Aligning marine species range data to better serve science and conservation

Casey C. O'Hara1
Jamie C. Afflerbach1
Courtney Scarborough1
Kristin Kaschner2
Benjamin S. Halpern1,3,4

  1. National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, University of California, Santa Barbara CA, United States of America
  2. Department of Biometry and Environmental Systems Analysis, Albert-Ludwigs University, Tennenbacher Straße 4, 79106 Freiburg i. Br., Germany
  3. Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa Barbara CA, United States of America
  4. Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, Silwood Park Campus, Ascot, United Kingdom

Please cite as: O'Hara CC, Afflerbach JC, Scarborough C, Kaschner K, Halpern BS (2017) Aligning marine species range data to better serve science and conservation. PLoS ONE 12(5): e0175739. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0175739


We are thankful to Melanie Frazier, Julia Stewart Lowndes, Halley Froehlich, and Claire Runge for their insightful comments on this manuscript, and to the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis for computational support.

Abstract

Species distribution data provide the foundation for a wide range of ecological research studies and conservation management decisions. Two major efforts to provide marine species distributions at a global scale are the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which provides expert-generated range maps that outline the complete extent of a species' distribution; and AquaMaps, which provides model-generated species distribution maps that predict areas occupied by the species. Together these databases represent 24,586 species (93.1% within AquaMaps, 16.4% within IUCN), with only 2,330 shared species.

Differences in intent and methodology can result in very different predictions of species distributions, which bear important implications for scientists and decision makers who rely upon these datasets when conducting research or informing conservation policy and management actions. Comparing distributions for the small subset of species with maps in both datasets, we found that AquaMaps and IUCN range maps show strong agreement for many well-studied species, but our analysis highlights several key examples in which introduced errors drive differences in predicted species ranges. In particular, we find that IUCN maps greatly overpredict coral presence into unsuitably deep waters, and we show that some AquaMaps computer-generated default maps (only 5.7% of which have been reviewed by experts) can produce odd discontinuities at the extremes of a species’ predicted range.

We illustrate the scientific and management implications of these tradeoffs by repeating a global analysis of gaps in coverage of marine protected areas, and find significantly different results depending on how the two datasets are used. By highlighting tradeoffs between the two datasets, we hope to encourage increased collaboration between taxa experts and large scale species distribution modeling efforts to further improve these foundational datasets, helping to better inform science and policy recommendations around understanding, managing, and protecting marine biodiversity.

Aligning marine species range data to better serve science and conservation

Casey C. O'Hara1
Jamie C. Afflerbach1
Courtney Scarborough1
Kristin Kaschner2
Benjamin S. Halpern1,3,4

  1. National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, University of California, Santa Barbara CA, United States of America
  2. Department of Biometry and Environmental Systems Analysis, Albert-Ludwigs University, Tennenbacher Straße 4, 79106 Freiburg i. Br., Germany
  3. Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa Barbara CA, United States of America
  4. Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, Silwood Park Campus, Ascot, United Kingdom

Please cite as: O'Hara CC, Afflerbach JC, Scarborough C, Kaschner K, Halpern BS (2017) Aligning marine species range data to better serve science and conservation. PLoS ONE 12(5): e0175739. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0175739


We are thankful to Melanie Frazier, Julia Stewart Lowndes, Halley Froehlich, and Claire Runge for their insightful comments on this manuscript, and to the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis for computational support.

Figures from manuscript

Figure 1:

fig 1

Fig 1. Taxonomic and geographic coverage of AquaMaps and IUCN range data. (A) Number and proportion of species by taxa included in each dataset (22,889 species in AquaMaps, 4,027 species in IUCN). Overlapping species are dominated by bony fishes (994 species, primarily tropical taxa) and corals (394 species). (B, C) Global marine species count per 0.5° cell according to (B) AquaMaps and © IUCN. The margin frequency plots show relative species count per cell at each latitude and longitude.


Figure 2:

fig 2

Fig 2. Comparison of alignment between AquaMaps and IUCN range data. (A) Distribution alignment (overlap of smaller range within larger) versus area ratio (the ratio of smaller range area to the larger range area) for 2,330 species included in both IUCN and AquaMaps datasets. The upper right quadrant comprises species whose maps largely agree in both spatial distribution and the extent of described ranges (n = 522; 22.4% of paired map species). The upper left quadrant comprises species whose maps agree well in distribution, but disagree in area (n = 715; 30.7%). The lower right quadrant includes species for which the paired maps generally agree in range area, but disagree on where those ranges occur (n = 649; 27.9%). The lower left quadrant indicates species for which the map pairs agree poorly in both area and distribution (n = 444; 19.1%). (B) Alignment quadrant breakdown of species by taxonomic group.


Figure 3:

fig 3

Fig 3. Effect of 200 m depth constraint on IUCN range maps for coral species. (A) Aggregate map combining ranges of the 562 coral species mapped in the IUCN dataset, showing raw ranges and ranges clipped to 200 m depth. (B) Alignment quadrant breakdown of paired map coral species using original data from IUCN and AquaMaps (as in Fig 2B) and the same species with IUCN ranges clipped to 200 m depth.


Figure 4: