What do we gain from simplicity versus complexity in species distribution models?

Ecography

Volumn 37, Issue 12, 2014, Pages 1267-1281

  Merow, Cory ^a,b,c   Smith, Mathew J ^c   Edwards, Thomas C ^d   Guisan, Antoine ^e   Mcmahon, Sean M ^a   Normand, Signe ^f,g   Thuiller, Wilfried ^h,i   Wüest, Rafael O ^f,h,i   Zimmermann, Niklaus E ^f   Elith, Jane ^j  

^a SMITHSONIAN ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT   (United States)

^c MICROSOFT RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

^d UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF LAUSANNE   (Switzerland)

^f SWISS FEDERAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE WSL   (Switzerland)

^g AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

^h UNIV GRENOBLE ALPES   (France)

ⁱ CNRS   (France)

^j UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84912534583     PISSN: 09067590     EISSN: 16000587     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/ecog.00845     Document Type: Article

References (105)

1. Aarts, G. et al. 2012. Comparative interpretation of count, presence-absence and point methods for species distribution models. - Methods Ecol. Evol. 3: 177-187.
2. Albert, C. H. et al. 2010. A multi-trait approach reveals the structure and the relative importance of intra- vs. interspecific variability in plant traits. - Funct. Ecol. 24: 1192-1201.
3. Araújo, M. B. and Guisan, A. 2006. Five (or so) challenges for species distribution modelling. - J. Biogeogr. 33: 1677-1688.
4. Araújo, M. and New, M. 2007. Ensemble forecasting of species distributions. - Trends Ecol. Evol. 22: 42-47.
5. Araujo, M. B. and Peterson, A. T. 2012. Uses and misuses of bioclimatic envelope modelling. - Ecology 93: 1527-1539.
6. Araújo, M. B. et al. 2005. Validation of species-climate impact models under climate change. - Global Change Biol. 11: 1504-1513.
7. Austin, M. P. 1976. On non-linear species response models in ordination. - Vegetatio 33: 33-41.
8. Austin, M. 2002. Spatial prediction of species distribution: an interface between ecological theory and statistical modelling. - Ecol. Model. 157: 101-118.
9. Austin, M. 2007. Species distribution models and ecological theory: a critical assessment and some possible new approaches. - Ecol. Model. 200: 1-19.
10. Austin, M. P. and Smith, T. M. 1989. A new model for the continuum concept. - Vegetatio 83: 35-47.
11. Austin, M. P. and Nicholls, A. O. 1997. To fix or not to fix the species limits, that is the ecological question: response to Jari Oksanen. - J. Veg. Sci. 8: 743-748.
12. Austin, M. P. et al. 1994. Determining species response functions to an environmental gradient by means of a β-function. - J. Veg. Sci. 5: 215-228.
13. Barry, S. and Elith, J. 2006. Error and uncertainty in habitat models. - J. Appl. Ecol. 43: 413-423.
14. Beale, C. M. et al. 2010. Regression analysis of spatial data. - Ecol. Lett. 13: 246-264.
15. Boulangeat, I. et al. 2012. Accounting for dispersal and biotic interactions to disentangle the drivers of species distributions and their abundances. - Ecol. Lett. 15: 584-593.
16. Boulangeat, I. et al. 2014. Anticipating the spatio-temporal response of plant diversity and vegetation structure to climate and land use change in a protected area. - Ecography 37: 1230-1239.
17. Breiman, L. 2001. Statistical modeling: the two cultures. - Statist. Sci. 16: 199-231.
18. Breiman, L. et al. 1984. Classification and regression trees. - Wadsworth International Group.
19. Buckley, L. B. et al. 2011. Does including physiology improve species distribution model predictions of responses to recent climate change? - Ecology 92: 2214-2221.
20. Burnham, K. and Anderson, D. R. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. - Springer.
21. Chase, J. M. and Leibold, M. A. 2003. Ecological niches. - Univ. of Chicago Press.
22. Chave, J. 2013. The problem of pattern and scale in ecology: what have we learned in 20 years? - Ecol. Lett. 16: 4-16.
