A habitat overlap analysis derived from Maxent for Tamarisk and the South-western Willow Flycatcher

Abstract

Biologic control of the introduced and invasive, woody plant tamarisk (Tamarix spp, saltcedar) in south-western states is controversial because it affects habitat of the federally endangered South-western Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). These songbirds sometimes nest in tamarisk where floodplain-level invasion replaces native habitats. Biologic control, with the saltcedar leaf beetle (Diorhabda elongate), began along the Virgin River, Utah, in 2006, enhancing the need for comprehensive understanding of the tamarisk-flycatcher relationship. We used maximum entropy (Maxent) modeling to separately quantify the current extent of dense tamarisk habitat (>50% cover) and the potential extent of habitat available for E. traillii extimus within the studied watersheds. We used transformations of 2008 Landsat Thematic Mapper images and a digital elevation model as environmental input variables. Maxent models performed well for the flycatcher and tamarisk with Area Under the ROC Curve (AUC) values of 0.960 and 0.982, respectively. Classification of thresholds and comparison of the two Maxent outputs indicated moderate spatial overlap between predicted suitable habitat for E. traillii extimus and predicted locations with dense tamarisk stands, where flycatcher habitat will potentially change flycatcher habitats. Dense tamarisk habitat comprised 500 km² within the study area, of which 11.4% was also modeled as potential habitat for E. traillii extimus. Potential habitat modeled for the flycatcher constituted 190 km², of which 30.7% also contained dense tamarisk habitat. Results showed that both native vegetation and dense tamarisk habitats exist in the study area and that most tamarisk infestations do not contain characteristics that satisfy the habitat requirements of E. traillii extimus. Based on this study, effective biologic control of Tamarix spp. may, in the short term, reduce suitable habitat available to E. traillii extimus, but also has the potential in the long term to increase suitable habitat if appropriate mixes of native woody vegetation replace tamarisk in biocontrol areas.

Keywords

Niche modeling / species interactions / Tamarisk / South-western Willow Flycatcher / habitat overlap analysis

References

[1] Bateman H L, Dudley T L, Bean D W, Ostoja S M, Hultine K R, Kuehn M J (2010). A river system to watch: Documenting the effects of saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) biocontrol in the Virgin River Valley. Ecol Res, 28(4): 405–410

[2] Chapin F S III, Zavaleta E S, Eviner V T, Naylor R L, Vitousek P M, Reynolds H L, Hooper D U, Lavorel S, Sala O E, Hobbie S E, Mack M C, Díaz S (2000). Consequences of changing biodiversity. Nature, 405(6783): 234–242

[3] Cory J S, Myers J H (2000). Direct and indirect ecological effects of biological control. Trends Ecol Evol, 15(4): 137–139

[4] Deloach C J, Carruthers R, Dudley T, Eberts D, Kazmer D (2004). First results for control of saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) in the open field in the Western United States. In: Cullen, J M, Briese D T, Kriticos D J, Lonsdale W M, Morin L, Scott J K, eds. Proceedings of the XI International Symposium on Biological Control Weeds. Canberra, Australia: CSIRO Entomology, 505–513

[5] Di Tomaso J M (1998). Impact, biology, and ecology of saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) in the southwestern United States. Weed Technol, 12: 326–336

[6] Dudley T L, DeLoach C J (2004). Saltcedar (Tamarix spp.), endangered species, and biological weed control – can they mix? Weed Technol, 18(sp1): 1542–1551

[7] Durst S L, Sogge M K, Stump S D, Williams S O, Kus B E, Sferra S J (2007). Southwestern Willow Flycatcher breeding site and territory summary – 2006. USGS Open File Report2007–1391

[8] Elith J, Graham C H (2009). Do they / How do they / Why do they differ? – On finding reasons for differing performances of species distribution models. Ecography, 32(1): 66–77

[9] Elith J, Graham C H, Anderson R P, Dudík M, Ferrier S, Guisan A, Hijmans R J, Huettmann F, Leathwick J R, Lehmann A (2006). Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data. Ecography, 29: 129–151

[10] ESRI ArcGIS 9.2 (2006). Redlands, CA, USA, available online: www.esri.com

[11] Evangelista P H, Stohlgren T J, Morisette J T, Kumar S (2009). Mapping invasive tamarisk (Tamarix): A comparison of single-scene and time-series analyses of remotely sensed data. Remote Sens, 1(3): 519–533

