potential distribution of N. americanus and to evaluate these models ability to generate maps of potential habitat, thus focusing recovering efforts. We chose six modelling algorithms that utilized both presence and absence data from beetle surveys conducted throughout eastern Oklahoma. Using area under the curve (AUC) as our evaluation statistic, we found that ten of the twelve models performed within the AUC index category of “potentially useful” (AUC 0.7–0.9). Models utilizing presence only data performed well compared to models built with presence/absence data. This may indicate the weakness of using absence data to indicate unsuitable habitat. Lack of integration into the model of biotic interactions may also be affecting model performance. To improve model performance, the causes of N. americanus’s endangered status and its population shrinkage should be considered. Although the best models were not highly accurate, the map of suitable habitat can help to inform conservation biologists of areas with a likelihood of N. americanus presence. Overgenerous models can mislead conservation planners in thinking that more areas are highly suitable. If resources are limited for planning preserves and areas of reintroduction, it may be better to be conservative and to limit consideration to the most suitable habitat.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson RP (2003) Real vs. artefactual absences in species distributions: tests for Oryzomys albigularis (Rodentia: Muridae) in Venezuela. J Biogeogr 30:591–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson RP, Peterson AT, Gomez-Laverde M (2002) Using niche-based GIS modeling to test geographic predictions of competitive exclusion and competitive release in South American pocket mice. Oikos 98:3–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Araújo MB, Luoto M (2007) The importance of biotic interactions for modelling species distributions under climate change. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 16:743–753

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Araújo MB, New M (2007) Ensemble forecasting of species distributions. Trends Ecol Evol 22:42–47

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Austin MP (2002) Spatial prediction of species distribution: an interface between ecological theory and statistical modeling. Ecol Modell 157:101–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin MP (2007) Species distribution models and ecological theory: a critical assessment and some possible new approaches. Ecol Modell 200:1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barry S, Elith J (2006) Error and uncertainty in habitat models. J Appl Ecol 43:413–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bedick JC, Ratcliffe BC, Hoback WW, Higley LG (1999) Distribution, ecology, and population dynamics of the American burying beetle [Nicrophorus americanus Olivier (Coleoptera, Silphidae)] in south-central Nebraksa, USA. J Insect Conserv 3:171–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bedick JC, Ratcliffe BC, Higley LG (2004) A new sampling protocol for the endangered American burying beetle, Nicrophorus americanus Olivier (Coleoptera: Silphidae). Coleopt Bull 58:57–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry PM, Dawson TP, Harrison PA, Pearson RG (2002) Modelling potential impacts of climate change on the bioclimatic envelope of species in Britain and Ireland. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 11:453–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braunisch V, Bollmann K, Graf RF, Hirzel AH (2008) Living on the edge—modelling habitat suitability for species at the edge of their fundamental niche. Ecol Modell 214:153–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breiman L (2001) Random forests. Mach Learn 45:5–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brock FV, Crawford KC, Elliott RL, Cuperus GW, Stadler SJ, Johnson HJ, Eilts MD (1995) The Oklahoma mesonet: a technical overview. J Atmos Ocean Technol 12:5–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brotons L, Thuiller W, Araujo MB, Hirzel AH (2004) Presence-absence versus presence-only modelling methods for predicting bird habitat suitability. Ecography 27:437–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camarero JJ, Gutiérrez E, Fortin MJ, Ribbens E (2005) Spatial patterns of tree recruitment in a relict population of Pinus uncinata: forest expansion through stratified diffusion. J Biogeogr 32:1979–1992

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cederstrand JR, Rea A (1997) Digital atlas of Oklahoma. U.S. Geological Survey open-file report 97-23, U.S. Geological Survey, Oklahoma City. http://geo.ou.edu. Accessed 6 June 2008

  • Chefaoui RM, Lobo JM (2008) Assessing the effects of pseudo-absences on predictive distribution model performance. Ecol Modell 210:478–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa GC, Wolfe C, Shepard DB, Caldwell JP, Vitt LJ (2007) Detecting the influence of climatic variables on species distributions: a test using GIS niche-based models along a steep longitudinal environmental gradient. J Biogeogr 35:637–646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creighton JC, Lomolino MV, Schnell GD (1993) Survey methods for the American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) in Oklahoma and Arkansas. Oklahoma Biological Survey, Norman

    Google Scholar 

  • De’ath G, Fabricius KE (2000) Classification and regression trees: a powerful yet simple technique for ecological data analysis. Ecology 81:3178–3192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diniz-Filho JAF, Rangel TFLVB, Bini LM (2008) Model selection and information theory in geographical ecology. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 17:479–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dormann CF, McPherson JM, Araújo MB, Bivand R, Bolliger J, Carl G, Davies RG, Hirzel A, Jetz W, Daniel Kissling W, Kuhn I, Ohlemuller RR, Peres-Neto P, Reineking B, Schröder B, Schurr FM, Wilson R (2007) Methods to account for spatial autocorrelation in the analysis of species distributional data: a review. Ecography 30:609–628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duck LG, Fletcher JB (1945) A survey of the game and furbearing animals of Oklahoma; chapter 2, The game types of Oklahoma. Oklahoma Game and Fish Commission, Division of Wildlife Restoration and Research, Oklahoma City. http://www.biosurvey.ou.edu/duckflt/dfhome.html. Accessed 6 June 2008

