Differences in spatial predictions among species distribution modeling methods vary with species traits and environmental predictors

Ecography

Volumn 32, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 907-918

  Syphard, Alexandra D ^a,b   Franklin, Janet ^c  

^a SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Conservation Biology Inst ^*  (United States)

^c ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLIMATE VARIATION; CONSERVATION PLANNING; CORRELATION; DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL MODELING; FOREST MANAGEMENT; PLANT; SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION; SPECIES OCCURRENCE;

CALIFORNIA; NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 72049101205     PISSN: 09067590     EISSN: 16000587     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2009.05883.x     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Albert, C. H. Thuiller, W. 2008. Favourability functions versus probability of presence: advantages and misuses Ecography 31 : 417 422.
2. Araújo, M. B. New, M. 2007. Ensemble forecasting of species distributions Trends Ecol. Evol. 22 : 42 47.
3. Araújo, M. B. et al. 2005a. Validation of species-climate impact models under climate change Global Change Biol. 11 : 1504 1513.
4. Araújo, M. B. et al. 2005b. Downscaling European species atlas distributions to a finer resolution: implications for conservation planning Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 14 : 17 30.
5. Austin, M. P. 2002. Spatial prediction of species distribution: an interface between ecological theory and statistical modelling Ecol. Model. 157 : 101 118.
6. Austin, M. P. Smith, T. M. 1989. A new model for the continuum concept Vegetatio 83 : 35 47.
7. 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.
8. Barbour, M. Terrestrial vegetation of California. Univ. of California Press 2007 et al. 2006. Predicting habitat suitability with machine learning models: the potential area of Pinus sylvestris L. in the Iberian Peninsula Ecol. Model. 197 : 383 393.
9. Bio, A. et al. 1998. Determining alternative models for vegetation response analysis: a non-parametric approach J. Veg. Sci. 9 : 5 16.
10. Breiman, L. 2001. Random forests Mach. Learn. 45 : 15 32.
11. Breiman, L. et al. 1984. Classification and regression trees. Wadsworth.
12. Crookston, N. L. Finley, A. O. 2008. yaImpute: an R package for kNN imputation J. Stat. Soft. 23 : 1 16.
13. Crossman, N. D. Bass, D. A. 2008. Application of common predictive habitat techniques for post-border weed risk management Divers. Distrib. 14 : 213 224.
14. Cutler, D. R. et al. 2007. Random forests for classification in ecology Ecology 88 : 2783 2792.
15. De'ath, G. Fabricius, K. E. 2000. Classification and regression trees: a powerful yet simple technique for ecological data analysis Ecology 81 : 3178 3192.
16. Drake, J. M. et al. 2006. Modelling ecological niches with support vector machines J. Appl. Ecol. 43 : 424 432.
17. Dubayah, R. Rich, P. M. 1995. Topographic solar radiation for GIS Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Syst. 9 : 405 419.
18. Elith, J. et al. 2006. Novel methods improve prediction of species' distributions from occurrence data Ecography 29 : 129 151.
19. Fielding, A. Bell, J. 1997. A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models Environ. Conserv. 24 : 38 49.
20. Franklin, J. 1995. Predictive vegetation mapping: geographic modeling of biospatial patterns in relation to environmental gradients Prog. Phys. Geogr. 19 : 474 499.
21. Franklin, J. 1998. Predicting the distribution of shrub species in southern California from climate and terrain-derived variables J. Veg. Sci. 9 : 733 748.
22. Franklin, J. et al. 2001. Stratified sampling for field survey of environmental gradients in the Mojave Desert Ecoregion Millington, A. GIS and remote sensing applications in biogeography and ecology. Kluwer 229 253.
23. Freeman, E. A. Moisen, G. G. 2008. A comparison of the performance of threshold criteria for binary classification in terms of predicted prevalence Ecol. Model. 217 : 48 58.
24. Guisan, A. Zimmermann, N. E. 2000. Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology Ecol. Model. 135 : 147 186.
25. Guisan, A. et al. 2002. Generalized linear and generalized additive models in studies of species distributions: setting the scene Ecol. Model. 157 : 89 100.
26. Guisan, A. et al. 2006. Making better biogeographical predictions of species' distributions J. Appl. Ecol. 43 : 386 392.
27. Guisan, A. et al. 2007. What matters for predicting the occurrences of trees: techniques, data, or species' characteristics? Ecol. Monogr. 77 : 615 630.
28. Hanley, J. A. McNeil, B. J. 1982. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristics curve Radiology 143 : 29 36.
29. Heikkinen, R. K. et al. 2006. Methods and uncertainties in bioclimatic envelope modelling under climate change Prog. Phys. Geogr. 30 : 751 777.
30. 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.
31. Hickman, J. D. The Jepson manual: higher plants of California. Univ. of California Press 1993 et al. 2004. The performance of models relating species geographical distributions to climate is independent of trophic level Ecol. Lett. 7 : 417 426.
32. Iverson, L. R. Prasad, A. M. 1998. Predicting abundance of 80 tree species following climate change in the eastern United States Ecol. Monogr. 68 : 465 485.
33. James, F. C. McCulloch, C. E. 1990. Multivariate analysis in ecology and systematics: Panacea or Pandora's box? Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 21 : 129 166.
34. Johnson, C. J. Gillingham, M. P. 2005. An evaluation of mapped species distribution models used for conservation planning Environ. Conserv. 32 : 117 128.
