Pseudoabsence Generation Strategies for Species Distribution Models

PLoS ONE

Volumn 7, Issue 8, 2012, Pages

  Hanberry, Brice B ^a   He, Hong S ^a   Palik, Brian J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

^b USDA FOREST SERVICE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; FOREST INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS; HABITAT SELECTION; NONHUMAN; PLOTS AND CURVES; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROBABILITY; PSEUDOABSENCE GENERATION; RANDOM FOREST; SPECIES DISTRIBUTION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; UNITED STATES;

AREA UNDER CURVE; DATA COLLECTION; GEOGRAPHY; MINNESOTA; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; SPECIES SPECIFICITY; TREES;

EID: 84865649092     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0044486     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Zimmerman NE, Edwards TC Jr, Graham CH, Pearman PB, Svenning JC, (2010) New trends in species distribution modeling. Ecography 33: 985-989.
2. Chefaoui RM, Lobo JM, (2008) Assessing the effects of pseudo-absences on predictive distribution model performance. Ecol Model 210: 478-486.
3. Ward G, Hastie T, Barry S, Elith J, Leathwick JR, (2009) Presence-only data and the EM Algorithm. Biometrics 65: 554-563.
4. Mateo RG, Croat TB, Felicísimo AM, Muñoz J, (2010) Profile or group discriminative techniques? Generating reliable species distribution models using pseudo-absences and target-group absences from natural history collections. Divers Distrib 16: 84-94.
5. Gómez-Rodríguez C, Bustamante J, Díaz-Paniagua C, Guisan A, (2011) Integrating detection probabilities in species distribution models of amphibians breeding in Mediterranean temporary ponds. Divers Distrib 18: 260-272.
6. Zaniewski AE, Lehmann A, Overton JM, (2002) Predicting species spatial distributions using presence-only data: a case study of native New Zealand ferns. Ecol Model 157: 261-280.
7. VanDerWal J, Shoo LP, Graham C, Williams SE, (2009) Selecting pseudo-absence data for presence-only distribution modeling: How far should you stray from what you know? Ecol Model 220: 598-694.
8. Wisz MS, Guisan A, (2009) Do pseudo-absence selection strategies influence species distribution models and their predictions? An information-theoretic approach based on simulated data. BMC Ecol 9: 8.
9. Lobo JM, Jiménez-Valverde A, Hortal J, (2010) The uncertain nature of absences and their importance in species distribution modelling. Ecography 33: 103-114.
10. Lobo JM, Tognelli MF, (2011) Exploring the effects of quantity and location of pseudo-absences and sampling biases on the performance of distribution models with limited point occurrence data. J Nat Conserv 19: 1-7.
11. Lütolf M, Kienast F, Guisan A, (2006) The ghost of past species occurrence: improving species distribution models for presence-only data. J Appl Ecol 43: 802-815.
12. Engler R, Guisan A, Rechsteiner L, (2004) An improved approach for predicting the distribution of rare and endangered species from occurrence and pseudo-absence data. J Appl Ecol 41: 263-274.
13. Beers TW, Dress PE, Wensel LC, (1966) Aspect transformation in site productivity research. J For 64: 691-692.
14. Sappington JM, Longshore KM, Thompson DB, (2007) Quantifying landscape ruggedness for animal habitat analysis: a case study using bighorn sheep in the Mojave Desert. J Wildl Manage 71: 1419-1426.
15. ECOMAP (1993) National hierarchical framework of ecological units. USDA For Serv: Washington, D. C.
16. Breiman L, (2001) Random Forests. Mach Learn 40: 5-32.
17. Cutler DR, Edwards TC Jr, Beard KH, Cutler A, Hess KT, et al. (2007) Random Forests for classification in ecology. Ecology 88: 2783-2792.
18. Liaw A, Wiener M, (2002) Classification and Regression by randomForest. R News 2: 18-22.
19. Sing T, Sander O, Beerenwinkel N, Lengauer T, (2005) ROCR: visualizing classifier performance in R. Bioinformatics. 21: 3940-3941.
20. Liu C, Berry PM, Dawson TP, Pearson RG, (2005) Selecting thresholds of occurrence in the prediction of species distributions. Ecography 28: 385-393.
21. Jiménez-Valverde A, Lobo JM, (2007) Threshold criteria for conversion of probability of species presence to either-or presence-absence. Acta Oecol 31: 361-369.
22. Freeman EA, Moisen GG, (2008) A comparison of the performance of threshold criteria for binary classification in terms of predicted prevalence and kappa. Ecol Model 217: 48-58.
23. Santika T, (2011) Assessing the effect of prevalence on the predictive performance of species distribution models using simulated data. Global Ecol Biogeogr 20: 181-192.
24. Bean WT, Stafford R, Brashares JS, (2012) The effects of small sample size and sample bias on threshold selection and accuracy assess of species distribution models. Ecography 35: 250-258.
25. Hernandez PA, Graham CH, Master LM, Albert DL, (2006) The effect of sample size and species characteristics on performance of different species distribution modeling methods. Ecography 29: 773-785.
26. McPherson JM, Jetz W, Rogers DJ, (2004) The effects of species' range sizes on the accuracy of distribution models: ecological phenomenon or statistical artifact? J Appl Ecol 41: 811-823.
27. Lobo J M, Jiménez-Valverde A, Real R, (2007) AUC: a misleading measure of the performance of predictive distribution models. Global Ecol Biogeogr 17: 145-151.
28. Hand DJ, (2009) Measuring classifier performance: a coherent alternative to the area under the ROC curve. Mach Learn 77: 103-123.
29. Hanczar B, Hua J, Sima C, Weinstein J, Bittner M, et al. (2010) Small-sample precision of ROC-related estimates. Bioinformatics 26: 822-830.