Effects of species' ecology on the accuracy of distribution models

Ecography

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 135-151

  M McPherson, Jana ^a,b   Jetz, Walter ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY ASSESSMENT; BIRD; CONSERVATION PLANNING; CONSERVATION STATUS; HABITAT STRUCTURE; HABITAT TYPE; NICHE; NUMERICAL MODEL; POPULATION DISTRIBUTION; SATELLITE DATA; SPATIAL RESOLUTION; SPECIES OCCURRENCE;

AFRICA; SOUTHERN AFRICA; SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA;

AVES;

EID: 33847206814     PISSN: 09067590     EISSN: 16000587     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.2006.0906-7590.04823.x     Document Type: Article

References (86)

1. Åbjörnsson, K. et al. 2004. Responses of prey from habitats with different predator regimes: local adaptation and heritability. - Ecology 85: 1859-1866.
2. Aickin, M. and Gensler, H. 1996. Adjusting for multiple testing when reporting research results: the Bonferroni vs Holm methods. - Am. J. Public Health 86: 726-728.
3. Anon. 2001. S-Plus 6 for Windows guide to statistics, Volume 2. - Insightful Corporation.
4. Anon. 2004. 2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. - IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, accessed online 11 April 2006 at 〈http://www.iucnredlist. org〉.
5. Araújo, M. B. et al. 2005. Validation of species-climate impact models under climate change. - Global Change Biol. 11: 1504-1513.
6. Augustin, N. H. et al. 1996. An autologistic model for the spatial distribution of wildlife. - J. Appl. Ecol. 33: 339-347.
7. Austin, M. P. 2002. Spatial prediction of species distribution: an interface between ecological theory and statistical modelling. - Ecol. Modell. 157: 101-118.
8. Balmford, A. et al. 2002. Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. - Science 297: 950-953.
9. Best, L. B. and Stauffer, D. F. 1986. Factors confounding evaluation of bird-habitat relationships. - In: Verner, J. et al. (eds), Wildlife 2000: modeling habitat relationships of terrestrial vertebrates. The Univ. of Wisconsin Press, pp. 209-216.
10. Boone, R. B. and Krohn, W. B. 1999. Modeling the occurrence of bird species: are the errors predictable? - Ecol. Appl. 9: 835-848.
11. Brotons, L. et al. 2004. Presence-absence versus presence-only modelling methods for predicting bird habitat suitability. - Ecography 27: 437-448.
12. Brown, L. H. et al. (eds) 1982-2004. The birds of Africa. - Academic Press.
13. Burns, C. E. et al. 2003. Global climate change and mammalian species diversity in US national parks. - Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA. 100: 11474-11477.
14. Carswell, M. et al. 2005. Bird atlas of Uganda. - British Ornithologists' Club.
15. Colwell, R. K. and Futuyma, D. J. 1971. On the measurement of niche breadth and overlap. - Ecology 52: 567-576.
16. Corsi, F. et al. 1999. A large-scale model of wolf distribution in Italy for conservation planning. - Conserv. Biol. 13: 150-159.
17. Dean, W. R. J. 1997. The distribution and biology of nomadic birds in the Karoo, South Africa. - J. Biogeogr. 24: 769-779.
18. Dean, W. R. J. 2000. The birds of Angola: an annotated checklist. - British Ornithologists' Union.
19. de Klerk, H. M. et al. 2002. Biogeographical patterns of endemic terrestrial Afrotropical birds. - Div. Distrib. 8: 147-162.
20. Diekotter, T. et al. 2006. Effects of landscape elements on the distribution of the rare bumblebee species Bombus muscorum in an agricultural landscape. - Biodiv. Conserv. 15: 57-68.
21. Dowsett, R. J. and Forbes-Watson, A. D. 1993. Checklist of birds of the Afrotropical and Malagasy regions. - Tauraco Press.
22. Dunning, J. B. (ed.) 1993. CRC handbook of avian body masses. - CRC Press.
23. Elith, J. and Burgman, M. 2002. Predictions and their validation: rare plants in the central highlands, Victoria, Australia. - In: Scott, J. M. et al. (eds), Predicting species occurrences - issues of accuracy and scale. Island Press, pp. 303-313.
24. Elith, J. et al. 2006. Novel methods improve prediction of species' distributions from occurrence data. - Ecography 29: 129-151.
25. Engler, R. et al. 2004. An improved approach for predicting the distribution of rare and endangered species from occurrence and pseudo-absence data. - J. Appl. Ecol. 41: 263-274.
26. Fielding, A. H. and Haworth, P. F. 1995. Testing the generality of bird-habitat models. - Conserv. Biol. 9: 1466-1481.
27. 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.
28. Garrison, B. A. and Lupo, T. 2002. Accuracy of bird range maps based on habitat maps and habitat relationship models. - In: Scott, J. M. et al. (eds), Predicting species occurrences - issues of accuracy and scale. Island Press, pp. 367-375.
