A comprehensive evaluation of predictive performance of 33 species distribution models at species and community levels
0106 biological sciences
570
predictive power
RANGE SHIFTS
[SDE.MCG]Environmental Sciences/Global Changes
INCORPORATING SPATIAL AUTOCORRELATION
01 natural sciences
Physical Geography and Environmental Geoscience
VDP::Matematikk og Naturvitenskap: 400::Zoologiske og botaniske fag: 480::Økologi: 488
ANZSRC::3103 Ecology
14. Life underwater
Biology
Life Below Water
[STAT.AP]Statistics [stat]/Applications [stat.AP]
species interactions
Ecology
community modeling
model performance
NICHE
BIOTIC INTERACTIONS
STATISTICAL-MODELS
environmental filtering
prediction
15. Life on land
stacked species distribution model
joint species distribution model
[STAT]Statistics [stat]
CLIMATE
Environmental sciences
ANZSRC::4102 Ecological applications
SIMULATED DATA
Ecological Applications
[SDE]Environmental Sciences
IMPROVE PREDICTION
GENERALIZED ADDITIVE-MODELS
community assembly
NEURAL-NETWORKS
[SDE.BE]Environmental Sciences/Biodiversity and Ecology
DOI:
10.1002/ecm.1370
Publication Date:
2019-05-02T08:35:06Z
AUTHORS (35)
ABSTRACT
AbstractA large array of species distribution model (SDM) approaches has been developed for explaining and predicting the occurrences of individual species or species assemblages. Given the wealth of existing models, it is unclear which models perform best for interpolation or extrapolation of existing data sets, particularly when one is concerned with species assemblages. We compared the predictive performance of 33 variants of 15 widely applied and recently emerged SDMs in the context of multispecies data, including both joint SDMs that model multiple species together, and stacked SDMs that model each species individually combining the predictions afterward. We offer a comprehensive evaluation of these SDM approaches by examining their performance in predicting withheld empirical validation data of different sizes representing five different taxonomic groups, and for prediction tasks related to both interpolation and extrapolation. We measure predictive performance by 12 measures of accuracy, discrimination power, calibration, and precision of predictions, for the biological levels of species occurrence, species richness, and community composition. Our results show large variation among the models in their predictive performance, especially for communities comprising many species that are rare. The results do not reveal any major trade‐offs among measures of model performance; the same models performed generally well in terms of accuracy, discrimination, and calibration, and for the biological levels of individual species, species richness, and community composition. In contrast, the models that gave the most precise predictions were not well calibrated, suggesting that poorly performing models can make overconfident predictions. However, none of the models performed well for all prediction tasks. As a general strategy, we therefore propose that researchers fit a small set of models showing complementary performance, and then apply a cross‐validation procedure involving separate data to establish which of these models performs best for the goal of the study.
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
Coming soon ....
REFERENCES (165)
CITATIONS (383)
EXTERNAL LINKS
PlumX Metrics
RECOMMENDATIONS
FAIR ASSESSMENT
Coming soon ....
JUPYTER LAB
Coming soon ....