Conservation Science and Practice (Mar 2020)

A field‐validated species distribution model to support management of the critically endangered Poweshiek skipperling (Oarisma poweshiek) butterfly in Canada

  • Richard Westwood,
  • Alana R. Westwood,
  • Mahsa Hooshmandi,
  • Kara Pearson,
  • Kerienne LaFrance,
  • Colin Murray

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.163
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 2, no. 3
pp. n/a – n/a

Abstract

Read online

Abstract The Poweshiek skipperling (Oarisma poweshiek) is a critically endangered grassland butterfly with six populations remaining in the United States and Canada. The single Canadian population, with the largest remaining contiguous habitat, includes less than ~50 observed individuals and extirpation is potentially imminent. Captive breeding is underway and there is a need to locate suitable sites for reintroduction and habitat management. Species distribution models (SDMs) predict habitat quality and guide management decisions. Most SDMs rely on statistical validation as a surrogate metric for accuracy, with presence‐only SDMs usually reporting area under the curve (AUC). Although experts have long cautioned against relying on statistical validation alone, accuracy is rarely field‐validated. We developed a presence‐only SDM using the maximum entropy (Maxent) method to predict probability of occurrence for the Poweshiek skipperling and determine environmental covariates associated with high probability of occurrence. We collected two independent datasets to (a) calibrate our model to predict categories of habitat quality (using factor analysis) and (b) compare expected and observed habitat quality to calculate model accuracy. Statistical validation showed that we predicted presence‐absence of training data with high accuracy (AUC = 0.98). Covariates responsible for most of the variation in probability of occurrence included soil drainage, habitat patch size, and land use type. Only 0.4% of the study area was expected to represent good‐excellent habitat with the remaining 99.6% medium‐poor. Our model predicted novel habitat quality with 81% accuracy (better than chance). Poor‐medium habitat was predicted more accurately (92%) than good‐excellent habitat (54%). Our model showed better accuracy than most other field‐validated SDMs reviewed. We reiterate calls for greater field‐validation of SDMs: if we had relied on statistical validation alone, perceived accuracy of our model would be inflated. Finally, managers can use our results to reliably exclude predicted poor‐medium habitats as candidates for Poweshiek skipperling habitat management or reintroduction.

Keywords