You have free access to this content

Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data

  1. Jane Elith*,
  2. Catherine H. Graham*,
  3. Robert P. Anderson,
  4. Miroslav Dudík,
  5. Simon Ferrier,
  6. Antoine Guisan,
  7. Robert J. Hijmans,
  8. Falk Huettmann,
  9. John R. Leathwick,
  10. Anthony Lehmann,
  11. Jin Li,
  12. Lucia G. Lohmann,
  13. Bette A. Loiselle,
  14. Glenn Manion,
  15. Craig Moritz,
  16. Miguel Nakamura,
  17. Yoshinori Nakazawa,
  18. Jacob McC. M. Overton,
  19. A. Townsend Peterson,
  20. Steven J. Phillips,
  21. Karen Richardson,
  22. Ricardo Scachetti-Pereira,
  23. Robert E. Schapire,
  24. Jorge Soberón,
  25. Stephen Williams,
  26. Mary S. Wisz,
  27. Niklaus E. Zimmermann

Article first published online: 29 MAR 2006

DOI: 10.1111/j.2006.0906-7590.04596.x

Issue

Ecography

Ecography

Volume 29, Issue 2, pages 129–151, April 2006

Additional Information

How to Cite

Elith*, J., H. Graham*, C., P. Anderson, R., Dudík, M., Ferrier, S., Guisan, A., J. Hijmans, R., Huettmann, F., R. Leathwick, J., Lehmann, A., Li, J., G. Lohmann, L., A. Loiselle, B., Manion, G., Moritz, C., Nakamura, M., Nakazawa, Y., McC. M. Overton, J., Townsend Peterson, A., J. Phillips, S., Richardson, K., Scachetti-Pereira, R., E. Schapire, R., Soberón, J., Williams, S., S. Wisz, M. and E. Zimmermann, N. (2006), Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data. Ecography, 29: 129–151. doi: 10.1111/j.2006.0906-7590.04596.x

Author Information

*J. Elith (j.elith@unimelb.edu.au), School of Botany, Univ. of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, 3010 Australia. – C. H.Graham, Dept of Ecology and Evolution, 650 Life Sciences Building, Stony Brook Univ., NY 11794, USA. – R. P. Anderson, City College of the City Univ. of New York, NY, USA. – M. Dudík, Princeton Univ., Princeton, NJ, USA. – S. Ferrier, Dept of Environment and Conservation Armidale, NSW, Australia. – A. Guisan, Univ. of Lausanne, Switzerland. – R. J. Hijmans, The Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA, USA. – F. Huettmann, Univ. of Alaska Fairbanks, AK, USA. – J. R. Leathwick, NIWA, Hamilton, NZ. – A. Lehmann, Suisse Centre for Faunal Cartography (CSCF), Neuchâtel, Switzerland. – J. Li, CSIRO Atherton, Queensland, Australia. – L. Lohmann, Univ.de São Paulo, Brasil. – B. A. Loiselle, Univ. of Missouri, St. Louis, USA. – G. Manion, Dept of Environment and Conservation, NSW, Australia. – C. Moritz, The Univ. of California, Berkeley, USA. – M. Nakamura, Centro de Invest. en Matemáticas (CIMAT), México. – Y. Nakazawa, The Univ. of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA. – J. McC. Overton, Landcare Research, Hamilton, NZ. – A. T. Peterson, The Univ. of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA. – S. J. Phillips, AT&T Labs-Research, Florham Park, NJ, USA. – K. S. Richardson, McGill Univ., QC, Canada. – R. Scachetti-Pereira, Centro de Referência em Informação Ambiental, Brazil. – R. E. Schapire, Princeton Univ., Princeton, NJ, USA. – J. Soberón, The Univ. of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA. – S. E.Williams, James Cook Univ., Queensland, Australia. – M. S. Wisz, National Environmental Research Inst., Denmark. – N. E. Zimmermann, Swiss Federal Research Inst. WSL, Birmensdorf, Switzerland.

