Search

Copyright of Plateau Meteorology is the property of Plateau Meteorology Editorial Office and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Plateau Meteorology is the property of Plateau Meteorology Editorial Office and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Hydrogeology & Engineering Geology / Shuiwendizhi Gongchengdizhi is the property of Hydrogeology & Engineering Geology Editorial Office and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Estimates of biodiversity change are essential for the management and conservation of ecosystems. Accurate estimates rely on selecting representative sites, but monitoring often focuses on sites of special interest. How such site‐selection biases influence estimates of biodiversity change is largely unknown. Site‐selection bias potentially occurs across four major sources of biodiversity data, decreasing in likelihood from citizen science, museums, national park monitoring, and academic research. We defined site‐selection bias as a preference for sites that are either densely populated (i.e., abundance bias) or species rich (i.e., richness bias). We simulated biodiversity change in a virtual landscape and tracked the observed biodiversity at a sampled site. The site was selected either randomly or with a site‐selection bias. We used a simple spatially resolved, individual‐based model to predict the movement or dispersal of individuals in and out of the chosen sampling site. Site‐selection bias exaggerated estimates of biodiversity loss in sites selected with a bias by on average 300–400% compared with randomly selected sites. Based on our simulations, site‐selection bias resulted in positive trends being estimated as negative trends: richness increase was estimated as 0.1 in randomly selected sites, whereas sites selected with a bias showed a richness change of −0.1 to −0.2 on average. Thus, site‐selection bias may falsely indicate decreases in biodiversity. We varied sampling design and characteristics of the species and found that site‐selection biases were strongest in short time series, for small grains, organisms with low dispersal ability, large regional species pools, and strong spatial aggregation. Based on these findings, to minimize site‐selection bias, we recommend use of systematic site‐selection schemes; maximizing sampling area; calculating biodiversity measures cumulatively across plots; and use of biodiversity measures that are less sensitive to rare species, such as the effective number of species. Awareness of the potential impact of site‐selection bias is needed for biodiversity monitoring, the design of new studies on biodiversity change, and the interpretation of existing data. Article impact statement: Nonsubjective site selection is important for accurate estimation of the direction of biodiversity change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The development of species recovery plans requires considering likely outcomes of different management interventions, but the complicating effects of climate change are rarely evaluated. We examined how qualitative network models (QNMs) can be deployed to support decision making when data, time, and funding limitations restrict use of more demanding quantitative methods. We used QNMs to evaluate management interventions intended to promote the rebuilding of a collapsed stock of blue king crab (Paralithodes platypus) (BKC) around the Pribilof Islands (eastern Bering Sea) to determine how their potential efficacy may change under climate change. Based on stakeholder input and a literature review, we constructed a QNM that described the life cycle of BKC, key ecological interactions, potential climate‐change impacts, relative interaction strengths, and uncertainty in terms of interaction strengths and link presence. We performed sensitivity analyses to identify key sources of prediction uncertainty. Under a scenario of no climate change, predicted increases in BKC were reliable only when stock enhancement was implemented in a BKC hatchery‐program scenario. However, when climate change was accounted for, the intervention could not counteract its adverse impacts, which had an overall negative effect on BKC. The remaining management scenarios related to changes in fishing effort on BKC predators. For those scenarios, BKC outcomes were unreliable, but climate change further decreased the probability of observing recovery. Including information on relative interaction strengths increased the likelihood of predicting positive outcomes for BKC approximately 5–50% under the management scenarios. The largest gains in prediction precision will be made by reducing uncertainty associated with ecological interactions between adult BKC and red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus). Qualitative network models are useful options when data are limited, but they remain underutilized in conservation. Article Impact Statement: Climate change can alter predicted outcomes of management interventions and qualitative network models can identify risks in data‐limited settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]