Does the interpolation accuracy of species distribution models come at the expense of transferability?

Ecography

Volumn 35, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 276-288

  Heikkinen, Risto K ^a   Marmion, Mathieu ^c   Luoto, Miska ^b  

^a FINNISH ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OULU   (Finland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY ASSESSMENT; ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK; BIRD; BUTTERFLY; CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; ECOLOGICAL MODELING; LAND COVER; LINEARITY; PLANT; POPULATION DISTRIBUTION; POPULATION MODELING; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

FINLAND;

AVES; PAPILIONOIDEA;

EID: 84857796019     PISSN: 09067590     EISSN: 16000587     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2011.06999.x     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Allouche O. et al. 2006. Assessing the accuracy of species distribution models: prevalence, kappa and the true skill statistic (TSS). J. Appl. Ecol. 43: 1223-1232.
2. Araújo M. B. and Guisan A. 2006. Five (or so) challenges for species distribution modelling. J. Biogeogr. 33: 1677-1688.
3. Araújo M. B. and Rahbek C. 2006. How does climate change affect biodiversity? Science 313: 1396-1397.
4. Araújo M. B. et al. 2005. Validation of species-climate impact models under climate change. Global Change Biol. 11: 1504-1513.
5. Arntzen J. 2006. From descriptive to predictive distribution models: a working example with Iberian amphibians and reptiles. Front. Zool. 8: 3.
6. Atlas of Finland 1988. Climate, Folio 131. - National Board of Survey and Geographical Society of Finland.
7. Austin M. 2007. Species distribution models and ecological theory: a critical assessment and some possible new approaches. Ecol. Modell. 200: 1-19.
8. Austin M. et al. 2006. Evaluation of statistical models used for predicting plant species distributions: role of artificial data and theory. Ecol. Modell. 199: 197-216.
9. Bailey S. A. et al. 2002. Species presence in fragmented landscapes: modelling of species requirements at the national level. Biol. Conserv. 108: 307-316.
10. Barbosa A. M. et al. 2009. Transferability of environmental favourability models in geographic space: the case of the Iberian desman (Galemys pyrenaicus) in Portugal and Spain. Ecol. Modell. 220: 747-754.
11. Barry S. C. and Elith J. 2006. Error and uncertainty in habitat models. J. Appl. Ecol. 43:413-423.
12. Beaumont L. J. et al. 2009. Different climatic envelopes among invasive populations may lead to underestimations of current and future biological invasions. Divers. Distrib. 15: 409-420.
13. Breiman L. 2001. Random forests. Machine Lear. 45: 5-32.
14. Cutler D. R. et al. 2007. Random forests for classification in ecology. Ecology 88: 2783-2792.
15. Drake J. M. et al. 2006. Modelling ecological niches with support vector machines. J. Appl. Ecol. 43: 424-432.
16. Duncan R. P. et al. 2009. Do climate envelope models transfer? A manipulative test using dung beetle introductions. Proc. R. Soc. B 276: 1449-1457.
17. Elith J. and Burgman M. 2002. Predictions and their validation: rare plants in the Central Highlands, Victoria, Australia. - In: Scott J. M. et al. (eds), Predicting species occurrences. Issues of accuracy and scale. Island Press, pp. 303-313.
18. Elith J. and Graham C. H. 2009. Do they? How do they? WHY do they differ? On finding reasons for differing performances of species distribution models. Ecography 32: 66-77.
19. Elith J. and Leathwick J. R. 2009. Species distribution models: ecological explanation and prediction across space and time. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 40: 677-697.
20. Elith J. et al. 2006. Novel methods improve prediction of species' distributions from occurrence data. Ecography 29: 129-151.
21. ESRI 1991. ARC/INFO user's guide. Cell-based modelling with GRID. Analysis, display and management. Environ. Syst. Res. Inst.
22. European Commission 1994. EUR 12585 - CORINE land cover - technical guide. - Office Publ. Eur. Commun.
23. Fielding A. and Bell J. 1997. A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environ. Conserv. 24: 38-49.
