Checking for non-preferred file/folder path names (may take a long time depending on the number of files/folders) ...
This resource contains some files/folders that have non-preferred characters in their name. Show non-conforming files/folders.
This resource contains content types with files that need to be updated to match with metadata changes. Show content type files that need updating.
| Authors: |
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Owners: |
|
This resource does not have an owner who is an active HydroShare user. Contact CUAHSI (help@cuahsi.org) for information on this resource. |
| Type: | Resource | |
| Storage: | The size of this resource is 1.8 GB | |
| Created: | Jul 25, 2023 at 12:32 a.m. | |
| Last updated: | Oct 29, 2023 at 11:09 p.m. | |
| Citation: | See how to cite this resource |
| Sharing Status: | Public |
|---|---|
| Views: | 294 |
| Downloads: | 13 |
| +1 Votes: | Be the first one to this. |
| Comments: | No comments (yet) |
Abstract
Accurate estimates of aquatic species distribution and habitat extent are critical to effectively manage ecological objectives. Many types of habitat models exist, which meet different objectives and have disparate outputs. However, no standard methods compare predictive accuracy of different habitat model types. We compared three aquatic habitat models, which predicted native Bonneville Cutthroat Trout distribution in the Bear River Watershed (USA) at a monthly timestep. Models included an existing hydraulic-habitat model, an existing habitat threshold model, and a geospatial model developed for this study. Validation of environmental predictors used in all models reflected satisfactory to poor fit—no observed conditions were well represented by model estimates—a function of either outdated, incorrect, or over-generalized input data. Validation of habitat suitability predictions using Bonneville Cutthroat Trout presence data showed the habitat threshold model accurately classified 100% of fish presence observations in suitable habitat in all modeled months, though model performance was sensitive to performance criteria selection which favored models with greater precision. Overall, habitat predictions from the simple, generalizable habitat threshold model are most useful for incorporating ecological objectives into water management models, though additional information from the more precise geospatial method may be useful for maximizing native fish conservation efforts.
Subject Keywords
Coverage
Spatial
Content
Credits
Funding Agencies
This resource was created using funding from the following sources:
| Agency Name | Award Title | Award Number |
|---|---|---|
| National Science Foundation | CAREER: Robust aquatic habitat representation for water resources decision-making | Award # 1653452 |
How to Cite
This resource is shared under the Creative Commons Attribution CC BY.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Comments
There are currently no comments
New Comment