A comparative analysis of common methods to identify waterbird hotspots

Allison L. Sussman; Beth Gardner; Evan M. Adams; Leo Salas; Kevin P. Kenow; David R. Luukkonen; Michael J. Monfils; William P. Mueller; Kate A. Williams; Michelle Leduc-Lapierre; Elise F. Zipkin

doi:10.1111/2041-210x.13209

USGS · 70205447

A comparative analysis of common methods to identify waterbird hotspots

Allison L. Sussman·Beth Gardner·Evan M. Adams·Leo Salas·Kevin P. Kenow·David R. Luukkonen·Michael J. Monfils·William P. Mueller·Kate A. Williams·Michelle Leduc-Lapierre·Elise F. Zipkin

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

1. Hotspot analysis is a commonly used method in ecology and conservation to identify areas of high biodiversity or conservation concern. However, delineating and mapping hotspots is subjective and various approaches can lead to different conclusions with regard to the classification of particular areas as hotspots, complicating long-term conservation planning and implementation efforts. 2. We present a comparative analysis of recent approaches for identifying waterbird hotspots, with the goal of developing insights about the appropriate use of these methods. We selected four commonly used measures to identify persistent areas of high use: kernel density estimation, Getis-Ord Gi*, hotspot persistence, and hotspots conditional on presence, which represent the range of quantitative hotspot estimation approaches used in waterbird analyses. We applied each of the methods to aerial survey waterbird count data collected in the Great Lakes from 2012-2014 using a 5 km2 grid. For each approach, we identified areas of high use for seven species/species groups and then compared the results across all methods. 3. Our results indicate that formal hotspot analysis frameworks do not always lead to the same conclusions. The kernel density and Getis-Ord Gi* methods yielded the most similar results across all species analyzed. We found that these two models can differ substantially from the hotspot persistence and hotspots conditional on presence estimation approaches, which were not consistently similar to one another. The hotspot persistence approach differed most significantly from the other methods but is the only method to explicitly account for temporal variation. 4. We recommend considering the ecological question and scale of any conservation or management activities prior to designing survey methodologies. Deciding the appropriate definition and scale for analysis is critical for interpretation of hotspot analysis results. Combining methods using an integrative approach, either within a single analysis or post-hoc, could lead to greater consistency in the identification of waterbird hotspots.

Explore related subjects

Methods in Ecology and Evolution Article

Source-reported bounding extent: 41.21172151054787° to 46.164614496897094° latitude; -88.76953125° to -78.75° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Allison L. Sussman, Beth Gardner, Evan M. Adams, Leo Salas, Kevin P. Kenow, David R. Luukkonen, Michael J. Monfils, William P. Mueller, Kate A. Williams, Michelle Leduc-Lapierre, Elise F. Zipkin. 2019-07-26. A comparative analysis of common methods to identify waterbird hotspots. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.13209

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2025

Simulated soundscapes and transfer learning boost the performance of acoustic classifiers under data scarcity

1. The biodiversity crisis necessitates spatially extensive methods to monitor multiple taxonomic groups for evidence of change in response to evolving environmental conditions. Programs that combine passive acoustic monitoring and machine learning are increasingly used to meet this need. These methods require large, annotated datasets, which are time-consuming and expensive to produce, creating potential barriers to adoption in data- and funding-poor regions. Recently released pre-trained avian acoustic classification models provide opportunities to reduce the need for manual labelling and accelerate the development of new acoustic classification algorithms through transfer learning. Transfer learning is a strategy for developing algorithms under data scarcity that uses pre-trained models from related tasks to adapt to new tasks. 2. Our primary objective was to develop a transfer learning strategy using the feature embeddings of a pre-trained avian classification model to train custom acoustic classification models in data-scarce contexts. We used three annotated avian acoustic datasets to test whether transfer learning and soundscape simulation-based data augmentation could substantially reduce the annotated training data necessary to develop performant custom acoustic classifiers. We also conducted a sensitivity analysis for hyperparameter choice and model architecture. We then assessed the generalizability of our strategy to increasingly novel non-avian classification tasks. 3. With as few as two training examples per class, our soundscape simulation data augmentation approach consistently yielded new classifiers with improved performance relative to the pre-trained classification model and transfer learning classifiers trained with other augmentation approaches. Performance increases were evident for three avian test datasets, including single-class and multi-label contexts. We observed that the relative performance among our data augmentation approaches varied for the avian datasets and nearly converged for one dataset when we included more training examples. 4. We demonstrate an efficient approach to developing new acoustic classifiers leveraging open-source sound repositories and pre-trained networks to reduce manual labelling. With very few examples, our soundscape simulation approach to data augmentation yielded classifiers with performance equivalent to those trained with many more examples, showing it is possible to reduce manual label-ling while still achieving high-performance classifiers and, in turn, expanding the potential for passive acoustic monitoring to address rising biodiversity monitoring needs.

Methods in Ecology and Evolution↗

USGS2025

Spatial close-kin mark-recapture models applied to terrestrial species with continuous natal dispersal

Close-kin mark–recapture (CKMR) methods use information on genetic relatedness among individuals to estimate demographic parameters. An individual's genotype can be considered a ‘recapture’ of each of its parent's genotype, and the frequency of kin-pair matches detected in a population sample can directly inform estimates of abundance. CKMR inference procedures require analysts to define kinship probabilities in functional forms, which inevitably involve simplifying assumptions. Among others, population structure can have a strong influence on how kinship probabilities are formulated. Many terrestrial species are philopatric or face barriers to dispersal, and not accounting for dispersal limitation in kinship probabilities, can create substantial bias if sampling is also spatially structured (e.g. via harvest). We present a spatially explicit formulation of CKMR that corrects for incomplete mixing by incorporating natal dispersal distances and spatial distribution of individuals into the kinship probabilities. We used individual-based simulations to evaluate the accuracy of abundance estimates obtained with one spatially naïve and two spatially explicit CKMR models across six scenarios with distinct spatial patterns of relative abundance and sampling probability. Estimates of abundance obtained with a CKMR model naïve to spatial structure were negatively biased when sampling was spatially biased. Incorporating patterns of natal dispersal in the kinship probabilities helped address this bias, but estimates were not always accurate depending on the model used and the scenario considered. Incorporating natal dispersal into spatially structured CKMR models can address the bias created by population structure and heterogeneous sampling but will often require additional assumptions and auxiliary data (e.g. relative abundance indices). The models shown here were designed for terrestrial species with continuous patterns of natal dispersal and high year-to-year site fidelity but could be extended to other species.

Methods in Ecology and Evolution↗

USGS2025

Sampling mass mortality events to enable diagnoses: A protocol using freshwater mussels

Many taxa around the globe are threatened by often unexplained mass mortality events (MMEs), which can decimate populations and compromise key ecosystem functions. One example of a highly threatened taxon facing frequent MMEs is freshwater mussels (Unionida). There has been a recent increase in interest in understanding the causes of freshwater mussel MMEs, but standardised methodologies for how best to respond to them to facilitate diagnoses are unavailable. When an MME is observed, swift and appropriate sample collection is imperative owing to the transient nature of these phenomena. Here we provide structured guidance that will facilitate rapid and appropriate sampling of MMEs, using freshwater mussels as an example. We set out standardised procedures for sample collection, preparation and preservation. The procedures we outline will improve our capacity for diagnostic investigations of MMEs and other mortality events, not only in freshwater mussels but also across many other taxa. This, in turn, can inform appropriate management responses.

Methods in Ecology and Evolution↗