24. Fitzpatrick M. C. and Hargrove W. W. 2009. The projection of species distribution models and the problem of non-analog climate. Biodivers. Conserv. 18: 2255-2261.
25. Franklin J. et al. 2009. Effect of species rarity on the accuracy of species distribution models for reptiles and amphibians in southern California. Divers. Distrib. 15: 167-177.
26. Garzón M. B. et al. 2006. Predicting habitat suitability with machine learning models: the potential area of Pinus sylvestris L. in the Iberian Peninsula. Ecol. Modell. 197: 383-393.
27. Guisan A. and Thuiller W. 2005. Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol. Lett. 8: 993-1009.
28. Guisan A. et al. 2007. What matters for predicting the occurrences of trees: techniques, data, or species' characteristics? Ecol. Monogr. 77: 615-630.
29. Heikkinen R. K. et al. 2006a. Methods and uncertainties in bioclimatic envelope modelling under climate change. Progr. Phys. Geogr. 30: 751-777.
30. Heikkinen R. K. et al. 2006b. Does seasonal fine-tuning of climatic variables improve the performance of bioclimatic envelope models for migratory birds? Divers. Distrib. 12: 502-510.
31. Heikkinen R. K. et al. 2007. Biotic interactions improve prediction of boreal bird distributions at macro-scales. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 16: 754-763.
32. Heikkinen R. K. et al. 2009. Predicting distribution patterns and recent northward range shift of an invasive aquatic plant: Elodea canadensis in Europe. BioRisk 2: 1-32.
33. Jimenez-Valverde A. et al. 2008. Not as good as they seem: the importance of concepts in species distribution modelling. Divers. Distrib. 14: 885-890.
34. Jimenez-Valverde A. et al. 2011. Use of niche models in invasive species risk assessments. Biol. Invas. doi: 10.1007/s10530-011-9963-4.
35. Kivinen S. et al. 2008. Threat spots and environmental determinants of red-listed plant, butterfly and bird species in boreal agricultural environments. Biodivers. Conserv. 17: 3289-3305.
36. Lawler J. J. et al. 2006. Predicting climate-induced range shifts: model differences and model reliability. Global Change Biol. 12: 1-17.
37. Leathwick J. R. et al. 2006. Comparative performance of generalized additive models and multivariate adaptive regression splines for statistical modelling of species distributions. Ecol. Modell. 199: 188-196.
38. Liu C. et al. 2005. Selecting thresholds of occurrence in the prediction of species distributions. Ecography 28: 385-393.
39. Lobo J. M. et al. 2008. AUC: a misleading measure of the performance of predictive distribution models. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 17: 145-151.
40. Lobo J. M. et al. 2010. The uncertain nature of absences and their importance in species distribution modelling. Ecography 33: 103-114.
41. Luoto M. et al. 2006. Determinants of biogeographical distribution of butterflies in boreal regions. J. Biogeogr. 33: 1764-1778.
42. Luoto M. et al. 2007. The role of land cover in bioclimatic models depends on spatial resolution. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 16: 34-42.
43. Marmion M. et al. 2009. The performance of state-of-the-art modelling techniques depends on geographical distribution of species. Ecol. Modell. 220: 3512-3520.
44. Mateo-Tomas P. and Olea P. P. 2009. Combining scales in habitat models to improve conservation planning in an endangered vulture. Acta Oecol. 35: 489-498.
45. Newbold T. 2010. Applications and limitations of museum data for conservation and ecology, with particular attention to species distribution models. Progr. Phys. Geogr. 34: 3-22.
46. Olden J. D. et al. 2008. Machine learning methods without tears: a primer for ecologists. Q. Rev. Biol. 83: 171-193.
47. Parviainen M. et al. 2008. Modelling the occurrence of threatened plant species in taiga landscapes: methodological and ecological perspectives. J. Biogeogr. 35: 1888-1905.
48. Pearson R. G. et al. 2004. Modelling species distributions in Britain: a hierarchical integration of climate and land-cover data. Ecography 27: 285-298.
49. Pearson R. G. et al. 2006. Model-based uncertainty in species' range prediction. J. Biogeogr. 33: 1704-1711.
50. Pearson R. G. et al. 2007. Predicting species distributions from small numbers of occurrence records: a test case using cryptic geckos in Madagascar. J. Biogeogr. 34: 102-117.
