ESA 2016: Look out for us!


This year’s Ecological Society of Australia conference is upon us! Next week will see the annual migration of a flock of qaecologists over to the conference, held this year in Fremantle, WA. There will be presentations & posters on topics ranging from feral predator management, to the impacts of global trade on biodiversity, to validating distribution models, to using drones to find sneaky tree kangaroos!

In addition, Jane Elith will be giving the Keynote address on Tuesday morning, where she will be presented with the Australian Ecology Research Award for 2016. Jane will be giving a talk about the application, challenges and recent progress in using species distribution models with kinds of data that are typically available.

So if you’re heading to ESA, keep an eye out for the following talks & posters from qaeco members throughout the week: Continue reading

Posted in Conference, Qaecologists, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Reading group: Assessing species vulnerability to climate change

Climate change is predicted to be one of the major threats to the biodiversity loss in the coming century, both via direct impacts on species and through synergistic effects of other extinction drivers. For last week’s reading group, master’s student Anwar Hossain, selected a paper titled “Assessing species vulnerability to climate change”, published in the journal Nature Climate Change. The paper, led by Michela Pacifici and his colleagues of the IUCN Climate Change Specialist Group, examined the focus of existing studies on species’ vulnerability to climate change, and discussed the limitations /benefits of three main approaches used to conduct such assessments (i.e., correlative, mechanistic and trait-based approaches). Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Congratulations to our qaeco grant-getters!

The latest round of ARC funding has been announced and we would like to congratulate those qaeco members who were successful in their applications:

Brendan Wintle & Pia Lentini received funding on their Discovery Project predicting the ecological and economic impacts of trade. They will be working alongside their CEBRA colleagues Mark Burgman & Tom Kompas, CSIRO scientist Dr. Brett Bryan, & Professor Joshua Lawler at the University of Washington, as well as a number of postdocs & PhD students. This project “aims to understand and predict the effects of global trade on land use and biodiversity. Growth in international trade increases trade-mediated land-use by increasing demand for commodities directly or indirectly derived from the land. Accurate predictions of trade effects and opportunities would allow governments to maximise ecological and economic benefits and minimise effects through judicious planning and regulation, but such analyses do not exist. This project expects to advance trade policy evaluation by improving and integrating computable global equilibrium models and land-use and ecological models to better characterise consequences of trade.”original_pink-and-teal-fun-printed-balloons

Reid Tingley was awarded a DECRA (Discovery Early Career Researcher Award) to conduct research into incorporating developmental plasticity into models of species distributions. His project “aims to develop a generalizable framework for predicting effects of environmental variability on organisms’ developmental strategies, using anuran tadpoles as a test case. This framework will reveal how environmental variability influences geographic variation in developmental strategies, and provide tools to account for that variation in mechanistic models of species distributions. These tools are expected to increase the capacity to predict extinction risk in changing environments, and be amenable to any taxon or environment, providing a solid foundation for understanding the evolution of life-history strategies in variable environments.”

Well done! And those that missed out this time – you’ll get ’em next round!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Reading group: You made a G today, but you made it in a sleazy way

For this fortnight’s reading group we got together to discuss a recent paper in Conservation Letters by environmental ethicist, Michael Paul Nelson, and colleagues.


Cecil the lion lemon shortbreads. Because themed baked goods are always a welcome reading group snack, regardless of your opinions on the morality of consequentialism.

Emotions and the Ethics of Consequence in Conservation Decisions: Lessons from Cecil the Lion
uses the controversy surrounding last year’s killing of a well-known lion in Zimbabwe to frame ways conservationists should think about the ethics of trophy hunting. Natasha Cadenhead picked the paper because a slew of academic articles have recently been published on the killing of Cecil (here, here, and here, for example) and because it covers an area that our group rarely works on, both research-wise and geographically.

Trophy hunting – the practice of hunting animals for recreation, rather than for sustenance, income or protection – is harnessed as a tool for conservation in some countries. It is an issue that causes heated debates in both the public sphere and within conservation circles. Below are some of the common arguments that we discussed both for and against using trophy hunting as a means of conservation:

Continue reading

Posted in Reading Group | Leave a comment

Reading group: Index this

Sumatran tiger on camera trap. Photo via wikimedia commons (which states that “this animal didn’t like camera traps and proceeded to destroy three over a weekend”)

In our latest QAECO reading group, Kate Giljohann selected an editorial published in the Journal of Applied Ecology titled “Management by proxy? The use of indices in applied ecology”. The article, led by Philip Stephens and editors of the journal, discussed the role of proxies in applied ecology and ways to improve their use in environmental management.

Most of us use proxies or indices in our research. But what are they? Well, scientists and managers often want to measure and keep track of key attributes of ecological systems to inform decision-making. For example, estimating population size and the rate at which it is changing is fundamental for determining the status of species, whether they should be managed, or how they have responded to management intervention. But, often these quantities can be difficult or time consuming to measure directly, so instead we measure something else that’s closely related. The assumption is that if we keep track of what our proxy is doing, we can also keep track of what our real quantity of interest is doing as well.

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Poll open! Vote for your #favRpackage

Thanks for all the great nominations for #favRpackage!  The poll is open – vote now for your favourite R package for ecology or conservation-related data analysis. Poll closes 10 October.

Posted in Polls, Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Reading Group: Species-fragmented area relationship

leal1Species-area relationships (SARs) are perhaps the closest thing we have to a law of community ecology. Accordingly, they’ve received copious study over the last two decades, from theoretical development and formalisation, to parameterisation for natural systems and use in conservation planning.

Species-area relationships are often modelled with a power law function relating species richness to habitat area. One underlying theoretical idea is that SARs represent a relationship between habitat area and extinction risk for individual species: more habitat = lower extinction risk per species = more species. But what if habitat is fragmented? In human-dominated landscapes, for example, loss of habitat almost always entails habitat fragmentation, which should have important consequences for species-area relationships. Metapopulation and metacommunity theory says that it must, because habitat fragmentation increases extinction risk for species over-and-above the loss of habitat extent. As such, traditional species-area relationships might significantly overestimate species richness in fragmented landscapes.

In our most recent reading group, we looked at a potential solution to the overestimation problem published by Ilkka Hanski and colleagues in 2013. In one of his last major projects, Hanski produced a simple but elegant adjustment to the power law relationship between habitat area and species richness to account for the degree of habitat fragmentation. The adjustment is a multiplication of the traditional species-area relationship by the fraction of species that would persist for a given amount of habitat fragmentation, denoted P(λ), where λ is the ‘metapopulation capacity’ of the fragmented landscape (itself a function of patch areas, inter-patch distances and species’ dispersal capacities). Assuming a generic λ, Hanski et al. used the following form for estimating P(λ):

P(λ) = exp(-b/λ),

where b is a parameter to be estimated from species richness data among fragmented landscapes. This fraction can simply be multiplied by a standard SAR formulation to adjust it for fragmentation. In the example in the paper, the commonly used power law formulation: cAz (where A is the area, and c and z are parameters) is adjusted to yield an expected number of species: S = cAz exp(-b/λ). The fragmentation component could in theory be bolted on to other SAR formulations too.

Hanski et al. demonstrated that their simple formulation worked quite well for both simulated and real data, and we felt that its derivation from first principles is a major strength. Nevertheless, we wondered if some slight extensions could make the approach more flexible and powerful, and improve its application to real-world datasets.

Of course we hear you cry, λ requires knowledge of extinction and migration rates, how are you going to derive those extra parameters? Well, in the PNAS paper Hanski et al. argue and demonstrate that the assumption of similarity among species, meaning a single value for each of b and λ, has little effect on the overall model fit when the focus is taxonomically or ecologically related species (e.g., forest birds). We felt that further work in other empirical cases would be beneficial to validate this. And indeed, as another way of dealing with the parameterisation, we talked about how one might use a hierarchical model to estimate b from likely sparse observations across species in real-world datasets.

One of the drawbacks of the simple power law SAR is that the parameters don’t have a direct biological interpretation and must be estimated from species-area data for each context. This model can be used by ecologists to fit curves to their data, but not to predict the number of species in other ecosystems (though there are other SAR functional forms that are more interpretable). Whilst λ in the SFAR is deeply rooted in ecological theory, the paper doesn’t provide an ecological interpretation for the parameter b or for the functional form of P(λ). If we could interpret (or reformulate) P(λ), it could be bolted on to a more interpretable SAR model, and enable us to make and test real predictions about species counts in fragmented habitats.

Overall, we felt this study provides a solid first step for adjusting SARs for the near-universal issue of habitat fragmentation. Further empirical testing of the approach is fertile ground for future research, as is refinement of the approach to relax assumptions required in the estimation of b and P(λ), inject clarity as to their ecological interpretation and allow greater flexibility to tackle messy real world datasets.

Posted in Reading Group | Leave a comment