slide1 l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Kentucky GAP: Geographic Area and Minimum Habitat Thresholds in Relation to Accuracy Assessment of Predicted Vertebrate PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Kentucky GAP: Geographic Area and Minimum Habitat Thresholds in Relation to Accuracy Assessment of Predicted Vertebrate

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 35

Kentucky GAP: Geographic Area and Minimum Habitat Thresholds in Relation to Accuracy Assessment of Predicted Vertebrate - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 146 Views
  • Uploaded on

Kentucky GAP: Geographic Area and Minimum Habitat Thresholds in Relation to Accuracy Assessment of Predicted Vertebrate Distributions. Terry L. Derting Adam Smith Howard Whiteman. Kentucky GAP:

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

Kentucky GAP: Geographic Area and Minimum Habitat Thresholds in Relation to Accuracy Assessment of Predicted Vertebrate


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

Kentucky GAP:

Geographic Area and Minimum Habitat Thresholds in Relation to Accuracy Assessment of Predicted Vertebrate Distributions

Terry L. Derting

Adam Smith

Howard Whiteman

slide2

Kentucky GAP:

Geographic Area and Minimum Habitat Thresholds in Relation to Accuracy Assessment of Predicted Vertebrate Distributions

Terry L. Derting

Adam Smith

Howard Whiteman

slide3

Kentucky GAP:

Geographic Area and Minimum Habitat Thresholds in Relation to Accuracy Assessment of Predicted Vertebrate Distributions

Terry L. Derting

Adam Smith

Howard Whiteman

slide4

BroadheadSkink

TigerSalamander

Bobcat

Kentucky Warbler

Species Modeled

Reptiles - 51

Amphibians - 52

Mammals - 63

Breeding Birds - 152

Wintering Birds - 111

slide5

30m2

Input Layers for Models

KY-GAP Land Cover Data

Digital Elevation Model

NWI Data

slide6

Species Distribution Maps

Marginal

Potentially suitable

Potentially suitable-Aquatic

No Data

Gray fox

Tiger salamander

slide7

Marginal

Potentially suitable

Potentially suitable-Aquatic

No Data

Modeling of Edge Habitat

slide8

Accuracy Analysis

Methods of Evaluation:

  • Validation AreaAssessment(803 – 262,415 ha)
slide9

Omission error: species not predicted to occur in area where it had been recorded

Commission error: species predicted to occur in area where it had not been recorded

Match: species occurrence was predicted as recorded

slide10

Methods of Evaluation:

  • Validation Area Assessment(803 – 262,415 ha)
  • Physiographic Province Assessment (204,400 – 2,674,000 ha)

Mississippi Alluvial Basin

Mississippi Embayment

Shawnee Hills

Mississippian Plateaus

Knobs

Bluegrass

Appalachian Plateaus

Cumberland Mountains

Species List

slide11

Methods of Evaluation:

  • Validation Area Assessment
  • Physiographic Province Assessment
  • Statewide Assessment
slide15

Results

Assessment of Validation Areas

80%

slide16

Results

Assessment of Physiographic Provinces

80%

slide17

Results

Statewide Accuracy Assessment

80%

slide18

Amphibians

Reptiles

Mammals

Breeding Birds

Wintering Birds

Results

Statewide Accuracy Assessment (  5 records/species)

100

80%

Percent

50

0

Omission

Match

slide19

Error rates: Aquatic vs. Terrestrial ( 10 records/species)

n=16

n=3

n=23

n=8

P=0.014*

P<0.0001**

*t-test, **Mann-Whitney U test

lessons learned using three levels of geographic area for accuracy assessment
Lessons Learned Using Three Levels of Geographic Area for Accuracy Assessment
  • Use of species lists from very large geographic areas (e.g., provinces) was associated with an exaggerated degree of accuracy.
  • Comparison of accuracy values using multiple validation areas and statewide locational records facilitates identification of model strengths and weaknesses.
minimum habitat threshold comparisons
Minimum Habitat Threshold Comparisons

Mammoth Cave National Park

minimum habitat threshold comparisons22
Minimum Habitat Threshold Comparisons

1% Threshold

 habitat  1% total area

1%

Vulpes vulpes

minimum habitat threshold comparisons23

10%

Minimum Habitat Threshold Comparisons

10% Threshold

 habitat  10%

Vulpes vulpes

slide26

Minimum Habitat Threshold

Minimum Habitat Thresholds for All Groups

slide27

a

a

a*

b

b

b

c

c

Reptiles

Amphibians

a

b

a

b

b

b

c

d

Mammals

Breeding Birds

*ANOVA, P < 0.05

recommendation
Recommendation

Use of minimum habitat thresholds

enhanced biological validity of accuracy assessments

slide32

Acknowledgements

National GAP (USGS)

Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources

acknowledgements
Acknowledgements

Tom Kind Mark Drew Geoff Ghitter Mike Busby

Keith Wethington David Vichitbandha Dave Frederick

Matt Cole Kelly Somerlot

acknowledgements34
Acknowledgements
  • KY Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources Jeff Sole Laura Burford Rocky Pritchert Steve Thomas Sunni Lawless Tim Slone Traci Wethington Jason Paxico Roy Grimes
  • KY State Nature Preserves Commission Brainard Palmer-Ball

Morehead University Les Meade Eastern KY UniversityChuck Elliott Gary Ritchison Paul Cupp Murray State University Duke Wilder Ed Zimmerer Tom Timmons University of Cincinnati Guy Cameron Austin Peay State Univ. Floyd Scott

acknowledgements35
Acknowledgements
  • Daniel Boone National Forest John MacGregor Lynda Perry East KY Power Co. Jeff Hohman University of Kentucky Mike Lacki David Maehr Thomas Barnes EcoTech Hal Bryan