Minimum required number of specimen records to develop accurate species distribution models

Ecography

Volumn 39, Issue 6, 2016, Pages 542-552

  van Proosdij, André S J ^a,b   Sosef, Marc S M ^a,c   Wieringa, Jan J ^a,b   Raes, Niels ^b  

^a WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b NATURALIS BIODIVERSITY CENTER   (Netherlands)

^c BOTANIC GARDEN MEISE   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLIMATE VARIATION; MODEL TEST; PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT; POPULATION DISTRIBUTION; POPULATION MODELING; SPECIES OCCURRENCE; TAXONOMY;

AFRICA;

EID: 84971473463     PISSN: 09067590     EISSN: 16000587     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/ecog.01509     Document Type: Article

References (79)

1. Aguirre-Gutiérrez, J. et al. 2013. Fit-for-purpose: species distribution model performance depends on evaluation criteria - dutch hoverflies as a case study. - PLoS One 8: e63708.
2. Aguirre-Gutiérrez, J. et al. 2014. Similar but not equivalent: ecological niche comparison across closely-related Mexican white pines. - Divers. Distrib. doi: 10.1111/ddi.12268
3. Algar, A. C. et al. 2009. Predicting the future of species diversity: macroecological theory, climate change, and direct tests of alternative forecasting methods. - Ecography 32: 22-33.
4. Araujo, M. B. and Peterson, A. T. 2012. Uses and misuses of bioclimatic envelope modeling. - Ecology 93: 1527-1539.
5. Araújo, M. B. et al. 2005. Validation of species-climate impact models under climate change. - Global Change Biol. 11: 1504-1513.
6. Austin, M. P. et al. 2006. Evaluation of statistical models used for predicting plant species distributions: role of artificial data and theory. - Ecol. Model. 199: 197-216.
7. Barve, N. et al. 2011. The crucial role of the accessible area in ecological niche modeling and species distribution modeling. - Ecol. Model. 222: 1810-1819.
8. Bean, W. T. et al. 2012. The effects of small sample size and sample bias on threshold selection and accuracy assessment of species distribution models. - Ecography 35: 250-258.
9. Boucher-Lalonde, V. et al. 2012. How are tree species distributed in climatic space? A simple and general pattern. - Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 21: 1157-1166.
10. Boucher-Lalonde, V. et al. 2014. A consistent occupancy-climate relationship across birds and mammals of the Americas. - Oikos 123: 1029-1036.
11. Broennimann, O. et al. 2011. Measuring ecological niche overlap from occurrence and spatial environmental data. - Global Ecol. Biogeog. 21: 481-497.
12. Costello, M. J. et al. 2013. Can we name Earth's species before they go extinct? - Science 339: 413-416.
13. 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.
14. Duan, R.-Y. et al. 2015. SDMvspecies: a software for creating virtual species for species distribution modelling. - Ecography 38: 108-110.
15. Elith, J. et al. 2006. Novel methods improve prediction of species' distributions from occurrence data. - Ecography 29: 129-151.
16. FAO/IIASA/ISRIC/ISSCAS/JRC 2012. Harmonized World Soil Database (version 1.2). - < http://webarchive.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/External-World-soil-database/HTML/index.html?sb=1 >.
17. Feeley, K. J. and Silman, M. R. 2011. Keep collecting: accurate species distribution modelling requires more collections than previously thought. - Divers. Distrib. 17: 1132-1140.
18. 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.
19. Gentz, A. et al. 2014. mvtnorm: multivariate normal and t distributions. - R package ver. 0.9-9997, < http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=mvtnorm >.
20. Graham, C. H. et al. 2008. The influence of spatial errors in species occurrence data used in distribution models. - J. Appl. Ecol. 45: 239-247.
21. Guisan, A. and Zimmermann, N. E. 2000. Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. - Ecol. Model. 135: 147-186.
22. Heibl, C. and Calenge, C. 2013. phyloclim: integrating phylogenetics and climatic niche modeling. - R package ver. 0.9-4, < http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=phyloclim >.
23. Hernandez, P. A. et al. 2006. The effect of sample size and species characteristics on performance of different species distribution modeling methods. - Ecography 29: 773-785.
