Editor: Nathalie Pettorelli
Combining threat and occurrence models to predict potential ecological traps for Andean bears in the Cordillera de Mérida, Venezuela
Article first published online: 26 FEB 2014
© 2014 The Zoological Society of London
Volume 17, Issue 4, pages 388–398, August 2014
How to Cite
Sánchez-Mercado, A., Ferrer-Paris, J. R., García-Rangel, S., Yerena, E., Robertson, B. A. and Rodríguez-Clark, K. M. (2014), Combining threat and occurrence models to predict potential ecological traps for Andean bears in the Cordillera de Mérida, Venezuela. Animal Conservation, 17: 388–398. doi: 10.1111/acv.12106
Associate Editor: Sadie Ryan
- Issue published online: 30 JUL 2014
- Article first published online: 26 FEB 2014
- Manuscript Accepted: 13 JAN 2014
- Manuscript Received: 12 MAR 2013
- Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Científicas (IVIC)
- Provita's Iniciativa de Especies Amenazadas (IEA)
- Venezuelan Fondo Nacional de Ciencia
- Tecnología e Investigación (FONACIT)
- Idea Wild, the International Bear Association
- Scott Neotropical Fund of Cleveland Metroparks Zoo
- a Rufford Small Grant for Nature Conservation
- Denver Zoological Foundation
- Pittsburgh Zoo and PGG Aquarium
- Fundación Gran Mariscal de Ayacucho (FundAYACUCHO)
- National Parks Institute (INPARQUES)
- Fundación para la Defensa de la Naturaleza (FUDENA)
Appendix S1. Detailed partitioning and algorithm selection methods.
Table S1. Methods used to build species distribution models, with corresponding parameters.
Figure S1. (a) Discriminatory power (AUC values) and (b) ratio of observed to expected sensitivity (Sobs/Sexp) for the three algorithms used to fit mdl1 and implemented for each calibration sample size (SSEN = ENFA; ME = MaxEnt; ML = MaxLike). Horizontal gray bar indicates the interval of desirable predictive accuracy (0.80–1.20); values above this indicate overprediction and below, underprediction.
Figure S2. (a) Predicted area of suitable habitat (ME) or occurrence (ML), and (b) percentage of that area identified as potential ecological trap (ET) for each algorithm, for each calibration subset size (SS) tested.
Figure S3. Relationship between MaxEnt and MaxLike predictions for each map cell. Dotted red line indicates perfect agreement.
Please note: Wiley Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.