51. Peterson A. T. et al. 2007. Transferability and model evaluation in ecological niche modeling: a comparison of GARP and Maxent. Ecography 30: 550-560.
52. Phillips S. J. 2008. Transferability, sample selection bias and background data in presence-only modelling: a response to Peterson et al. (2007). Ecography 31: 272-278.
53. Phillips S. J. et al. 2006. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol. Modell. 190: 231-259.
54. Pöyry J. et al. 2008. Species traits are associated with the quality of bioclimatic models. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 17: 403-414.
55. Prasad A. M. et al. 2006. Newer classification and regression tree techniques: bagging and random forests for ecological prediction. Ecosystems 9: 181-199.
56. Randin C. F. et al. 2006. Are niche-based species distribution models transferable in space? J. Biogeogr. 33: 1689-1703.
57. Rocchini D. et al. 2011. Accounting for uncertainty when mapping species distributions: the need for maps of ignorance. Progr. Phys. Geogr. 35: 211-226.
58. Ryttäri T. and Kettunen T. 1997. Uhanalaiset kasvimme. - Suomen Ympäristökeskus ja Kirjayhtymä.
59. Saarinen K. et al. 2002. Population trends of Finnish butterflies (Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea, Papilionoidea) in 1991-2000. Biodivers. Conserv. 12: 2147-2159.
60. Segal M. R. 2004. Machine learning benchmarks and random forest regression. - Center for Bioinformatics and Molecular Biostatistics, UC San Francisco.
61. Stockwell D. R. B. and Peters D. P. 1999. The GARP modelling system: problems and solutions to automated spatial prediction. Int. J. Geogr. Inform. Syst. 13: 143-158.
62. Swets K. 1988. Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 240: 1285-1293.
63. Syphard A. D. and Franklin J. 2009. Differences in spatial predictions among species distribution modeling methods vary with species traits and environmental predictors. Ecography 32: 907-918.
64. Thuiller W. 2004. Patterns and uncertainties of species' range shifts under climate change. Global Change Biol. 10: 2020-2027.
65. Thuiller W. et al. 2003. Generalized models vs classification tree analysis: predicting spatial distributions of plant species at different scales. J. Veg. Sci. 14: 669-680.
66. Thuiller W. et al. 2004. Effects of restricting environmental range of data to project current and future distributions. Ecography 27: 165-172.
67. Thuiller W. et al. 2008. Predicting global change impacts on plant species' distributions: future challenges. Perspect. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst. 9: 137-152.
68. Thuiller W. et al. 2009. BIOMOD - a platform for ensemble forecasting of species distributions. Ecography 32: 369-373.
69. Titeux N. et al. 2009. Inclusion of soil data improves the performance of bioclimatic envelope models for insect species distributions in temperate Europe. J. Biogeogr. 36: 1459-1473.
70. Tuhkanen S. 1984. A circumboreal system of climatic-phytogeographical regions. Acta Bot. Fenn. 127: 1-50.
71. Väisänen R. A. et al. 1998. Distribution, numbers and population changes of Finnish breeding birds. - Otavan Kirjapaino, in Finnish with English summary.
72. Vanreusel W. et al. 2007. Transferability of species distribution models: a functional habitat approach for two regionally threatened butterflies. Conserv. Biol. 21: 201-212.
73. Venäläinen A. and Heikinheimo M. 2002. Meteorological data for agricultural applications. Phys. Chem. Earth 27: 1045-1050.
74. Virkkala R. et al. 2005. Distribution patterns of boreal marshland birds: modelling the relationships to land cover and climate. J. Biogeogr. 32: 1957-1970.
75. Wiens J. A. et al. 2009. Niches, models, and climate change: assessing the assumptions and uncertainties. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106: 19729-19736.
76. Williams J. W. et al. 2007. Projected distributions of novel and disappearing climates by 2100 AD. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104: 5738-5742.
77. Zanini F. et al. 2009. The transferability of distribution models across regions: an amphibian case study. Divers. Distrib. 15: 469-480.