23. Crase, B. et al. 2012. A new method for dealing with residual spatial autocorrelation in species distribution models. - Ecography 35: 879-888.
24. Diniz-Filho, J. and Bini, L. M. 2005. Modelling geographical patterns in species richness using eigenvector-based spatial filters. - Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 14: 177-185.
25. Dormann, C. F. et al. 2013. Collinearity: a review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. - Ecography 36: 27-46.
26. Dormann, C. F. et al. 2007. Methods to account for spatial autocorrelation in the analysis of species distributional data: a review. - Ecography 30: 609-628.
27. Dubuis, A. et al. 2012. Improving the prediction of plant species distribution and community composition by adding edaphic to topo-climatic variables. - J. Veg. Sci. 24: 593-606.
28. Easterling, M. R. et al. 2000. Size-specific sensitivity: applying a new structured population model. - Ecology 81: 694-708.
29. Edwards, T. C. Jr et al. 2006. Effects of sample survey design on the accuracy of classification tree models in species distribution models. - Ecol. Model. 199: 132-141.
30. Elder, J. F., IV 2003. The generalization paradox of ensembles. - J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 12: 853-864.
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. Elith, J. et al. 2005. The evaluation strip: a new and robust method for plotting predicted responses from species distribution models. - Ecol. Model. 186: 280-289.
34. Elith, J. et al. 2010. The art of modelling range-shifting species. - Methods Ecol. Evol. 1: 330-342.
35. Evans, M. R. et al. 2013. Do simple models lead to generality in ecology? - Trends Ecol. Evol. 28: 578-583.
36. Fithian, W. et al. 2014. A proportional observer bias model for multispecies distribution modeling. - arXiv In press.
37. Fox, J. 2003. Effect displays in R for generalised linear models. - J. Stat. Softw. 8: 1-27.
38. Franklin, J. 2010. Moving beyond static species distribution models in support of conservation biogeography. - Divers. Distrib. 16: 321-330.
39. Friedman, J. H. 2001. Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine. - Ann. Stat. 29: 1189-1232.
40. Gelman, A. and Pardoe, I. 2007. Average predictive comparisons for models with nonlinearity, interactions, and variance components. - Sociol. Methodol. 37: 23-51.
41. Grömping, U. 2009. Variable importance assessment in regression: linear regression versus random forest. - Am. Stat. 63: 308-319.
42. Guisan, A. and Thuiller, W. 2005. Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. - Ecol Lett. 8: 993-1009.
43. Guisan, A. et al. 2013. Predicting species distributions for conservation decisions. - Ecology 16: 1424-1435.
44. Hastie, T. J. and Tibshirani, R. J. 1990. Generalized additive models. - Chapman Hall.
45. Hastie, T. et al. 2009. The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and prediction. - Springer.
46. Hefley, T. J. et al. 2013. Nondetection sampling bias in marked presence-only data. - Ecol. Evol. 3: 5225-5236.
47. Hijmans, R. J. 2012. Cross-validation of species distribution models: removing spatial sorting bias and calibration with a null model. - Ecology 93: 679-688.
48. Hirzel, A. et al. 2006. Evaluating the ability of habitat suitability models to predict species presences. - Ecol. Model. 199: 142-152.
49. Holt, R. D. 2009. Bringing the Hutchinsonian niche into the 21st century: ecological and evolutionary perspectives. - Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106: 19659-19665.
50. Hothorn, T. et al. 2011. Decomposing environmental, spatial, and spatiotemporal components of species distributions. - Ecol. Monogr. 81: 329-347.
51. Hutchinson, R. A. et al. 2011. Incorporating boosted regression trees into ecological latent variable models. - In: Burgard, W. and Roth, D. (eds), Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1343-1348.