35. Johnson, C. J. et al. 2004. A quantitative approach to conservation planning: using resource selection functions to identify important habitats for mountain caribou J. Appl. Ecol. 41 : 238 251.
36. Keeley, J. E. 2000. Chaparral Barbour, M. G. Billings, W. D. North American terrestrial vegetation. Cambridge Univ. Press 204 253.
37. Kelly, M. et al. 2005. Digitization of a historic dataset: the Wieslander California vegetation type mapping project Madroño 52 : 191 201.
38. Kelly, M. et al. 2008. Considerations for ecological reconstruction of historic vegetation: analysis of the spatial uncertainties in the California Vegetation Type Map dataset Plant. Ecol. 194 : 37 49.
39. Kueppers, L. M. et al. 2005. Modeled regional climate change and California endemic oak ranges Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 102 : 16281 16286.
40. Lehmann, A. et al. 2002. GRASP: generalized regression analysis and spatial prediction Ecol. Model. 157 : 189 207.
41. Lobo, J. M. et al. 2008. AUC: a misleading measure of the performance of predictive distribution models Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 17 : 145 151.
42. Loiselle, B. A. et al. 2003. Avoiding pitfalls of using species distribution models in conservation planning Conserv. Biol. 17 : 1591 1600.
43. Luoto, M. et al. 2005. Uncertainty of bioclimate envelope models based on the geographical distribution of species Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 14 : 575 584.
44. Mackey, B. G. Lindenmayer, D. B. 2001. Towards a hierarchical framework for modeling the spatial distribution of animals J. Biogeogr. 28 : 1147 1166.
45. Maggini, R. et al. 2006. Improving generalized regression analysis for the spatial prediction of forest communities J. Biogeogr. 33 : 1729 1749.
46. Marmion, M. et al. 2008. Evaluation of consensus methods in predictive species distribution modeling Divers. Distrib. 15 : 59 69.
47. McPherson, J. M. Jetz, W. 2007. Effects of species' ecology on the accuracy of distribution models Ecography 30 : 135 151.
48. 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.
49. Meyer, C. B. Thuiller, W. 2006. Accuracy of resource selection functions across spatial scales Divers. Distrib. 12 : 288 297.
50. Miller, J. et al. 2007. Incorporating spatial dependence in predictive vegetation models Ecol. Model. 202 : 225 242.
51. Mladenoff, D. J. et al. 1995. A regional landscape analysis and prediction of favorable gray wolf habitat in the northern great lakes region Conserv. Biol. 9 : 279 294.
52. Moisen, G. G. Frescino, T. S. 2002. Comparing five modelling techniques for predicting forest characteristics Ecol. Model. 157 : 209 225.
53. Moore, I. D. et al. 1991. Digital terrain modeling: a review of hydrological, geomorphologic and biological applications Hydrol. Process. 5 : 3 30.
54. Moran, P. A. P. 1948. The interpretation of statistical maps J. Roy. Stat. Soc. B 10 : 243 251.
55. Osborne, P. E. Suarez-Seoane, S. 2007. Identifying core areas in a species' range using temporal suitability analysis: an example using little bustards Tetrax tetrax L. in Spain Biodivers. Conserv. 16 : 3505 3518.
56. Peterson, A. T. Nakazawa, Y. 2008. Environmental data sets matter in ecological niche modelling: an example with Solenopsis invicta and Solenopsis richteri Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 17 : 135 144.
57. Prasad, A. M. et al. 2006. Newer classification and regression techniques: bagging and random forests for ecological prediction Ecosystems 9 : 181 199.
58. R Development Core Team. 2004. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
59. Real, R. et al. 2006. Obtaining environmental favourability functions from logistic regression Environ. Ecol. Stat. 13 : 237 245.
60. Schoenherr, A. 1992. A natural history of California. Univ. of California Press.
61. Scott, J. M. Predicting species occurrences: issues of accuracy and scale. Island Press 2002 Araújo, M. B. 2004. An evaluation of methods for modelling species distributions J. Biogeogr. 31 : 1555 1568.
62. Segurado, P. et al. 2006. Consequences of spatial autocorrelation for niche based models J. Appl. Ecol. 43 : 433 444.
63. Stockwell, D. Peterson, A. T. 2002. Effects of sample size on accuracy of species distribution models Ecol. Model. 148 : 1 13.
64. Syphard, A. D. Franklin, J. in press. Species' traits affect the performance of species' distribution models for plants in southern California J. Veg. Sci.
65. Taylor, R. S. 2004. A natural history of coastal sage scrub in southern California: regional floristic patterns and relations to physical geography, how it changes over time, and how well reserves represent its biodiversity. Geography Dept, Univ. of California.
66. Termansen, M. et al. 2006. The use of genetic algorithms and Bayesian classification to model species distributions Ecol. Model. 192 : 410 424.
67. Thuiller, W. et al. 2004a. Biodiversity conservation - uncertainty in predictions of extinction risk Nature 430, doi:10.1038/nature02716.
68. Thuiller, W. et al. 2004b. Effects of restricting environmental range of data to project current and future species distributions Ecography 27 : 165 172.
69. Westman, W. E. 1981. Diversity relations and succession in Californian coastal sage scrub Ecology 62 : 170 184.
70. Wieslander, A. E. 1935. A vegetation type map of California Madroño 3 : 140 144.
71. Wilson, J. Gallant, J. 2000. Terrain analysis: principles and applications. Wiley.
72. Wintle, B. A. et al. 2005. Fauna habitat modelling and mapping: a review and case study in the Lower Hunter Central Coast region of NSW Austral Ecol. 30 : 719 738.
73. Yee, T. W. Mitchell, N. D. 1991. Generalized additive models in plant ecology J. Veg. Sci. 2 : 587 602.