Benefits and drawbacks of two modelling approaches for a generalist carnivore: can models predict where Wile E. Coyote will turn up next?

International Journal of Geographical Information Science

Volumn 28, Issue 8, 2014, Pages 1590-1609

  McCue, Anthony J ^a   McGrath, Michael J ^b   Wiersma, Yolanda F ^a  

^a MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY OF NEWFOUNDLAND   (Canada)

^b Government of Newfoundland and Labrador   (Canada)

Author keywords

boosted regression trees; coyotes; GLMM; machine learning; species distribution models

Indexed keywords

EID: 84901270234     PISSN: 13658816     EISSN: 13623087     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13658816.2013.847444     Document Type: Article

References (91)

1. Aarts, G., et al., 2008. Estimating space-use and habitat preference from wildlife telemetry data. Ecography, 31 (1), 140-160.
2. Abeare, S.M., 2009. Comparisons of boosted regression tree, GLM and GAM performance in the standardization of yellowfin tuna catch-rate data from the Gulf of Mexico longline fishery. Master's thesis. Louisiana State University.
3. Ahmed, N.K., et al. 2010. An empirical comparison of machine learning models for time series forecasting. Econometric Reviews, 29 (5), 594-621.
4. Allen, G.M. and Barbour, T., 1937. The Newfoundland wolf. Journal of Mammalogy, 18 (2), 229-234.
5. Araújo, M.B. and Guisan, A., 2006. Five (or so) challenges for species distribution modelling. Journal of Biogeography, 33 (10), 1677-1688.
6. Araújo, M.B. and New, M., 2007. Ensemble forecasting of species distributions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 22 (1), 42-47.
7. Austin, M.P., 2002. Spatial prediction of species distribution: an interface between ecological theory and statistical modelling. Ecological Modelling, 157 (2-3), 101-118.
8. Austin, M., 2007. Species distribution models and ecological theory: a critical assessment and some possible new approaches. Ecological Modelling, 200 (1-2), 1-19.
9. Bates, D., 2010. Linear mixed model implementation in lme4 [online R vignette]. [modified 2010 March 31;]. Available from: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4 [Accessed 5 November 2010].
10. Bates, D. and Maechler, M., 2010. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes [online R package]. Version 0.999375-35. Available from: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4 [Accessed 5 November 2010].
11. Berk, R.A. 2006. An introduction to ensemble methods for data analysis. Sociological Methods & Research, 34 (3), 263-295.
12. Beyer, H., 2007. Hawth's analysis tools for ArcGIS. Version 3.27 [online]. Available from: http://www.spatialecology.com/htools/index.php [Accessed 5 November 2010].
13. Beyer, H.L., et al., 2010. The interpretation of habitat preference metrics under use-availability designs. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365 (1550), 2245-2254.
14. Box, G.E.P. 1976. Science and statistics. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 71 (356), 791-799.
15. Boyce, M.S., et al., 2002. Evaluating resource selection functions. Ecological Modelling, 157 (2-3), 281-300.
16. Boyce, M.S. and McDonald, L.L., 1999. Relating populations to habitats using resource selection functions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 14 (7), 268-272.
17. Breiman, L., 2001. Statistical modeling: the two cultures. Statistical Science, 16 (3), 199-215.
18. Breslow, N.E., 1996. Generalized linear models: checking assumptions and strengthening conclusions. Statistica Applicata, 8, 23-41.
19. Burnham, K.P. and Anderson, D.R., 2002. Model selection and multi-model inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Springer.
20. Caruana, R. and Niculescu-Mizil, A., 2006. An empirical comparison of supervised learning algorithms. In: Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on machine learning, 25-29 June 2006; Pittsburgh (PA). New York: ACM, 161-168.
21. Craig, E. and Huettmann, F., 2009. Using 'blackbox' algorithms such as TreeNet and Random Forests for data-mining and for finding meaningful patterns, relationships and outliers in complex ecological data: an overview, an example using golden eagle satellite data and an outlook for a promising future. In: H.-F. Wang, ed. Intelligent data analysis: developing new methodologies through pattern discovery and recovery. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference, 65-84.
