Abstract
Conservation and management of environmentally suitable areas, that support survival and persistence of species, are keys to protect wildlife in their natural habitat. Populations of Himalayan musk deer Moschus leucogaster, an endemic species in Asia, are listed as endangered in the IUCN red list, requiring immediate conservation actions before their extinction in the wild. In order to model and map the current and future (under projected climate change settings) climatically-suitable area for the species, Maxent modeling technique, that requires presence-only records, was employed. As predictors, we extracted 19 bioclimatic variables from ’WorldClim’ database with a ~1 km spatial resolution and used 10 uncorre-lated bioclimatic variables as inputs. As indicated by a high area under ROC curve (AUC) value (>0.9), Maxent well performed and predicted climatically-suitable habitat for the species along the Hindukush Himalaya, where the species is known to occur. Annual mean temperature appeared to most influence the distribution of potential habitat for the species. An expansion of species’ habitat was noticed in the Indian and Tibetan part of species range, suggesting a potential future effect of climate change on the species distribution. The findings of this study could assist wildlife managers in devising conservation plans for the current and future conservation of the species in the context of climate change. This is the first study to model and map the current and future distribution of the species in its range.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Abbas, F.-, Rooney, T.P., Mian, A., Bhatti, Z.I., Haider, J., 2015. The distribution, population status, and wildlife product trade of Himalayan musk deer in Gilgit-Baltistan, Pakistan. J. Bioresour. Manage. 2, 38–47.
Andrewartha, H.G., Birch, L.C., 1954. The Distribution and Abundance of Animals. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Austin, M.P., Nicholls, A.O., Margules, C.R., 1990. Measurement of the realized qualitative niche: environmental niches of five Eucalyptus species. Ecol. Monogr. 60, 161–177.
Brooks, T.M., Mittermeier, R.A., da Fonseca, G.A.B., Gerlach, J., Hoffmann, M., Lamoreux, J.F., Mittermeier, C.G., Pilgrim, J.D., Rodrigues, A.S.L., 2006. Global biodiversity conservation priorities. Science 313, 58–61.
Chan, W.P., Chen, I.C., Colwell, R.K., Liu, W.C., Huang, C.Y., Shen, S.F., 2016. Seasonal and daily climate variation have opposite effects on species elevational range size. Science 351, 1437–1439.
Dormann, C.F., Elith, J., Bacher, S., Buchmann, C., Carl, G., Carre, G., Marquez, J.R.G., Gruber, B., Lafourcade, B., Leitao, P.J., Munkemuller, T., McClean, C., Osborne, P.E., Reineking, B., Schroder, B., Skidmore, A.K., Zurell, D., Lautenbach, S., 2013. Collinearity: a review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography 36, 27–46.
Elith, J., Burgman, M.A., 2002. Predictions and their validation: rare plants in the Central Highlands, Victoria, Australia. In: Scott, J.M., Heglund, P.J., Morrison, M.L., Raphael, M.G., Wall, W.A., Samson, F.B. (Eds.), Predicting Species Occurrences: Issues of Accuracy and Scale. Island Press, Covelo, CA, pp. 303–314.
Elith, J., Graham, C.H., 2009. Do they? How do they? Why do they differ? On finding reasons fordiffering performances of species distribution models. Ecography32, 66–77.
Elith, J., Leathwick, J.R., 2009. Species Distribution Models: ecological explanation and Prediction across time and space. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 40, 677–697.
Elith, J., Phillips, S.J., Hastie, T., Dudik, M., Chee, Y.E., Yates, C.J., 2011. A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists. Divers. Distrib. 17, 43–57.
Elsen, P.R., Tingley, M.W., Kalyanaraman, R., Ramesh, K., Wilcove, D.S., 2017. The role of competition, ecotones, and temperature in the elevational distribution of Himalayan birds. Ecology 98, 337–348.
Ferrier, S., 2002. Mapping spatial pattern in biodiversity for regional conservation planning: where to from here? Syst. Biol. 51, 331–363.
Franklin, J., 2010. Moving beyond static species distribution models insupport of conservation biogeography. Divers. Distrib. 16, 321–330.
Green, M.J.B., 1986. The distribution, status: and conservation of the Himalayan musk deer Moschus chrysogaster. Biol. Conserv. 35, 347–375.
Grubb, P., 2005. Artiodactyla. In: Wilson, D.E., Reeder, D.M. (Eds.), Mammal Species of the World: ATaxonomic and Geographic Reference. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp. 637–722.
Guisan, A., Thuiller, W., 2005. Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol. Lett. 8, 993–1009.
