David N. Bucklin
University of Florida
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by David N. Bucklin.
PLOS ONE | 2013
James I. Watling; David N. Bucklin; Carolina Speroterra; Laura A. Brandt; Frank J. Mazzotti; Stephanie S. Romañach
Climate envelope models are a potentially important conservation tool, but their ability to accurately forecast species’ distributional shifts using independent survey data has not been fully evaluated. We created climate envelope models for 12 species of North American breeding birds previously shown to have experienced poleward range shifts. For each species, we evaluated three different approaches to climate envelope modeling that differed in the way they treated climate-induced range expansion and contraction, using random forests and maximum entropy modeling algorithms. All models were calibrated using occurrence data from 1967–1971 (t1) and evaluated using occurrence data from 1998–2002 (t2). Model sensitivity (the ability to correctly classify species presences) was greater using the maximum entropy algorithm than the random forest algorithm. Although sensitivity did not differ significantly among approaches, for many species, sensitivity was maximized using a hybrid approach that assumed range expansion, but not contraction, in t2. Species for which the hybrid approach resulted in the greatest improvement in sensitivity have been reported from more land cover types than species for which there was little difference in sensitivity between hybrid and dynamic approaches, suggesting that habitat generalists may be buffered somewhat against climate-induced range contractions. Specificity (the ability to correctly classify species absences) was maximized using the random forest algorithm and was lowest using the hybrid approach. Overall, our results suggest cautious optimism for the use of climate envelope models to forecast range shifts, but also underscore the importance of considering non-climate drivers of species range limits. The use of alternative climate envelope models that make different assumptions about range expansion and contraction is a new and potentially useful way to help inform our understanding of climate change effects on species.
Regional Environmental Change | 2013
David N. Bucklin; James I. Watling; Carolina Speroterra; Laura A. Brandt; Frank J. Mazzotti; Stephanie S. Romañach
High-resolution (downscaled) projections of future climate conditions are critical inputs to a wide variety of ecological and socioeconomic models and are created using numerous different approaches. Here, we conduct a sensitivity analysis of spatial predictions from climate envelope models for threatened and endangered vertebrates in the southeastern United States to determine whether two different downscaling approaches (with and without the use of a regional climate model) affect climate envelope model predictions when all other sources of variation are held constant. We found that prediction maps differed spatially between downscaling approaches and that the variation attributable to downscaling technique was comparable to variation between maps generated using different general circulation models (GCMs). Precipitation variables tended to show greater discrepancies between downscaling techniques than temperature variables, and for one GCM, there was evidence that more poorly resolved precipitation variables contributed relatively more to model uncertainty than more well-resolved variables. Our work suggests that ecological modelers requiring high-resolution climate projections should carefully consider the type of downscaling applied to the climate projections prior to their use in predictive ecological modeling. The uncertainty associated with alternative downscaling methods may rival that of other, more widely appreciated sources of variation, such as the general circulation model or emissions scenario with which future climate projections are created.
Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management | 2014
James I. Watling; Robert J. Fletcher; Carolina Speroterra; David N. Bucklin; Laura A. Brandt; Stephanie S. Romañach; Leonard Pearlstine; Yesenia Escribano; Frank J. Mazzotti
Abstract Climate change poses new challenges for natural resource managers. Predictive modeling of species–environment relationships using climate envelope models can enhance our understanding of climate change effects on biodiversity, assist in assessment of invasion risk by exotic organisms, and inform life-history understanding of individual species. While increasing interest has focused on the role of uncertainty in future conditions on model predictions, models also may be sensitive to the initial conditions on which they are trained. Although climate envelope models are usually trained using data on contemporary climate, we lack systematic comparisons of model performance and predictions across alternative climate data sets available for model training. Here, we seek to fill that gap by comparing variability in predictions between two contemporary climate data sets to variability in spatial predictions among three alternative projections of future climate. Overall, correlations between monthly tempe...
