Selecting thresholds of occurrence in the prediction of species distributions

Ecography

Volumn 28, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 385-393

  Liu, Canran ^a,b   Berry, Pam M ^a   Dawson, Terence P ^a   Pearson, Richard G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK; BIOGEOGRAPHY; MODELING; PREDICTION; SPECIES OCCURRENCE;

EASTERN HEMISPHERE; EURASIA; EUROPE; WORLD;

EID: 20444488428     PISSN: 09067590     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.0906-7590.2005.03957.x     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Austin, M. P. 2002. Spatial prediction of species distribution: an interface between ecological theory and statistical modeling. - Ecol. Modell. 157: 101-118.
2. Bailey, S.-A., Haines-Young, R. H. and Watkins, C. 2002. Species presence in fragmented landscapes: modeling of species requirements at the national level. - Biol. Conserv. 108: 307-316.
3. Berg, Å, Gärdenfors, U. and von Proschwitz, T. 2004. Logistic regression models for predicting occurrence of terrestrial mollusks in southern Sweden - importance of environmental data quality and model complexity. - Ecography 27: 83-93.
4. Berry, P. M. et al. 2001. Impacts on terrestrial environments. - In: Harrison, P. A., Berry, P. M. and Dawson, T. P. (eds), Climate change and nature conservation in the Britain and Ireland: modelling natural resource responses to climate change (the MONARCH project). UKCIP Tech. Rep., pp. 43-150.
5. Berry, P. M. et al. 2002. Modelling potential impacts of climate change on the bioclimatic envelope of species in Britain and Ireland. - Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 11: 453-462.
6. Brosse, S. et al. 1999. The use of artificial neural networks to assess fish abundance and spatial occupancy in the littoral zone of a mesotrophic lake. - Ecol. Modell. 120: 299-311.
7. Cantor, S. B. et al. 1999. A comparison of C/B ratios from studies using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. - J. Clin. Epidemiol. 52: 885-892.
8. Collingham, Y. et al. 2000. Predicting the spatial distribution of non-indigenous riparian weeds: issues of spatial scale and extent. - J. Appl. Ecol. 37 (Suppl. 1): 13-27.
9. Cramer, J. S. 2003. Logit models: from economics and other fields. - Cambridge Univ. Press, pp. 66-67.
10. Cumming, G. S. 2000. Using habitat models to map diversity: pan-African species richness of ticks (Acri: Ixodida). - J. Biogeogr. 27: 425-440.
11. D'heygere, T., Gorthals, P. L. M. and De Pauw, N. 2003. Use of genetic algorithms to select input variables in decision tree models for the prediction of benthic macroinvertebrates. - Ecol. Modell. 160: 291-300.
12. Fielding, A. H. and Haworth, P. F. 1995. Testing the generality of bird-habitat models. - Conserv. Biol. 9: 1446-1481.
13. Fielding, A. H. and Bell, J. F. 1997. A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. - Environ. Conserv. 24: 38-49.
14. Guisan, A. and Theurillat, J.-P. 2000. Equilibrium modeling of alpine plant distribution: how far can we go. - Phytocoenologia 30: 353-384.
15. Guisan, A. and Zimmermann, N. E. 2000. Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. - Ecol. Modell. 135: 147-186.
16. Guisan, A., Theurillat, J.-P. and Kienast, F. 1998. Predicting the potential distribution of plant species in an alpine environment. - J. Veg. Sci. 9: 65-74.
17. Guisan, A., Weiss, S. B. and Weiss, A. D. 1999. GLM versus CCA spatial modeling of plant species distribution. - Plant Ecol. 143: 107-122.
18. Guisan, A., Edwards, T. C. Jr and Hastie, T. 2002. Generalized linear and generalized additive models in studies of species distributions: setting the scene. - Ecol. Modell. 157: 89-100.
