Ecological relevance of performance criteria for species distribution models

Ecological Modelling

Volumn 221, Issue 16, 2010, Pages 1995-2002

  Mouton, Ans M ^a,b   De Baets, Bernard ^a   Goethals, Peter L M ^a  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^b RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR NATURE AND FOREST INBO   (Belgium)

Author keywords

CCI; Kappa; Omission commission errors; Prevalence; TSS

Indexed keywords

CCI; DATA NOISE; DATA-DRIVEN MODEL; ECOLOGICAL DATA; ECOLOGICAL MODELLING; ECOLOGICAL RELEVANCE; EVALUATION PROCESS; INPUT VARIABLES; KEY COMPONENT; MODEL PERFORMANCE; MODEL QUALITIES; MODEL TRAINING; MUTUAL INFORMATIONS; ODDS RATIOS; PERFORMANCE CRITERION; PREDICTIVE ACCURACY; PREDICTIVE PERFORMANCE; PRESENCE-ABSENCE; SPECIES DISTRIBUTION MODELS;

ERRORS;

ECOLOGY;

ACCURACY ASSESSMENT; ECOLOGICAL MODELING; MODEL TEST; PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT; POPULATION DISTRIBUTION; POPULATION MODELING; PREDICTION;

EID: 77954027356     PISSN: 03043800     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2010.04.017     Document Type: Review

References (75)