[12] Everitt B L (1980). Ecology of saltcedar – a plea for research. Environmental Geology, 3(2): 77–84

[13] Everitt J H, Deloach C J (1990). Remote sensing of Chinese tamarisk (Tamarix chinensis) and associated vegetation. Weed Sci, 38: 273–278

[14] Fielding A H, Bell J F (1997). A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environ Conserv, 24(1): 38–49

[15] Finch D M, Stoleson S H (2000). Status, ecology, and conservation of the South-western Willow Flycatcher. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-60. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station

[16] Hatten J R, Paradzick C E (2003). A multiscaled model of South-western Willow Flycatcher breeding habitat. J Wildl Manage, 67(4): 774–788

[17] Hatten J R, Paxton E H, Sogge M K (2010). Modeling the dynamic habitat and breeding population of Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. Ecol Modell, 221(13–14): 1674–1686

[18] Hultine K R, Belnap J, van Riper C III, Ehleringer J R, Dennison P E, Lee M E, Nagler P L, Snyder K A, Uselman S M, West J B (2009). Tamarisk biocontrol in the western United States: Ecological and societal implications. Front Ecol Environ, 8(9): 467–474

[19] Innes J, Barker G (1999). Ecological consequences of toxin use for mammalian pest control in New Zealand: An overview. N Z J Ecol, 23: 111–127

[20] Jiménez-Valverde A, Lobo J M (2007). Threshold criteria for conversion of probability of species presence to either-or presence-absence. Acta Oecol, 31(3): 361–369

[21] Kauth R J, Thomas G S (1976). The tasseled cap – a graphic description of the spectral-temporal development of agricultural crops as seen in Landsat. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Machine Processing of Remotely Sensed Data; LARS, Purdue University: West Lafayette, IN, USA, 41–51

[22] Kumar S, Spaulding S A, Stohlgren T J, Hermann K A, Schmidt T S, Bahls L L (2008). Potential habitat distribution for the freshwater diatom Didymosphenia geminata in the continental US. Front Ecol Environ, 7(8): 415–420

[23] Kumar S, Stohlgren T J (2009). Maxent modeling for predicting suitable habitat for threatened and endangered tree Canacomyrica monticola in New Caledonia. Journal of Ecology and the Natural Environment, 1: 94–98

[24] Leica ERDAS Imagine 9.1 (2009). Leica Geosystems Geospatial Imaging, LLC: Atlanta G A , USA, 1991–2005; available online: http://www.erdas.com

[25] Lite S J, Stromberg J C (2005). Surface water and ground-water thresholds for maintaining Populus-Salix forests, San Pedro River, Arizona. Biol Conserv, 125(2): 153–167

[26] Liu C, Berry P M, Dawson T P, Pearson R G (2005). Selecting thresholds of occurrence in the prediction of species distributions. Ecography, 28(3): 385–393

[27] Lytle D A, Merritt D M (2004). Hydrologic regimes and riparian forests: A structured population model for cottonwood. Ecology, 85(9): 2493–2503

[28] Matarczyk J A, Willis A J, Vranjic J A, Ash J E (2002). Herbicides, weeds and endangered species: Management of bitou bush (Chrysanthemoides monilifera spp. rotundata) with glyphosate and impacts on the endangered shrub, Pimelea spicata. Biol Conserv, 108(2): 133–141

[29] Merritt D M, Poff N L R (2010). Shifting dominance of riparian Populus and Tamarix along gradients of flow alteration in western North American rivers. Ecol Appl, 20(1): 135–152

[30] Morisette J T, Jarnevich C S, Ullah A, Cai W, Pedelty J A, Gentle J E, Stohlgren T J, Schnase J L (2006). A tamarisk habitat suitability map for the continental United States. Front Ecol Environ, 4(1): 11–17

[31] Nagler P L, Glenn E P, Huete A R (2001). Assessment of spectral vegetation indices for riparian vegetation in the Colorado River delta, Mexico. J Arid Environ, 49(1): 91–110

[32] Naiman R J, Décamps H (1997). The ecology of interfaces: Riparian zones. Annu Rev Ecol Syst, 28(1): 621–658