Publication History

  1. Issue published online: 29 MAR 2006
  2. Article first published online: 29 MAR 2006
  3. Manuscript Accepted 25 January 2006

SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

ARTICLE TOOLS

View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (685K)

References

  • Anderson, R. P.. 2003. Real vs artefactual absences in species distributions: tests for Oryzomys albigularis (Rodentia: Muridae) in Venezuala. J. Biogeogr. 30: 591–605.
    Direct Link:
  • Anderson, R. P., Peterson, A. T. and Gómez-Laverde, M.. 2002. Using niche-based GIS modeling to test geographic predictions of competitive exclusion and competitive release in South American pocket mice. Oikos 98: 3–16.
    Direct Link:
  • Araújo, M. B. and Williams, P. H.. 2000. Selecting areas for species persistence using occurrence data. Biol. Conserv. 96: 331–345.
  • Araújo, M. B. et al. 2004. Would climate change drive species out of reserves? An assessment of existing reserve-selection methods. Global Change Biol. 10: 1618–1626.
    Direct Link:
  • Araújo, M. B. et al. 2005. Validation of species-climate impact models under climate change. Global Change Biol. 11: 1504–1513.
    Direct Link:
  • Austin, M. P.. 2002. Spatial prediction of species distribution: an interface between ecological theory and statistical modelling. Ecol. Modell. 157: 101–118.
  • Austin, M. P. and Cunningham, R. B.. 1981. Observational analysis of environmental gradients. Proc. Ecol. Soc. Aust. 11: 109–119.
  • Austin, M. P. et al. 1994. Determining species response functions to an environmental gradient by means of a beta-function. J. Veg. Sci. 5: 215–228.
  • Austin, M. P. et al. 1995. Modelling of landscape patterns and processes using biological data. Subproject 5: simulated data case study. – In: Division of Wildlife and Ecology, CSIRO.
  • Bakkenes, M. et al. 2002. Assessing effects of forecasted climate change on the diversity and distribution of European higher plants for 2050. Global Change Biol. 8: 390–407.
    Direct Link:
  • Barry, S. C. and Elith, J. in press. Error and uncertainty in habitat models. – J. Appl. Ecol.
  • Bio, A. M. F. 2000. Does vegetation suit our models? Data and model assumptions and the assessment of species distribution in space. – Fac. of Geographical Sciences, Utrecht Univ., Netherlands Ph.D. thesis.
  • Bojórquez, L. I. et al. 1995. Identifying conservation priorities in México through GIS and modeling. Ecol. Appl. 5: 215–231.
  • Boyce, M. S. et al. 2002. Evaluating resource selection functions. Ecol. Modell. 157: 281–300.
  • Brotons, L. et al. 2004. Presence-absence versus presence-only modelling methods for predicting bird habitat suitability. Ecography 27: 437–448.
    Direct Link:
  • Brown, J. and Lomolino, M.. 1998. Biogeography. Sinauer.
  • Burgman, M., Lindenmayer, D. B. and Elith, J.. 2005. Managing landscapes for conservation under uncertainty. Ecology 86: 2007–2017.
  • Burnham, K. P. and Anderson, D. R.. 2002. Model selection and inference: a practical information – theoretic approach, 2nd ed. Springer.
  • 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., Gillison, A. N. and Winter, J.. 1993. DOMAIN: a flexible modelling procedure for mapping potential distributions of plants and animals. Biodiv. Conserv. 2: 667–680.
  • Cawsey, E. M., Austin, M. P. and Baker, B. L.. 2002. Regional vegetation mapping in Australia: a case study in the practical use of statistical modelling. Biodiv. Conserv. 11: 2239–2274.
  • Cicero, C.. 2004. Barriers to sympatry between avian sibling species (Paridae: Beolophus) in tenuous secondary contact. Evolution 58: 1573–1587.
  • Cohen, J.. 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ. Psyschol. Meas. 20: 37–46.
  • Elith, J. and Burgman, M. A.. 2002. Predictions and their validation: rare plants in the Central Highlands, Victoria, Australia. – In: Scott, J. M. et al (eds), Predicting species occurrences: issues of accuracy and scale. Island Press, pp. 303–314.
  • Ferrier, S.. 2002. Mapping spatial pattern in biodiversity for regional conservation planning: where to from here?. Syst. Biol. 51: 331–363.
  • Ferrier, S. and Watson, G. 1997. An evaluation of the effectiveness of environmental surrogates and modelling techniques in predicting the distribution of biological diversity. – Environment Australia, Canberra, <http://www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity/publications/technical/surrogates/>.
