You have free access to this content

The effect of sample size and species characteristics on performance of different species distribution modeling methods

  1. Pilar A. Hernandez,
  2. Catherine H. Graham,
  3. Lawrence L. Master,
  4. Deborah L. Albert

Article first published online: 24 OCT 2006

DOI: 10.1111/j.0906-7590.2006.04700.x

Issue

Ecography

Ecography

Volume 29, Issue 5, pages 773–785, October 2006

Additional Information

How to Cite

Hernandez, P. A., Graham, C. H., Master, L. L. and Albert, D. L. (2006), The effect of sample size and species characteristics on performance of different species distribution modeling methods. Ecography, 29: 773–785. doi: 10.1111/j.0906-7590.2006.04700.x

Author Information

*P. A. Hernandez (pilar_hernandez@natureserve.org), L. L. Master and D. L. Albert, NatureServe, 1101 Wilson Blvd., 15th Floor Arlington, VA 22209, USA. – C. H. Graham, Dept of Ecology and Evolution, State Univ of New York at Stony Brook, 650 Life Sciences Building, Stony Brook, NY 11794-5245, USA.

Publication History

  1. Issue published online: 24 OCT 2006
  2. Article first published online: 24 OCT 2006
  3. Manuscript Accepted 5 June 2006

SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

ARTICLE TOOLS

View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (170K)

