Incorporating ecological principles into statistical models for the prediction of species' distribution and abundance. Issue 3 (24th September 2012)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Stewart‐Koster, Ben; Boone, Edward L.; Kennard, Mark J.; Sheldon, Fran; Bunn, Stuart E.; Olden, Julian D.
• Is Part Of: Ecography. Volume 36:Issue 3(2013:Mar.)
• Page Start: 342
• Page End: 353
• Publication Date: 2012-09-24
• Subjects: Ecology -- Periodicals; Biodiversity -- Periodicals; 574.5
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2012.07764.x
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0906-7590

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main" xml:lang="en"> <title> <x xml:space="preserve">Abstract</x> </title> <p>Understanding the determinants of species' distributions and abundances is a central theme in ecology. The development of statistical models to achieve this has a long history and the notion that the model should closely reflect underlying scientific understanding has encouraged ecologists to adopt complex statistical methods as they arise. In this paper we describe a Bayesian hierarchical model that reflects a conceptual ecological model of multi‐scaled environmental determinants of riverine fish species' distributions and abundances. We illustrate this with distribution and abundance data of a small‐bodied fish species, the Empire gudgeon <italic>Hypseleotris galii</italic>, in the Mary and Albert Rivers, Queensland, Australia. Specifically, the model sought to address; 1) the extent that landscape‐scale abiotic variables can explain the species' distribution compared to local‐scale variables, 2) how local‐scale abiotic variables can explain species' abundances, and 3) how are these local‐scale relationships mediated by landscape‐scale variables. Overall, the model accounted for around 60% of variation in the distribution and abundance of <italic>H. galii</italic>. The findings show that the landscape‐scale variables explain much of the distribution of the species; however, there was considerable improvement in estimating the species' distribution with the addition of local‐scale variables. There were many strong relationships between abundance and local‐scale abiotic variables; however, several of these relationships were mediated by some of the landscape‐scale variables. The extent of spatial autocorrelation in the data was relatively low compared to the distances among sampling reaches. Our findings exemplify that Bayesian statistical modelling provides a robust framework for statistical modelling that reflects our ecological understanding. This allows ecologists to address a range of ecological questions with a single unified probability model rather than a series of disconnected analyses.</p> </abstract>