22. Cushman, S.A., et al., 2007. Research agenda for integrated landscape modeling. Fort Collins, CO: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. General Technical Report No. RMRS-GTR-194.
23. Cutler, D.R., et al., 2007. Random forests for classification in ecology. Ecology, 88 (11), 2783-2792.
24. Damman, A.W.H., 1983. An ecological subdivision of the island of Newfoundland. In: G.R. South, ed. Biogeography and ecology of the island of Newfoundland. The Hague: Dr. W. Junk, 163-206.
25. De'ath, G., 2007. Boosted trees for ecological modeling and prediction. Ecology, 88 (1), 243-251.
26. D'eon, R.G. and Delparte, D., 2005. Effects of radio-collar position and orientation on GPS radio-collar performance, and the implications of PDOP in data screening. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42 (2), 383-388.
27. de Solla, S.R., Bonduriansky, R., and Brooks, R.J., 1999. Eliminating autocorrelation reduces biological relevance of home range estimates. Journal of Animal Ecology, 68 (2), 221-234.
28. Drew, C.A., Wiersma, Y.F., and Huettmann, F., eds., 2011. Predictive species and habitat modeling in landscape ecology. New York: Springer.
29. Elith, J., et al., 2006. Novel methods improve prediction of species distributions from occurrence data. Ecography, 29 (2), 129-151.
30. Elith, J., Leathwick, J.R., and Hastie, T., 2008. A working guide to boosted regression trees. Journal of Animal Ecology, 77 (4), 802-813.
31. Fieberg, J., 2007a. Utilization distribution estimation using weighted kernel density estimators. Journal of Wildlife Management, 71 (5), 1669-1675.
32. Fieberg, J., 2007b. Kernel density estimators of home range: smoothing and the autocorrelation red herring. Ecology, 88 (4), 1059-1066.
33. Fieberg, J., et al., 2009. Regression modelling of correlated data in ecology: subject-specific and population averaged response patterns. Journal of Applied Ecology, 46 (5), 1018-1025.
34. Fielding, A.H. and Bell, J.F., 1997. A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environmental Conservation, 24 (1), 38-49.
35. Friedman, J.H., 2001. Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine. Annals of Statistics, 29 (5), 1189-1232.
36. Friedman, J.H., 2002. Stochastic gradient boosting. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 38 (4), 367-378.
37. Gillies, C.S., et al., 2006. Application of random effects to the study of resource selection by animals. Journal of Animal Ecology, 75 (4), 887-898.
38. Golicher, D., et al., 2012. Pseudo-absences, pseudo-models and pseudo-niches: pitfalls of model selection based on the area under the curve. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 26 (11), 2049-2063.
39. Gompper, M.E., 2002. The ecology of northeast coyotes: current knowledge and priorities for future research. WCS Working Paper No. 17. New York: Wildlife Conservation Society.
40. Guisan, A., et al., 2006. Making better biogeographical predictions of species' distributions. Journal of Applied Ecology, 43 (3), 386-392.
41. Guisan, A., et al., 2007. Sensitivity of predictive species distribution models to change in grain size. Diversity and Distributions, 13 (3), 332-340.
42. Guisan, A. and Zimmermann, N.E., 2000. Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecological Modelling, 135 (2-3), 147-186.
43. Hand, D., 2009. Measuring classifier performance: a coherent alternative to the area under the ROC curve. Machine Learning, 77 (1), 103-123.
44. Harrison, D.J., 1992. Social ecology of coyotes in eastern North America: relationships to dispersal, food resources, and human exploitation. In: A.H. Boer, ed. Ecology and management of the eastern coyote. Fredericton, NB: Wildlife Research Unit, University of New Brunswick, 53-72.
45. Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., and Friedman, J., 2009. The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and prediction. 2nd ed. New York: Springer.
46. Hebblewhite, M. and Merrill, E., 2008. Modelling wildlife-human relationships for social species with mixed-effects resource selection models. Journal of Applied Ecology, 45 (3), 834-844.
47. Hochachka, W.M., et al., 2007. Data-mining discovery of pattern and process in ecological systems. Journal of Wildlife Management, 71 (7), 2427-2437.
48. Johnson, D.H., 1980. The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. Ecology, 61 (1), 65-71.