  • Ferrier, S. et al. 2002a. Extended statistical approaches to modelling spatial pattern in biodiversity: the north-east New South Wales experience. I. Species-level modelling. Biodiv. Conserv. 11: 2275–2307.
  • Ferrier, S. et al. 2002b. Extended statistical approaches to modelling spatial pattern in biodiversity: the north-east New South Wales experience. II. Community-level modelling. Biodiv. Conserv. 11: 2309–2338.
  • 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.
  • Friedman, J. H., Hastie, T. and Tibshirani, R.. 2000. Additive logistic regression: a statistical view of boosting. Ann. Stat. 28: 337–407.
  • Funk, V. and Richardson, K.. 2002. Systematic data in biodiversity studies: use it or lose it. Syst. Biol. 51: 303–316.
  • Gelfand, A. E. et al. 2006. Explaining species distribution patterns through hierarchical modeling. Bayesian Analysis 1: 41–92.
  • Gómez Pompa, A. and Nevling, L. I.. 1970. La Flora de Veracruz. Anales del Inst. de Biología de la UNAM, Bot. 31: 137–171.
  • Goolsby, J. A.. 2004. Potential distribution of the invasive old world climbing, fern, Lygodium microphyllum in north and south America. Nat. Areas J. 24: 351–353.
  • Graham, C. H. et al. 2004a. New developments in museum-based informatics and applications in biodiversity analysis. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19: 497–503.
  • Graham, C. H. et al. 2004b. Integrating phylogenetics and environmental niche models to explore speciation mechanisms in dendrobatid frogs. Evolution 58: 1781–1793.
  • Graham, C. H., Moritz, C. and Williams, S. E.. 2006. Habitat history improves prediction of biodiversity in a rainforest fauna. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103: 632–636.
  • Guisan, A. and Zimmerman, N. E.. 2000. Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecol. Modell. 135: 147–186.
  • Guisan, A. and Hofer, U.. 2003. Predicting reptile distributions at the mesoscale: relation to climate and topography. J. Biogeogr. 30: 1233–1243.
    Direct Link:
  • Guisan, A. and Thuiller, W.. 2005. Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol. Lett. 8: 993–1009.
    Direct Link:
  • Guisan, A., Theurillat, J. P. and Kienast, F.. 1998. Predicting the potential distribution of plant species in an alpine environment. J. Veg. Sci. 9: 65–74.
    Direct Link:
  • Hanley, J. A. and McNeil, B. J.. 1982. The meaning and use of the area under a Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 143: 29–36.
  • Hanski, I.. 1994. Patch occupancy dynamics in fragmented landscapes. Trends Ecol. Evol. 9: 131–134.
  • Harrell, F. E.. 2001. Regression modeling strategies with applications to linear models, logistic regression and survival analysis. Springer.
  • Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R. and Friedman, J. H.. 2001. The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and prediction. Springer.
  • Hijmans, R. J. et al. 2000. Assessing the geographic representativeness of genebank collections: the case of Bolivian wild potatoes. Conserv. Biol. 14: 1755–1765.
  • Hijmans, R. J. et al. 2005. Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 25: 1965–1978.
    Direct Link:
  • Hirzel, A. H. and Guisan, A.. 2002. Which is the optimal sampling strategy for habitat suitability modelling?. Ecol. Modell. 157: 331–341.
  • Hirzel, A. H. et al. 2002. Ecological-niche factor analysis: how to compute habitat- suitability maps without absence data?. Ecology 83: 2027–2036.
  • Huettmann, F.. 2005. Databases and science-based management in the context of wildlife and habitat: towards a certified ISO standard for objective decision-making for the global community by using the internet. J. Wildl. Manage. 69: 466–472.
    Direct Link:
  • Hugall, A. et al. 2002. Reconciling paleodistribution models and comparative phylogeography in the Wet Tropics rainforest land snail Gnarosophia bellendenkerensis (Brazier 1875). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99: 6112–6117.
  • Jaynes, E. T.. 1982. On the rationale of maximum entropy methods. Proc. the IEEE 70: 939–952.
  • Kadmon, R., Farber, O. and Danin, A.. 2003. A systematic analysis of factors affecting the performance of climatic envelope models. Ecol. Appl. 13: 853–867.