  • Elith J, Graham CH, Anderson RP, Dudik M, Ferrier S, Guisan A, Hijmans RJ, Huettmann F, Leathwick JR, Lehmann A, Li J, Lohmann LG, Loiselle BA, Manion G, Moritz C, Nakamura M, Nakazawa Y, Overton JM, Peterson AT, Phillips SJ, Richardson K, Scachetti-Pereira R, Schapire RE, Soberon J, Williams S, Wisz MS, Zimmermann NE (2006) Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data. Ecography 29:129–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elith J, Leathwick JR, Hastie T (2008) A working guide to boosted regression trees. J Anim Ecol 77:802–813

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Evangelista PH, Kumar S, Stohlgren TJ, Jarnevich CS, Crall AW, Norman Iii JB, Barnett DT (2008) Modelling invasion for a habitat generalist and a specialist plant species. Divers Distrib 14:808–817

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fielding AH, Bell JF (1997) A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environ Conserv 24:38–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher WL, Gregory MS (2001) Oklahoma GAP analysis project, final report. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division. http://www.biosurvey.ou.edu/gap-ok.html. Accessed 6 June 2008

  • Guisan A, Thuiller W (2005) Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol Lett 8:993–1009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guisan A, Edwards TC, Hastie T (2002) Generalized linear and generalized additive models in studies of species distributions: setting the scene. Ecol Modell 157:89–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guisan A, Overton JMC, Aspinall R, Hastie T, Lehmann A, Ferrier S, Austin M (2006) Making better biogeographical predictions of species’ distributions. J Appl Ecol 43:386–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guisan A, Zimmermann NE, Elith J, Graham CH, Phillips S, Peterson AT (2007) What matters for predicting the occurrences of trees: techniques, data, or species’ characteristics? Ecol Monogr 77:615–630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heikkinen RK, Luoto M, Virkkala R, Pearson RG, Körber J-H (2007) Biotic interactions improve prediction of boreal bird distributions at macro-scales. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 16:754–763

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heran WD, Green GN, Stoeser DB (2003) A digital geologic map database for the state of Oklahoma. U.S. Geological Survey open-file report 97-23, U.S. Geological Survey, Oklahoma City. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/ofr-03-247/. Accessed 6 June 2008

  • Hernandez P, Graham CH, Master L, Albert DL (2006) The effect of sample size and species characteristics on performance of different species distribution modeling methods. Ecography 29:773–785

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirzel AH, Le Lay G (2008) Habitat suitability modelling and niche theory. J Appl Ecol 45:1372–1381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoagland B (2000) The vegetation of Oklahoma: a classification for landscape mapping and conservation planning. Southwest Nat 45:385–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holloway AK, Schnell GD (1997) Relationship between numbers of the endangered American burying beetle Nicrophorus americanus Olivier (Coleoptera: Silphidae) and available food resources. Biol Conserv 81:145–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homer CCH, Yang L, Wylie B, Coan M (2004) Development of a 2001 National Landcover Database for the United States. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 70:829–840

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadmon R, Farber O, Danin A (2004) Effect of roadside bias on the accuracy of predictive maps produced by bioclimatic models. Ecol Appl 14:401–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leathwick JR, Austin MP (2001) Competitive interactions between tree species in New Zealand’s old-growth indigenous forests. Ecology 82:2560–2573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loiselle BA, Brooks T, Smith KG, Williams PH, Howell CA, Graham CH, Goerck JM (2003) Avoiding pitfalls of using species distribution models in conservation planning. Conserv Biol 17:1591–1600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lomolino MV, Creighton JC (1996) Habitat selection, breeding success and conservation of the endangered American burying beetle Nicrophorus americanus. Biol Conserv 77:235–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lomolino MV, Creighton JC, Schnell GD, Certain DL (1994) Ecology and conservation of the endangered American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus). Conserv Biol 9:605–614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manel S, Williams HC, Ormerod SJ (2001) Evaluating presence-absence models in ecology: the need to account for prevalence. J Appl Ecol 38:921–931

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marmion M, Parviainen M, Luoto M, Heikkinen RK, Thuiller W (2009) Evaluation of consensus methods in predictive species distribution modelling. Divers Distrib 15:59–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meynard CN, Quinn JF (2007) Predicting species distributions: a critical comparison of the most common statistical models using artificial species. J Biogeogr 34:1455–1469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy HT, Lovett-Doust J (2007) Accounting for regional niche variation in habitat suitability models. Oikos 116:99–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortega-Huerta MA, Peterson AT (2004) Modelling spatial patterns of biodiversity for conservation prioritization in North-eastern Mexico. Divers Distrib 10:39–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson RG, Thuiller W, Araujo MB, Martinez-Meyer E, Brotons L, McClean C, Miles L, Segurado P, Dawson TP, Lees DC (2006) Model-based uncertainty in species range prediction. J Biogeogr 33:1704–1711

