Testing the predictive performance of distribution models

Oikos

Volumn 122, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 321-331

  Bahn, Volker ^a   McGill, Brian J ^b  

^a WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MAINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY ASSESSMENT; AUTOCORRELATION; BREEDING POPULATION; CENSUS; DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY; PREDICTION;

AVES;

EID: 84874319269     PISSN: 00301299     EISSN: 16000706     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2012.00299.x     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Andrewartha H. G. and Birch L. C. 1984. The ecological web: more on the distribution and abundance of animals. - Univ. of Chicago Press.
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. and New M. 2007. Ensemble forecasting of species distributions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22: 42-47.
5. Araújo M. B. and Peterson A. T. 2012. Uses and misuses of bioclimatic envelope modeling. Ecology 93: 1527-1539.
6. Araújo M. B. et al. 2005a. Validation of species climate impact models under climate change. Global Change Biol. 11: 1504-1513.
7. Araújo M. B. et al. 2005b. Downscaling European species atlas distributions to a finer resolution: implications for conser vation planning. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 14: 17-30.
8. Austin M. P. 2002. Spatial prediction of species distribution: an interface between ecological theory and statistical modelling. Ecol. Modell. 157: 101-118.
9. Austin M. 2007. Species distribution models and ecological theory: a critical assessment and some possible new approaches. Ecol. Modell. 200: 1-19.
10. Bahn V. and McGill B. J. 2007. Can niche-based distribution models outperform spatial interpolation? Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 16: 733-742.
11. Betts M. G. et al. 2006. The importance of spatial autocorrelation, extent and resolution in predicting forest bird occurrence. Ecol. Modell. 191: 197-224.
12. Box G. E. P. 1976. Science and statistics. J. Am. Stat. Ass. 71: 791-799.
13. Breiman L. 2001. Random forests. Machine Learning 45: 5.
14. Brotons L. et al. 2004. Presence absence versus presence-only modelling methods for predicting bird habitat suitability. Ecography 27: 437-448.
15. Bystrak D. 1981. The North American breeding bird survey. - Ralph C. J. and Scott J. M. (eds), Estimating numbers of terrestrial birds. Cooper Ornithol. Soc., pp. 34-41.
16. Cutler D. R. et al. 2007. Random forests for classification in ecology. Ecology 88: 2783-2792.
17. Dale M. R. T. and Fortin M.-J. 2002. Spatial autocorrelation and statistical tests in ecology. Ecoscience 9: 162-167.
18. Davis A. J. et al. 1998. Making mistakes when predicting shifts in species range in response to global warming. Nature 391: 783-786.
19. Dennis B. et al. 1991. Estimation of growth and extinction parameters for endangered species. Ecol. Monogr. 61: 115-144.
20. Dormann C. F. 2007. Effects of incorporating spatial autocorre lation into the analysis of species distribution data. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 16: 129-138.
21. Edwards J. T. C. et al. 2006. Effects of sample survey design on the accuracy of classification tree models in species distribution models. Ecol. Modell. 199: 132-141.
22. Elith J. et al. 2006. Novel methods improve prediction of species' distributions from occurrence data. Ecography 29: 129-151.
23. Engler R. et al. 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.
24. Ferrier S. 2002. Mapping spatial pattern in biodiversity for regional conservation planning: where to from here? Syst. Biol. 51: 331-363.
25. Fielding A. H. and Haworth P. F. 1995. Testing the generality of bird-habitat models. Conserv. Biol. 9: 1466-1481.
26. Fielding A. H. and Bell J. F. 1997. A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environ. Conserv. 24: 38-49.
27. Garzon 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.
28. Graf R. F. et al. 2006. On the generality of habitat distribution models: a case study of capercaillie in three Swiss regions. Ecography 29: 319-328.
29. Guisan A. et al. 2007. What matters for predicting the occurrences of trees: techniques, data or species' characteristics? Ecol. Monogr. 77: 615-630.
30. Hampe A. 2004. Bioclimate envelope models: what they detect and what they hide. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 13: 469-471.
31. Higgins S. I. et al. 1999. Predicting the landscape-scale distribution of alien plants and their threat to plant diversity. Conserv. Biol. 13: 303-313.
32. Iverson L. R. and Prasad A. M. 1998. Predicting abundance of 80 tree species following climate change in the eastern United States. Ecol. Monogr. 68: 465-485.
33. Jarema S. I. et al. 2009. Variation in abundance across a species' range predicts climate change responses in the range interior will exceed those at the edge: a case study with North American beaver. Global Change Biol. 15: 508-522.
34. Johnson A. R. et al. 1992. Animal movements and population dynamics in heterogeneous landscapes. Landscape Ecol. 7: 63-75.
35. Krebs C. J. 1972. Ecology: the experimental analysis of distri bution and abundance. - Harper and Row.
36. Legendre P. 1993. Spatial autocorrelation: trouble or new paradigm? Ecology 74: 1659-1673.
37. Legendre P. and Fortin M.-J. 1989. Spatial pattern and ecological analysis. Vegetatio 80: 107-138.
38. Lennon J. J. 2000. Red-shifts and red herrings in geographical ecology. Ecography 23: 101-113.
