What do we gain from simplicity versus complexity in species distribution models?

被引:429
作者
Merow, Cory [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Smith, Mathew J. [3 ]
Edwards, Thomas C., Jr. [4 ,5 ]
Guisan, Antoine [6 ,7 ]
McMahon, Sean M. [1 ]
Normand, Signe [8 ,9 ]
Thuiller, Wilfried [10 ,11 ]
Wueest, Rafael O. [8 ,10 ,11 ]
Zimmermann, Niklaus E. [8 ]
Elith, Jane [12 ]
机构
[1] Smithsonian Environm Res Ctr, Edgewater, MD 21307 USA
[2] Univ Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269 USA
[3] Microsoft Res, Sci Computat Lab, Cairo CB1 2FB, Egypt
[4] Utah State Univ, US Geol Survey, Utah Cooperat Fish & Wildlife Res Unit, Logan, UT 84322 USA
[5] Utah State Univ, Dept Wildland Resources, Logan, UT 84322 USA
[6] Univ Lausanne, Dept Ecol & Evolut, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
[7] Univ Lausanne, Inst Earth Surface Dynam, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
[8] Swiss Fed Res Inst WSL, CH-8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland
[9] Aarhus Univ, Dept Biosci, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark
[10] Univ Grenoble Alpes, LECA, FR-38000 Grenoble, France
[11] LECA, CNRS 10, FR-38000 Grenoble, France
[12] Univ Melbourne, Ctr Excellence Biosecur Risk Anal, Sch Bot, Parkville, Vic 3010, Australia
基金
欧洲研究理事会; 澳大利亚研究理事会; 美国国家科学基金会; 瑞士国家科学基金会;
关键词
SPATIAL AUTOCORRELATION; VARIABLE IMPORTANCE; REGRESSION-ANALYSIS; ECOLOGICAL THEORY; RANGE; PREDICTIONS; NICHE; VALIDATION; OCCUPANCY; RESPONSES;
D O I
10.1111/ecog.00845
中图分类号
X176 [生物多样性保护];
学科分类号
090705 ;
摘要
Species distribution models (SDMs) are widely used to explain and predict species ranges and environmental niches. They are most commonly constructed by inferring species' occurrence-environment relationships using statistical and machine-learning methods. The variety of methods that can be used to construct SDMs (e.g. generalized linear/additive models, tree-based models, maximum entropy, etc.), and the variety of ways that such models can be implemented, permits substantial flexibility in SDM complexity. Building models with an appropriate amount of complexity for the study objectives is critical for robust inference. We characterize complexity as the shape of the inferred occurrence-environment relationships and the number of parameters used to describe them, and search for insights into whether additional complexity is informative or superfluous. By building 'under fit' models, having insufficient flexibility to describe observed occurrence-environment relationships, we risk misunderstanding the factors shaping species distributions. By building 'over fit' models, with excessive flexibility, we risk inadvertently ascribing pattern to noise or building opaque models. However, model selection can be challenging, especially when comparing models constructed under different modeling approaches. Here we argue for a more pragmatic approach: researchers should constrain the complexity of their models based on study objective, attributes of the data, and an understanding of how these interact with the underlying biological processes. We discuss guidelines for balancing under fitting with over fitting and consequently how complexity affects decisions made during model building. Although some generalities are possible, our discussion reflects differences in opinions that favor simpler versus more complex models. We conclude that combining insights from both simple and complex SDM building approaches best advances our knowledge of current and future species ranges.
引用
收藏
页码:1267 / 1281
页数:15
相关论文
共 107 条
  • [1] Comparative interpretation of count, presence-absence and point methods for species distribution models
    Aarts, Geert
    Fieberg, John
    Matthiopoulos, Jason
    [J]. METHODS IN ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION, 2012, 3 (01): : 177 - 187
  • [2] A multi-trait approach reveals the structure and the relative importance of intra- vs. interspecific variability in plant traits
    Albert, Cecile Helene
    Thuiller, Wilfried
    Yoccoz, Nigel Gilles
    Douzet, Rolland
    Aubert, Serge
    Lavorel, Sandra
    [J]. FUNCTIONAL ECOLOGY, 2010, 24 (06) : 1192 - 1201
  • [3] Validation of species-climate impact models under climate change
    Araújo, MB
    Pearson, RG
    Thuiller, W
    Erhard, M
    [J]. GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY, 2005, 11 (09) : 1504 - 1513
  • [4] Ensemble forecasting of species distributions
    Araujo, Miguel B.
    New, Mark
    [J]. TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION, 2007, 22 (01) : 42 - 47
  • [5] Five (or so) challenges for species distribution modelling
    Araujo, Miguel B.
    Guisan, Antoine
    [J]. JOURNAL OF BIOGEOGRAPHY, 2006, 33 (10) : 1677 - 1688
  • [6] Uses and misuses of bioclimatic envelope modeling
    Araujo, Miguel B.
    Townsend Peterson, A.
    [J]. ECOLOGY, 2012, 93 (07) : 1527 - 1539
  • [7] Species distribution models and ecological theory: A critical assessment and some possible new approaches
    Austin, Mike
    [J]. ECOLOGICAL MODELLING, 2007, 200 (1-2) : 1 - 19
  • [8] NONLINEAR SPECIES RESPONSE MODELS IN ORDINATION
    AUSTIN, MP
    [J]. VEGETATIO, 1976, 33 (01): : 33 - 41
  • [9] Spatial prediction of species distribution: an interface between ecological theory and statistical modelling
    Austin, MP
    [J]. ECOLOGICAL MODELLING, 2002, 157 (2-3) : 101 - 118
  • [10] A NEW MODEL FOR THE CONTINUUM CONCEPT
    AUSTIN, MP
    SMITH, TM
    [J]. VEGETATIO, 1989, 83 (1-2): : 35 - 47