Search USGSSearch

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “American Birds”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 289 records · Page 16Linked to original sources

Misleading prioritizations from modelling range shifts under climate change

Aim Conservation planning requires the prioritization of a subset of taxa and geographical locations to focus monitoring and management efforts. Integration of the threats and opportunities posed by climate change often relies on predictions from species distribution models, particularly for assessments of vulnerability or invasion risk for multiple taxa. We evaluated whether species distribution models could reliably rank changes in species range size under climate and land use change. Location Conterminous U.S.A. Time period 1977–2014. Major taxa studied Passerine birds. Methods We estimated ensembles of species distribution models based on historical North American Breeding Bird Survey occurrences for 190 songbirds, and generated predictions to recent years given c . 35 years of observed land use and climate change. We evaluated model predictions using standard metrics of discrimination performance and a more detailed assessment of the ability of models to rank species vulnerability to climate change based on predicted range loss, range gain, and overall change in range size. Results Species distribution models yielded unreliable and misleading assessments of relative vulnerability to climate and land use change. Models could not accurately predict range expansion or contraction, and therefore failed to anticipate patterns of range change among species. These failures occurred despite excellent overall discrimination ability and transferability to the validation time period, which reflected strong performance at the majority of locations that were either always or never occupied by each species. Main conclusions Models failed for the questions and at the locations of greatest interest to conservation and management. This highlights potential pitfalls of multi-taxa impact assessments under global change; in our case, models provided misleading rankings of the most impacted species, and spatial information about range changes was not credible. As modelling methods and frameworks continue to be refined, performance assessments and validation efforts should focus on the measures of risk and vulnerability useful for decision-making.

Global Ecology and Biogeography

Assessing the efficacy of protected and multiple-use lands for bird conservation in the U.S.

Setting land aside has long been a primary approach for protecting biodiversity; however, the efficacy of this approach has been questioned. We examined whether protecting lands positively influences bird species in the U.S., and thus overall biodiversity. We used the North American Breeding Bird Survey and Protected Areas Database of the U.S. to assess effects of protected and multiple-use lands on the prevalence and long-term population trends of imperiled and non-imperiled bird species. We evaluated whether both presence and proportional area of protected and multiple-use lands surrounding survey routes affected prevalence and population trends for imperiled and non-imperiled species. Regarding presence of these lands surrounding these survey routes, our results suggest that imperiled and non-imperiled species are using the combination of protected and multiple-use lands more than undesignated lands. We found no difference between protected and multiple-use lands. Mean population trends were negative for imperiled species in all land categories and did not differ between the land categories. Regarding proportion of protected lands surrounding the survey routes, we found that neither the prevalence nor population trends of imperiled or non-imperiled species was positively associated with any land category. We conclude that, although many species (in both groups) tend to be using these protected and multiple-use lands more frequently than undesignated lands, this protection does not appear to improve population trends. Our results may be influenced by external pressures (e.g., habitat fragmentation), the size of protected lands, the high mobility of birds that allows them to use a combination of all land categories, and management strategies that result in similar habitat between protected and multiple-use lands, or our approach to detect limited relationships. Overall, our results suggest that the combination of protected and multiple-use lands is insufficient, alone, to prevent declines in avian biodiversity at a national scale.

PLoS ONE