Limitations to the Use of Species-Distribution Models for Environmental-Impact Assessments in the Amazon

Abstract

Species-distribution models (SDM) are tools with potential to inform environmental-impact studies (EIA). However, they are not always appropriate and may result in improper and expensive mitigation and compensation if their limitations are not understood by decision makers. Here, we examine the use of SDM for frogs that were used in impact assessment using data obtained from the EIA of a hydroelectric project located in the Amazon Basin in Brazil. The results show that lack of knowledge of species distributions limits the appropriate use of SDM in the Amazon region for most target species. Because most of these targets are newly described and their distributions poorly known, data about their distributions are insufficient to be effectively used in SDM. Surveys that are mandatory for the EIA are often conducted only near the area under assessment, and so models must extrapolate well beyond the sampled area to inform decisions made at much larger spatial scales, such as defining areas to be used to offset the negative effects of the projects. Using distributions of better-known species in simulations, we show that geographical-extrapolations based on limited information of species ranges often lead to spurious results. We conclude that the use of SDM as evidence to support project-licensing decisions in the Amazon requires much greater area sampling for impact studies, or, alternatively, integrated and comparative survey strategies, to improve biodiversity sampling. When more detailed distribution information is unavailable, SDM will produce results that generate uncertain and untestable decisions regarding impact assessment. In many cases, SDM is unlikely to be better than the use of expert opinion.

The Potential Distribution of Tree Species in Three Periods of Time under a Climate Change Scenario

“…Potential distribution models have been useful for making important decisions in the area of ecology [14,43,44], although they should be used with caution as several authors have warned [45][46][47][48], because this type of modeling has limitations, which include the iterative procedure of the MaxEnt algorithm [49] as well as the possible errors of commission and omission when using climatic factors to characterize the habitat of a species [48]. A commission error related to climatic variables could occur when the affinity of a species in a site is attributable to an event or situation that cannot be conditioned by climatic variables [48] whereas an error of omission is any error related to the underestimation of the climatic range [50] which can be translated as a false prediction of absence [48].…”

Integrating Climate Change and Land Use Impacts to Explore Forest Conservation Policy

“…First, because we used the species' range shifts derived from a SDM, the limitations of using the SDM should be fully understood for proper use [18,56,57]. In this study, we used the SDM results modeled using only climate parameters, but, in reality, the distributions of species are confined by interactions with other species [56].…”

Integrating Climate Change and Land Use Impacts to Explore Forest Conservation Policy

“…First, because we used the species' range shifts derived from SDM, the limitations of using the SDM should be fully understood for proper use [18,56,57]. In this study, we used the SDM results modeled using only climate parameters, but in reality the distributions of species are confined by interaction with other species [56].…”