39. Maggini R. et al. 2006. Improving generalized regression analysis for the spatial prediction of forest communities. J. Biogeogr. 33: 1729-1749.
40. Manel S. et al. 1999. Alternative methods for predicting species distribution: an illustration with Himalayan river birds. J. Appl. Ecol. 36: 734-747.
41. Martinez-Meyer E. et al. 2004. Ecological niches as stable distributional constraints on mammal species, with implications for Pleistocene extinctions and climate change projections for biodiversity. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 13: 305-314.
42. Maurer B. A. and Taper M. L. 2002. Connecting geographical distributions with population processes. Ecol. Lett. 5: 223-231.
43. McPherson J. M. and Jetz W. 2007. Effects of species' ecology on the accuracy of distribution models. Ecography 30: 135-151.
44. Murray J. V. et al. 2011. Evaluating model transferability for a threatened species to adjacent areas: implications for rock-wallaby conservation. Austral. Ecol. 36: 76-89.
45. New M. et al. 1999. Representing twentieth-century space-time climate variability. Part I. Development of a 1961-90 mean monthly terrestrial climatology. J. Climate 12: 829-856.
46. Niering W. A. et al. 1963. The saguaro: a population in relation to environment. Science 142: 15-23.
47. Oberhauser K. and Peterson A. T. 2003. Modeling current and future potential wintering distributions of eastern North American monarch butterflies. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100: 14063-14068.
48. Pearce J. and Ferrier S. 2001. The practical value of modelling relative abundance of species for regional conservation planning: a case study. Biol. Conserv. 98: 33-43.
49. Pearson R. G. et al. 2006. Model-based uncertainty in species range prediction. J. Biogeogr. 33: 1704-1711.
50. Peterson A. T. 2001. Predicting species' geographic distributions based on ecological niche modeling. Condor 103: 599-605.
51. Peterson A. T. 2003. Predicting the geography of species' invasions via ecological niche modeling. Q. Rev. Biol. 78: 419-433.
52. Peterson A. T. et al. 2002. Future projections for Mexican faunas under global climate change scenarios. Nature 416: 626-629.
53. Peterson T. A. et al. 2007. Transferability and model evaluation in ecological niche modeling: a comparison of GARP and Maxent. Ecography 30: 550-560.
54. 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.
55. Phillips S. et al. 2006. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol. Modell. 190: 231-259.
56. Prasad A. et al. 2006. Newer classification and regression tree techniques: bagging and random forests for ecological prediction. Ecosystems 9: 181-199.
57. Pulliam H. R. 1988. Sources sinks and population regulation. Am. Nat. 132: 652-661.
58. Pulliam H. R. 2000. On the relationship between niche and distribution. Ecol. Lett. 3: 349-361.
59. Quinn J. F. and Dunham A. E. 1983. On hypothesis testing in ecology and evolution. Am. Nat. 122: 602-617.
60. Randall M. G. M. 1982. The dynamics of an insect population throughout its altitudinal distribution: Coleophora alticolella (Lepidoptera) in Northern England. J. Anim. Ecol. 51: 993-1016.
61. Randin C. F. et al. 2006. Are niche-based species distribution models transferable in space? J. Biogeogr. 33: 1689-1703.
62. Ripley B. D. and Rasson J. P. 1977. Finding the edge of a poisson forest. J. Appl. Probabil. 14: 483-491.
63. Sauer J. R. et al. 1994. Observer differences in the North American breeding bird survey. Auk 111: 50-62.
64. Sauer J. R. et al. 1997. The North American Breeding Bird Survey results and analysis. Ver. 96.4. - Patuxent Wildlife Res. Center.
65. Scott J. M. and Csuti B. 1997. Gap analysis for biodiversity survey and maintenance. - Reaka-Kudla M. L. et al. (eds), Biodiversity, II. Understanding and protecting our biological resources. Joseph Henry Press, pp. 321-340.
66. Segurado P. et al. 2006. Consequences of spatial autocorrelation for niche-based models. J. Appl. Ecol. 43: 433-444.
67. Skov F. and Svenning J.-C. 2004. Potential impact of climatic change on the distribution of forest herbs in Europe. Ecography 27: 366-380.
68. Storch D. and Gaston K. J. 2004. Untangling ecological com plexity on different scales of space and time. Basic Appl. Ecol. 5: 389-400.
69. Svenning J.-C. and Skov F. 2007. Ice age legacies in the geographical distribution of tree species richness in Europe. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 16: 234-245.
70. Thomas C. D. et al. 2004. Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427: 145-148.
71. Thuiller W. et al. 2005. Niche-based modelling as a tool for predicting the risk of alien plant invasions at a global scale. Global Change Biol. 11: 2234-2250.
72. Thuiller W. et al. 2009. BIOMOD - a platform for ensemble forecasting of species distributions. Ecography 32: 369-373.
73. Vanreusel W. et al. 2007. Transferability of species distribution models: a functional habitat approach for two regionally threatened butterflies. Conserv. Biol. 21: 201-212.
74. Whittingham M. J. et al. 2003. Do habitat association models have any generality? Predicting skylark Alauda arvensis abundance in different regions of southern England. Ecography 26: 521-531.
75. Whittingham M. J. et al. 2007. Should conservation strategies consider spatial generality? Farmland birds show regional not national patterns of habitat association. Ecol. Lett. 10: 25-35.
76. Williams J. W. and Jackson S. T. 2007. Novel climates, no-analog communities and ecological surprises. Front. Ecol. Environ. 5: 475-482.