Geology topics

William V. Deluca

Publications and source records attributed to William V. Deluca.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2025

Does habitat or climate change drive species range shifts?

A primary prediction of climate change ecology is that species will track their climate niche poleward and upslope. However, studies have shown species responding in surprising ways. In this study, we aim to understand the impact of global change on species ranges by considering both climate and habitat changes. Using occupancy analysis of acoustic survey data in the mountains of the northeastern United States, we tested specific predictions of range responses to warming (shifting upslope), precipitation change (shifting downslope), and forest composition change (shifting downslope). We found that American red squirrels Tamiasciurus hudsonicus , key nodes in northern North American food webs, are not tracking increasing temperatures upslope, despite substantial warming in recent decades. Structural equation modeling indicates that red squirrel abundance is primarily influenced by red-spruce forest cover, which has shifted downslope with recovery from historical logging and acid deposition. Accounting for the multiple dimensions of global change will enable better predictions and more effective conservation strategies.

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, ↗

USGS2024

Strategic restoration planning for land birds in the Colorado River Delta, Mexico

Ecological restoration is an essential strategy for mitigating the current biodiversity crisis, yet restoration actions are costly. We used systematic conservation planning principles to design an approach that prioritizes restoration sites for birds and tested it in a riparian forest restoration program in the Colorado River Delta. Restoration goals were to maximize the abundance and diversity of 15 priority birds with a variety of habitat preferences. We built abundance models for priority birds based on the current landscape, and predicted bird distributions and relative abundances under a scenario of complete riparian forest restoration throughout our study area. Then, we used Zonation conservation planning software to rank this restored landscape based on core areas for all priority birds. The locations with the highest ranks represented the highest priorities for restoration and were located throughout the river reach. We optimized how much of the available landscape to restore by simulating restoration of the top 10–90% of ranked sites in 10% intervals. We found that total diversity was maximized when 40% of the landscape was restored, and mean relative abundance was maximized when 80% of the landscape was restored. The results suggest that complete restoration is not optimal for this community of priority birds and restoration of approximately 60% of the landscape would provide a balance between maximum relative abundance and diversity. Subsequent planning efforts will combine our results with an assessment of restoration costs to provide further decision support for the restoration-siting process. Our approach can be applied to any landscape-scale restoration program to improve the return on investment of limited economic resources for restoration.

Colorado River Delta↗

USGS2021

How well do proxy species models inform conservation of surrogate species?

Context Proxy species, which represent suites of organisms with similar habitat requirements, are common in conservation. Landscape Capability (LC) models aim to quantify the spatially-explicit capability of landscapes to support proxy species that represent suites of forest birds. Objectives We evaluated the North Atlantic Landscape Conservation Cooperative (NALCC) proxy models of LC and represented species framework across 13 states in the northeastern United States from Virginia to Maine. We validated a suite of questions related to co-occurrence of proxy and represented species with a compilation of independent datasets. Methods We tested proxy species LC models ability to explain represented species’ occurrences, including using multiple proxies together, and benchmarked against empirical data and land cover type classifications. We tested effect of several factors on predictive ability including relative range overlap and ecological and taxonomic dissimilarity between proxy and represented species. Results LC models performed variably, but represented species occurrences were rarely predicted as accurately as proxy species. Models improved predictions over macrohabitat classifications. Using multiple proxies together occasionally improved predictions of represented species. Considerable range overlap was needed for models to be predictive of represented species. Ecological and taxonomic similarity had no effect on predictive ability. LC models worked similarly to using empirical observations, suggesting shortcomings were because of imperfect surrogacy. Conclusions Conservation proxies as representatives of species groups that are associated with macrohabitats are useful, but empirical data are necessary to evaluate proxy species’ effectiveness. Habitat-based models can provide similar predictive ability as empirical observations of proxies and represent a useful tool in conservation planning.

Landscape Ecology↗