Sample sizes and model comparison metrics for species distribution models

Ecological Modelling

Volumn 227, Issue , 2012, Pages 29-33

  Hanberry, B B ^a   He, H S ^a   Dey, D C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

Author keywords

Correlation; Forest inventory and analysis; Intraclass correlation coefficient; Kappa

Indexed keywords

16-TREE; ACCURACY ASSESSMENT; CONTINUOUS DISTRIBUTION; FOREST INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS; INTRACLASS CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS; KAPPA; KAPPA STATISTIC; LAURENTIAN; MINNESOTA; MISSOURIS; MIXED FORESTS; MODEL COMPARISON; RARE SPECIES; SAMPLE SIZES; SMALL SAMPLE SIZE; SMALL SAMPLES; SPECIES DISTRIBUTION MODELS; STUDY AREAS;

FISHER INFORMATION MATRIX; FORESTRY; IMAGE SEGMENTATION; OPTICAL CORRELATION;

SAMPLING;

ACCURACY ASSESSMENT; CORRELATION; ECOLOGICAL MODELING; FOREST INVENTORY; MIXED FOREST; NUMERICAL MODEL; POPULATION MODELING; RARE SPECIES; SAMPLING;

CORRELATION; FORESTRY; IMAGE ANALYSIS; INVENTORY CONTROL;

MINNESOTA; MISSOURI; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84855492766     PISSN: 03043800     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.12.001     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Albert D. Regional Landscape Ecosystems of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin: A Working Map and Classification 1995, USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station.
2. Beers T.W., Dress P.E., Wensel L.C. Aspect transformation in site productivity research. Journal of Forestry 1966, 64:691-692.
3. Breiman L. Random forests. Machine Learning 2001, 40:5-32.
4. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 1960, 20:37-46.
5. Cutler D.R., Edwards T.C., Beard K.H., Cutler A., Hess K.T., Gibson J., Lawler J.J. Random forests for classification in ecology. Ecology 2007, 88:2783-2792.
6. ECOMAP National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units 1993, USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC.
7. Guisan A., Zimmermann N.E., Elith J., Graham C.H., Phillips S., Peterson A.T. What matters for predicting the occurrences of trees: techniques, data, or species' characteristics?. Ecological Monographs 2007, 77:615-630.
8. 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.
9. Jiménez-Valverde A., Lobo J.M., Hortal J. Not as good as they seem: the importance of concepts in species distribution modelling. Diversity of Distributions 2008, 14:885-890.
10. Kadmon R., Farber O., Danin A. A systematic analysis of factors affecting the performance of climatic envelope models. Ecological Applications 2003, 13:853-867.
11. Liaw A., Wiener M. Classification and Regression by randomForest. R News 2002, 2:18-22.
12. Lobo J.M., Jiménez-Valverde A., Real R. AUC: a misleading measure of the performance of predictive distribution models. Global Ecology and Biogeography 2007, 17:145-151.
13. McGraw K.O., Wong S.P. Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods 1996, 1:30-46.
14. 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.
15. R Development Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing 2010, R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
16. Sappington J.M., Longshore K.M., Thompson D.B. Quantifying landscape ruggedness for animal habitat analysis: a case study using bighorn sheep in the Mojave Desert. The Journal of Wildlife Management 2007, 71:1419-1426.
17. Shrout P.E., Fleiss J.L. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin 1979, 86:420-428.
18. Sing T., Sander O., Beerenwinkel N., Lengauer T. ROCR: visualizing classifier performance in R. Bioinformatics 2005, 21:3940-3941.
19. Stockwell D.R.B., Peterson A.T. Effects of sample size on accuracy of species distribution models. Ecological Modelling 2002, 148:1-13.
20. Syphard A.D., Franklin J. Species traits affect the performance of species distribution models for plants in southern California. Journal of Vegetation Science 2010, 21:177-189.
21. Vaughan I.P., Omerod S.J. The continuing challenges of testing species distribution models. Journal of Applied Ecology 2005, 42:720-730.
22. Wisz M.S., Hijmans R.J., Li J., Peterson A.T., Graham C.H., Guisan A. Effects of sample size on the performance of species distribution models. Diversity of Distributions 2008, 14:763-773. NCEAS Predicting Species Distributions Working Group.