References

  • Anderson, R. P. and Martínez-Meyer, E.. 2004. Modeling species’ geographic distributions for preliminary conservation assessments: an implementation with the spiny pocket mice (Heteromys) of Ecuador. Biol. Conserv. 116: 167–179.
  • Anderson, R. P. et al. 2003. Evaluating predictive models of species’ distributions: criteria for selecting optimal models. Ecol. Modell. 162: 211–232.
  • Anon.. 2001. SPSS for Windows. SPSS, Chicago.
  • Araujo, M. B. and Williams, P. H.. 2000. Selecting areas for species persistence using occurrence data. Biol. Conserv. 96: 331–345.
  • Boone, R. B. and Krohn, W. B.. 2002. Modeling tools and accuracy assessment. – In: Scott, J. M. et al (eds), Predicting species occurrences: issues of accuracy and scale. Inland Press, pp. 265–270.
  • Brotons, L. et al. 2004. Presence-absence versus presence–only modeling methods for predicting bird habitat suitability. Ecography 27: 437–448.
    Direct Link:
  • Busby, J. R.. 1991. BIOCLIM – a bioclimate analysis and prediction system. – In: Margules, C. R. and Austin, M. P. (eds), Nature conservation: cost effective biological surveys and data analysis. CSIRO, pp. 64–68.
  • Carpenter, G. et al. 1993. DOMAIN: a flexible modeling procedure for mapping potential distributions of plants and animals. Biodiv. Conserv. 2: 667–680.
  • Corsi, F. et al. 2000. Modelling species distribution with GIS. – In: Boitani, L. and Fuller, T. K. (eds), Research techniques in animal ecology; controversies and consequences. Columbia University Press, pp. 389–434.
  • Elith, J. and Burgman, M. A.. 2003. Habitat models for PVA. – In: Brigham, C. A. and Schwartz, M. W. (eds), Population viability in plants. Conservation, management and modeling of rare plants. Springer, pp. 203–235.
  • Elith, J. et al. 2006. Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data. Ecography 29: 129–151.
    Direct Link:
  • Engler, R. et al. 2004. An improved approach for predicting the distribution of rare and endangered species from occurrence and pseudo-absence data. J. Appl. Ecol. 41: 263–274.
    Direct Link:
  • Farber, O. and Kadmon, R.. 2003. Assessment of alternative approaches for bioclimatic modeling with special emphasis on the Mahalanobis distance. Ecol. Modell. 160: 115–130.
  • 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.
  • Fortin, M.-J. et al. 2005. Species ranges and distributional limits: pattern analysis and statistical issues. Oikos 108: 7–17.
    Direct Link:
  • Gaston, K. J.. 1997. What is rarity?. – In: Kunin, W. E. and Gaston, K. J. (eds), The biology of rarity. Causes and consequences of rare-common differences. Chapman and Hall, pp. 30–47.
  • Gillison, A. N.. 1997. Mapping the potential distribution of plants and animals for wildlife management: the use of the DOMAIN software package. – In: Romimoharto, K. et al (eds), Proceedings of the national seminar on the role of wildlife conservation and its ecosystem in national development. The Indonesian Wildlife Fund (IWF), Jakata,+two maps, pp. 114–119.
  • Graham, C. H. et al. 2004. New developments in museum-based informatics and application in biodiversity analysis. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19: 497–503.
  • Guisan, A. and Zimmermann, N. E.. 2000. Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecol. Modell. 135: 147–186.
  • Hirzel, A. H. et al. 2002. Ecological-niche factor analysis: how to compute habitat-suitability maps without absence data?. Ecology 83: 2027–2036.
  • Johnson, C. M. et al. 2002. Predicting the occurrence of amphibians: an assessment of multiple-scale models. – In: Scott, J. M. et al (eds), Predicting species occurrences: issues of accuracy and scale. Inland Press, pp. 157–170.
  • Kadmon, R. et al. 2003. A systematic analysis of factors affecting the performance of climatic envelope models. Ecol. Appl. 13: 853–867.
  • Kattan, G. H.. 1992. Rarity and vulnerability: the birds of the cordillera central Columbia. Conserv. Biol. 6: 64–70.
    Direct Link:
  • Lindenmayer, D. B. et al. 1991. The conservation of Leadbeater's possum, Gymnobelideus leadbeateri (McCoy): a case study of the use of bioclimatic modeling. J. Biogeogr. 18: 371–383.
  • Loiselle, B. A. et al. 2003. Avoiding pitfalls of using species distribution models in conservation planning. Conserv. Biol. 17: 1591–1600.
    Direct Link:
  • Luoto, M. et al. 2005. Uncertainty of bioclimate envelope models based on the geographical distribution of species. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 14: 575–584.
    Direct Link:
  • Manel, S. et al. 2001. Evaluating presence-absence models in ecology: the need to account for prevalence. J. Appl. Ecol. 38: 921–931.
    Direct Link:
  • McPherson, J. M. et al. 2004. The effects of species’ range sizes on the accuracy of distribution models: ecological phenomenon or statistical artifact?. J. Appl. Ecol. 41: 811–823.
    Direct Link:
  • Nix, H.. 1986. A biogeographic analysis of Australian elapid snakes. – In: Longmore, R. (ed.), Atlas of elapid snakes of Australia. Bureau of Flora and Fauna. Canberra, pp. 4–15.
  • Pearce, J. and Ferrier, S.. 2000. Evaluating the predictive performance of habitat models developed using logistic regression. Ecol. Modell. 133: 225–245.
  • Phillips, S. J. et al. 2004. A maximum entropy approach to species distribution modeling. – In: Brodley, C. E. (ed.), Machine learning. Proc. of the Twenty-first Century International Conference on Machine Learning, Banff, Canada, 2004. ACM Press, p. 83.
  • Phillips, S. J. et al. 2006. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol. Modell. 190: 231–259.
  • Rabinowitz, D. et al. 1986. Seven forms of rarity and their frequency in the flora of the British Isles. – In: Soulé, M. E. (ed.), Conservation biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer, pp. 182–204.
  • Segurado, P. and Araujo, M. B.. 2004. An evaluation of methods for modelling species distributions. J. Biogeogr. 31: 1555–1568.
    Direct Link:
  • Stein, B. A. et al. 2000. Precious heritage. Oxford Univ. Press.
  • Stockwell, D. and Peters, D.. 1999. The GARP modeling system problems and solutions to automated spatial prediction. Int. J. Geogr. Inform. Sci. 13: 143–158.
  • Stockwell, D. R. B. and Peterson, A. T.. 2002. Effects of sample size on accuracy of species distribution models. Ecol. Modell. 148: 1–13.
  • Thuiller, W. et al. 2003. Generalized models vs. classification tree analysis: predicting spatial distributions of plant species at different scales. J. Veg. Sci. 14: 669–680.
    Direct Link:
  • Thuiller, W. et al. 2004. Relating plant traits and species distributions along bioclimatic gradients for 88 Leucadendron species in the Cape Floristic Region. Ecology 85: 1688–1699.
  • Wilson, K. A. et al. 2005. Sensitivity of conservation planning to different approaches to using predicted species distribution data. Biol. Conserv. 122: 99–112.
View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (170K)