52. Ibáñez, I. et al. 2009. Multivariate forecasts of potential distributions of invasive plant species. - Ecol. Appl. 19: 359-375.
53. Janson, L. et al. 2013. Effective degrees of freedom: a flawed metaphor. - arXiv In press.
54. Kearney, M. and Porter, W. 2009. Mechanistic niche modelling: combining physiological and spatial data to predict species' ranges. - Ecol. Lett. 12: 334-350.
55. Kissling, W. D. et al. 2012. Towards novel approaches to modelling biotic interactions in multispecies assemblages at large spatial extents. - J. Biogeogr. 39: 2163-2178.
56. Lahoz-Monfort, J. J. et al. 2013. Imperfect detection impacts the performance of species distribution models. - Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 23: 504-515.
57. Latimer, A. M. et al. 2006. Building statistical models to analyze species distributions. - Ecol. Appl. 16: 33-50.
58. Lawson, C. R. et al. 2013. Prevalence, thresholds and the performance of presence-absence models. - Methods Ecol. Evol. 5: 54-64.
59. Legendre, P. 1993. Spatial autocorrelation: trouble or new paradigm? - Ecology 74: 1659-1673.
60. Letten, A. D. et al. 2013. The importance of temporal climate variability for spatial patterns in plant diversity. - Ecography 36: 1341-1349.
61. Lobo, J. et al. 2008. AUC: a misleading measure of the performance of predictive distribution models. - Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 17: 145-151.
62. Lonergan, M. 2014. Data availability constrains model complexity, generality, and utility: a response to Evans et al. - Trends. Ecol. Evol. 29: 301-302.
63. Lonergan, M. et al. 2014. Data availability constrains model complexity, generality, and utility: a response to Evans et al. - Trends. Ecol. Evol. 29: 301-302.
64. MacKenzie, D. I. and Royle, J. A. 2005. Designing occupancy studies: general advice and allocating survey effort. - J. Appl. Ecol. 42: 1105-1114.
65. MacKenzie, D. I. et al. 2002. Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one. - Ecology 83: 2248-2255.
66. Maggini, R. et al. 2006. Improving generalized regression analysis for the spatial prediction of forest communities. - J. Biogeogr. 33: 1729-1749.
67. Mcinerny, G. J. and Purves, D. W. 2011. Fine-scale environmental variation in species distribution modelling: regression dilution, latent variables and neighbourly advice. - Methods Ecol. Evol. 2: 248-257.
68. Merow, C. et al. 2013. A practical guide to MaxEnt for modeling species' distributions: what it does, and why inputs and settings matter. - Ecography 36: 1-12.
69. Merow, C. et al. 2014. On using integral projection models to build demographically driven species distribution models. - Ecography 37: 1167-1183.
70. Normand, S. et al. 2009. Importance of abiotic stress as a range-limit determinant for European plants: insights from species responses to climatic gradients. - Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 18: 437-449.
71. Oksanen, J. 1997. Why the beta-function cannot be used to estimate skewness of species responses. - J. Veg. Sci. 8: 147-152.
72. Pagel, J. and Schurr, F. M. 2012. Forecasting species ranges by statistical estimation of ecological niches and spatial population dynamics. - Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 21: 293-304.
73. Pearce, J. and Ferrier, S. 2000. Evaluating the predictive performance of habitat models developed using logistic regression. - Ecol. Model. 133: 225-245.
74. Pearson, R. G. et al. 2006. Model-based uncertainty in species range prediction. - J. Biogeogr. 33: 1704-1711.
75. Pearson, R. G. et al. 2013. Shifts in Arctic vegetation and associated feedbacks under climate change. - Nat. Clim. Change In press.
76. Peterson, A. T. et al. 2011. Ecological niches and geographic distributions. - Princeton Univ. Press.
77. Phillips, S. and Dudik, M. 2008. Modeling of species distributions with Maxent: new extensions and a comprehensive evaluation. - Ecography 31: 161-175.
