Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHermoso, Virgilio
dc.contributor.authorKennard, Mark J
dc.contributor.authorLinke, Simon
dc.date.accessioned2017-11-22T04:03:51Z
dc.date.available2017-11-22T04:03:51Z
dc.date.issued2015
dc.identifier.issn0305-0270
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/jbi.12393
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/160724
dc.description.abstractAim: Presence-only data represent a significant source of information for quantifying biodiversity distributions and provide opportunities for use in conservation planning. The large databases of presence-only records that are available and the lower cost of acquisition could help overcome the traditional problem of lack of data for conservation. However, there are risks associated with the use of presence-only data inherent with the lack of true absences that might cause omission errors (species are erroneously thought to be absent) and loss of efficiency (more areas are thought to be necessary than needed). These errors could constrain the economic viability of conservation plans and thus the success of conservation practice. We therefore evaluated the opportunities and risks of using presence-only data for conservation planning. Location: Northern Australia. Methods: The effects of using two different types (presence-only and presence–absence) and different quantities of data were simulated by building predictive models on different subsets of data with increasing numbers of presence–absence or presence-only records or a combination of both, for 80 freshwater fish species. We then compared the performance of conservation planning outcomes with the best information attainable (a true model built on the complete set of presence–absence data). We measured omission and commission errors in conservation planning outcomes, and the efficiency of and return on the investment in data acquisition. Results: Including presence-only data helped reduce commission and omission errors in conservation planning outcomes, but only when used in combination with at least some presence–absence data. The use of just a large quantity of presence-only data resulted in significant reductions in the efficiency of conservation planning outcomes, as more areas than actually needed were required to achieve conservation targets. This reduction in efficiency was mainly related to inflated omission errors. Main conclusions: We recommend using presence-only data cautiously if this is the only source of data available; whenever possible, presence-only data should be complemented with presence–absence data.
dc.description.peerreviewedYes
dc.languageEnglish
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdom
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom218
dc.relation.ispartofpageto228
dc.relation.ispartofissue2
dc.relation.ispartofjournalJournal of Biogeography
dc.relation.ispartofvolume42
dc.subject.fieldofresearchEarth sciences
dc.subject.fieldofresearchEnvironmental sciences
dc.subject.fieldofresearchEnvironmental management
dc.subject.fieldofresearchBiological sciences
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode37
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode41
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode410404
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode31
dc.titleAssessing the risks and opportunities of presence-only data for conservation planning
dc.typeJournal article
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Articles
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articles
gro.facultyGriffith Sciences, Griffith School of Environment
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text
gro.griffith.authorKennard, Mark J.


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record