Estimation of spatial sampling effort based on presence-only data and accessibility

Ecological Modelling

Volumn 299, Issue , 2015, Pages 147-155

  Fernández, Daniel ^a   Nakamura, Miguel ^b  

^a VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF WELLINGTON   (New Zealand)

^b CENTRO DE INVESTIGACIÓN EN MATEMÁTICAS   (Mexico)

Author keywords

Environmental space; Presences only data; Probabilistic model; Richness; Spatial sampling bias; Target group

Indexed keywords

ECOLOGY; ECOSYSTEMS;

ENVIRONMENTAL SPACE; PRESENCES-ONLY DATA; PROBABILISTIC MODELING; RICHNESS; SPATIAL SAMPLING; TARGET GROUP;

TRANSPORTATION;

BIOLOGICAL SURVEY; BUTTERFLY; ECOLOGICAL MODELING; MAMMAL; PROBABILITY; SAMPLING; SPECIES RICHNESS;

MEXICO [NORTH AMERICA];

MAMMALIA; PAPILIONOIDEA;

EID: 84920887818     PISSN: 03043800     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.12.017     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Aarts G., Fieberg J., Matthiopoulos J. Comparative interpretation of count, presence absence and point methods for species distribution models. Meth. Ecol. Evol. 2012, 3:177-187. 10.1111/j.2041-210x.2011.00141.x.
2. Argaez J., Christen A., Nakamura M., Soberón J. Prediction of potential areas of species distributions based on presence-only data. Environ. Ecol. Stat. 2005, 12:27-44.
3. Bojórquez-Tapia L.A., Azuara I., Ezcurra E., Flores-Villela O. Identifying conservation priorities in Mexico through geographic information systems and modeling. Ecol. Appl. 1995, 5:215-231.
4. Chalmers N.R. Monitoring and inventorying biodiversity: collections, data and training. Biodiversity, Science and Development: Towards a New Partnership 1996, 171-179. CAB International, Wallingford. F. di Castri, T. Younes (Eds.).
5. Dorazio R. Predicting the geographic distribution of a species from presence-only data subject to detection errors. Biometrics 2012, 68:1303-1312.
6. Edwards J. Research and societal benefits of the global biodiversity information facility. BioScience 2004, 54:485-486.
7. Elith J., Leathwick J. Predicting species distributions from museum and herbarium records using multiresponse models fitted with multivariate adaptive regression splines. Divers. Distrib. 2007, 13:265-275. 10.1111/j.1472-4642.2007.00340.x.
8. Elith J., Graham C.H., Anderson R.P., Dudik M., Ferrier S., Guisan A., Hijmans R.J., Huettmann F., Leathwick J.R., Lehmann A., et al. Novel methods improve prediction of species' distributions from occurrence data. Ecography 2006, 29:129-151.
9. Elith J., Phillips S.J., Hastie T., Dudík M., Chee Y.E., Yates C.J. A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists. Divers. Distrib. 2011, 17:43-57.
10. Ferrier S., Watson G., Pearce J., Drielsma M. Extended statistical approaches to modelling spatial pattern in biodiversity in northeast New South Wales. I. Species-level modelling. Biodivers. Conserv. 2002, 11:2275-2307.
11. Fithian W., Hastie T. Finite-sample equivalence in statistical models for presence-only data. Ann. Appl. Stat. 2013, 7(4):1917-1939.
12. Fithian W., Elith J., Hastie T., Keith D.A. Bias Correction in Species Distribution Models: Pooling Survey and Collection Data for Multiple Species 2014, arXiv:140.7274 [stat.AP]. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.7274v2.pdf.
13. Gotelli N.J., Colwell R.K. Estimating Species Richness. Frontiers in Measuring Biodiversity 2011, 39-54. Oxford University Press, New York.
14. Graham C., Ferrier S., Huettman F., Moritz C., Peterson A.T. New developments in museum-based informatics and applications in biodiversity analysis. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2004, 19:497-503.
15. Hastie T., Tibshirani R., Friedman J. The Elements of Statistical Learning 2009, Springer Series in Statistics.
16. Hefley T.J., Tyre A.J., Baasch D.M., Blankenship E.E. Non-detection sampling bias in marked presence-only data. Ecol. Evol. 2013, 3:5225-5236.
17. Hirzel A.H., Hausser J., Chessel D., Perrin N. Ecological-niche factor analysis: how to compute habitat-suitability maps without absence data?. Ecology 2002, 83:2027-2036.
18. Holetschek J., Dröge G., Güntsch A., Berendsohn W.G. The ABCD of primary biodiversity data access. Plant Biosyst. 2012, 146(4):771-779.
19. Iverson L.R., Prasad A. Estimating regional plant biodiversity with GIS modeling. Divers. Distrib. 1998, 4:49-61.
20. Kadmon R., Farber O., Danin A. Effect of roadside bias on the accuracy of predictive maps produced by bioclimatic models. Ecol. Appl. 2004, 14:401-413.
21. Kalbfleish J.G. Probability and Statistical Inference 1985, Springer Verlag, New York.
22. Kéry M., Royle J.A., Schmid H., Schaub M., Volet B., Häfliger G., Zbinden N. Correcting population trend estimates from opportunistic observations for observation effort using site-occupancy modeling. Conserv. Biol. 2010, 24:1388-1397.
