Publications
NIBIOs employees contribute to several hundred scientific articles and research reports every year. You can browse or search in our collection which contains references and links to these publications as well as other research and dissemination activities. The collection is continously updated with new and historical material.
2020
Abstract
No abstract has been registered
Abstract
No abstract has been registered
Abstract
Aim: Distribution modelling is a useful approach to obtain knowledge about the spatial distribution of biodiversity, required for, for example, red-list assessments. While distribution modelling methods have been applied mostly to single species, modelling of communities and ecosystems (EDM; ecosystem-level distribution modelling) produces results that are more directly relevant for management and decision-making. Although the choice of predictors is a pivotal part of the modelling process, few studies have compared the suitability of different sets of predictors for EDM. In this study, we compare the performance of 50 single environmental variables with that of 11 composite landscape gradients (CLGs) for prediction of ecosystem types. The CLGs represent gradients in landscape element composition derived from multivariate analyses, for example “inner-outer coast” and “land use intensity.” Location: Norway. Methods: We used data from field-based ecosystem-type mapping of nine ecosystem types, and environmental variables with a resolution of 100 × 100 m. We built nine models for each ecosystem type with variables from different predictor sets. Logistic regression with forward selection of variables was used for EDM. Models were evaluated with independently collected data. Results: Most ecosystem types could be predicted reliably, although model performance differed among ecosystem types. We identified significant differences in predictive power and model parsimony across models built from different predictor sets. Climatic variables alone performed poorly, indicating that the current climate alone is not sufficient to predict the current distribution of ecosystems. Used alone, the CLGs resulted in parsimonious models with relatively high predictive power. Used together with other variables, they consistently improved the models. Main conclusions: Our study highlights the importance of variable selection in EDM. We argue that the use of composite variables as proxies for complex environmental gradients has the potential to improve predictions from EDMs and thus to inform conservation planning as well as improve the precision and credibility of red lists and global change assessments.conservation planning, distribution modelling, ecosystem classification, ecosystem types, IUCN Red List of Ecosystems, landscape gradients, spatial prediction, species response curves
Abstract
No abstract has been registered
Abstract
No abstract has been registered
Authors
Grete StokstadAbstract
No abstract has been registered
Authors
Simon Jakobsson Joachim Paul Töpper Marianne Evju Erik Framstad Anders Lyngstad Bård Pedersen Hanne Sickel Anne Sverdrup-Thygeson Vigdis Vandvik Liv Guri Velle Per Arild Aarrestad Signe NybøAbstract
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons CC-BY license, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Authors
Cathrine Brekke Linn Fenne Groeneveld Theodorus Meuwissen Nina Svartedal Steffen Weigend Peer BergAbstract
No abstract has been registered
Abstract
No abstract has been registered
Abstract
The abstract classification system Nature in Norway (NiN) has detailed ecological definitions of a high number of ecosystem units, but its applicability in practical vegetation mapping is unknown because it was not designed with a specific mapping method in mind. To investigate this further, two methods for mapping – 3D aerial photographic interpretation of colour infrared photos and field survey – were used to map comparable neighbouring sites of 1 km2 in Hvaler Municipality, south-eastern Norway. The classification accuracy of each method was evaluated using a consensus classification of 160 randomly distributed plots within the study sites. The results showed an overall classification accuracy of 62.5% for 3D aerial photographic interpretation and 82.5% for field survey. However, the accuracy varied for the ecosystem units mapped. The classification accuracy of ecosystem units in acidic, dry and open terrain was similar for both methods, whereas classification accuracy of calcareous units was highest using field survey. The mapping progress using 3D aerial photographic interpretation was more than two times faster than that of field survey. Based on the results, the authors recommend a method combining 3D aerial photographic interpretation and field survey to achieve effectively accurate mapping in practical applications of the NiN system.