24. Hijmans, R. J. et al. 2005. Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. - Int. J. Climatol. 25: 1965-1978.
25. Hijmans, R. J. et al. 2013. dismo: species distribution modeling. - R package ver. 0.8-17, < http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dismo >.
26. Hirzel, A. H. et al. 2001. Assessing habitat-suitability models with a virtual species. - Ecol. Model. 145: 111-121.
27. IUCN 2001. IUCN Red List categories and criteria, version 3.1. - IUCN Species Survival Commision, Cambridge, UK.
28. Jiménez-Valverde, A. 2012. Insights into the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) as a discrimination measure in species distribution modelling. - Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 21: 498-507.
29. Jiménez-Valverde, A. et al. 2009. The effect of prevalence and its interaction with sample size on the reliability of species distribution models. - Community Ecol. 10: 196-205.
30. Jiménez-Valverde, A. et al. 2011. Use of niche models in invasive species risk assessments. - Biol. Invasions 13: 2785-2797.
31. Kadmon, R. et al. 2004. Effect of roadside bias on the accuracy of predictive maps produced by bioclimatic models. - Ecol. Appl. 14: 401-413.
32. Liu, C. R. et al. 2011. Measuring and comparing the accuracy of species distribution models with presence-absence data. - Ecography 34: 232-243.
33. Lobo, J. M. and Tognelli, M. F. 2011. Exploring the effects of quantity and location of pseudo-absences and sampling biases on the performance of distribution models with limited point occurrence data. - J. Nat. Conserv. 19: 1-7.
34. Lobo, J. M. et al. 2008. AUC: a misleading measure of the performance of predictive distribution models. - Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 17: 145-151.
35. Loiselle, B. A. et al. 2008. Predicting species distributions from herbarium collections: does climate bias in collection sampling influence model outcomes? - J. Biogeogr. 35: 105-116.
36. Lomolino, M. V. et al. 2010. Biogeography. - Sinauer Associates.
37. Longino, J. T. et al. 2002. The ant fauna of a tropical rain forest: estimating species richness three different ways. - Ecology 83: 689-702.
38. Manel, S. et al. 2001. Evaluating presence-absence models in ecology: the need to account for prevalence. - J. Appl. Ecol. 38: 921-931.
39. Mateo, R. G. et al. 2010. Effects of the number of presences on reliability and stability of MARS species distribution models: the importance of regional niche variation and ecological heterogeneity. - J. Veg. Sci. 21: 908-922.
40. McPherson, J. M. and Jetz, W. 2007. Effects of species' ecology on the accuracy of distribution models. - Ecography 30: 135-151.
41. McPherson, J. M. et al. 2004. The effects of species' range sizes on the accuracy of distribution models: ecological phenomenon or statistical artefact? - J. Appl. Ecol. 41: 811-823.
42. Merckx, B. et al. 2011. Null models reveal preferential sampling, spatial autocorrelation and overfitting in habitat suitability modelling. - Ecol. Model. 222: 588-597.
43. 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: 1058-1069.
44. Metz, C. E. 1978. Basic principles of ROC analysis. - Sem. Nucl. Med. VIII: 283-298.
45. Meynard, C. N. and Quinn, J. F. 2007. Predicting species distributions: a critical comparison of the most common statistical models using artificial species. - J. Biogeogr. 34: 1455-1469.
46. Miller, J. A. 2014. Virtual species distribution models: using simulated data to evaluate aspects of model performance. - Prog. Phys. Geogr. 38: 117-128.
47. Mora, C. et al. 2011. How many species are there on Earth and in the ocean? - PLoS Biol. 9: e1001127.
48. Moudry, V. and Simova, P. 2012. Influence of positional accuracy, sample size and scale on modelling species distributions: a review. - Int. J. Geogr. Inform. Sci. 26: 2083-2095.
49. Nogués-Bravo, D. 2009. Predicting the past distribution of species climatic niches. - Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 18: 521-531.
50. Papeş, M. and Gaubert, P. 2007. Modelling ecological niches from low numbers of occurrences: assessment of the conservation status of poorly known viverrids (Mammalia, Carnivora) across two continents. - Divers. Distrib. 13: 890-902.