49. Kie, J.G., et al., 2010. The home-range concept: are traditional estimators still relevant with modern telemetry technology? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365 (1550), 2221-2231.
50. Koehler, G.M. and Hornocker, M.G., 1991. Seasonal resource use among mountain lions, bobcats, and coyotes. Journal of Mammalogy, 72 (2), 391-396.
51. Koper, N. and Manseau, M., 2009. Generalized estimating equations and generalized linear mixed-effects models for modelling resource selection. Journal of Applied Ecology, 46 (3), 590-599.
52. Leblond, M., et al., 2011. Assessing the influence of resource covariates at multiple spatial scales: an application to forest-dwelling caribou faced with intensive human activity. Landscape Ecology, 26, 1433-1446.
53. Lewis, J.S., et al., 2007. Effects of habitat on GPS collar performance: using data screening to reduce location error. Journal of Applied Ecology, 44 (3), 663-671.
54. Lobo, J.M., Jiménez-Valverde, A., and Real, R., 2008. AUC: a misleading measure of the performance of predictive distribution models. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 17 (2), 145-151.
55. Mahoney, S.P. and Schaefer, J.A., 2002. Long-term changes in demography and migration of Newfoundland caribou. Journal of Mammalogy, 83 (4), 957-963.
56. Manly, B.F.J., et al., 2002. Resource selection by animals: statistical design and analysis for field studies. 2nd ed. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
57. Marmion, M., et al., 2009. The performance of state-of-the-art modelling techniques depends on geographical distribution of species. Ecological Modelling, 220 (24), 3512-3520.
58. McCue, A.J., 2012. General patterns among generalists: what is revealed by spatial models of coyotes? Master's thesis. Memorial University of Newfoundland.
59. Meades, W.J., 1983. Heathlands. In: G.R. South, ed. Biogeography and ecology of the island of Newfoundland. The Hague: Dr. W. Junk, 267-318.
60. Miller, J.A. and Hanham, R.Q., 2011. Spatial nonstationarity and the scale of species-environment relationships in the Mojave Desert, California, USA. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 25 (3), 423-438.
61. Moudrý, V. and Šimová, P., 2012. Influence of positional accuracy, sample size and scale on modelling species distributions: a review. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 26 (11), 2083-2095.
62. Natural Resources Canada, Centre for Topographic Information [NRC], 2001. Canada3D: product standard [online]. Sherbrooke, QC: Department of Natural Resources (Canada). Available from: http://www.geogratis.ca/geogratis/en/download/dem.html [Accessed 5 November 2010].
63. Natural Resources Canada, Centre for Topographic Information [NRC], 2007a. National Hydro Network: data product specifications distribution profile [online]. Sherbrooke, QC: Department of Natural Resources (Canada). Version 1.0. Available from: http://geobase.ca/geobase/en/data/nhn/index.html [Accessed 5 November 2010].
64. Natural Resources Canada, Centre for Topographic Information [NRC], 2007b. National Road Network: data product specifications [online]. Sherbrooke, QC: Department of Natural Resources (Canada). Version 2.0. Available from: http://geobase.ca/geobase/en/data/nrn/index.html [Accessed 5 November 2010].
65. Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Environment and Conservation [NLDEC], 2008. Five-year caribou strategy seeks to address declining populations. [Press release]. St. John's, NL: Government of Newfoundland and Labrador [online, modified 7 February 2008]. Available from: http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2008/env/0207n06.htm [Accessed 29 October 2010].
66. Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Environment and Conservation [NLDEC], 2009. Caribou resource committee establishing to bring stakeholder perspective to the table. [Press release]. St. John's, NL: Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. [online, modified 8 September 2009]. Available from: http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2009/env/0908n02.htm [Accessed 29 October 2010].
67. Nielsen, S.E., Cranston, J., and Stenhouse, G.B., 2009. Identification of priority areas for grizzly bear conservation and recovery in Alberta, Canada. Journal of Conservation Planning, 5, 38-60.
68. Olden, J.D., Lawler, J.J., and Poff, N.L., 2008. Machine learning methods without tears: a primer for ecologists. Quarterly Review of Biology, 83 (2), 171-193.