  • Kadmon, R., Farber, O. and Danin, A.. 2004. Effect of roadside bias on the accuracy of predictive maps produced by bioclimatic models. Ecol. Appl. 14: 401–413.
  • Keating, K. A. and Cherry, S.. 2004. Use and interpretation of logistic regression in habitat selection studies. J. Wildl. Manage. 68: 774–789.
    Direct Link:
  • Leathwick, J. R.. 2002. Intra-generic competition among Nothofagus in New Zealand's primary indigenous forests. Biodiv. Conserv. 11: 2177–2187.
  • Leathwick, J. R. and Austin, M. P.. 2001. Competitive interactions between tree species in New Zealand's old-growth indigenous forests. Ecology 82: 2560–2573.
  • Leathwick, J. R. et al. 2005. Using multivariate adaptive regression splines to predict the distributions of New Zealand's freshwater diadromous fish. Freshwater Biol. 50: 2034–2052.
    Direct Link:
  • Leathwick, J. R. et al. in press. Variation in demersal fish species richness in the oceans surrounding New Zealand: an analysis using boosted regression trees. – Mar. Ecol. Progr. Ser.
  • Liu, C. et al. 2005. Selecting thresholds of occurrence in the prediction of species distributions. Ecography 28: 385–393.
    Direct Link:
  • Loiselle, B. A. et al. 2003. Avoiding pitfalls of using species distribution models in conservation planning. Conserv. Biol. 17: 1591–1600.
    Direct Link:
  • Lowe, D. G.. 1995. Similarity metric learning for a variable-kernel classifier. Neural Comput 7: 72–85.
  • Luoto, M. et al. 2005. Uncertainty of bioclimate envelope models based on geographical distribution of species. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 14: 575–584.
    Direct Link:
  • Mac Nally, R. and Fleishman, E.. 2004. A successful predictive model of species richness based on indicator species. Conserv. Biol. 18: 646–654.
    Direct Link:
  • McCarthy, M. A. and Masters, P.. 2005. Profiting from prior information in Bayesian analyses of ecological data. J. Appl. Ecol. 42: 1012–1019.
    Direct Link:
  • Moilanen, A. et al. 2005. Prioritizing multiple-use landscapes for conservation: methods for large multi-species planning problems. Proc. R. Soc. B 272: 1885–1891.
  • Moisen, G. G. and Frescino, T. S.. 2002. Comparing five modeling techniques for predicting forest characteristics. Ecol. Modell. 157: 209–225.
  • Muñoz, J. and Fellicísimo, Á. M.. 2004. Comparison of statistical methods commonly used in predictive modeling. J. Veg. Sci. 15: 285–292.
    Direct Link:
  • Murphy, A. H. and Winkler, R. L.. 1992. Diagnostic verification of probability forecasts. Int. J. Forecasting 7: 435–455.
  • Pearce, J. and Ferrier, S.. 2000a. Evaluating the predictive performance of habitat models developed using logistic regression. Ecol. Modell. 133: 225–245.
  • Pearce, J. and Ferrier, S.. 2000b. An evaluation of alternative algorithms for fitting species distribution models using logistic regression. Ecol. Modell. 128: 127–147.
  • Pearce, J. L. and Boyce, M. S. in press. Modelling distribution and abundance with presence-only data. – J. Appl. Ecol., in press.
  • Pearce, J., Ferrier, S. and Scotts, D.. 2001. An evaluation of the predictive performance of distributional models for flora and fauna in norht-east New South Wales. J. Environ. Manage. 62: 171–184.
  • Peterson, A. T.. 2003. Predicting the geography of species’ invasions via ecological niche modeling. Quart. Rev. Biol. 78: 419–433.
  • Peterson, A. T.. 2005. Kansas gap analysis: the importance of validating distributional models before using them. Southwest. Nat, pp. 230–236.
  • Peterson, A. T., Martinez-Meyer, E. and Gonzalez-Salazar, C.. 2004. Reconstructing the pleistocene geography of the Aphelocoma jays (Corvidae). Biodiv. Res. 10: 237–246.
  • Phillips, S. J., Dudik, M. and Schapire, R. E. 2004. A maximum entropy approach to species distribution modeling. – In: Proc. of the 21st International Conference on Machine Learning, Banff, Canada, 2004.
  • Phillips, S. J., Anderson, R. P. and Schapire, R. E.. 2006. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol. Modell. 190: 231–259.
  • Pielke Jr, R. A.. 2003. The role of models in prediction for decision. – In: Canham, C., Cole, J. and Lauenroth, W. K. (eds), Models in ecosystem science. Princeton Univ. Press, pp. 111–135.
  • Randin, C. F. et al. in press. Are species distribution models transferable in space? – J. Biogeogr.
  • Rapoport, E. H.. 1982. Aerography. Permagon Press.
  • Raxworthy, C. J. et al. 2003. Predicting distributions of known and unknown reptile species in Madagascar. Nature 426: 837–841.