Guisan, A., Zimmermann, N.E., 2000. Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecol. Model. 135, 147–186.
Hersteinsson, P., Macdonald, D.W., 1992. Interspecific competition and the geographical distribution of red and arctic foxes Vulpes vulpes and Alopex lagopus. Oikos 64, 505–515.
Hijmans, R.J., Cameron, S.E., Parra, J.L. Jones, P.G., Jarvis, A., 2005. Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces forglobal land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 25, 1965–1978.
Hughes, L., 2000. Biological consequences of global warming: is the signal already apparent? Trends Ecol. Evol. 15, 56–61.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 1996. Climate change 1995: the science of climate change. In: Contribution of Working Group Ito the Second Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Ilyas, O., 2014. Status, habitat use and conservation of Alpine musk deer (Moschus chrysogaster) in Uttarakhand Himalyas, India. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 43, 83–91.
Kadmon, R., Farber, O., Danin, A., 2004. Effect of roadside bias onthe accuracy of predictive maps produced by bioclimatic models. Ecol. Appl. 14, 401–413.
Khadka, K.K., James, D.A., 2016. Habitat selection by endangered Himalayan musk deer (Moschus chrysogaster) and impacts of livestock grazing in Nepal Himalaya: implications for conservation. J. Nat. Conserv. 31, 38–42.
Liu, C., Newell, G., White, M., 2016. On the selection of thresholds for predicting species occurrence with presence-only data. Ecol. Evol. 6, 337–348.
Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington DC.
Parmesan, C., Yohe, G., 2003. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421, 37–42.
Parmesan, C., 2007. Influences of species, latitudes and methodologies on estimates of phenological response to global warming. Global Change Biol. 13, 1860–1872.
Peterson, A.T., Soberon, J., Pearson, R.G., Anderson, R.P., Martinez-Meyer, E., Nakamura, M., Araujo, M.B., 2011. Ecological Niches and Geographic Distributions. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.
Phillips, S.J., Anderson, R.P., Schapire, R.E., 2006. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol. Model. 190, 231–259.
Pounds, J.A., Fogden, M.P.L., Campbell, J.H., 1999. Biological responses to climate change on a tropical mountain. Nature 398, 611–615.
Segurado, P., Araujo, M.B., Kunin, W.E., 2006. Consequences of spatial autocorrelation for niche-based models. J. Appl. Ecol. 43, 433–444.
Stockwell, D.R.B., Peterson, A.T., 2002. Effects of sample size on accuracy of species distribution models. Ecol. Model. 148, 1–13.
Swets, J.A., 1988. Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 240, 1285–1293.
Thomas, CD., Cameron, A., Green, R.E., Bakkenes, M., Beaumont, L.J., Collingham, Y.C., et al., 2004. Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427, 145–147.
Timmins, R.J., Duckworth, J.W., 2015. Moschus leucogaster. In: The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species2015:e.T13901A61977764(Accessed 16 September 12) https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.20152.RLTS.T13901A61977764.en.
van Gils, J.A., Lisovski, S., Lok, T., Meissner, W., Ozarowska, A., de Fouw, J., Rakhimberdiev, E., Mikhail, Y., Soloviev, M.Y., Piersma, T., Klaassen, M., 2016. Body shrinkage due to Arctic warming reduces red knot fitness in tropical wintering range. Science 352, 819–821.
van Horne, B., 1983. Density is a misleading indicatorof habitat quality.J. Wildl. Manage. 47, 893–901.
Venier, LA, McKenney, D.W., Wang, Y., McKee, J., 1999. Models of large-scale breeding-bird distributions as a function of macro-climate in Ontario, Canada. J. Biogeogr. 26, 315–328.
Warren, M.S., Hill, J.K., Thomas, J.A., Asher, J., Fox, R., Huntley, B., et al., 2001. Rapid responses of British butterflies to opposing forces of climate and habitat change. Nature 414, 65–69.
Wisz, M.S., Hijmans, R.J., Li, J., Peterson, A.T., Graham, C.H., Guisan, A., 2008. NCEAS Predicting Species Distributions Working Group, Effects of sample size on the performance of species distribution models. Diversity Distrib. 14, 763–773.
Yang, Q.S., Meng, X.X., Xia, L., Lin Feng, Z.J., 2003. Conservation status and causes of decline of musk deer (Moschus spp.) in China. Biol. Conserv. 109, 333–342.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Khadka, K.K., Kannan, R., Ilyas, O. et al. Where are they? Where will they be? In pursuit of current and future whereabouts of endangered Himalayan musk deer. Mamm Biol 85, 30–36 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2017.02.007
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2017.02.007