78. Phillips, S. et al. 2006. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. - Ecol. Model. 190: 231-259.
79. Phillips, S. et al. 2009. Sample selection bias and presence-only distribution models: implications for background and pseudo-absence data. - Ecol. Appl. 19: 181-197.
80. Pulliam, H. R. 2000. On the relationship between niche and distribution. - Ecol. Lett. 3: 349-361.
81. Raes, N. and terSteege, H. 2007. A null-model for significance testing of presence-only species distribution models. - Ecography 30: 727-736.
82. Randin, C. F. et al. 2006. Are niche-based species distribution models transferable in space? - J. Biogeogr. 33: 1689-1703.
83. Santika, T. and Hutchinson, M. F. 2009. The effect of species response form on species distribution model prediction and inference. - Ecol. Model. 220: 2365-2379.
84. Schreuder, H. T. et al. 2001. For what applications can probability and non-probability sampling be used? - Environ. Monitoring Assess. 66: 281-291.
85. Schurr, F. M. et al. 2012. How to understand species' niches and range dynamics: a demographic research agenda for biogeography. - J. Biogeogr. 39: 2146-2162.
86. Snell, R. et al. 2014. Using dynamic vegetation models to simulate plant range shifts. - Ecography 37: 1184-1197.
87. Soberón, J. 2007. Grinnellian and Eltonian niches and geographic distributions of species. - Ecol. Lett. 10: 1115-1123.
88. Strobl, C. et al. 2008. Conditional variable importance for random forests. - BMC Bioinform. 9: 307.
89. Svenning, J.-C. et al. 2011. Applications of species distribution modeling to paleobiology. - Q. Sci. Rev. 30: 2930-2947.
90. Thuiller, W. 2003. BIOMOD - optimizing predictions of species distributions and projecting potential future shifts under global change. - Global Change Biol. 9: 1353-1362.
91. Thuiller, W. et al. 2004. Effects of restricting environmental range of data to project current and future species distributions. - Ecography 27: 165-172.
92. Thuiller, W. et al. 2009. BIOMOD - a platform for ensemble forecasting of species distributions. - Ecography 32: 369-373.
93. Thuiller, W. et al. 2013. A road map for integrating eco-evolutionary processes into biodiversity models. - Ecol. Lett. 16: 94-105.
94. Thuiller, W. et al. 2014. Does probability of occurrence relate to demographic performance? - Ecography 37: 1155-1166.
95. Tibshirani, R. 1996. Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. - J. R. Stat. Soc. B 58: 267-288.
96. Tobalske, C. 2002. Effects of spatial scale on the predictive ability of habitat models for the green woodpecker in Switzerland. - In: Scott, J. M. et al. (eds), Predicting species occurrences: issues of accuracy and scale. Island Press, pp. 197-204.
97. Tyre, A. J. et al. 2001. Inferring process from pattern: can territory occupancy provide information about life history parameters? - Ecol. Appl. 11: 1722-1737.
98. Veloz, S. D. 2009. Spatially autocorrelated sampling falsely inflates measures of accuracy for presence-only niche models. - J. Biogeogr. 36: 2290-2299.
99. Warton, D. I. et al. 2013. Model-based control of observer bias for the analysis of presence-only data in ecology. - PLoS One 8: e79168.
100. Welsh, A. H. et al. 2013. Fitting and interpreting occupancy models. - PLoS One 8: e52015.
101. Wood, S. N. 2006. Generalized additive models. - CRC Press.
102. Zadrozny, B. 2004. Learning and evaluating classifiers under sample selection bias. - ICML 2004: 114.
103. Zimmermann, N. E. et al. 2009. Climatic extremes improve predictions of spatial patterns of tree species. - Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106 (Suppl. 2): 19723-19728.
104. Zimmermann, N. E. et al. 2010. New trends in species distribution modelling. - Ecography 33: 985-989.
105. Zurell, D. et al. 2012. Predicting to new environments: tools for visualizing model behaviour and impacts on mapped distributions. - Divers. Distrib. 18: 628-634.