Search

Species distribution models (SDMs) are used to test ecological theory and to direct targeted surveys for species of conservation concern. Several studies have tested for an influence of species traits on the predictive accuracy of SDMs. However, most used the same set of environmental predictors for all species and/or did not use truly independent data to test SDM accuracy. We built eight SDMs for each of 24 plant species of conservation concern, varying the environmental predictors included in each SDM version. We then measured the accuracy of each SDM using independent presence and absence data to calculate area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and true positive rate (TPR). We used generalized linear mixed models to test for a relationship between species traits and SDM accuracy, while accounting for variation in SDM performance that might be introduced by different predictor sets. All traits affected one or both SDM accuracy measures. Species with lighter seeds, animal-dispersed seeds, and a higher density of occurrences had higher AUC and TPR than other species, all else being equal. Long-lived woody species had higher AUC than herbaceous species, but lower TPR. These results support the hypothesis that the strength of species-environment correlations is affected by characteristics of species or their geographic distributions. However, because each species has multiple traits, and because AUC and TPR can be affected differently, there is no straightforward way to determine a priori which species will yield useful SDMs based on their traits. Most species yielded at least one useful SDM. Therefore, it is worthwhile to build and test SDMs for the purpose of finding new populations of plant species of conservation concern, regardless of these species' traits., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (© 2020 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Bias toward legally protecting and prioritizing charismatic taxonomic groups, such as mammals and birds, and against others, such as insects and plants, is well documented. However, the relative costs of conserving various taxonomic groups and the potential of these costs to interact with existing biases have been much less explored. We analyzed conservation programs across more than 2,000 species in 3 countries to investigate the costs of conserving species within taxonomic groups and how these costs might affect conservation planning. For each data set, we tested for differences in mean annual cost among taxonomic groups. For the data set from the United States, recovery plans differed in duration, so we also tested for differences in total costs among taxonomic groups. Although the costs for individual species varied widely, there were strong international consistencies. For example, mammals cost 8-26 times more on average to conserve than plants and 13-19 times more to conserve than aquatic invertebrates. On average, bird species cost 5-30 times more to conserve than plants and 6-14 times more to conserve than aquatic invertebrates. These cost differences could exacerbate unequal resource allocation among taxonomic groups such that more charismatic groups both receive more attention and require more resources, leading to neglect of other taxonomic groups., (© 2019 Society for Conservation Biology.)