An evaluation of methods for modelling species distributions

An evaluation of methods for modelling species distributions Aim Various statistical techniques have been used to model species probabilities of occurrence in response to environmental conditions. This paper provides a comprehensive assessment of methods and investigates whether errors in model predictions are associated to specific kinds of geographical and environmental distributions of species. Location Portugal, Western Europe. Methods Probabilities of occurrence for 44 species of amphibians and reptiles in Portugal were modelled using seven modelling techniques: Gower metric, Ecological Niche Factor Analysis, classification trees, neural networks, generalized linear models, generalized additive models and spatial interpolators. Generalized linear and additive models were constructed with and without a term accounting for spatial autocorrelation. Model performance was measured using two methods: sensitivity and Kappa index. Species were grouped according to their spatial (area of occupancy and extent of occurrence) and environmental (marginality and tolerance) distributions. Two‐way comparison tests were performed to detect significant interactions between models and species groups. Results Interaction between model and species groups was significant for both sensitivity and Kappa index. This indicates that model performance varied for species with different geographical and environmental distributions. Artificial neural networks performed generally better, immediately followed by generalized additive models including a covariate term for spatial autocorrelation. Non‐parametric methods were preferred to parametric approaches, especially when modelling distributions of species with a greater area of occupancy, a larger extent of occurrence, lower marginality and higher tolerance. Main conclusions This is a first attempt to relate performance of modelling techniques with species spatial and environmental distributions. Results indicate a strong relationship between model performance and the kinds of species distributions being modelled. Some methods performed generally better, but no method was superior in all circumstances. A suggestion is made that choice of the appropriate method should be contingent on the goals and kinds of distributions being modelled. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Biogeography Wiley

An evaluation of methods for modelling species distributions

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/an-evaluation-of-methods-for-modelling-species-distributions-ki5gVzIk3e
Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
ISSN
0305-0270
eISSN
1365-2699
DOI
10.1111/j.1365-2699.2004.01076.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Aim Various statistical techniques have been used to model species probabilities of occurrence in response to environmental conditions. This paper provides a comprehensive assessment of methods and investigates whether errors in model predictions are associated to specific kinds of geographical and environmental distributions of species. Location Portugal, Western Europe. Methods Probabilities of occurrence for 44 species of amphibians and reptiles in Portugal were modelled using seven modelling techniques: Gower metric, Ecological Niche Factor Analysis, classification trees, neural networks, generalized linear models, generalized additive models and spatial interpolators. Generalized linear and additive models were constructed with and without a term accounting for spatial autocorrelation. Model performance was measured using two methods: sensitivity and Kappa index. Species were grouped according to their spatial (area of occupancy and extent of occurrence) and environmental (marginality and tolerance) distributions. Two‐way comparison tests were performed to detect significant interactions between models and species groups. Results Interaction between model and species groups was significant for both sensitivity and Kappa index. This indicates that model performance varied for species with different geographical and environmental distributions. Artificial neural networks performed generally better, immediately followed by generalized additive models including a covariate term for spatial autocorrelation. Non‐parametric methods were preferred to parametric approaches, especially when modelling distributions of species with a greater area of occupancy, a larger extent of occurrence, lower marginality and higher tolerance. Main conclusions This is a first attempt to relate performance of modelling techniques with species spatial and environmental distributions. Results indicate a strong relationship between model performance and the kinds of species distributions being modelled. Some methods performed generally better, but no method was superior in all circumstances. A suggestion is made that choice of the appropriate method should be contingent on the goals and kinds of distributions being modelled.

Journal

Journal of BiogeographyWiley

Published: Oct 1, 2004

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month