Exploring the effects of quantity and location of pseudo-absences and sampling biases on the performance of distribution models with limited point occurrence data

Journal for Nature Conservation

Volumn 19, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 1-7

  Lobo, Jorge M ^a   Tognelli, Marcelo F ^b,c  

^a MUSEO NACIONAL DE CIENCIAS NATURALES   (Spain)

^b INSTITUTO ARGENTINO DE NIVOLOGÍA   (Argentina)

^c IUCN   (United States)

Author keywords

Location of pseudo absences; Number of pseudo absences; Spatial sampling bias; Species distribution models

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY ASSESSMENT; GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION; MODELING; NATURE CONSERVATION; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; SPECIES CONSERVATION;

EID: 78651456538     PISSN: 16171381     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jnc.2010.03.002     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. Anderson R.P. Real vs. artefactual absences in species distributions: Tests for Oryzomys albigularis (Rodentia: Muridae) in Venezuela. Journal of Biogeography 2003, 30:591-605.
2. Araújo M.B., Williams P.H. Selecting areas for species persistence using occurrence data. Biological Conservation 2000, 96:331-345.
3. Araújo M.B., Pearson R.G. Equilibrium of species' distributions with climate. Ecography 2005, 28:693-695.
4. Austin M.P., Meyers J.A. Current approaches to modelling the environmental niche of eucalypts: Implications for management of forest biodiversity. Forest Ecology and Management 1996, 85:95-106.
5. Austin M. Species distribution models and ecological theory: A critical assessment and some possible new approaches. Ecological Modelling 2006, 200:1-19.
6. Brotons L., Thuiller W., Araújo M.B., Hirzel A.H. Presence-absence versus presence-only modelling methods for predicting bird habitat suitability. Ecography 2004, 27:437-448.
7. Bulluck L., Fleishman E., Betrus C., Blair R. Spatial and temporal variations in species occurrence rate affect the accuracy of occurrence models. Global Ecology and Biogeography 2006, 15:27-38.
8. Chefaoui R., Lobo J.M. Assessing the effects of pseudo-absences on predictive distribution model performance. Ecological Modelling 2008, 210:478-486.
9. Clark Labs Idrisi Kilimanjaro. GIS software package 2003, Clark Labs, Worcester, MA.
10. Conover W.J., Iman R.L. Rank transformation as a bridge between parametric and nonparametric statistics. The American Statistician 1981, 35:124-129.
11. Cramer J.S. Predictive Performance of the binary logit model in unbalanced samples. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series D (The Statistician) 1999, 48:85-94.
12. Dennis R.L.H., Hardy P.B. Targeting squares for survey: Predicting species richness and incidence of species for a butterfly atlas. Global Ecology and Biogeography 1999, 8:443-454.
13. Dennis R.L.H., Thomas C.D. Bias in butterfly distribution maps: The influence of hot spots and recorder's home range. Journal of Insect Conservation 2000, 4:73-77.
14. Dennis R.L.H., Sparks T.H., Hardy P.B. Bias in butterfly distribution maps: The effects of sampling effort. Journal of Insect Conservation 1999, 3:33-42.
15. Dennis R.L.H., Shreeve T.G., Isaac N.J.B., Roy D.B., Hardy P.B., Fox R., et al. The effects of visual apparency on bias in butterfly recording and monitoring. Biological Conservation 2006, 128:486-492.
16. Dixon P.M., Ellison A.M., Gotelli J. Improving the precision of estimates of the frequency or rare events. Ecology 2005, 86:1114-1123.
17. Engler R., Guisan A., Rechsteiner L. An improved approach for predicting the distribution of rare and endangered species from occurrence and pseudo-absence data. Journal of Applied Ecology 2004, 41:263-274.
18. Ferrier S., Watson G. An evaluation of the effectiveness of environmental surrogates and modelling techniques in predicting the distribution of biological diversity 1997, NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service Department of Environment, Sport and Territories, Australia.
19. Ferrier S., Watson G., Pearce J., Drielsma M. Extended statistical approaches to modelling spatial pattern in biodiversity in northeast New South Wales. I. Species-level modelling. Biodiversity and Conservation 2002, 11:2275-2307.
20. Fielding A.H. What are the appropriate characteristics of an accuracy measure?. Predicting species occurrences. Issues of accuracy and scale 2002, 271-280. Island Press, Covelo, CA. J.M. Scott, P.J. Heglund, J.B. Haufler, M. Mprrison, M.G. Raphael, W.B. Wall, F. Samson (Eds.).