[33] Naiman R J, Décamps H, Pollock M (1993). The role of riparian corridors in maintaining regional biodiversity. Ecol Appl, 3(2): 209–212

[34] Patten D T (1998). Riparian ecosystems of semi-arid North America: Diversity and human impacts. Wetlands, 18(4): 498–512

[35] Paxton E H, Sogge M K, Durst S L, Theimer T C, Hatten J R (2007). The ecology of the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher in central Arizona – a 10-year synthesis report: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007–1381

[36] Pearce J, Ferrier S (2000). Evaluating the predictive performance of habitat models developed using logistic regression. Ecol Modell, 133(3): 225–245

[37] Phillips S J, Anderson R P, Schapire R E (2006). Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol Modell, 190(3–4): 231–259

[38] Robinson T W (1965). Introduction, spread, and areal extent of saltcedar (Tamarix) in the western states. US Geological Survey, Washington D C, USA

[39] Shafroth P B, Briggs M K (2008). Restoration ecology and invasive riparian plants: An introduction to the special section on Tamarix spp. in western North America. Restor Ecol, 16(1): 94–96

[40] Sogge M K, Marshall R M (2000). A survey of current breeding habitats. In: Finch D M, Stoleson S H, eds. Status, ecology, and conservation of the South-western Willow Flycatcher. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-60. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT, 43–56

[41] Sogge M K, Marshall R M, Sferra S J, Tibbitts T J (1997). A South-western Willow Flycatcher natural history summary and survey protocol. USGS Biological Resources Division, Colorado Plateau Research Station, Northern Arizona University

[42] Sogge M K, Sferra S J, Paxton E H (2008). Tamarix as habitat for birds: Implications for riparian restoration in the southwestern United States. Restor Ecol, 16(1): 146–154

[43] Song C, Woodcock C E, Seto K C, Lenney M P, Macomber S A (2001). Classification and change detection using Landsat TM data: When and how to correct atmospheric effects? Remote Sens Environ, 75(2): 230–244

[44] Song C H, Woodcock C E (2003). Monitoring forest succession with multitemporal Landsat images: Factors of uncertainty. IEEE Trans Geosci Rem Sens, 41(11): 2557–2567

[45] Stohlgren T J, Bull K A, Otsuki Y, Villa C, Lee M (1998). Riparian zones as havens for exotic plant species in the central grasslands. Plant Ecol, 138(1): 113–125

[46] Stromberg J C, Beauchamp V B, Dixon M D, Lite S J, Paradzick C (2007a). Importance of low-flow and high-flow characteristics to restoration of riparian vegetation along rivers in arid south-western United States. Freshw Biol, 52(4): 651–679

[47] Stromberg J C, Lite S J, Marler R, Paradzick C, Shafroth P B, Shorrock D, White J M, White M S (2007). Altered stream-flow regimes and invasive plant species: the Tamarix case. Glob Ecol Biogeogr, 16(3): 381–393

[48] Szaro R C, Rinne J N (1988). Ecosystem approach to management of southwestern riparian communities. Transactions of the 53rd North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 53: 502–511

[49] Taylor J P, McDaniel K C (1998). Restoration of saltcedar (Tamarix sp.)-infested floodplains on the Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge. Weed Technol, 12: 345–352

[50] Unitt P (1987). Empidonax traillii extimus: an endangered subspecies. West Birds, 18: 137–162

[51] United States Fish and Wildlife Service (1995). Final rule determining endangered status for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. Fed Regist, 60: 10694–10715

[52] Vitousek P M, DAntonio C M, Loope L L, Rejmanek M, Westbrooks R. (1997). Introduced species: A significant component of human-caused global change. N Z J Ecol, 21: 1–16

[53] Zavaleta E S (2000). The economic value of controlling an invasive shrub. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 29: 462–467

[54] Zavaleta E S, Hobbs R J, Mooney H A (2001). Viewing invasive species removal in a whole-ecosystem context. Trends Ecol Evol, 16(8): 454–459

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank the US Geological Survey for funding and the Natural Resources Ecology Laboratory at Colorado State University for logistical support. TJS contribution supported by US Geological Survey Invasive Species Program, USGS Fort Collins Science Program, and USDA CSREES/NRI 2008-35615-04666. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the US Government.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2014 Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg