Suchergebnisse

Due to socioeconomic differences, the accuracy and extent of reporting on the occurrence of native species differs among countries, which can impact the performance of species distribution models. We assessed the importance of geographical biases in occurrence data on model performance using Hydrilla verticillata as a case study. We used Maxent to predict potential North American distribution of the aquatic invasive macrophyte based upon training data from its native range. We produced a model using all available native range occurrence data, then explored the change in model performance produced by omitting subsets of training data based on political boundaries. We also compared those results with models trained on data from which a random sample of occurrence data was omitted from across the native range. Although most models accurately predicted the occurrence of H. verticillata in North America (AUC > 0.7600), data omissions influenced model predictions. Omitting data based on political boundaries resulted in larger shifts in model accuracy than omitting randomly selected occurrence data. For well-documented species like H. verticillata, missing records from single countries or ecoregions may minimally influence model predictions, but for species with fewer documented occurrences or poorly understood ranges, geographic biases could misguide predictions. Regardless of focal species, we recommend that future species distribution modeling efforts begin with a reflection on potential spatial biases of available occurrence data. Improved biodiversity surveillance and reporting will provide benefit not only in invaded ranges but also within under-reported and unexplored native ranges.

Effective engagement among scientists, government agency staff, and policymakers is necessary for solving fisheries challenges, but remains challenging for a variety of reasons. We present seven practices learned from a collaborative project focused on invasive species in the Great Lakes region (USA‐CAN). These practices were based on a researcher–manager model composed of a research team, a management advisory board, and a bridging organization. We suggest this type of system functions well when (1) the management advisory board is provided compelling rationale for engagement; (2) the process uses key individuals as communicators; (3) the research team thoughtfully selects organizations and individuals involved; (4) the funding entity provides logistical support and allows for (5) a flexible structure that prioritizes management needs; (6) a bridging organization sustains communication between in‐person meetings; and (7) the project team determines and enacts a project endpoint. We predict these approaches apply equally effectively to other challenges at the research–management–policy interface, including reductions of water pollution, transitions to renewable energy, increasing food security, and addressing climate change.

Following decades of ecologic and economic impacts from a growing list of nonindigenous and invasive species, government and management entities are committing to systematic early- detection monitoring (EDM). This has reinvigorated investment in the science underpinning such monitoring, as well as the need to convey that science in practical terms to those tasked with EDM implementation. Using the context of nonindigenous species in the North American Great Lakes, this article summarizes the current scientific tools and knowledge – including limitations, research needs, and likely future developments – relevant to various aspects of planning and conducting comprehensive EDM. We begin with the scope of the effort, contrasting target-species with broad-spectrum monitoring, reviewing information to support prioritization based on species and locations, and exploring the challenge of moving beyond individual surveys towards a coordinated monitoring network. Next, we discuss survey design, including effort to expend and its allocation over space and time. A section on sample collection and analysis overviews the merits of collecting actual organisms versus shed DNA, reviews the capabilities and limitations of identification by morphology, DNA target markers, or DNA barcoding, and examines best practices for sample handling and data verification. We end with a section addressing the analysis of monitoring data, including methods to evaluate survey performance and characterize and communicate uncertainty. Although the body of science supporting EDM implementation is already substantial, research and information needs (many already actively being addressed) include: better data to support risk assessments that guide choice of taxa and locations to monitor; improved understanding of spatiotemporal scales for sample collection; further development of DNA target markers, reference barcodes, genomic workflows, and synergies between DNA-based and morphology-based taxonomy; and tools and information management systems for ...

Following decades of ecologic and economic impacts from a growing list of nonindigenous and invasive species, government and management entities are committing to systematic early- detection monitoring (EDM). This has reinvigorated investment in the science underpinning such monitoring, as well as the need to convey that science in practical terms to those tasked with EDM implementation. Using the context of nonindigenous species in the North American Great Lakes, this article summarizes the current scientific tools and knowledge – including limitations, research needs, and likely future developments – relevant to various aspects of planning and conducting comprehensive EDM. We begin with the scope of the effort, contrasting target-species with broad-spectrum monitoring, reviewing information to support prioritization based on species and locations, and exploring the challenge of moving beyond individual surveys towards a coordinated monitoring network. Next, we discuss survey design, including effort to expend and its allocation over space and time. A section on sample collection and analysis overviews the merits of collecting actual organisms versus shed DNA, reviews the capabilities and limitations of identification by morphology, DNA target markers, or DNA barcoding, and examines best practices for sample handling and data verification. We end with a section addressing the analysis of monitoring data, including methods to evaluate survey performance and characterize and communicate uncertainty. Although the body of science supporting EDM implementation is already substantial, research and information needs (many already actively being addressed) include: better data to support risk assessments that guide choice of taxa and locations to monitor; improved understanding of spatiotemporal scales for sample collection; further development of DNA target markers, reference barcodes, genomic workflows, and synergies between DNA-based and morphology-based taxonomy; and tools and information management systems for better evaluating and communicating survey outcomes and uncertainty.