Predictive models are central to many scientific disciplines and vital for informing management in a rapidly changing world. However, limited understanding of the accuracy and precision of models transferred to novel conditions (their 'transferability') undermines confidence in their predictions. Here, 50 experts identified priority knowledge gaps which, if filled, will most improve model transfers. These are summarized into six technical and six fundamental challenges, which underlie the combined need to intensify research on the determinants of ecological predictability, including species traits and data quality, and develop best practices for transferring models. Of high importance is the identification of a widely applicable set of transferability metrics, with appropriate tools to quantify the sources and impacts of prediction uncertainty under novel conditions. Predicting the UnknownPredictions facilitate the formulation of quantitative, testable hypotheses that can be refined and validated empirically [1]. Predictive models have thus become ubiquitous in numerous scientific disciplines, including ecology [2], where they provide means for mapping species distributions, explaining population trends, or quantifying the risks of biological invasions and disease outbreaks (e.g., [3,4]). The practical value of predictive models in supporting policy and decision making has therefore grown rapidly (Box 1) [5]. With that has come an increasing desire to predict (see Glossary) the state of ecological features (e.g., species, habitats) and our likely impacts upon them [5], prompting a shift from explanatory models to anticipatory predictions [2]. However, in many situations, severe data deficiencies preclude the development of specific models, and the collection of new data can be prohibitively costly or simply impossible [6]. It is in this context that interest in transferable models (i.e., those that can be legitimately projected beyond the spatial and temporal bounds of their underlying data [7]) has grown.Transferred models must balance the tradeoff between estimation and prediction bias and variance (homogenization versus nontransferability, sensu [8]). Ultimately, models that can Highlights Models transferred to novel conditions could provide predictions in data-poor scenarios, contributing to more informed management decisions.The determinants of ecological predictability are, however, still insufficiently understood.Predictions from transferred ecological models are affected by species' traits, sampling biases, biotic interactions, nonstationarity, and the degree of environmental dissimilarity between reference and target systems.We synthesize six technical and six fundamental challenges that, if resolved, will catalyze practical and conceptual advances in model transfers.We propose that the most immediate obstacle to improving understanding lies in the absence of a widely applicable set of metrics for assessing transferability, and that encouraging the development of models grounded in well-established mech...

Species distribution models (SDMs) constitute the most common class of models across ecology, evolution and conservation. The advent of ready‐to‐use software packages and increasing availability of digital geoinformation have considerably assisted the application of SDMs in the past decade, greatly enabling their broader use for informing conservation and management, and for quantifying impacts from global change. However, models must be fit for purpose, with all important aspects of their development and applications properly considered. Despite the widespread use of SDMs, standardisation and documentation of modelling protocols remain limited, which makes it hard to assess whether development steps are appropriate for end use. To address these issues, we propose a standard protocol for reporting SDMs, with an emphasis on describing how a study's objective is achieved through a series of modeling decisions. We call this the ODMAP (Overview, Data, Model, Assessment and Prediction) protocol, as its components reflect the main steps involved in building SDMs and other empirically‐based biodiversity models. The ODMAP protocol serves two main purposes. First, it provides a checklist for authors, detailing key steps for model building and analyses, and thus represents a quick guide and generic workflow for modern SDMs. Second, it introduces a structured format for documenting and communicating the models, ensuring transparency and reproducibility, facilitating peer review and expert evaluation of model quality, as well as meta‐analyses. We detail all elements of ODMAP, and explain how it can be used for different model objectives and applications, and how it complements efforts to store associated metadata and define modelling standards. We illustrate its utility by revisiting nine previously published case studies, and provide an interactive web‐based application to facilitate its use. We plan to advance ODMAP by encouraging its further refinement and adoption by the scientific community.

After decades of extensive surveying, knowledge of the global distribution of species still remains inadequate for many purposes. In the short to medium term, such knowledge is unlikely to improve greatly given the often prohibitive costs of surveying and the typically limited resources available. By forecasting biodiversity patterns in time and space, predictive models can help fill critical knowledge gaps and prioritise research to support better conservation and management. The ability of a model to predict biodiversity metrics in novel environments is termed “transferability,” and models with high transferability will be the most useful in this context. Despite their potentially broad utility, little guidance exists on what confers high transferability to biodiversity models. We synthesise recent advances in biodiversity model transfers to facilitate increased understanding of what underpins successful model transferability, demonstrating that a consistent approach has so far been lacking but is essential for achieving high levels of repeatability, transparency and accountability of model transfers. We provide a set of guidelines to support efficient learning and the improvement of model transferability.

