Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Shinichi Nakagawa, H. Schielzeth (2013)
A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed‐effects modelsMethods in Ecology and Evolution, 4
J. Elith, J. Leathwick (2009)
Species Distribution Models: Ecological Explanation and Prediction Across Space and TimeAnnual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 40
J. Pearce, S. Ferrier (2000)
Evaluating the predictive performance of habitat models developed using logistic regressionEcological Applications, 133
G. Foody (2011)
Impacts of imperfect reference data on the apparent accuracy of species presence–absence models and their predictionsGlobal Ecology and Biogeography, 20
A. Fielding (2007)
Cluster and Classification Techniques for the BiosciencesGlobal Ecology and Biogeography
S. Nakagawa, H. Schielzeth (2012)
A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed‐effects modelsJournal of Applied Ecology, 4
A. Murphy, R. Winkler (1987)
A General Framework for Forecast VerificationMonthly Weather Review, 115
D. Warren, Stephanie Seifert (2011)
Ecological niche modeling in Maxent: the importance of model complexity and the performance of model selection criteria.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America, 21 2
J.M. Lobo, A. Jiménez‐Valverde, R. Real (2008)
AUC: a misleading measure of the performance of predictive distribution modelsEcological Modelling, 17
D. Wolpert, W. Macready (1997)
No free lunch theorems for optimizationIEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., 1
Alan Fielding (2006)
Cluster and Classification Techniques for the Biosciences: Preface
A.H. Fielding, J.F. Bell (1997)
A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence modelsEcological Modelling, 24
W. Bean, R. Stafford, J. Brashares (2012)
The effects of small sample size and sample bias on threshold selection and accuracy assessment of species distribution modelsEcography, 35
C. Yackulic, C. Yackulic, R. Chandler, Elise Zipkin, J. Royle, J. Nichols, E. Grant, S. Véran (2013)
Presence‐only modelling using MAXENT: when can we trust the inferences?Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 4
A. Jiménez‐Valverde, J. Lobo (2006)
The ghost of unbalanced species distribution data in geographical model predictionsDiversity and Distributions, 12
I. Vaughan, S. Ormerod (2005)
The continuing challenges of testing species distribution modelsJournal of Applied Ecology, 42
A. Hirzel, A. Hirzel, G. Lay, V. Helfer, C. Randin, A. Guisan (2006)
Evaluating the ability of habitat suitability models to predict species presencesEcological Modelling, 199
G. Gigerenzer (2003)
Reckoning with Risk: Learning to Live With UncertaintyDiversity and Distributions
J. Lobo, A. Jiménez‐Valverde, R. Real (2008)
AUC: a misleading measure of the performance of predictive distribution modelsGlobal Ecology and Biogeography, 17
Canran Liu, M. White, G. Newell (2011)
Measuring and comparing the accuracy of species distribution models with presence–absence dataEcography, 34
A. Guisan, N. Zimmermann (2000)
Predictive habitat distribution models in ecologyEcological Modelling, 135
J. Elith, J.R. Leathwick (2009)
Species distribution models: ecological explanation and prediction across space and timeEnvironmental conservation, 40
G.M. Foody (2011)
Impacts of imperfect reference data on the apparent accuracy of species presence–absence models and their predictionsEcological Modelling, 20
Omri Allouche, Asaf Tsoar, R. Kadmon (2006)
Assessing the accuracy of species distribution models: prevalence, kappa and the true skill statistic (TSS)Journal of Applied Ecology, 43
J. McPherson, W. Jetz, D. Rogers (2004)
The effects of species’ range sizes on the accuracy of distribution models: ecological phenomenon or statistical artefact?Journal of Applied Ecology, 41
Steven Phillips, J. Elith (2010)
POC plots: calibrating species distribution models with presence-only data.Ecology, 91 8
A. Murphy, R. Winkler (1987)
A general framework for forecast verificationMethods in Ecology and Evolution, 115
J. Royle, R. Chandler, C. Yackulic, J. Nichols (2012)
Likelihood analysis of species occurrence probability from presence‐only data for modelling species distributionsMethods in Ecology and Evolution, 3
A. Moilanen, K. Wilson, H. Possingham (2009)
Spatial conservation prioritization: Quantitative methods and computational toolsEnvironmental Conservation, 36
Canran Liu, P. Berry, T. Dawson, R. Pearson (2005)
Selecting thresholds of occurrence in the prediction of species distributionsEcography, 28
A. Fielding, J. Bell (1997)
A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence modelsEnvironmental Conservation, 24
W. Kunin (1998)
Extrapolating species abundance across spatial scalesScience, 281 5382
B. Bolker (2008)
Ecological Models and Data in R
Steven Phillips, J. Elith (2013)
On estimating probability of presence from use-availability or presence-background data.Ecology, 94 6
Philip Ramsey (2005)
Statistical Methods in the Atmospheric Sciences
A. Peterson, Jorge Soberón, R. Pearson, R. Anderson, E. Martínez‐Meyer, Miguel Nakamura, M. Araújo (2011)
Ecological Niches and Geographic Distributions
J. Bennie, J. Hodgson, C. Lawson, C. Holloway, D. Roy, T. Brereton, C. Thomas, R. Wilson (2013)
Range expansion through fragmented landscapes under a variable climateEcology Letters, 16
M. Wade (1999)
Construction and Assessment of Classification RulesTechnometrics, 41
J. Pearce, S. Ferrier (2000)
Evaluating the predictive performance of habitat models developed using logistic regressionEcological Modelling, 133
I. Legakis, T. Mantzouridis, T. Mountokalakis (2003)
Reckoning with risk: learning to live with uncertaintyBritish Journal of Sports Medicine, 37
A. Jiménez‐Valverde, J. Lobo (2006)
The ghost of unbalanced species distribution data in geographical model predictionsGlobal Ecology and Biogeography, 12
The use of species distribution models to understand and predict species' distributions necessitates tests of fit to empirical data. Numerous performance metrics have been proposed, many of which require continuous occurrence probabilities to be converted to binary ‘present or absent’ predictions using threshold transformations. It is widely accepted that both continuous and binary performance metrics should be independent of prevalence (the proportion of locations that are occupied). However, because these metrics have been mostly assessed on a case‐specific basis, there are few general guidelines for measuring performance. Here, we develop a conceptual framework for classifying performance metrics, based on whether they are sensitive to prevalence, and whether they require binary predictions. We use this framework to investigate how these performance metric properties influence the predictions made by the models they select. A literature survey reveals that binary metrics are widely employed and that prevalence‐independent metrics are used more frequently than prevalence‐dependent metrics. However, we show that prevalence‐dependent metrics are essential to assess the numerical accuracy of model predictions and are more useful in applications that require occupancy estimates. Furthermore, we demonstrate that in comparison with continuous metrics, binary metrics often select models that have reduced ability to separate presences from absences, make predictions which over‐ or underestimate occupancy and give misleading estimates of uncertainty. Importantly, models selected using binary metrics will often be of reduced practical use even when applied to ecological problems that require binary decision‐making. We suggest that SDM performance should be assessed using prevalence‐dependent performance metrics whenever the absolute values of occurrence predictions are important and that continuous metrics should be used instead of binary metrics whenever possible. We thus recommend the wider application of prevalence‐dependent continuous metrics, particularly likelihood‐based metrics such as Akaike's Information Criterion (AIC), to assess the performance of presence–absence models.
Methods in Ecology and Evolution – Wiley
Published: Jan 1, 2014
Keywords: ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.