  • Reese, G. C. et al. 2005. Factors affecting species distribution predictions: a simulation modeling experiment. Ecol. Appl. 15: 554–564.
  • Ricklefs, R.. 2004. A comprehensive framework for global patterns in biodiversity. Ecol. Lett. 7: 1–15.
    Direct Link:
  • Ridgeway, G.. 1999. The state of boosting. Comput. Sci. Stat. 31: 172–181.
  • Rosenzweig, M.. 1995. Species diversity in space and time. Cambridge Univ. Press.
  • Rushton, S. P., Ormerod, S. J. and Kerby, G.. 2004. New paradigms for modelling species distributions?. J. Appl. Ecol. 41: 193–200.
    Direct Link:
  • Scotts, D. and Drielsma, M.. 2003. Developing landscape frameworks for regional conservation planning: an approach integrating fauna spatial distributions and ecological principles. Pac. Conserv. Biol. 8: 235–254.
  • Segurado, P. and Araújo, M. B.. 2004. An evaluation of methods for modelling species distributions. J. Biogeogr. 31: 1555–1568.
    Direct Link:
  • Silverman, B. W.. 1986. Density estimation for statistics and data analysis. Chapman and Hall.
  • Skov, F. and Svenning, J. C.. 2004. Potential impact of climatic change on the distribution of forest herbs in Europe. Ecography 27: 366–380.
    Direct Link:
  • Sneath, P. H. A. and Sokal, R. R.. 1973. Numerical taxonomy – the principles and practice of numerical classification. W. H. Freeman.
  • Soberon, J., Llorente, J. B. and Onate, L.. 2000. The use of specimen – label databases for conservation purposes: an example using Mexican papilionid and pierid butterflies. Biodiv. Conserv. 9: 1441–1466.
  • Soberón, J. M. and Peterson, A. T.. 2005. Interpretation of models of fundamental ecological niches and species’ distributional areas. Biodiv. Inform. 2: 1–10.
  • Spiegelhalter, D. et al. 2003a. WinBUGS user manual, version 1.4. MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, UK.
  • Spiegelhalter, D. J. et al. 2003b. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 64: 583–639.
    Direct Link:
  • Stockwell, D. and Peters, D.. 1999. The GARP modelling 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.
  • Thomas, C. D. et al. 2004. Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427: 145–148.
  • Thornton, P. E., Running, S. W. and White, M. A.. 1997. Generating surfaces of daily meteorological variables over large regions of complex terrain. J. Hydrol. 190: 214–251.
  • Thuiller, W.. 2004. Patterns and uncertainties of species’ range shifts under climate change. Global Change Biol. 10: 2020–2027.
    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.
  • Thuiller, W. et al. 2005. Climate change threats to plant diversity in Europe. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102: 8245–8250.
  • Tibshirani, R.. 1996. Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 58: 267–288.
  • Turner, W. et al. 2003. Remote sensing for biodiversity science and conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18: 306–314.
  • Tyre, A. J., Possingham, H. P. and Lindenmayer, D. B.. 2001. Matching observed pattern with ecological process: can territory occupancy provide information about life history parameters?. Ecol. Appl. 11: 1722–1738.
  • Van Horne, B.. 1983. Density as a misleading indicator of habitat quality. J. Wildl. Manage. 47: 893–901.
  • Venier, L. A. et al. 2001. Models of large-scale breeding-bird distribution as a function of macro-climate in Ontario, Canada. J. Biogeogr. 26: 315–328.
    Direct Link:
  • Walker, P. A. and Cocks, K. D.. 1991. HABITAT: a procedure for modelling a disjoint environmental envelope for a plant or animal species. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. Lett. 1: 108–118.
  • Wintle, B. A. and Bardos, D. C. in press. Modelling species habitat relationships with spatially autocorrelated observation data. – Ecol. Appl.
  • Yee, T. W. and Mitchell, N. D.. 1991. Generalized additive models in plant ecology. J. Veg. Sci. 2: 587–602.
    Direct Link:
  • Zaniewski, A. E., Lehmann, A. and Overton, J. M.. 2002. Predicting species distribution using presence-only data: a case study of native New Zealand ferns. Ecol. Modell. 157: 261–280.
  • Zheng, B. and Agresti, A.. 2000. Summarizing the predictive power of a generalized linear model. Stat. Med. 19: 1771–1781.
    Direct Link:
View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (685K)