29. Gibson, L. A. et al. 2004. Spatial prediction of rufous bristlebird habitat in a coastal heathland: a GIS-based approach. - J. Appl. Ecol. 41: 213-223.
30. Ginn, P. J. et al. (eds) 1989. The complete book of southern African birds. - Struik Winchester.
31. Gioia, P. and Pigott, J. P. 2000. Biodiversity assessment: a case study in predicting richness from the potential distributions of plant species in the forests of southwestern Australia. - J. Biogeogr. 27: 1065-1078.
32. Girard, M.-C. and Girard, C. 2003. Processing of remote sensing data. - A. A. Balkema Publ.
33. Goetz, S. J. et al. 2000. Advances in satellite remote sensing of environmental variables for epidemiological applications. - In: Hay, S. I. et al. (eds), Remote sensing and geographical information systems in epidemiology. Academic Press, pp. 289-307.
34. Grinnell, J. 1917. Field tests of theories concerning distributional control. - Am. Nat. 51: 115-128.
35. Guisan, A. and Zimmermann, N. E. 2000. Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. - Ecol. Modell. 135: 147-186.
36. Guisan, A. and Thuiller, W. 2005. Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. - Ecol. Lett. 8: 993-1009.
37. Guralnick, R. 2006. The legacy of past climate and landscape change on species' current experienced climate and elevation ranges across latitude: a multispecies study utilizing mammals in western North America. - Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 15: 505-518.
38. Harrison, J. A. et al. (eds) 1997. The atlas of southern African birds. - Birdlife South Africa.
39. Hay, S. I. 2000. An overview of remote sensing and geodesy for epidemiology and public health applications. - In: Hay, S. I. et al. (eds), Remote sensing and geographical information systems in epidemiology. Academic Press, pp. 1-35.
40. Hepinstall, J. A. et al. 2002. Effects of niche width on the performance and agreement of avian habitat models. - In: Scott, J. M. et al. (eds), Predicting species occurrences - issues of accuracy and scale. Island Press, pp. 593-606.
41. Hoeting, J. A. et al. 2000. An improved model for spatially correlated binary responses. - J. Agricult. Biol. Environ. Stat. 5: 102-114.
42. Hoeting, J. A. et al. 2006. Model selection for geostatistical models. - Ecol. Appl. 16: 87-98.
43. Holt, R. D. 2003. On the evolutionary ecology of species' ranges. - Evol. Ecol. Res. 5: 159-178.
44. Huntley, B. et al. 2004. The performance of models relating species geographical distributions to climate is independent of trophic level. - Ecol. Lett. 7: 417-426.
45. Hutchinson, G. E. 1957. Concluding remarks. - Cold Spring Harb. Symp. 22: 415-427.
46. Hutchinson, G. E. 1959. Homage to Santa Rosalia: or why are there so many kind of animals? - Am. Nat. 93: 145-159.
47. Joachim, J. et al. 1998. Évaluation par télé détection des biotopes à gélinotte de bois (Bonasa bonasia) dans le Parc national des Cévennes. - Gibier Faune Sauvage 15: 31-45.
48. Kadmon, R. et al. 2003. A systematic analysis of factors affecting the performance of climatic envelope models. - Ecol. Appl. 13: 853-867.
49. Karl, J. W. et al. 2002. Species commonness and the accuracy of habitat-relationship models. - In: Scott, J. M. et al. (eds), Predicting species occurrences - issues of accuracy and scale. Island Press, pp. 573-580.
50. Keitt, T. H. et al. 2002. Accounting for spatial pattern when modeling organism- environment interactions. - Ecography 25: 616-625.
51. Knapp, R. A. et al. 2003. Developing probabilistic models to predict amphibian site occupancy in a patchy landscape. - Ecol. Appl. 13: 1069-1082.
52. Knick, S. T. and Rotenberry, J. T. 2000. Ghosts of habitats past: contribution of landscape change to current habitats used by shrubland birds. - Ecology 81: 220-227.
53. Leathwick, J. R. and Austin, M. P. 2001. Competitive interactions between tree species in New Zealand's old-growth indigenous forests. - Ecology 82: 2560-2573.
54. Legendre, P. and Legendre, L. 1998. Numerical ecology, 2nd English ed. - Elsevier.
55. Lepage, D. 2005. Avibase - the world bird database. - Bird Studies Canada and Birdlife International, accessed online 2 March 2005 at 〈http://www.bsc-eoc.org/avibase/avibase.jsp〉.
56. Lewis, A. and Pomeroy, D. E. 1989. A bird atlas of Kenya. - Balkema.
57. Manel, S. et al. 2000. Testing large-scale hypotheses using surveys: the effects of land use on the habitats, invertebrates and birds of Himalayan rivers. - J. Appl. Ecol. 37: 756-770.
