spThin: An R package for spatial thinning of species occurrence records for use in ecological niche models

Ecography

Volumn 38, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 541-545

  Aiello Lammens, Matthew E ^a,b   Boria, Robert A ^c   Radosavljevic, Aleksandar ^c,d,e,f   Vilela, Bruno ^i,j   Anderson, Robert P ^c,g,h  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT   (United States)

^b STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c CITY COLLEGE OF NEW YORK   (United States)

^d NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e CHICAGO BOTANIC GARDEN   (United States)

^f DEPARTMENT OF PALEOBIOLOGY   (United States)

^g CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

^h DIVISION OF INVERTEBRATE ZOOLOGY   (United States)

ⁱ FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF GOIÁS   (Brazil)

^j UNIVERSITY OF ALCALÁ   (Spain)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DATA SET; NICHE BREADTH; RODENT; SAMPLING; SPECIES OCCURRENCE;

CHAETODIPUS SPINATUS;

EID: 84929130535     PISSN: 09067590     EISSN: 16000587     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/ecog.01132     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Anderson, R. P. 2003. Real vs. artefactual absences in species distributions: tests for Oryzomys albigularis (Rodentia: Muridae) in Venezuela. - J. Biogeogr. 30: 591-605.
2. Anderson, R. P. 2012. Harnessing the world's biodiversity data: promise and peril in ecological niche modeling of species distributions. - Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1260: 66-80.
3. Anderson, R. P. and Raza, A. 2010. The effect of the extent of the study region on GIS models of species geographic distributions and estimates of niche evolution: preliminary tests with montane rodents (genus Nephelomys) in Venezuela. - J. Biogeogr. 37: 1378-1393.
4. Anderson, R. P. and Gonzalez, I. J. 2011. Species-specific tuning increases robustness to sampling bias in models of species distributions: an implementation with Maxent. - Ecol. Model. 222: 2796-2811.
5. Araújo, M. B. and Guisan, A. 2006. Five (or so) challenges for species distribution modelling. - J. Biogeogr. 33: 1677-1688.
6. Araújo, M. B. and Peterson, A. T. 2012. Uses and misuses of bioclimatic envelope modeling. - Ecology 93: 1527-1539.
7. Boria, R. A. et al. 2014. Spatial filtering to reduce sampling bias can improve the performance of ecological niche models. - Ecol. Model. 275: 73-77.
8. de Oliveira, G. et al. 2014. Evaluating, partitioning, and mapping the spatial autocorrelation component in ecological niche modeling: a new approach based on environmentally equidistant records. - Ecography 37: 637-647.
9. 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.
10. Fourcade, Y. et al. 2014. Mapping species distributions with MAXENT using a geographically biased sample of presence data: a performance assessment of methods for correcting sampling bias. - PLoS One 9: e97122.
11. Furrer, R. et al. 2012. fields: tools for spatial data. - R package ver. 6.7, < http://CRAN.R-project.org/package = fields>.
12. Garey, M. R. and Johnson, D. S. 1979. Computers and intractability. - Freeman.
13. Graham, C. H. et al. 2004. New developments in museum-based informatics and applications in biodiversity analysis. - Trends Ecol. Evol. 19: 497-503.
14. Hijmans, R. J. 2012. Cross-validation of species distribution models: removing spatial sorting bias and calibration with a null model. - Ecology 93: 679-688.
15. Hijmans, R. J. and Elith, J. 2011. Species distribution modeling with R. - < http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/dismo/vignettes/>.
16. Hijmans, R. J. et al. 2000. Assessing the geographic representativeness of genebank collections: the case of Bolivian wild potatoes. - Conserv. Biol. 14: 1755-1765.
17. Johnson, D. S. 1982. The NP-completeness column: an ongoing guide. - J. Algorithms 3: 182-195.
18. Kadmon, R. et al. 2004. Effect of roadside bias on the accuracy of predictive maps produced by bioclimatic models. - Ecol. Appl. 14: 401-413.
19. Kramer-Schadt, S. et al. 2013. The importance of correcting for sampling bias in MaxEnt species distribution models. - Divers. Distrib. 19: 1366-1379.
20. Pearson, R. G. et al. 2007. Predicting species distributions from small numbers of occurrence records: a test case using cryptic geckos in Madagascar. - J. Biogeogr. 34: 102-117.
21. Peterson, A. T. et al. 2011. Ecological niches and geographic distributions. - Princeton Univ. Press.
22. Phillips, S. J. et al. 2009. Sample selection bias and presence-only distribution models: implications for background and pseudo-absence data. - Ecol. Appl. 19: 181-197.
23. Radosavljevic, A. and Anderson, R. P. 2014. Making better Maxent models of species distributions: complexity, overfitting and evaluation. - J. Biogeogr. 41: 629-643.
24. Reddy, S. and Dávalos, L. 2003. Geographical sampling bias and its implications for conservation priorities in Africa. - J. Biogeogr. 30: 1719-1727.
25. Shcheglovitova, M. and Anderson, R. P. 2013. Estimating optimal complexity for ecological niche models: a jackknife approach for species with small sample sizes. - Ecol. Model. 269: 9-17.
26. Syfert, M. M. et al. 2013. The effects of sampling bias and model complexity on the predictive performance of MaxEnt species distribution models. - PLoS One 8: e55158.
27. Varela, S. et al. 2014. Environmental filters reduce the effects of sampling bias and improve predicitons of ecolgical niche models. - Ecography 37: 1-8.
28. Veloz, S. D. 2009. Spatially autocorrelated sampling falsely inflates measures of accuracy for presence-only niche models. - J. Biogeogr. 36: 2290-2299.
29. Verbruggen, H. et al. 2013. Improving transferability of introduced species' distribution models: new tools to forecast the spread of a highly invasive seaweed. - PLoS One 8: e68337.
30. Warren, D. L. 2012. In defense of "niche modeling". - Trends Ecol. Evol. 27: 497-500.
31. Williams, P. H. et al. 2002. Data requirements and data sources for biodiversity priority area selection. - J. Biosci. 27: 327-338.
32. Wintle, B. A. and Bardos, D. C. 2006. Modeling species-habitat relationships with spatially autocorrelated observation data. - Ecol. Appl. 16: 1945-1958.