69. Oliver, F. and Wotherspoon, S.J., 2005. GIS-based application of resource selection functions to the prediction of snow petrel distribution and abundance in East Antarctica: comparing models at multiple scales. Ecological Modelling, 189, 105-129.
70. Otis, D.L. and White, G.C., 1999. Autocorrelation of location estimates and the analysis of radiotracking data. Journal of Wildlife Management, 63 (3), 1039-1044.
71. Pearce, J.L. and Boyce, M.S., 2006. Modelling distribution and abundance with presence-only data. Journal of Applied Ecology, 43 (3), 405-412.
72. Pearce, J. and Ferrier, S., 2000. Evaluating the predictive performance of habitat models developed using logistic regression. Ecological Modelling, 133 (3), 225-245.
73. Phillips, S.J., et al., 2009. Sample selection bias and presence-only distribution models: implications for background and pseudo-absence data. Ecological Applications, 19 (1), 181-197.
74. Ridgeway, G., 2010. gbm: Generalized Boosted Regression Models. [online R package]. Version 1.6-3.1. Available from: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=gbm [Accessed 27 October 2010].
75. Rykiel, E.J., 1996. Testing ecological models: the meaning of validation. Ecological Modelling, 90 (3), 229-244.
76. Scott, J.M., et al., eds., 2002. Predicting species occurrences: issues of accuracy and scale. Washington DC: Island Press.
77. Seaman, D.E. and Powell, R.A., 1996. An evaluation of the accuracy of kernel density estimators for home range analysis. Ecology, 77 (7), 2075-2085.
78. Seo, C., et al., 2009. Scale effects in species distribution models: implications for conservation planning under climate change. Biology Letters, 5, 39-43.
79. Shivik, J.A. and Gese, E.M., 2000. Territorial significance of home range estimators for coyotes. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28 (4), 940-946.
80. Sing, T., et al., 2009. ROCR: visualizing the performance of scoring classifiers. [online R package]. Version 1.0-4. Available from: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ROCR [Accessed 27 October 2010].
81. Siroky, D.S., 2009. Navigating Random Forests and related advances in algorithmic modeling. Statistics Surveys, 3, 147-163.
82. Skinner, R., 2011. Development of a predictive spatial distribution model for Erioderma pedicellatum (boreal felt lichen) for the island of Newfoundland. Master's thesis. Memorial University of Newfoundland.
83. Smith, C.S., et al., 2007. Using a Bayesian belief network to predict suitable habitat of an endangered mammal - the Julia Creek dunnart (Sminthopsis douglasi). Biological Conservation, 139 (3-4), 333-347.
84. Song, W., et al., 2013. The sensitivity of species distribution modeling to scale differences. Ecological Modelling, 248, 113-118.
85. Tobler, M.W., 2009. New GPS technology improves fix success for large mammal collars in dense tropical forests. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 25 (02), 217-221.
86. Wiens, J.A., 2002. Predicting species occurrences: progress, problems, and prospects. In: J.M. Scott, P.J. Heglund, M.L. Morrison, J.B. Haufler, M.G. Raphael, W.A. Wall and F.B. Samson, eds. Predicting species occurrences: issues of accuracy and scale. Washington, DC: Island Press, 739-750.
87. Wiersma, Y.F., 2011. Variation, use, and mis-use of statistical models: effects on the interpretation of research results. In: C.A. Drew, Y.F. Wiersma and F. Huettmann, eds. Predictive species and habitat modeling in landscape ecology: concepts and applications. New York: Springer, Chapter 11.
88. Wulder, M., et al., 2004. An illustrated methodology for land cover mapping of forests with Landsat-7 ETM+ data: methods in support of EOSD land cover. Victoria, BC: Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre.
89. Young, J.K. and Shivik, J.A., 2006. What carnivore biologists can learn from bugs, birds, and beavers: a review of spatial theories. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 84 (12), 1703-1711.
90. Zaniewski, A., et al., 2002. Predicting species spatial distributions using presence-only data: a case study of native New Zealand ferns. Ecological Modelling, 157 (2-3), 261-280.
91. Zurell, D., et al., 2009. Static species distribution models in dynamically changing systems: how good can predictions really be? Ecography, 32 (5), 733-744.