PLOS ONE | 2017
Donna J. Shaver; Kristen M. Hart; Ikuko Fujisaki; David N. Bucklin; Autumn R. Iverson; Cynthia Rubio; Thomas F. Backof; Patrick M. Burchfield; Raul de Jesus Gonzales Diaz Miron; Peter H. Dutton; Amy Frey; Jaime Peña; Daniel Gomez Gamez; Hector J. Martinez; Jaime Ortiz
Species vulnerability is increased when individuals congregate in restricted areas for breeding; yet, breeding habitats are not well defined for many marine species. Identification and quantification of these breeding habitats are essential to effective conservation. Satellite telemetry and switching state-space modeling (SSM) were used to define inter-nesting habitat of endangered Kemp’s ridley turtles (Lepidochelys kempii) in the Gulf of Mexico. Turtles were outfitted with satellite transmitters after nesting at Padre Island National Seashore, Texas, USA, from 1998 through 2013 (n = 60); Rancho Nuevo, Tamaulipas, Mexico, during 2010 and 2011 (n = 11); and Tecolutla, Veracruz, Mexico, during 2012 and 2013 (n = 11). These sites span the range of nearly all nesting by this species. Inter-nesting habitat lies in a narrow band of nearshore western Gulf of Mexico waters in the USA and Mexico, with mean water depth of 14 to 19 m within a mean distance to shore of 6 to 11 km as estimated by 50% kernel density estimate, α-Hull, and minimum convex polygon methodologies. Turtles tracked during the inter-nesting period moved, on average, 17.5 km/day and a mean total distance of 398 km. Mean home ranges occupied were 725 to 2948 km2. Our results indicate that these nearshore western Gulf waters represent critical inter-nesting habitat for this species, where threats such as shrimp trawling and oil and gas platforms also occur. Up to half of all adult female Kemp’s ridleys occupy this habitat for weeks to months during each nesting season. Because inter-nesting habitat for this species is concentrated in nearshore waters of the western Gulf of Mexico in both Mexico and the USA, international collaboration is needed to protect this essential habitat and the turtles occurring within it.
Frontiers in Marine Science | 2018
Kristen M. Hart; Autumn R. Iverson; Ikuko Fujisaki; Margaret M. Lamont; David N. Bucklin; Donna J. Shaver
Effective management of human activities affecting listed species requires understanding both threats and animal habitat-use patterns. However, the extent of spatial overlap between high-use foraging areas (where multiple marine species congregate) and anthropogenic threats is not well known. Our modeling approach incorporates data on sea turtle spatial ecology and a suite of threats in the Gulf of Mexico to identify and map “hot spots” of threats to two imperiled turtle species. Of all 820 “high” threats grid cells, our tracked turtles foraged at least one day in 77% of them. Although threat data were not available outside the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, our map of turtle and threat “hotspots” can be incorporated in future more comprehensive threat analyses for the region. Knowledge of these shared foraging- and threat-areas can assist managers charged with designing effective conservation and population recovery strategies, in future habitat modeling efforts, and in designations of Gulf of Mexico habitat with high conservation value.
Diversity and Distributions | 2015
David N. Bucklin; Mathieu Basille; Allison M. Benscoter; Laura A. Brandt; Frank J. Mazzotti; Stephanie S. Romañach; Carolina Speroterra; James I. Watling
Ecological Modelling | 2012
James I. Watling; Stephanie S. Romañach; David N. Bucklin; Carolina Speroterra; Laura A. Brandt; Leonard Pearlstine; Frank J. Mazzotti
Ecological Modelling | 2015
James I. Watling; Laura A. Brandt; David N. Bucklin; Ikuko Fujisaki; Frank J. Mazzotti; Stephanie S. Romañach; Carolina Speroterra
Ecological Modelling | 2017
Laura A. Brandt; Allison M. Benscoter; Rebecca G. Harvey; Carolina Speroterra; David N. Bucklin; Stephanie S. Romañach; James I. Watling; Frank J. Mazzotti
R Journal | 2018
David N. Bucklin; Mathieu Basille