58. McPherson, J. M. et al. 2004. The effects of species' range sizes on the accuracy of distribution models: ecological phenomenon or statistical artefact? - J. Appl. Ecol. 41: 811-823.
59. Michalak, P. et al. 2001. Genetic evidence for adaptation-driven incipient speciation of Drosophila melanogaster along a microclimatic contrast in "Evolution Canyon", Israel. - Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 98: 13195-13200.
60. Mitchell, M. S. et al. 2001. Using landscape-level data to predict the distribution of birds on a managed forest: effects of scale. - Ecol. Appl. 11: 1692-1708.
61. Neave, H. M. et al. 1996. Biological inventory for conservation evaluation: 3. Relationships between birds, vegetation and environmental attributes in southern Australia. - For. Ecol. Manage. 85: 197-218.
62. Osborne, P. E. and Suarez-Seoane, S. 2002. Should data be partitioned spatially before building large-scale distribution models? - Ecol. Modell. 157: 249-259.
63. Parker, V. 1994. Swaziland bird atlas, 1985-1991. - Websters.
64. Parker, V. 1999. The atlas of birds of Sul do Save, southern Mozambique. - Avian Demography Unit and the Endangered Wildlife Trust.
65. Pearce, J. and Ferrier, S. 2000. Evaluating the predictive performance of habitat models developed using logistic regression. - Ecol. Modell. 133: 225-245.
66. Pearce, J. et al. 2001. An evaluation of the predictive performance of distributional models for flora and fauna in north-east New South Wales. - J. Environ. Manage. 62: 171-184.
67. Perneger, T. V. 1998. What's wrong with Bonferroni adjustments. - Brit. Med. J. 316: 1236-1238.
68. Peterson, A. T. and Holt, R. D. 2003. Niche differentiation in Mexican birds: using point occurrences to detect ecological innovation. - Ecol. Lett. 6: 774-782.
69. Pulliam, H. R. 2000. On the relationship between niche and distribution. - Ecol. Lett. 3: 349-361.
70. Real, R. et al. 2006. Obtaining environmental favourability functions from logistic regression. - Environ. Ecol. Stat. 13: 237-245.
71. Rogers, D. J. et al. 1996. Predicting the distribution of tsetse flies in West Africa using temporal Fourier processed meteorological satellite data. - Ann. Trop. Med. Parasitol. 90: 225-241.
72. Sakamoto, Y. et al. 1986. Akaike information criterion statistics. - D. Reidel Publ. Company.
73. Scribner, K. T. et al. 2001. Environmental correlates of toad abundance and population genetic diversity. - Biol. Conserv. 98: 201-210.
74. Segurado, P. and Araújo, M. B. 2004. An evaluation of methods for modelling species distributions. - J. Biogeogr. 31: 1555-1568.
75. Şekercioǧlu, Ç. H. et al. 2004. Ecosystem consequences of bird declines. - Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 101: 18042-18047.
76. Sibley, C. G. and Monroe, B. L. 1990. Distribution and taxonomy of the birds of the world. - Yale Univ. Press.
77. Sibley, C. G. and Monroe, B. L. 1993. A supplement to the distribution and taxonomy of birds of the world. - Yale Univ. Press.
78. Stockwell, D. R. B. and Peterson, A. T. 2002. Effects of sample size on accuracy of species distribution models. - Ecol. Modell. 148: 1-13.
79. Suarez-Seoane, S. et al. 2002. Large-scale habitat selection by agricultural steppe birds in Spain: identifying species-habitat responses using generalized additive models. - J. Appl. Ecol. 39: 755-771.
80. Thuiller, W. 2003. BIOMOD - optimizing predictions of species distributions and projecting potential future shifts under global change. - Global. Change Biol. 9: 1353-1362.
81. Thuiller, W. et al. 2004. Relating plant traits and species distributions along bioclimatic gradients for 88 Leucadendron taxa. - Ecology 85: 1688-1699.
82. Thuiller, W. et al. 2005. Niche-based modelling as a tool for predicting the risk of alien plant invasions at a global scale. - Global. Change Biol. 11: 2234-2250.
83. Vaughan, I. P. and Ormerod, S. J. 2003. Improving the quality of distribution models for conservation by addressing shortcomings in the field collection of training data. - Conserv. Biol. 17: 1601-1611.
84. Verbyla, D. L. and Litvaitis, J. A. 1989. Resampling methods for evaluating classification accuracy of wildlife habitat models. - Environ. Manage. 13: 783-787.
85. Walther, B. A. et al. 2004. Known and predicted African winter distributions and habitat use of the endangered Basra reed warbler (Acrocephalus griseldis) and the near-threatened cinereous bunting (Emberiza cineracea). - J. Ornithol. 145: 287-299.
86. Wiens, J. J. and Graham, C. H. 2005. Niche conservatism: integrating evolution, ecology, and conservation biology. - Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 36: 519-539.