51. Pearce, J. and Ferrier, S. 2000. Evaluating the predictive performance of habitat models developed using logistic regression. - Ecol. Model. 133: 225-245.
52. 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.
53. Peterson, A. T. 2006. Uses and requirements of ecological niche models and related distributional models. - Biodivers. Inform. 3: 59-72.
54. Phillips, S. J. et al. 2006. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. - Ecol. Model. 190: 231-259.
55. 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.
56. Rabinowitz, D. 1981. Seven forms of rarity. - In: Synge, H. (ed.), The biological aspects of rare plants conservation. Wiley, pp. 205-217.
57. Raes, N. 2012. Partial versus full species distribution models. - Nat. Conserv. 10: 127-138.
58. Raes, N. and ter Steege, H. 2007. A null-model for significance testing of presence-only species distribution models. - Ecography 30: 727-736.
59. Raes, N. et al. 2009. Botanical richness and endemicity patterns of Borneo derived from species distribution models. - Ecography 32: 180-192.
60. Raes, N. et al. 2013. Legume diversity as indicator for botanical diversity on Sundaland, south east Asia. - S. Afr. J. Bot. 89: 265-272.
61. Reddy, S. and Davalos, L. M. 2003. Geographical sampling bias and its implications for conservation priorities in Africa. - J. Biogeogr. 30: 1719-1727.
62. Rödder, D. and Engler, J. O. 2011. Quantitative metrics of overlaps in Grinnellian niches: advances and possible drawbacks. - Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 20: 915-927.
63. Sánchez-Fernández, D. et al. 2011. Species distribution models that do not incorporate global data misrepresent potential distributions: a case study using Iberian diving beetles. - Divers. Distrib. 17: 163-171.
64. Saupe, E. E. et al. 2012. Variation in niche and distribution model performance: the need for a priori assessment of key causal factors. - Ecol. Model. 237: 11-22.
65. Schmidt, M. et al. 2005. Herbarium collections and field data-based plant diversity maps for Burkina Faso. - Divers. Distrib. 11: 509-516.
66. Schoener, T. W. 1970. Nonsynchronous spatial overlap of lizards in patchy habitats. - Ecology 51: 408-418.
67. Smith, A. B. 2013. On evaluating species distribution models with random background sites in place of absences when test presences disproportionately sample suitable habitat. - Divers. Distrib. 19: 867-872.
68. Stockwell, D. R. B. and Peterson, A. T. 2002. Effects of sample size on accuracy of species distribution models. - Ecol. Model. 148: 1-13.
69. Swets, J. A. 1988. Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. - Science 240: 1285-1293.
70. Syfert, M. M. et al. 2014. Using species distribution models to inform IUCN Red List assessments. - Biol. Conserv. 177: 174-184.
71. ter Steege, H. et al. 2011. A model of botanical collectors' behavior in the field: never the same species twice. - Am. J. Bot. 98: 31-37.
72. ter Steege, H. et al. 2013. Hyperdominance in the Amazonian tree flora. - Science 342 doi: 10.1126/science.1243092
73. Tessarolo, G. et al. 2014. Uncertainty associated with survey design in species distribution models. - Divers. Distrib. doi: 10.1111/ddi.12236
74. van Proosdij, A. S. J. et al. 2015. Data from: Minimum required number of specimen records to develop accurate species distribution models. - Dryad Digital Repository, < http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.8sb8v >.
75. Varela, S. et al. 2014. Environmental filters reduce the effects of sampling bias and improve predictions of ecological niche models. - Ecography 37: 1084-1091.
76. Warren, D. L. et al. 2008. Environmental niche equivalency versus conservatism: quantitative approaches to niche evolution. - Evolution 62: 2868-2883.
77. Whittaker, R. J. et al. 2005. Conservation biogeography: assessment and prospect. - Divers. Distrib. 11: 3-23.
78. Wisz, M. S. et al. 2008. Effects of sample size on the performance of species distribution models. - Divers. Distrib. 14: 763-773.
79. Zurell, D. et al. 2010. The virtual ecologist approach: simulating data and observers. - Oikos 119: 622-635.