21. Fielding A.H., Bell J.F. A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environmental Conservation 1997, 24:38-49.
22. Fielding A.H., Haworth P.F. Testing the generality of Bird-Habitat Models. Conservation Biology 1995, 9:1466-1481.
23. Graham C.H., Ferrier S., Huettman F., Moritz C., Peterson A.T. New developments in museum-based informatics and applications in biodiversity analysis. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 2004, 19:497-503.
24. Guisan A., Zimmermann N.E. Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecological Modelling 2000, 135:147-186.
25. Guo Q., Kelly M., Graham C.C. Support vector machines for predicting distribution of Sudden Oak Death in California. Ecological Modelling 2005, 182:75-90.
26. Helsel, D. R., & Hirsch, R.M. (2002). Statistical methods in water resources (524 pp.). U.S. Geological Survey, Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations Book 4, http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/twri/twri4a3/.
27. Hijmans R.J., Cameron S.E., Parra J.L., Jones P.G., Jarvis A. Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. International Journal of Climatology 2005, 25:1965-1978.
28. Hirzel A.H., Helfer V., Metral F. Assessing habitat-suitability models with a virtual species. Ecological Modelling 2001, 145:111-121.
29. Hortal J., Lobo J.M. An ED-based protocol for optimal sampling of biodiversity. Biodiversity and Conservation 2005, 14:2013-2947.
30. Hortal J., Lobo J.M., Jiménez-Valverde A. Limitations of biodiversity databases: Case study on seed-plant diversity in Tenerife, Canary Islands. Conservation Biology 2007, 21:853-863.
31. Hortal J., Jiménez-Valverde A., Gómez J.F., Lobo J.M., Baselga A. Historical bias in biodiversity inventories affects the observed environmental niche of the species. Oikos 2008, 117:847-858.
32. Hosmer D.W., Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression 2000, John Wiley & Sons, New York. second ed.
33. Jiménez-Valverde A., Lobo J.M. The ghost of unbalanced species distribution data in geographical model predictions. Diversity and Distributions 2006, 12:521-524.
34. Jiménez-Valverde A., Lobo J.M. Threshold criteria for conversion of probability of species presence to either-or presence-absence. Acta Oecologica 2007, 31:361-369.
35. Jiménez-Valverde A., Lobo J.M., Hortal J. The effect of prevalence and its intercation with sample size on the reliability of species distribution models. Community Ecology 2009, 10:196-205.
36. Kadmon R., Farber O., Danin A. A systematic analysis of factors affecting the performance of climatic envelope models. Ecological Applications 2003, 13:853-867.
37. Kadmon R., Oren F., Avinoam D. Effect of roadside bias on the accuracy of predictive maps produced by bioclimatic models. Ecological Applications 2004, 14:401-413.
38. King G., Zeng L. Logistic regression in rare events data. Political Analysis 2001, 9:137-163.
39. Liu C., Berry P.M., Dawson T.P., Pearson R.G. Selecting thresholds of occurrence in the prediction of species distributions. Ecography 2005, 28:385-393.
40. Lobo J.M., Baselga A., Hortal J., Jiménez-Valverde A., Gómez J.F. How does the knowledge about the spatial distribution of Iberian dung beetle species accumulate over time?. Diversity and Distributions 2007, 13:772-780.
41. Lobo J.M., Verdú J.R., Numa C. Environmental and geographical factors affecting the Iberian distribution of flightless Jekelius species (Coleoptera: Geotrupidae). Diversity and Distributions 2006, 12:179-188.
42. Lobo J.M., Jiménez-Valverde A., Real R. AUC: A misleading measure of the performance of predictive distribution models. Global Ecology and Biogeography 2008, 17:145-151.
43. Lobo J.M., Jiménez-Valverde A., Hortal J. The uncertain nature of absences and their importance in species distribution Modelling. Ecography 2010, 33:103-114.
44. Luoto M., Pöyry J., Heikkinen K., Saarinen K. Uncertainty of bioclimate envelope models based o geographical distribution of species. Global Ecology and Biogeography 2005, 14:575-584.
45. Lütolf M., Kienast F., Guisan A. The ghost of past species occurrence: Improving species distribution models for presence-only data. Journal of Applied Ecology 2006, 43:802-815.
46. Manel S., Dias J.M., Buckton S.T., Ormerod S.J. Alternative methods for predicting species distribution: An illustration with Himalayan river birds. Journal of Applied Ecology 1999, 36:734-747.
47. Martínez-Meyer E. Climate change and biodiversity: Some considerations in forecasting shifts in species potential distributions. Biodiversity Informatics 2005, 2:42-55.
48. 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?. Journal of Applied Ecology 2004, 41:811-823.