1. Allouche O., Tsoar A., Kadmon R. Assessing the accuracy of species distribution models: prevalence, kappa and the true skill statistic (TSS). J. Appl. Ecol. 2006, 43:1223-1232.
2. Anderson R.P., Lew D., Peterson A.T. Evaluating predictive models of species' distributions: criteria for selecting optimal models. Ecol. Model. 2003, 162:211-232.
3. Araújo M.B., Pearson R.G., Thuiller W., Erhard M. Validation of species-climate impact models under climate change. Global Change Biol. 2005, 11:1504-1513.
4. Araújo M.B., Rahbek C. How does climate change affect biodiversity?. Science 2006, 313:1396-1397.
5. Austin M. Species distribution models and ecological theory: a critical assessment and some possible new approaches. Ecol. Model. 2007, 200:1-19.
6. Barry S., Elith J. Error and uncertainty in habitat models. J. Appl. Ecol. 2006, 43:413-423.
7. Berg A., Gardenfors U., von Proschwitz T. Logistic regression models for predicting occurrence of terrestrial molluscs in southern Sweden-importance of environmental data quality and model complexity. Ecography 2004, 27:83-93.
8. Boyce M.S., Vernier P.R., Nielsen S.E., Schmiegelow F.K.A. Evaluating resource selection functions. Ecol. Model. 2002, 157:281-300.
9. Buckland S.T., Elston D.A. Empirical-models for the spatial-distribution of wildlife. J. Appl. Ecol. 1993, 30:478-495.
10. Burgman M.A., Breininger D.R., Duncan B.W., Ferson S. Setting reliability bounds on habitat suitability indices. Ecol. Appl. 2001, 11:70-78.
11. Chefaoui R.M., Lobo J.M. Assessing the effects of pseudo-absences on predictive distribution model performance. Ecol. Model. 2008, 210:478-486.
12. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1960, 20:37-46.
13. Elith J., Graham C.H., Anderson R.P., Dudik M., Ferrier S., Guisan A., Hijmans R.J., Huettmann F., Leathwick J.R., Lehmann A., Li J., Lohmann L.G., Loiselle B.A., Manion G., Moritz C., Nakamura M., Nakazawa Y., Overton J.M., Peterson A.T., Phillips S.J., Richardson K., Scachetti-Pereira R., Schapire R.E., Soberon J., Williams S., Wisz M.S., Zimmermann N.E. Novel methods improve prediction of species' distributions from occurrence data. Ecography 2006, 29:129-151.
14. Elith J., Leathwick J.R. Species distribution models: ecological explanation and prediction across space and time. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2009, 40:677-697.
15. Fielding A.H., Bell J.F. A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environ. Conserv. 1997, 24:38-49.
16. Forbes A.D. Classification-algorithm evaluation-5 performance-measures based on confusion matrices. J. Clin. Monitor. 1995, 11:189-206.
17. Guisan A., Graham C.H., Elith J., Huettmann F. Sensitivity of predictive species distribution models to change in grain size. Divers. Distrib. 2007, 13:332-340.
18. Guisan A., Theurillat J.P. Equilibrium modeling of alpine plant distribution: how far can we go?. Phytocoenologia 2000, 30:353-384.
19. Guisan A., Thuiller W. Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol. Lett. 2005, 8:993-1009.
20. Guisan A., Zimmermann N.E. Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecol. Model. 2000, 135:147-186.
21. Hastie T., Tibshirani R., Friedman J.H. The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction 2001, Springer-Verlag, 536 pp.
22. Heikkinen R.K., Luoto M., Kuussaari M., Toivonen T. Modelling the spatial distribution of a threatened butterfly: impacts of scale and statistical technique. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2007, 79:347-357.
23. Hernandez P.A., Graham C.H., Master L.L., Albert D.L. The effect of sample size and species characteristics on performance of different species distribution modeling methods. Ecography 2006, 29:773-785.
24. Hirzel A.H., Helfer V., Metral F. Assessing habitat-suitability models with a virtual species. Ecol. Model. 2001, 145:111-121.
25. Hoehler F.K. Bias and prevalence effects on kappa viewed in terms of sensitivity and specificity. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2000, 53:499-503.
26. Holt R.D. On the evolutionary ecology of species' ranges. Evol. Ecol. Res. 2003, 5:159-178.
27. Hutchinson G.E. Population studies - animal ecology and demography - concluding remarks. Cold Spring Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol. 1957, 22:415-427.
28. Jiménez-Valverde A., Lobo J.M. The ghost of unbalanced species distribution data in geographical model predictions. Divers. Distrib. 2006, 12:521-524.
29. Jiménez-Valverde A., Lobo J.M. Threshold criteria for conversion of probability of species presence to either-or presence-absence. Acta Oecol. 2007, 31:361-369.
30. Jimenez-Valverde A., Lobo J.M., Hortal J. The effect of prevalence and its interaction with sample size on the reliability of species distribution models. Community Ecol. 2009, 10:196-205.
31. Kerr J.T., Kharouba H.M., Currie D.J. The macroecological contribution to global change solutions. Science 2007, 316:1581-1584.
32. Lantz C.A., Nebenzahl E. Behavior and interpretation of the kappa statistic: resolution of the two paradoxes. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 1996, 49:431-434.
33. Lek S., Guégan J.F. Artificial neural networks as a tool in ecological modelling, an introduction. Ecol. Model. 1999, 120:65-73.
34. Liu C.R., Berry P.M., Dawson T.P., Pearson R.G. Selecting thresholds of occurrence in the prediction of species distributions. Ecography 2005, 28:385-393.
35. Lobo J.M., Jimenez-Valverde A., Hortal J. The uncertain nature of absences and their importance in species distribution modelling. Ecography 2010, 33:103-114.
36. Lobo J.M., Jimenez-Valverde A., Real R. AUC: a misleading measure of the performance of predictive distribution models. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 2008, 17:145-151.
37. Loiselle B.A., Howell C.A., Graham C.H., Goerck J.M., Brooks T., Smith K.G., Williams P.H. Avoiding pitfalls of using species distribution models in conservation planning. Conserv. Biol. 2003, 17:1591-1600.
38. Mackenzie D.I., Royle J.A. Designing occupancy studies: general advice and allocating survey effort. J. Appl. Ecol. 2005, 42:1105-1114.
39. Maclure M., Willett W.C. Misinterpretation and misuse of the Kappa-Statistic. Am. J. Epidemiol. 1987, 126:161-169.