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson RG, Raxworthy CJ, Nakamura M, Peterson AT (2007) Predicting species distributions from small numbers of occurrence records: a test case using cryptic geckos in Madagascar. J Biogeogr 34:102–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peppler-Lisbach C, Schräder B (2004) Predicting the species composition of Nardus stricta communities by logistic regression modelling. J Veg Sci 15:623–634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peyton MM (2003) Range and population size of the American burying beetle (Coleoptera: Silphidae) in the dissected hills of south-central Nebraska. Great Plains Res 13:127–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips SJ, Dudik M (2008) Modeling of species distributions with maxent: new extensions and a comprehensive evaluation. Ecography 31:161–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips SJ, Anderson RP, Schapire RE (2006) Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol Modell 190:231–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pöyry J, Luoto M, Heikkinen RK, Saarinen K (2008) Species traits are associated with the quality of bioclimatic models. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 17:403–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preston KL, Rotenberry JT, Redak RA, Allen MF (2008) Habitat shifts of endangered species under altered climate conditions: importance of biotic interactions. Glob Change Biol 14:2501–2515

    Google Scholar 

  • Rangel T, Diniz-Filho JAF, Bini LM (2006) Towards an integrated computational tool for spatial analysis in macroecology and biogeography. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 15:321–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway G (2006) Generalized boosted regression models. Documentation on the R Package ‘gbm’, version 1.6-3 CRAN Package Library, http://cran.cnr.Berkeley.edu. Accessed 2 January 2009

  • Rosenzweig ML, Lomolino MV (1997) Who gets the short bits of the broken stick? In: Konin WE, Gaston KJ (eds) The biology of rarity. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 63–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Rushton SP, Ormerod SJ, Kerby G (2004) New paradigms for modelling species distributions? J Appl Ecol 41:193–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnell GD, Hiott AE, Creighton JC, Smyth VL, Komendat A (2007) Factors affecting overwinter survival of the American burying beetle, Nicrophorus americanus (Colelptera: Silphidae). J Insect Conserv 12:483–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segurado P, Araújo MB (2004) An evaluation of methods for modelling species distributions. J Biogeogr 31:1555–1568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segurado P, Araújo MB, Kunin WE (2006) Consequences of spatial autocorrelation for niche-based models. J Appl Ecol 43:433–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sikes DS, Raithel CJ (2002) A review of hypotheses of decline of the endangered American burying beetle (Silphidae: Nicrophorus americanus Olivier). J Insect Conserv 6:103–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith A (2007) Camp Gruber American burying beetle reproductive study. 2007 American burying beetle workshop. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Tahlequah

    Google Scholar 

  • Soil Survey Staff (2005) Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. U.S. General Soil Map (STATSGO2) for Oklahoma. http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov. Accessed 6 June 2008

  • Swets JA (1988) Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 240:1285–1293

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thuiller W (2003) BIOMOD—optimizing predictions of species distributions and projecting potential future shifts under global change. Glob Change Biol 9:1353–1362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tole L (2006) Choosing reserve sites probabilistically: a Columbian amazon case study. Ecol Modell 194:344–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • US Fish and Wildlife Service (1991) American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) recovery plan. United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, MA, p 80

  • US Fish and Wildlife Service (2007) American burying beetle, Nicrophorus americanus, survey guidance for Oklahoma. United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Tulsa

    Google Scholar 

  • US Fish and Wildlife Service (2009) Endangered species program. http://www.fws.gov/Endangered/wildlife.html. Accessed 25 March 2009

  • Walker TL, Hoback WW (2007) Effects of invasive eastern red cedar on capture rates of Nicrophorus americanus and other Silphidae. Environ Entomol 36:297–307

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yee TW, Mitchell ND (1991) Generalized additive models in plant ecology. J Veg Sci 2:587–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank P.T. Crawford, Oklahoma Biological Survey, and H. Dikeman, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for access to species data, J. Kelly and M. Patten for important statistical advice, R. Channell and G. Schnell for helpful discussions regarding N. americanus and distribution models, and T. Fagin for GIS assistance. C. Vaughn, W. Elisens, and J.S. Greene made comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. D. Arndt of the Oklahoma Climatological Survey was very helpful in compiling the climate data. This work was supported by the Oklahoma Natural Heritage Inventory and the Oklahoma Natural Areas Registry programs.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Oklahoma Biological Survey, University of Oklahoma, 111 E. Chesapeake St., Norman, OK, 73019-0575, USA

    Priscilla H. C. Crawford & Bruce W. Hoagland

  2. Department of Geography, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, 73019-1007, USA

    Bruce W. Hoagland

Authors
  1. Priscilla H. C. Crawford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bruce W. Hoagland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Priscilla H. C. Crawford.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Crawford, P.H.C., Hoagland, B.W. Using species distribution models to guide conservation at the state level: the endangered American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) in Oklahoma. J Insect Conserv 14, 511–521 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-010-9280-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-010-9280-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation