Combining camera trap surveys and IUCN range maps to improve knowledge of species distributions

Chen C 1 , Granados A 1 , Brodie JF 2 , Kays R 3 , Davies TJ 4 , Liu R 1 Show all authors , Fisher JT 5 , Ahumada J 6 , McShea W 7 , Sheil D 8 , Mohd-Azlan J 9 , Agwanda B 10 , Andrianarisoa MH 11 , Appleton RD 12 , Bitariho R 13 , Espinosa S 14 , Grigione MM 15 , Helgen KM 16 , Hubbard A 17 , Hurtado CM 1 , Jansen PA 18 , Jiang X 19 , Jones A 20 , Kalies EL 21 , Kiebou-Opepa C 22 , Li X 19 , Lima MGM 23 , Meyer E 24 , Miller AB 25 , Murphy T 26 , Piana R 27 , Quan RC 28 , Rota CT 29 , Rovero F 30 , Santos F 31 , Schuttler S 3 , Uduman A 1 , van Bommel JK 1 , Young H 32 , Burton AC 1

Affiliations 

  • 1 Department of Forest Resources Management, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
  • 2 Division of Biological Sciences and Wildlife Biology Program, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, USA
  • 3 North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
  • 4 Biodiversity Research Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
  • 5 School of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
  • 6 Moore Center for Science, Conservation International, Arlington, Virginia, USA
  • 7 Conservation Ecology Center, Smithsonian's National Zoo & Conservation Biology Institute, Front Royal, Virginia, USA
  • 8 Forest Ecology and Forest Management Group, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands
  • 9 Institute of Biodiversity and Environmental Conservation, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Kota Samarahan, Malaysia
  • 10 Mammal Section, National Museums of Kenya, Nairobi, Kenya
  • 11 Centre ValBio, Ifanadiana, Madagascar
  • 12 Department of Forest and Conservation Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
  • 13 Institute of Tropical Forest Conservation, Mbarara University of Science and Technology, Mbarara, Uganda
  • 14 Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, San Luis Potosí, México
  • 15 Department of Biology, Pace University, Pleasantville, New York, USA
  • 16 Australian Museum Research Institute, Australian Museum, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  • 17 National Park Service, Sonoran Desert Network, Tucson, Arizona, USA
  • 18 Wildlife Ecology and Conservation Group, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands
  • 19 State Key Laboratory of Genetic Resources and Evolution, Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming, China
  • 20 Campus Natural Reserves, University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California, USA
  • 21 The Nature Conservancy, Durham, North Carolina, USA
  • 22 Wildlife Conservation Society - Congo Program, Brazzaville, Congo
  • 23 Laboratory of Conservation Biogeography and Macroecology, Universidade Federal do Pará, Belém, Brazil
  • 24 Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Parks, Three Rivers, California, USA
  • 25 Department of Environment and Society, Institute of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, USA
  • 26 Department of Anthropology, Edmonds College, Lynwood, Washington, USA
  • 27 Spectacled Bear Conservation Society Peru, Lambayeque, Peru
  • 28 Center for Integrative Conservation, Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Mengla, China
  • 29 Division of Forestry and Natural Resources, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
  • 30 Department of Biology, University of Florence, Trento, Italy
  • 31 Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi, Belém, Brazil
  • 32 Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara, California, USA
Conserv Biol, 2023 Nov 08.
PMID: 37937455 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.14221

Abstract

Reliable maps of species distributions are fundamental for biodiversity research and conservation. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) range maps are widely recognized as authoritative representations of species' geographic limits, yet they might not always align with actual occurrence data. In recent area of habitat (AOH) maps, areas that are not habitat have been removed from IUCN ranges to reduce commission errors, but their concordance with actual species occurrence also remains untested. We tested concordance between occurrences recorded in camera trap surveys and predicted occurrences from the IUCN and AOH maps for 510 medium- to large-bodied mammalian species in 80 camera trap sampling areas. Across all areas, cameras detected only 39% of species expected to occur based on IUCN ranges and AOH maps; 85% of the IUCN only mismatches occurred within 200 km of range edges. Only 4% of species occurrences were detected by cameras outside IUCN ranges. The probability of mismatches between cameras and the IUCN range was significantly higher for smaller-bodied mammals and habitat specialists in the Neotropics and Indomalaya and in areas with shorter canopy forests. Our findings suggest that range and AOH maps rarely underrepresent areas where species occur, but they may more often overrepresent ranges by including areas where a species may be absent, particularly at range edges. We suggest that combining range maps with data from ground-based biodiversity sensors, such as camera traps, provides a richer knowledge base for conservation mapping and planning.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

Similar publications