Favourability functions versus probability of presence: Advantages and misuses

Ecography

Volumn 31, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 417-422

  Albert, Cécile H ^a   Thuiller, Wilfried ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ JOSEPH FOURIER   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CALIBRATION; ECOLOGICAL MODELING; POPULATION DISTRIBUTION; PROBABILITY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SPECIES OCCURRENCE;

EID: 49749125937     PISSN: 09067590     EISSN: 16000587     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.0906-7590.2008.05221.x     Document Type: Review

References (45)

1. Allouche, O. et al. 2006. Assessing the accuracy of species distribution models: prevalence, kappa and the true skill statistic (TSS) J. Appl. Ecol. 43 : 1223 1232.
2. Austin, M. 2007. Species distribution models and ecological theory: a critical assessment and some possible new approaches Ecol. Model. 200 : 1 19.
3. Austin, M. P. 2002. Spatial prediction of species distribution: an interface between ecological theory and statistical modelling Ecol. Model. 157 : 101 118.
4. Austin, M. P. Meyers, J. A. 1996. Current approaches to modelling the environmental niche of eucalypts: implication for management of forest biodiversity For. Ecol. Manage. 85 : 95 106.
5. Austin, M. P. et al. 1984. New approaches to direct gradient analysis using environmental scalars and statistical curve-fitting procedures Vegetatio 55 : 11 27.
6. Austin, M. P. et al. 2006. Evaluation of statistical models used for predicting plant species distributions: role of artificial data and theory Ecol. Model. 199 : 197 216.
7. Bayliss, J. L. et al. 2005. The use of probabilistic habitat suitability models for biodiversity action planning Agricult. Ecosyst. Environ. 108 : 228 250.
8. Cohen, J. 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales Educ. Psychol. Meas. 20 : 37 46.
9. Fielding, A. H. 2002. What are the appropriate characteristics of an accuracy measure Scott, J. M. Predicting species occurrences - issues of accuracy and scale. Island Press 303 313.
10. Fielding, A. H. Bell, J. F. 1997. A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models Environ. Conserv. 24 : 38 49.
11. Fleishman, E. et al. 2003. Validation tests of predictive models of butterfly occurrence based on environmental variables Conserv. Biol. 17 : 806 817.
12. Guisan, A. Thuiller, W. 2005. Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models Ecol. Lett. 8 : 993 1009.
13. Guisan, A. et al. 1998. Predicting the potential distribution of plant species in an alpine environment J. Veg. Sci. 9 : 65 74.
14. Hernandez, P. A. et al. 2006. The effect of sample size and species characteristics on performance of different species distribution modeling methods Ecography 29 : 773 785.
15. Hirzel, A. H. et al. 2001. Assessing habitat-suitability models with a virtual species Ecol. Model. 145 : 111 121.
16. Jimenez-Valverde, A. Lobo, J. M. 2007. Threshold criteria for conversion of probability of species presence to either-or presence-absence Acta. Oecol. 31 : 361 369.
17. Leathwick, J. R. Austin, M. P. 2001. Competitive interactions between tree species in New Zealand's old-growth indigenous forests Ecology 82 : 2560 2573.
18. Liu, C. et al. 2005. Selecting thresholds of occurrence in the prediction of species distributions Ecography 28 : 385 393.
19. Mackenzie, D. I. 2006. Modeling the probability of resource use: the effect of, and dealing with, detecting a species imperfectly J. Wildl. Manage. 70 : 368 374.
20. Mackenzie, D. I. et al. 2004. Investigating species co-occurrence patterns when species are detected imperfectly J. Anim. Ecol. 73 : 546 555.
21. Manel, S. et al. 2001. Evaluating presence-absence models in ecology: the need to account for prevalence J. Appl. Ecol. 38 : 921 931.
22. Martin, T. G. et al. 2005. Zero tolerance ecology: improving ecological inference by modelling the source of zero observations Ecol. Lett. 8 : 1235 1246.
23. McPherson, J. M. Jetz, W. 2007. Effects of species' ecology on the accuracy of distribution models Ecography 30 : 135 151.
24. Mech, D. L. 2006. Prediction failure of a wolf landscape model Wildl. Soc. Bull. 34 : 874 877.
25. Meynard, C. N. Quinn, J. F. 2007. Predicting species distributions: a critical comparison of the most common statistical models using artificial species J. Biogeogr. 34 : 1455 1469.
26. Nicholson, E. Possingham, H. P. 2007. Making conservation decisions under uncertainty for the persistence of multiple species Ecol. Appl. 17 : 251 265.
27. Pearce, J. Ferrier, S. 2000. Evaluating the predictive performance of habitat models developed using logistic regression Ecol. Model. 133 : 225 245.
28. Pearce, J. L. et al. 2001. Incorporating expert opinion and fine-scale vegetation mapping into statistical models of faunal distribution J. Appl. Ecol. 38 : 412 424.
29. Randin, C. F. et al. 2006. Are niche-based species distribution models transferable in space? J. Biogeogr. 33 : 1689 1703.
30. Real, R. et al. 2006. Obtaining environmental favourability functions from logistic regression Environ. Ecol. Stat. 13 : 237 245.
31. Reineking, B. Schroder, B. 2006. Constrain to perform: regularization of habitat models Ecol. Model. 193 : 675 690.
32. Royle, A. et al. 2005. Modelling occurence and abundance of species when detection is imperfect Oikos 110 : 353 359.
33. Strauss, B. Biedermann, R. 2007. Evaluating temporal and spatial generality: how valid are species-habitat relationship models? Ecol. Model. 204 : 104 114.
34. Swets, J. A. 1988. Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems Science 240 : 1285 1293.
35. Teixeira, J. et al. 2001. Biogeography of the golden-striped salamander Chioglossa lusitanica: a field survey and spatial modelling approach Ecography 24 : 618 624.
36. Thompson, L. M. et al. 2006. A spatial modeling approach to identify potential butternut restoration sites in Mammoth Cave National Park Restor. Ecol. 14 : 289 296.
37. Thuiller, W. et al. 2004. Effects of restricting environmental range of data to project current and future species distributions Ecography 27 : 165 172.
38. Thuiller, W. et al. 2006a. Vulnerability of African mammals to anthropogenic climate change under conservative land transformation assumptions Global Change Biol. 12 : 424 440.
39. Thuiller, W. et al. 2006b. Endemic species and ecosystem vulnerability to climate change in Namibia Global Change Biol. 12 : 759 776.
40. Titeux, N. et al. 2007. Fitness-related parameters improve presence-only distribution modelling for conservation practice: the case of the red-backed shrike Biol. Conserv. 138 : 207 223.
41. Tsoar, A. et al. 2007. A comparative evaluation of presenceonly methods for modelling species distribution Divers. Distrib. 13 : 397 405.
42. Vanreusel, W. et al. 2007. Transferability of species distribution models: a functional habitat approach for two regionally threatened butterflies Conserv. Biol. 1 : 201 212.
43. Vayssières, M. P. et al. 2000. Classification trees: an alternative non-parametric approach for predicting species distributions J. Veg. Sci. 11 : 679 694.
44. Wintle, B. A. et al. 2005. Estimating and dealing with detectability in occupancy surveys for forest owls and arboreal marsupials J. Wildl. Manage. 69 : 905 917.
45. Wintle, B. A. et al. 2004. Precision and bias of methods for estimating point survey detection probabilities Ecol. Appl. 14 : 703 712.