40. Maggini R., Lehmann A., Zimmermann N.E., Guisan A. Improving generalized regression analysis for the spatial prediction of forest communities. J. Biogeogr. 2006, 33:1729-1749.
41. Manel S., Dias J.M., Ormerod S.J. Comparing discriminant analysis, neural networks and logistic regression for predicting species distributions: a case study with a Himalayan river bird. Ecol. Model. 1999, 120:337-347.
42. Manel S., Williams H.C., Ormerod S.J. Evaluating presence-absence models in ecology: the need to account for prevalence. J. Appl. Ecol. 2001, 38:921-931.
43. McPherson J.M., Jetz W. Effects of species' ecology on the accuracy of distribution models. Ecography 2007, 30:135-151.
44. McPherson J.M., Jetz W., Rogers D.J. The effects of species' range sizes on the accuracy of distribution models: ecological phenomenon or statistical artefact?. J. Appl. Ecol. 2004, 41:811-823.
45. Meynard C.N., Quinn J.F. Predicting species distributions: a critical comparison of the most common statistical models using artificial species. J. Biogeogr. 2007, 34:1455-1469.
46. Mouton A., De Baets B., Van Broekhoven E., Goethals P.L.M. Prevalence-adjusted optimisation of fuzzy models for species distribution. Ecol. Model. 2009, 220:1776-1786.
47. Mouton A.M., De Baets B., Goethals P.L.M. Knowledge-based versus data-driven fuzzy habitat suitability models for river management. Environ. Modell. Softw. 2009, 24:982-993.
48. Mouton A.M., Jowett I., Goethals P.L.M., De Baets B. Prevalence-adjusted optimisation of fuzzy habitat suitability models for aquatic invertebrate and fish species in New Zealand. Ecol. Inform. 2009, 4:215-225.
49. Mouton A.M., Schneider M., Peter A., Holzer G., Müller R., Goethals P.L.M., De Pauw N. Optimisation of a fuzzy habitat model for spawning European grayling (Thymallus thymallus L.) in the Aare river (Thun. Switzerland). Ecol. Model. 2008, 215:122-132.
50. Nielsen S.E., Johnson C.J., Heard D.C., Boyce M.S. Can models of presence-absence be used to scale abundance?-two case studies considering extremes in life history. Ecography 2005, 28:197-208.
51. Osborne P.E., Suarez-Seoane S. Should data be partitioned spatially before building large-scale distribution models?. Ecol. Model. 2002, 157:249-259.
52. Parra J.L., Graham C.C., Freile J.F. Evaluating alternative data sets for ecological niche models of birds in the Andes. Ecography 2004, 27:350-360.
53. Pearce J., Ferrier S. Evaluating the predictive performance of habitat models developed using logistic regression. Ecol. Model. 2000, 133:225-245.
54. Pearson R.G., Dawson T.P., Liu C. Modelling species distributions in Britain: a hierarchical integration of climate and land-cover data. Ecography 2004, 27:285-298.
55. Peterson A.T., Holt R.D. Niche differentiation in Mexican birds: using point occurrences to detect ecological innovation. Ecol. Lett. 2003, 6:774-782.
56. Peterson A.T., Papes M., Eaton M. Transferability and model evaluation in ecological niche modeling: a comparison of GARP and Maxent. Ecography 2007, 30:550-560.
57. Petit S., Chamberlain D., Haysom K., Pywell R., Vickery J., Warman L., Allen D., Firbank L. Knowledge-based models for predicting species occurrence in arable conditions. Ecography 2003, 26:626-640.
58. Prates-Clark C.D., Saatchi S.S., Agosti D. Predicting geographical distribution models of high-value timber trees in the Amazon Basin using remotely sensed data. Ecol. Model. 2008, 211:309-323.
59. Rondinini C., Wilson K.A., Boitani L., Grantham H., Possingham H.P. Tradeoffs of different types of species occurrence data for use in systematic conservation planning. Ecol. Lett. 2006, 9:1136-1145.
60. Rouget M., Richardson D.M., Nel J.L., Le Maitre D.C., Egoh B., Mgidi T. Mapping the potential ranges of major plant invaders in South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland using climatic suitability. Divers. Distrib. 2004, 10:475-484.
61. Rushton S.P., Ormerod S.J., Kerby G. New paradigms for modelling species distributions?. J. Appl. Ecol. 2004, 41:193-200.
62. Segurado P., Araújo M.B. An evaluation of methods for modelling species distributions. J. Biogeogr. 2004, 31:1555-1568.
63. Sprott D.A. Statistical Inference in Science 2000, Springer, 245 pp.
64. Syphard A.D., Franklin J. Differences in spatial predictions among species distribution modeling methods vary with species traits and environmental predictors. Ecography 2009, 32:907-918.
65. Termansen M., McClean C.J., Preston C.D. The use of genetic algorithms and Bayesian classification to model species distributions. Ecol. Model. 2006, 192:410-424.
66. Thuiller W., Araújo M.B., Lavorel S. Generalized models vs. classification tree analysis: predicting spatial distributions of plant species at different scales. J. Veg. Sci. 2003, 14:669-680.
67. Thuiller W., Lavorel S., Araújo M.B. Niche properties and geographical extent as predictors of species sensitivity to climate change. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 2005, 14:347-357.
68. Tyre A.J., Possingham H.P., Lindenmayer D.B. Inferring process from pattern: can territory occupancy provide information about life history parameters?. Ecol. Appl. 2001, 11:1722-1737.
69. Vaclavik T., Meentemeyer R.K. Invasive species distribution modeling (iSDM): Are absence data and dispersal constraints needed to predict actual distributions?. Ecol. Model. 2009, 220:3248-3258.
70. Van Broekhoven E., Adriaenssens V., De Baets B. Interpretability-preserving genetic optimization of linguistic terms in fuzzy models for fuzzy ordered classification: an ecological case study. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 2007, 44:65-90.
71. Van Broekhoven E., Adriaenssens V., De Baets B., Verdonschot P.F.M. Fuzzy rule-based macroinvertebrate habitat suitability models for running waters. Ecol. Model. 2006, 198:71-84.
72. Vaughan I.P., Ormerod S.J. The continuing challenges of testing species distribution models. J. Appl. Ecol. 2005, 42:720-730.
73. Welsh A.H. Aspects of Statistical Inference 1996, John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA, 452 pp.
74. Wilson K.A., Westphal M.I., Possingham H.P., Elith J. Sensitivity of conservation planning to different approaches to using predicted species distribution data. Biol. Conserv. 2005, 122:99-112.
75. Wolpert D.H., Macready W.G. No free lunch theorems for optimization. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 1997, 1:67-82.