23. Llorente J., Oñate L., Luis A., Vargas I. Papilionidae y Pieridae de México: Distribución Geográfica e Ilustración 1998, 1-226. UNAM - CONABIO, México, DF.
24. Lobo J.M., Martin-Piera F. Searching for a predictive model for species richness of Iberian dung beetle based on spatial and environmental variables. Conserv. Biol. 2002, 16:158-173.
25. MacKenzie D.I., Nichols J.D., Royle J.A., Pollock K.H., Bailey L.L., Hines J.E. Occupancy Estimation and Modeling. Inferring Patterns and Dynamics of Species Occurrence 2006, Elsevier Science and Tech.
26. Matlab MATLAB Version 7.0.1 (R14SP1) 2005, The MathWorks Inc., Natick, MA.
27. May R.M. Patterns of species abundance and diversity. Ecology and Evolution of Communities 1975, 81-120. Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA. M.L. Cody, J.M. Diamond (Eds.).
28. Mora C., Tittensor D.P., Myers R.A. The completeness of taxonomic inventories for describing the global diversity and distribution of marine fishes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2008, 275:149-155.
29. Nadeau C.P., Conway C.J., Piest L., Burger W.P. Multi-species call-broadcast improved detection of endangered yuma clapper rail compared to single-species call-broadcast. Wetlands 2013, 1-8.
30. Pearce J., Boyce M.S. Modelling distribution and abundance with presence-only data. J. Appl. Ecol. 2006, 43:405-412.
31. Peterson A.T. Predicting species' geographic distributions based on ecological niche modeling. The Condor (Cooper Ornithological Society) 2001, 103:599-605.
32. Peterson A.T., Navarro-Siguenza A., Benitez-Diaz H. The Need for Continued Scientific Collecting: A Geographic Analysis of Mexican Bird Specimens 1998, vol. 140:288-294. Ibis (Blackwell Publishing Ltd.).
33. Peterson A.T., Soberón J., Pearson R.G., Anderson R.P., Martínez-Meyer E., Nakamura M., Araujo M.B. Ecological niches and geographical distributions. Monographs in Population Biology No. 49 2011, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
34. Phillips S.J., Dudík M. Modeling of species distributions with Maxent: new extensions and a comprehensive evaluation. Ecography 2008, 31:161-175.
35. Phillips S.J., Dudík M., Elith J., Graham C.H., Lehmann A., Leathwick J., Ferrier S. Sample selection bias and presence-only distribution models: implications for background and pseudoabsence data. Ecol. Appl. 2009, 19:181-197.
36. Preston F.W. The canonical distribution of commonness and rarity. Ecology. 1962, 43:410-432. 185-215.
37. Romo H., García-Barros E., Lobo J.M. Identifying recorder-induced geographic bias in an Iberian butterfly database. Ecography 2006, 29:873-885.
38. Soberón J., Llorente J., Benítez H. An international view of national biological surveys. Ann. Missouri Bot. Garden 1996, 83:562-573.
39. Soberón J., Llorente J., Oñate L. The use of specimen label databases for conservation purposes: an example using Mexican Papilionid and Pierid butterflies. Biodivers. Conserv. 2000, 9:1441-1466.
40. Soberón J., Jiménez R., Golubov J., Koleff P. Assessing completeness of biodiversity databases at different spatial scales. Ecography 2007, 30:152-160.
41. Sprott D.A. Statistical Inference in Science 2000, Springer Verlag, New York.
42. Syfert M.M., Smith M.J., Coomes D.A. The effects of sampling bias and model complexity on the predictive performance of MAXENT species distribution models. PLoS ONE 2013, 8:e55158. 10.1371/journal.pone.0055158.
43. Warton D.I., Shepherd L.C. Poisson point process models solve the "pseudo-absence problem" for presence-only data in ecology. Ann. Appl. Stat. 2010, 4:1383-1402.
44. Warton D.I., Renner I.W., Ramp D. Model-based control of observer bias for the analysis of presence-only data in ecology. PLoS ONE 2013, 8:e79168.
45. Whittaker R.J., Araujo M.B., Paul J., Ladle R.J., Watson J.E.M., Willis K.J. Conservation biogeography: assessment and prospect. Divers. Distrib. 2005.
46. Williams P.H., Margules C.R., Hilbert D.W. Data requirements and data sources for biodiversity priority area selection. J. Biosci. 2002, 27:327-338.
47. Williams B.K., Nichols J.D., Conroy M.J. Analysis and Management of Animal Populations: Modeling, Estimation, and Decision Making 2002, Academic Press.
48. Wohlgemuth T. Modeling floristic species richness on a regional scale: a case study in Switzerland. Biodivers. Conserv. 1998, 7:159-1977.
49. Wolmarans R., Robertson M.P., van Rensburg B.J. Predictive invasive alien plants distributions: how geographical bias in occurrence records influences model performance. J. Biogeogr. 2010, 37:1797-1810.
50. Zaniewski E.A., Lehman A., Overton J.M.C. Predicting species spatial distributions using presence-only data: a case study of native New Zealand ferns. Ecol. Model. 2002, 157:261-280.