Possible methodological approaches

[gclawson1]

Last week we talked over a potential approach the my first chapter. The idea is to review common biodiversity impact assessments and apply them to the current sources of aquaculture feeds globally.

I've done a bunch of reading, and there are a few options (the differences are mostly in which/how biodiversity metrics are used):

• Ohara et al. 2021, Allan et al. 2019, Kuempel et al. 2020
  • Used species distribution maps with species richness maps, and overlaying with sensitivity (IUCN threat levels) and exposure to a stressor (human impact maps).
  • e.g. the sensitivity, vulnerability, and intensity method
• Butt et al. 2022
  • Using life-history traits to assess marine species’ vulnerability to a stressor, multiply by exposure, and get an impact.
  • This was done for marine species only.
  • Not sure how feasible this would be for terrestrial species considering they had a whole team of experts.
• Duran et al. 2020, Rondinini et al. 2011
  • Clipped global species range maps according to suitability models based on elevation, land cover and hydrological features to determine area of habitat (AOH) for each species. AOH loss is a great determinant for species extinction risk.
  • Calculating proportional loss of baseline AOH and estimating reduction in species’ likelihood of persistence.
  • Mapping the marginal value of land-use change and its biodiversity impacts across different scales.
  • Measuring the relative contribution of specific human activities to biodiversity impacts.
  • We would need to think through the ocean constraints though, since they only did terrestrial.

So there are a couple of differences between the approaches:

• Biodiversity indicators; choosing between richness, range maps, area of habitat based on habitat features, etc.
• Risk indicators; AOH loss, trait based vulnerability, IUCN threat levels

[gclawson1]

More notes from Cepic et al. 2022; Modelling human influences on biodiversity at a global scale – A human ecology perspective

• Reviews ten different global biodiversity models.
• Types of baseline scenarios:
  • Mean species abundance in comparison to their historical extent in an undisturbed habitat.
  • IUCN risk levels
  • Occurrence and abundance data and time series
  • Within sample species richness
• The authors suggest that detection/count of species abundance is the most common indication of biodiversity in these models.

I need to read through the papers they explore in this study, but based on the review, seems like they all used species abundance and occurrence data for their biodiversity indicators.

[cottrellr]

This is great Gage. I like how you have laid it out.

I assume Casey got the Species distribution maps from IUCN range maps - so he would have needed to clip in the same way in Duran et al?

I really like AOH approach because it takes into account what range maps do not - the realised habitat given we are not working with a 2D environment (i.e. there is elevation and depth to consider). Maybe with @juliablanchard we could discuss how we make this applicable to the marine?

Do you have a place you would like to start in terms of metrics?

[gclawson1]

Looks like Casey clipped the range maps like this:

Note that species range maps outline regions where species are likely to be present, though 
they do not distinguish between core habitat and fringe habitat; additionally, 
these range maps are static in time and do not
account for climate-driven range shifts. These were subsequently clipped to a bathymetric to
constrain neritic and shallow-water species to areas no deeper than 200 m.

But yes, he used the IUCN range maps.

I agree, I like the AOH method the most because it seems more realistic. That seems like the appropriate place to start to me.

[gclawson1]

For fishing we are just going to assume that if a cell has catch in it, then that habitat is disturbed, rather than trying to clip to a depth range.

[cottrellr]

Just wanted to clarify - you mean if a cell has catch for that species - the cell is compromised habitat right?

Despite the fact that cells can be big and catch may only come from a small area of this, I think this is reasonable. While the fish can move anywhere in that cell in the open marine environment so can the fishing fleets (and indeed do while tracking species on interest on sonar)

[gclawson1]

Area of habitat maps for terrestrial mammals and birds: https://datadryad.org/stash/dataset/doi:10.5061/dryad.02v6wwq48

From: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-022-01838-w#additional-information

[cottrellr]

This is great. Definitely usable for bioD analysis as long as the methods can be consistently applied. Also just posting the aquamaps here that I posted in slack.

https://www.aquamaps.org/

Richard S. Cottrell Research Fellow in Aquaculture Sustainability Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies College of Sciences and Engineering University of Tasmania

Theme Co-Lead, Sustainable Futures and Planetary Health Centre for Marine Socioecology University of Tasmania

Size Ecology Labhttps://www.sizeecology.org/ | Centre for Marine Socioecologyhttps://marinesocioecology.org/themes/sustainable-futures-and-planetary-health/ Google Scholarhttps://scholar.google.com/citations?user=1pLCMKIAAAAJ&hl=en | ORCIDhttps://orcid.org/my-orcid?orcid=0000-0002-6499-7503 | @RichCottrell22https://twitter.com/RichCottrell22

On 16 Jun 2023, at 9:05 am, Gage Clawson @.**@.>> wrote:

Area of habitat maps for terrestrial mammals and birds: https://datadryad.org/stash/dataset/doi:10.5061/dryad.02v6wwq48https://datadryad.org/stash/dataset/doi:10.5061/dryad.02v6wwq48

From: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-022-01838-w#additional-informationhttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-022-01838-w#additional-information

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/Sustainable-Aquafeeds-Project/feed_biodiv_impact_mapping/issues/1#issuecomment-1593905074, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJK3YJHCZBQAOXZEKX3MGWLXLOWNLANCNFSM6AAAAAAVKIE3X4. You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: @.***>

This email is confidential, and is for the intended recipient only. Access, disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance on any of it by anyone outside the intended recipient organisation is prohibited and may be a criminal offence. Please delete if obtained in error and email confirmation to the sender. The views expressed in this email are not necessarily the views of the University of Tasmania, unless clearly intended otherwise.

[gclawson1]

Awesome! These AOH maps look really good, and if I use them, will allow me to sidestep A LOT of work in producing them.

These are the general methods they used to produce them (and are exactly what I was gonna do, I.e., methods from Rondinini et al):

They only include terrestrial species, so we will need to figure out a comparable method for marine species (which was always going to be a problem anyways).