4.6 Article

Soil-Related Predictors for Distribution Modelling of Four European Crayfish Species

期刊

WATER
卷 13, 期 16, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/w13162280

关键词

Astacus astacus; Austropotamobius bihariensis; Austropotamobius torrentium; Pontastacus leptodactylus; spatial ecology

资金

  1. Ministry of Research, Innovation and Digitization, CNCS/CCCDI-UEFISCDI [PN-III-P4-ID-PCE-2020-1187]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to explore the value of soil properties in the spatial distribution of four European indigenous crayfish species, finding that different species have different preferences for soil characteristics.
One of the most critical challenges in species distribution modelling is testing and validating various digitally derived environmental predictors (e.g., remote-sensing variables, topographic variables) by field data. Therefore, here we aimed to explore the value of soil properties in the spatial distribution of four European indigenous crayfish species. A database with 473 presence and absence locations in Romania for Austropotamobius bihariensis, A. torrentium, Astacus astacus and Pontastacus leptodactylus was used in relation to eight digitalised soil properties. Using random forest modelling, we found a preference for dense soils with lower coarse fragments content together with deeper sediment cover and higher clay values for A. astacus and P. leptodactylus. These descriptors trigger the need for cohesive soil river banks as the microenvironment for building their burrows. Conversely, species that can use banks with higher coarse fragments content, the highland species A. bihariensis and A. torrentium, prefer soils with slightly thinner sediment cover and lower density while not influenced by clay/sand content. Of all species, A. astacus was found related with higher erosive soils. The value of these soil-related digital descriptors may reside in the improvement of approaches in crayfish species distribution modelling to gain adequate conservation measures.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据