An assessment of relative habitat use as a metric for species’ habitat association and degree of specialization

Ecological Indicators

Sergi Herrando¹  Norbert Teufelbauer²  Frédéric Jiguet²  John A. Kålås³  Richard D. Gregory⁴  Dario Massimino⁵  Petr Voříšek⁶  Lluís Brotons⁷  Ingar Jostein Øien⁸  Tomasz Chodkiewicz⁹  Ruud P.B. Foppen^1,10  Alena Klvaňová^1,11  Eva Šilarová^1,12  Simon J. Butler^1,13  Jiří Reif^1,13  Thomas Vikstrøm^1,14  Virginia Escandell^1,15  Anna Gamero^1,16  Johannes Kamp^1,17  Chris van Turnhout^1,18  Ainars Aunins^1,19  Aleksi Lehikoinen^2,20  Enya O'Reilly^2,21  Åke Lindström^2,22  Sven Trautmann^2,23 

[1] CREAF, 08193 Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain;CSIC, 08193 Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain;Catalan Ornithological Institute (ICO), Natural History Museum of Barcelona, Plaça Leonardo da Vinci 4–5, 08019, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain;Corresponding author.;;Department of Animal Ecology &Department of Conservation Biology, University of Göttingen, Bürgerstrasse 50, 37073 Göttingen, Germany;;Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment, Centre for Biodiversity &Ecophysiology, Institute for Water and Wetland Research, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands;Environment Research, University College London, London, UK;Latvian Ornithological Society, Skolas iela 3, Riga LV-1010, Latvia;Polish Society for the Protection of Birds (OTOP), ul. Odrowaza 24, Marki, 05–270, Poland;CREAF, 08193 Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain;Czech Society for Ornithology, Na Bělidle 34, 150 00 Prague 5, Czech Republic;Dachverband Deutscher Avifaunisten e.V. (DDA), An denSpeichern 2, 48157 Münster, Germany;Department of Zoology and Animal Ecology, Faculty of Biology, University of Latvia, Jelgavas iela 1, Riga LV-1004, Latvia;InForest Jru (CTFC-CREAF), Solsona 25280, Spain;Museum and Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Wilcza 64, Warszawa 00–679, Poland;Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, P.O. Box 5685, NO-7485 Trondheim, Norway;RSPB Centre for Conservation Science, Sandy, UK;SEO/BirdLife, Madrid, Spain;School of Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK;Sovon Dutch Centre for Field Ornithology, Nijmegen, the Netherlands;UMR7204 Centre d'Ecologie et des Sciences de la Conservation (CESCO UMR 7204), MNHN CNRS Sorbonne Université, Paris, France;

关键词: Biodiversity loss;    Relative habitat use;    European birds;    Monitoring;    Specialist species;    Habitat specialization;   

DOI  :  

来源: DOAJ

【 摘 要 】

In order to understand species’ sensitivity to habitat change, we must correctly determine if a species is associated with a habitat or not, and if it is associated, its degree of specialization for that habitat. However, definitions of species’ habitat association and specialization are often static, categorical classifications that coarsely define species as either habitat specialists or generalists and can fail to account for potential temporal or spatial differences in association or specialization. In contrast, quantitative metrics can provide a more nuanced assessment, defining species’ habitat associations and specialization along a continuous scale and accommodate for temporal or spatial variation, but these approaches are less widely used. Here we explore relative habitat use (RHU) as a metric for quantifying species’ association with and degree of specialization for different habitat types. RHU determines the extent of a species’ association with a given habitat by comparing its abundance in that habitat relative to its mean abundance across all other habitats. Using monitoring data for breeding birds across Europe from 1998 to 2017; we calculate RHU scores for 246 species for five habitat types and compared them to the literature-based classifications of their association with and specialization for each of these habitats. We also explored the temporal variation in species’ RHU scores for each habitat and assessed how this varied according to association and degree of specialization. In general, species’ RHU and literature-derived classifications were well aligned, as RHU scores for a given habitat increased in line with reported association and specialization. In addition, temporal variation in RHU scores were influenced by association and degree of specialization, with lower scores for those associated with, and those more specialized to, a given habitat. As a continuous metric, RHU allows a detailed assessment of species’ association with and degree of specialization for different habitats that can be tailored to specific temporal and/or spatial requirements. It has the potential to be a valuable tool for identifying indicator species and in supporting the design, implementation and monitoring of conservation management actions.

【 授权许可】

Unknown