Applications of the MesoHABSIM Simulation Model

Parasiewicz, Piotr; Rogers, Joseph N.; Vezza, Paolo; Gortázar, Javier; Seager, Thomas P.; Pegg, Mark A.; Wiśniewolski, Wiesław; Comoglio, Claudio

doi:10.1002/9781118526576.ch6

Cited by 31 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The presented approach substantially differs from the traditional, more common micro-scale analysis, which is less flexible in accounting for multiple species and biotic interactions (Parasiewicz et al 2013). This study represents a step towards including interspecific interactions in mesohabitat simulation tools (e.g., MesoHABSIM, Parasiewicz, 2007, MesoCaSiMiR, Eisner et al, 2005 in order to clarify the role of biotic interactions more rigorously across different spatial scales 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 21 (from HMU scale, to river segments, to entire catchment).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…RF has been applied in freshwater fish studies (Buisson et al, 2010;Grenouillet et al, 2011;Markovic et al, 2012) and several authors have shown that, compared to other methodologies, RF often reach top performance in building predictive models of species distribution (Svetnik et al, 2003;Siroky, 2009;He et al, 2010;Mouton et al, 2011). Moreover, RF has been recently included in mesohabitat simulation tools, i.e., MesoHABSIM (Parasiewicz et al, 2013;Vezza et al, 2014a) to model fish ecological response to hydro-morphological alterations.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Random forests to evaluate biotic interactions in fish distribution models

Vezza

Muñoz‐Mas

Martínez‐Capel

et al. 2015

Environmental Modelling & Software

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research indicated that high predictive performance in species distribution modelling can be obtained by combining both biotic and abiotic habitat variables. However, models developed for fish often only address physical habitat characteristics, thus omitting potentially important biotic factors. Therefore, we assessed the impact of biotic variables on fish habitat preferences in four selected stretches of the upper Cabriel River (E Spain).The occurrence of Squalius pyrenaicus and Luciobarbus guiraonis was related to environmental variables describing interspecific interactions (inferred by relationships among fish abundances) and channel hydro-morphological characteristics. Random Forests (RF) models were trained and then validated using independent datasets. In both training and validation phases, RF showed high performance. Water depth, channel width, fine substrate and water-surface gradient were selected as most important habitat variables for both fish. Results showed clear habitat overlapping between fish species and suggest that interspecific competition is not a strong factor in the study area.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Random forests to evaluate biotic interactions in fish distribution models

Vezza

Muñoz‐Mas

Martínez‐Capel

et al. 2015

Environmental Modelling & Software

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We also implemented a discriminant analysis using habitat data to predict the accuracy of this classification approach. We sampled fish communities across 13 geologically, hydrologically, and geographically distinct sites in the Niobrara River (Parasiewicz et al., ). Prepositioned area electrofishing (PAE) grids were used to sample fish and microhabitat data following methods described by Bain et al.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Application of mesohabitat fish use information to identify guilds for lotic systems

Pegg

Behmer

Parasaweicz³

et al. 2014

J. Appl. Ichthyol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Mesohabitat methods, based on field surveys of habitat configurations on various occasions, are particularly effective for describing complex habitat dynamics during non‐flow periods (Belletti et al, ; Parasiewicz et al, ). A first attempt to explore how habitat changes when water flows cease was carried out in the Gaià River (Iberian Peninsula) during both flow and non‐flow phases (Figure a).…”

Section: Methodological Approaches To Design Eflows In Temporary Watementioning

confidence: 99%

Accounting for flow intermittency in environmental flows design

Acuña

Jordà-Capdevila

Vezza

et al. 2020

Journal of Applied Ecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

River ecosystems world‐wide are affected by altered flow regimes, and advanced science and practice of environmental flows have been developed to understand and reduce these impacts. But most environmental flows approaches ignore flow intermittency, which is a natural feature of 30% of the global river network length. Ignoring flow intermittency when setting environmental flows in naturally intermittent rivers might lead to deleterious ecological effects. We review evidence of the ecological effects of flow intermittency and provide guidance to incorporate intermittency (non‐flow events) into existing methods judged as suitable for application in temporary waterways. To better integrate non‐flow events into hydrological methods, we propose a suite of new indicators to be used in the range of variability approach. These indicators reflect dry periods and the unpredictable nature of temporary waterways. We develop a predictability index for protecting those species adapted to temporary conditions. For hydraulic‐habitat models, we find that mesohabitat methods are particularly effective for describing complex habitat dynamics during dry phases. We present an example of the European eel to show the relationship between discharge and non‐flow days and wet area, habitat suitability and connectivity. We find that existing holistic approaches may be applied to temporary waterways without significant structural alteration to their stepwise frameworks, but new component methods are needed to address flow‐related aspects across both flow and non‐flow periods of the flow regime. Synthesis and applications. Setting environmental flow requirements for temporary waterways requires modification and enhancement of existing approaches and methodologies, most notably the explicit consideration of non‐flow events and greater integration of specific geomorphic, hydrogeologic and hydraulic elements. Temporary waterways are among the freshwater ecosystems most vulnerable to alterations in flow regimes, and they are also under great pressure. The methodological modifications recommended in this paper will aid water managers in protecting key components of temporary flow regimes, thereby preserving their unique ecology and associated services.

show abstract

Applications of the MesoHABSIM Simulation Model

Cited by 31 publications

References 21 publications

Random forests to evaluate biotic interactions in fish distribution models

Random forests to evaluate biotic interactions in fish distribution models

Application of mesohabitat fish use information to identify guilds for lotic systems

Accounting for flow intermittency in environmental flows design

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About