Oceans, particularly coastal areas, are getting busier and within this increasingly human-dominated seascape, marine biodiversity continues to decline. Attempts to maintain and restore marine biodiversity are becoming more spatial, principally through the designation of marine protected areas (MPAs). MPAs compete for space with other uses, and the emergence of new industries, such as marine renewable energy generation, will increase competition for space. Decision makers require guidance on how to zone the ocean to conserve biodiversity, mitigate conflict and accommodate multiple uses. Here we used empirical data and freely available planning software to identified priority areas for multiple ocean zones, which incorporate goals for biodiversity conservation, two types of renewable energy, and three types of fishing. We developed an approached to evaluate trade-offs between industries and we investigated the impacts of co-locating some fishing activities within renewable energy sites. We observed non-linear trade-offs between industries. We also found that different subsectors within those industries experienced very different trade-off curves. Incorporating co-location resulted in significant reductions in cost to the fishing industry, including fisheries that were not co-located. Co-location also altered the optimal location of renewable energy zones with planning solutions. Our findings have broad implications for ocean zoning and marine spatial planning. In particular, they highlight the need to include industry subsectors when assessing trade-offs and they stress the importance of considering co-location opportunities from the outset. Our research reinforces the need for multi-industry ocean-zoning and demonstrates how it can be undertaken within the framework of strategic conservation planning.

No abstract

Spatial management tools, such as marine spatial planning and marine protected areas, are playing an increasingly important role in attempts to improve marine management and accommodate conflicting needs. Robust data are needed to inform decisions among different planning options, and early inclusion of stakeholder involvement is widely regarded as vital for success. One of the biggest stakeholder groups, and the most likely to be adversely impacted by spatial restrictions, is the fishing community. In order to take their priorities into account, planners need to understand spatial variation in their perceived value of the sea. Here a readily accessible, novel method for quantitatively mapping fishers’ spatial access priorities is presented. Spatial access priority mapping, or SAPM, uses only basic functions of standard spreadsheet and GIS software. Unlike the use of remote-sensing data, SAPM actively engages fishers in participatory mapping, documenting rather than inferring their priorities. By so doing, SAPM also facilitates the gathering of other useful data, such as local ecological knowledge. The method was tested and validated in Northern Ireland, where over 100 fishers participated in a semi-structured questionnaire and mapping exercise. The response rate was excellent, 97%, demonstrating fishers’ willingness to be involved. The resultant maps are easily accessible and instantly informative, providing a very clear visual indication of which areas are most important for the fishers. The maps also provide quantitative data, which can be used to analyse the relative impact of different management options on the fishing industry and can be incorporated into planning software, such as MARXAN, to ensure that conservation goals can be met at minimum negative impact to the industry. This research shows how spatial access priority mapping can facilitate the early engagement of fishers and the ready incorporation of their priorities into the decision-making process in a transparent, quantitative way.

Seascape ecology, the marine-centric counterpart to landscape ecology, is rapidly emerging as an interdisciplinary and spatially explicit ecological science with relevance to marine management, biodiversity conservation, and restoration. While important progress in this field has been made in the past decade, there has been no coherent prioritisation of key research questions to help set the future research agenda for seascape ecology. We used a 2-stage modified Delphi method to solicit applied research questions from academic experts in seascape ecology and then asked respondents to identify priority questions across 9 interrelated research themes using 2 rounds of selection. We also invited senior management/conservation practitioners to prioritise the same research questions. Analyses highlighted congruence and discrepancies in perceived priorities for applied research. Themes related to both ecological concepts and management practice, and those identified as priorities include seascape change, seascape connectivity, spatial and temporal scale, ecosystem-based management, and emerging technologies and metrics. Highest-priority questions (upper tercile) received 50% agreement between respondent groups, and lowest priorities (lower tercile) received 58% agreement. Across all 3 priority tiers, 36 of the 55 questions were within a ±10% band of agreement. We present the most important applied research questions as determined by the proportion of votes received. For each theme, we provide a synthesis of the research challenges and the potential role of seascape ecology. These priority questions and themes serve as a roadmap for advancing applied seascape ecology during, and beyond, the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (2021-2030).

Like most ocean regions today, the European and contiguous seas experience cumulative impacts from local human activities and global pressures. They are largely in poor environmental condition with deteriorating trends. Despite several success stories, European policies for marine conservation fall short of being effective. Acknowledging the challenges for marine conservation, a 4-year multinational network, MarCons, supported collaborative marine conservation efforts to bridge the gap between science, management and policy, aiming to contribute in reversing present negative trends. By consolidating a large network of more than 100 scientists from 26 countries, and conducting a series of workshops over 4 years (2016-2020), MarCons analyzed challenges, opportunities and obstacles for advancing marine conservation in the European and contiguous seas. Here, we synthesize the major issues that emerged from this analysis and make 12 key recommendations for policy makers, marine managers, and researchers. To increase the effectiveness of marine conservation planning, we recommend (1) designing coherent networks of marine protected areas (MPAs) in the framework of marine spatial planning (MSP) and applying systematic conservation planning principles, including re-evaluation of existing management zones, (2) designing MPA networks within a broader transboundary planning framework, and (3) implementing integrated land-freshwater-sea approaches. To address inadequate or poorly informed management, we recommend (4) developing and implementing