19. Hilbert, D. W. and Ostendorf, B. 2001. The utility of artificial neural networks for modeling the distribution of vegetation in past, present and future climates. - Ecol. Modell. 146: 311-327.
20. Huntley, B. et al. 1995. Modelling present and potential future ranges of some European higher plants using climate response surfaces. - J. Biogeogr. 22: 967-1001.
21. Lehmann, A. 1998. GIS modeling of submerged macrophyte distribution using Generalized Addition Models. - Plant Ecol. 139: 113-124.
22. Luck, G. W. 2002. The habitat requirements of the rufous treecreeper (Climacteris rufa). 2. Validating predictive habitat models. - Biol. Conserv. 105: 395-403.
23. Manel, S., Dias, J.-M. and Ormerod, S. J. 1999. Comparing discriminant analysis, neural networks and logistic regression for predicting species distributions: a case study with a Himalayan river bird. - Ecol. Modell. 120: 337-347.
24. Manel, S., Williams, H. C. and Ormerod, S. J. 2001. Evaluating presence-absence models in ecology: the need to account for prevalence. - J. Appl. Ecol. 38: 921-931.
25. Metz, C. E. 1978. Basic principles of ROC analysis. - Seminar in Nuclear Medicine 8: 283-298.
26. Moisen, G. G. and Frescino, T. S. 2002. Comparing five modeling techniques for predicting forest characteristics. - Ecol. Modell. 157: 209-225.
27. Nahm, U. Y. and Mooney, R. J. 2000. Using information extraction to aid the discovery of prediction rules from text. - Proc. of the KDD (Knowledge Discovery in Databases) - 2000 Workshop on Text Mining, pp. 51-58.
28. Olden, J. D. 2003. A species-specific approach to modelling biological communities and its potential for conservation. - Conserv. Biol. 17: 854-863.
29. Olden, J. D. and Jackson, D. A. 2001. Fish-habitat relationships in lakes: gaining predictive and explanatory insight by using artificial neural networks. - Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 130: 878-897.
30. Osborne, P. E., Alonso, J. C. and Bryant, R. G. 2001. Modelling landscape-scale habitat use using GIS and remote sensing: a case study with great bustards. - J. Appl. Ecol. 38: 458-471.
31. Ozesmi, S. L. and Ozesmi, U. 1999. An artificial neural network approach to spatial habitat modelling with interspecific interaction. - Ecol. Modell. 116: 15-31.
32. Pearce, J. and Ferrier, S. 2000. Evaluating the predictive performance of habitat models developed using logistic regression. - Ecol. Modell. 133: 225-245.
33. Pearson, R. et al. 2002. SPECIES: A Spatial Evaluation of Climate Impact on the Envelope of Species. - Ecol. Modell. 154: 289-300.
34. Pearson, R., Dawson, T. P. and Liu, C. 2004. Modelling species distributions in Britain: a hierarchical integration of climate and land-cover data. - Ecography 27: 285-298.
35. Robertson, M. P., Caithness, N. and Villet, M. H. 2001. A PCA-based modeling technique for predicting environmental suitability for organisms from presence records. - Div. Distribut. 7: 15-27.
36. Robertson, M. P. et al. 2003. Comparing models for predicting species' potential distributions: a case study using correlative and mechanistic predictive modeling techniques. - Ecol. Modell. 164: 153-167.
37. Schapire, R. E., Singer, Y. and Singhal, A. 1998. Boosting and Rocchio applied to text filterina. - Proc. ACM SIGIR, pp. 215-223.
38. Stockwell, D. R. B. and Peterson, A. T. 2002. Effects of sample size on accuracy of species distribution models. - Ecol. Modell. 148: 1-13.
39. Woolf, A. et al. 2002. Statewide modeling of bobcat, Lynx rufus, habitat in Illinois, USA. - Biol. Conserv. 104: 191-198.
40. Zweig, M. H. and Campbell, G. 1993. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. - Clin. Chem. 39: 561-577.