Species distribution modelling-Effect of design and sample size of pseudo-absence observations

Ecological Modelling

Volumn 222, Issue 11, 2011, Pages 1800-1809

  Stokland, Jogeir N ^a   Halvorsen, Rune ^a   Støa, Bente ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

Author keywords

AUC; Ecological niche model; Presence only; Pseudo absence; Species distribution model

Indexed keywords

AUC; ECOLOGICAL NICHE; PRESENCE ONLY; PSEUDO-ABSENCE; SPECIES DISTRIBUTION MODEL;

DESIGN; ECOLOGY; PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS; SAMPLING;

POPULATION DISTRIBUTION;

DATA SET; DESIGN; ECOLOGICAL MODELING; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS; NICHE; NUMERICAL MODEL; OBSERVATIONAL METHOD; PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT; POPULATION DISTRIBUTION;

EID: 79955109768     PISSN: 03043800     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.02.025     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Aune B. Nasjonalatlas for Norge: Klima 1993, Statens kartverk.
2. Austin M. Species distribution models and ecological theory: a critical assessment and some possible new approaches. Ecological Modelling 2007, 200:1-19.
3. Bakkestuen V., Erikstad L., Halvorsen R. Step-less models for regional environmental variation in Norway. Journal of Biogeography 2008, 35:1906-1922.
4. Brotons L., Thuiller W., Araujo M.B., Hirzel A.H. Presence-absence versus presence-only modelling methods for predicting bird habitat suitability. Ecography 2004, 27:437-448.
5. Chefaoui R.M., Lobo J.M. Assessing the effects of pseudo-absences on predictive distribution model performance. Ecological Modelling 2008, 210:478-486.
6. Cramer J.S. Predictive performance of binary logit model in unbalanced samples. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series D 1999, 48:85-94.
7. Crawford P.H.C., Hoagland B.W. Can herbarium records be used to map alien species invasion and native species expansion over the past 100 years?. Journal of Biogeography 2009, 36:651-661.
8. Elith J., Leathwick J. Predicting species distributions from museum and herbarium records using multiresponse models fitted with multivariate adaptive regression splines. Diversity and Distributions 2007, 13:265-275.
9. 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., Soberón J., Williams S., Wisz M.S., Zimmermann N.E. Novel methods improve prediction of species' distributions from occurrence data. Ecography 2006, 29:129-151.
10. Elith J., Leathwick J.R., Hastie T. A working guide to boosted regression trees. Journal of Animal Ecology 2008, 77:802-813.
11. GBIF GBIF-Norge. Global Biodiversity Information Facility 2011, http://www.gbif.no/.
12. Grace J.B. The factors controlling species density in herbaceous plant communities: an assessment. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 1999, 2:1-28.
13. Guisan A., Hofer U. Predicting reptile distributions at the mesoscale: relation to climate and topography. Journal of Biogeography 2003, 30:1233-1243.
14. Halvorsen R., Andersen T., Blom H.H., Elvebakk A., Elven R., Erikstad L., Gaarder G., Moen A., Mortensen P.B., Norderhaug A., Nygaard K., Thorsnes T., Ødegaard F. Nature Types in Norway Version 1.0 2009, Artsdatabanken, Trondheim.
15. Hanski I. Metapopulation dynamics. Nature 1998, 396:41-49.
16. Hirzel A.H., Helfer V., Metral F. Assessing habitat-suitability models with a virtual species. Ecological Modelling 2001, 145:111-121.
17. Jiménez-valverde A., Lobo J.M., Hortal J. Not as good as they seem: the importance of concepts in species distribution modelling. Diversity and Distributions 2008, 14:885-890.
18. Jiménez-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 Ecology 2009, 10:196-205.
19. Lobo J.M., Jiménez-Valverde A., Real R. AUC: a misleading mesure of the performance of predictive distribution models. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters 2008, 17:145-151.
20. 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.
21. Manel S., Williams H.C., Ormerod S.J. Evaluating presence-absence models in ecology: the need to account prevalence. Journal of Applied Ecology 2001, 38:921-931.
22. Mateo R.G., Croat T.B., Felicísimo A.M., Muñoz J. Profile or group discriminative techniques? Generating reliable species distribution models using pseudo-absences and target-group absences from natural history collections. Diversity and Distributions 2010, 16:84-94.
23. McPherson J.M., Jetz W., Rogers D.J. The effects of species' range sizes on the accuracy of distribution models: ecological phenomenon or statistical artifact?. Journal of Applied Ecology 2004, 41:811-823.
24. Moen A. National Atlas of Norway: Vegetation 1999, Norwegian Mapping Authority, Hønefoss.
25. Økland R.H. Hydromorphology and phytogeography of mires in inner Østfold and adjacent part of Akershus. SE Norway, in relation to regional variation in SE Fennoscandian mires. Opera Botanica 1989, 96:1-122.
26. Pearce J., Ferrier S. Evaluating the predictive performance of habitat models developed using logistic regression. Ecological Modelling 2000, 133:225-245.
27. Pearce J., Ferrier S. An evaluation of alternative algorithms for fitting species distribution models using logistic regression. Ecological Modelling 2000, 128:127-147.
28. Pedersen B. Distributional patterns of vascular plants in Fennoscandia: a numerical approach. Nordic Journal of Botany 1990, 10:163-189.
29. Phillips S.J., Dudik M. Modeling of species distributions with Maxent: new extensions and a comprehensive evaluation. Ecography 2008, 31:161-175.
30. Riley S.J., DeGloria S.D., Elliot R.A. A terrain ruggedness index that quantifies topographic heterogeneity. Intermountain Journal of Sciences 1999, 5:23-27.
31. Segurado P., Araújo M.B. An evaluation of methods for modelling species distributions. Journal of Biogeography 2004, 31:1555-1568.
32. Stockwell D., Peters D. The GARP modelling system: problems and solutions to automated spatial prediction. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 1999, 2:143-158.
33. Swets J.A. Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 1988, 240:1285-1293.
34. 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.
35. Tveito, O.E., Førland, E.J., Dahlström, B., Elomaa, E., Frich, P., Hanssen-Bauer, I., Jónsson, T., Madsen, H., Perälä, J., Rissanen, P., Vedin, H., 1997. Nordic precipitation maps. DNMI-Reports 22, 1-22.
36. van der Maarel E., Noest V., Palmer M.W. Variation in species richness on small grassland quadrats: niche structure or small-scale plant mobility?. Journal of Vegetation Science 1995, 6:741-752.
37. van Groenendael J., Ehrlén J., Svensson B.M. Dispersal and persistence: population processes and community dynamics. Folia Geobotanica 2000, 35:107-114.
38. VanDerWal J., Shooa 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.
39. Venables W.N., Ripley B.D. Modern Applied Statistics with S 2002, Springer, New York.
40. Wisz M.S., Guisan A. Do pseudo-absence selection strategies influence species distribution models and their predictions? An information-theoretic approach based on simulated data. BMC Ecology 2009, 9:1-13.
41. Zaniewski A.E., Lehman A., Overton J. Predicting species spatial distributions using presence-only data: a case study of native New Zealand ferns. Ecological Modelling 2002, 157:261-280.