Comprehensively evaluating the performance of species distribution models across clades and resolutions: choosing the right tool for the job

被引:6
作者
Wunderlich, Rainer Ferdinand [1 ]
Mukhtar, Hussnain [1 ]
Lin, Yu-Pin [1 ]
机构
[1] Natl Taiwan Univ, Dept Bioenvironm Syst Engn, 1,Sec 4,Roosevelt Rd, Taipei 10617, Taiwan
关键词
Algorithm; Clades; Species distribution model; Model performance; Resolution; CLIMATE-CHANGE; SAMPLE-SIZE; POSITIONAL UNCERTAINTY; SELECTING THRESHOLDS; INCIDENT RADIATION; DECISION-MAKING; BODY-SIZE; CONSERVATION; PREDICTION; SCALE;
D O I
10.1007/s10980-022-01465-1
中图分类号
Q14 [生态学(生物生态学)];
学科分类号
071012 ; 0713 ;
摘要
Context Species distribution modeling (SDM) is an integral tool for conservation, biogeography, and climate change biology. However, practioners have to choose from increasingly numerous SDM algorithms performing well under different conditions, including Glade and resolution. Objectives To identify the most suitable SDM algorithms for trees, birds, mammals, and insects, uncover the driving factors of predictive performance, and examine how resolution affects performance and variable importance. Methods We use 27 SDM implementations, including random forests (RF), boosted regression trees (BRT), and Mahalanobis distance (MAH), and a comprehensive dataset of 49 species in Europe (trees, birds, mammals, and insects) to fit a total of 19,845 models, at 20 km, 10 km, and 5 km resolution. For selected species, we also compare the mapped predictions of 3 algorithms, and assess how variable importance changes with resolution for BRT. Results RF and BRT outperformed in terms of model performance (AUC = 0.938) for all clades (but not species), whereas decision trees, MaxLike, and Lasso overall underperformed (AUC =0.848). The performance majorly depended on both Glade (F =101.4) and its interaction with resolution (F=133.2), and displayed a general decline with resolution, while variable importance exhibited complex shifts in response to resolution. Conclusions RF and BRT are highly recommended but may require bias correction methods, whereas decision trees appeared unfavorable-particularly at higher resolutions. Given the complicated picture at the species level, varying tendencies to overfit, and resolution effects on both model performance and variable importance, we urge to routinely explore a range of algorithms, parametrizations, and resolutions. [GRAPHICS] .
引用
收藏
页码:2045 / 2063
页数:19
相关论文
共 132 条
  • [1] Data Descriptor: TerraClimate, a high-resolution global dataset of monthly climate and climatic water balance from 1958-2015
    Abatzoglou, John T.
    Dobrowski, Solomon Z.
    Parks, Sean A.
    Hegewisch, Katherine C.
    [J]. SCIENTIFIC DATA, 2018, 5
  • [2] Fit-for-Purpose: Species Distribution Model Performance Depends on Evaluation Criteria - Dutch Hoverflies as a Case Study
    Aguirre-Gutierrez, Jesus
    Carvalheiro, Luisa G.
    Polce, Chiara
    van Loon, E. Emiel
    Raes, Niels
    Reemer, Menno
    Biesmeijer, Jacobus C.
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2013, 8 (05):
  • [3] Assessing the accuracy of species distribution models: prevalence, kappa and the true skill statistic (TSS)
    Allouche, Omri
    Tsoar, Asaf
    Kadmon, Ronen
    [J]. JOURNAL OF APPLIED ECOLOGY, 2006, 43 (06) : 1223 - 1232
  • [4] A suite of global, cross-scale topographic variables for environmental and biodiversity modeling
    Amatulli, Giuseppe
    Domisch, Sami
    Tuanmu, Mao-Ning
    Parmentier, Benoit
    Ranipeta, Ajay
    Malczyk, Jeremy
    Jetz, Walter
    [J]. SCIENTIFIC DATA, 2018, 5
  • [5] Species-specific tuning increases robustness to sampling bias in models of species distributions: An implementation with Maxent
    Anderson, Robert P.
    Gonzalez, Israel, Jr.
    [J]. ECOLOGICAL MODELLING, 2011, 222 (15) : 2796 - 2811
  • [6] A NEW MODEL FOR THE CONTINUUM CONCEPT
    AUSTIN, MP
    SMITH, TM
    [J]. VEGETATIO, 1989, 83 (1-2): : 35 - 47
  • [7] Selecting pseudo-absences for species distribution models: how, where and how many?
    Barbet-Massin, Morgane
    Jiguet, Frederic
    Albert, Cecile Helene
    Thuiller, Wilfried
    [J]. METHODS IN ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION, 2012, 3 (02): : 327 - 338
  • [8] Present and future Koppen-Geiger climate classification maps at 1-km resolution
    Beck, Hylke E.
    Zimmermann, Niklaus E.
    McVicar, Tim R.
    Vergopolan, Noemi
    Berg, Alexis
    Wood, Eric F.
    [J]. SCIENTIFIC DATA, 2018, 5
  • [9] Spatial bias in the GBIF database and its effect on modeling species' geographic distributions
    Beck, Jan
    Boeller, Marianne
    Erhardt, Andreas
    Schwanghart, Wolfgang
    [J]. ECOLOGICAL INFORMATICS, 2014, 19 : 10 - 15
  • [10] Dangers of using global bioclimatic datasets for ecological niche modeling. Limitations for future climate projections
    Bedia, Joaquin
    Herrera, Sixto
    Gutierrez, Jose Manuel
    [J]. GLOBAL AND PLANETARY CHANGE, 2013, 107 : 1 - 12