49. New M., Lister D., Hulme M., Makin I. A high resolution data set of surface climate over global land areas. Climatic Research 2002, 21:1-25.
50. Nix H.A. A biogeographic analysis of Australian elapid snakes. Atlas of Australian Elapid Snakes 1986, Bureau of Flora Fauna, Canberra, Australia, pp. 4-15.
51. Olden J.D., Jackson D.A., Peres-Neto P.R. Predictive models of fish species distributions: A comment on proper validation and chance predictions. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 2002, 131:329-336.
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. Peduzzi P., Concato J., Kemper R., Holford T.R., Feinstein A.R. A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1996, 49:1373-1379.
54. Peterson A.T., Soberón J., Sánchez-Cordero V. Conservatism of ecological niches in evolutionary time. Science 1999, 285:1265-1267.
55. Prati R.C., Batista G.E.A.P.A., Monard M.C. Class imbalances versus class overlapping: An analysis of a learning system behavior 2004, 312-321. Springer-Verlag, Mexico City, Mexico.
56. Raxworthy C.J., Martínez-Meyer E., Horning N., Nussbaum R.A., Schneider G.E., Ortega-Huerta M.A., et al. Predicting distributions of known and unknown reptile species in Madagascar. Nature 2003, 426:837-841.
57. Real R., Barbosa A.M., Vargas J.M. Obtaining environmental favourability functions from logistic regression. Environmental and Ecological Statistics 2006, 13:237-245.
58. Reese G.C., Wilson K.R., Hoeting J.A., Flather C.H. Factors affecting species distribution predictions: A simulation model experiment. Ecological Applications 2005, 15:554-564.
59. Rencher A.C. Methods of multivariate analysis 2002, John Wiley & Sons, New York. second edition.
60. Reutter B.A., Helfer V., Hirzel A.H., Vogel P. Modelling habitat-suitability using museum collections: An example with three sympatric Apodemus species from the Alps. Journal of Biogeography 2003, 30:581-590.
61. Segurado P., Araújo M.B. An evaluation of methods for modelling species distributions. Journal of Biogeography 2004, 31:1555-1569.
62. Segurado P., Araújo M.B., Kunin W.E. Consequences of spatial autocorrelation for niche-based models. Journal of Applied Ecology 2006, 43:433-444.
63. Soberón J., Peterson A.T. Biodiversity informatics: Managing and applying primary biodiversity data. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B 2004, 359:689-698.
64. Soberón J., Peterson A.T. Interpretation of models of fundamental ecological niches and species' distributional areas. Biodiversity Informatics 2005, 2:1-10.
65. Stockman A.K., Beamer D.A., Bond J.E. An evaluation of a GARP model as an approach to predicting the spatial distribution of non-vagile invertebrate species. Diversity and Distributions 2006, 12:81-89.
66. Stockwell D.R.B., Peterson A.T. Effects of sample size on accuracy of species distribution models. Ecological Modelling 2002, 148:1-13.
67. Stockwell D.R.B., Peters D. The GARP modelling system: Problems and solutions to automated spatial prediction. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 1999, 13:143-158.
68. Thuiller W., Brotons L., Araújo M.B., Lavorel S. Effects of restricting environmental range of data to project current and future species distributions. Ecography 2004, 27:165-172.
69. VanDerWal J., Shoo L.P., Graham C., Williams S.E. Selecting pseudo-absence data for presence-only distribution modeling: How far should you stray from what you know?. Ecological Modelling 2009, 220:589-594.
70. Vaughan I.P., Ormerod S.J. Improving the quality of distribution models for conservation by addressing shortcomings in the field collection of training data. Conservation Biology 2003, 17:1601-1611.
71. Vaughan I.P., Ormerod S.J. The continuing challenges of testing species distribution models. Journal of Applied Ecology 2005, 42:720-730.
72. Weiss G.M., Provost F. Learning when training data are costly: The effects of class distribution on tree induction. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 2003, 19:315-354.
73. Williams P.H., Hannah L., Andelman S., Midgley G., Araújo M.B., Hughes G., et al. Planning for climate change: Identifying minimum-dispersal corridors for the Cape Proteaceae. Conservation Biology 2005, 19:1063-1074.
74. Zaniewski A.E., Lehmann A., Overton J.M. Predicting species spatial distributions using presence-only data: A case study of native New Zealand ferns. Ecological Modelling 2002, 157:261-280.
75. Zweig M.H., Campbell G. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: A fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clinical Chemistry 1993, 39:561-577.