LOCALITY UNCERTAINTY AND THE DIFFERENTIAL PERFORMANCE OF FOUR COMMON NICHE-BASED MODELING TECHNIQUES

Miguel Fernández, Stanley D. Blum, S. Reichle, Q. Guo, Barbara A. Holzman, H. Hamilton
{"title":"LOCALITY UNCERTAINTY AND THE DIFFERENTIAL PERFORMANCE OF FOUR COMMON NICHE-BASED MODELING TECHNIQUES","authors":"Miguel Fernández, Stanley D. Blum, S. Reichle, Q. Guo, Barbara A. Holzman, H. Hamilton","doi":"10.17161/BI.V6I1.3314","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We address a poorly understood aspect of ecological niche modeling: its sensitivity to different levels of geographic uncertainty in organism occurrence data. Our primary interest was to assess how accuracy degrades under increasing uncertainty, with performance measured indirectly through model consistency. We used Monte Carlo simulations and a similarity measure to assess model sensitivity across three variables: locality accuracy, niche modeling method, and species. Randomly generated data sets with known levels of locality uncertainty were compared to an original prediction using Fuzzy Kappa. Data sets where locality uncertainty is low were expected to produce similar distribution maps to the original. In contrast, data sets where locality uncertainty is high were expected to produce less similar maps. BIOCLIM, DOMAIN, Maxent and GARP were used to predict the distributions for 1200 simulated datasets (3 species x 4 buffer sizes x 100 randomized data sets). Thus, our experimental design produced a total of 4800 similarity measures, with each of the simulated distributions compared to the prediction of the original data set and corresponding modeling method. A general linear model (GLM) analysis was performed which enables us to simultaneously measure the effect of buffer size, modeling method, and species, as well as interactions among all variables. Our results show that modeling method has the largest effect on similarity scores and uniquely accounts for 40% of the total variance in the model. The second most important factor was buffer size, but it uniquely accounts for only 3% of the variation in the model. The newer and currently more popular methods, GARP and Maxent, were shown to produce more inconsistent predictions than the earlier and simpler methods, BIOCLIM and DOMAIN. Understanding the performance of different niche modeling methods under varying levels of geographic uncertainty is an important step toward more productive applications of historical biodiversity collections.","PeriodicalId":269455,"journal":{"name":"Biodiversity Informatics","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"37","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biodiversity Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17161/BI.V6I1.3314","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 37

Abstract

We address a poorly understood aspect of ecological niche modeling: its sensitivity to different levels of geographic uncertainty in organism occurrence data. Our primary interest was to assess how accuracy degrades under increasing uncertainty, with performance measured indirectly through model consistency. We used Monte Carlo simulations and a similarity measure to assess model sensitivity across three variables: locality accuracy, niche modeling method, and species. Randomly generated data sets with known levels of locality uncertainty were compared to an original prediction using Fuzzy Kappa. Data sets where locality uncertainty is low were expected to produce similar distribution maps to the original. In contrast, data sets where locality uncertainty is high were expected to produce less similar maps. BIOCLIM, DOMAIN, Maxent and GARP were used to predict the distributions for 1200 simulated datasets (3 species x 4 buffer sizes x 100 randomized data sets). Thus, our experimental design produced a total of 4800 similarity measures, with each of the simulated distributions compared to the prediction of the original data set and corresponding modeling method. A general linear model (GLM) analysis was performed which enables us to simultaneously measure the effect of buffer size, modeling method, and species, as well as interactions among all variables. Our results show that modeling method has the largest effect on similarity scores and uniquely accounts for 40% of the total variance in the model. The second most important factor was buffer size, but it uniquely accounts for only 3% of the variation in the model. The newer and currently more popular methods, GARP and Maxent, were shown to produce more inconsistent predictions than the earlier and simpler methods, BIOCLIM and DOMAIN. Understanding the performance of different niche modeling methods under varying levels of geographic uncertainty is an important step toward more productive applications of historical biodiversity collections.
局部不确定性和四种常见的基于生态位的建模技术的差异性能
我们解决了生态位建模的一个鲜为人知的方面:它对生物发生数据中不同程度的地理不确定性的敏感性。我们的主要兴趣是评估在不确定性增加的情况下准确性是如何下降的,通过模型一致性间接测量性能。我们使用蒙特卡罗模拟和相似性度量来评估模型在三个变量上的敏感性:局部精度、生态位建模方法和物种。随机生成的数据集与已知水平的局部不确定性进行比较,原始预测使用模糊卡帕。局部性不确定性较低的数据集预计会产生与原始数据相似的分布图。相比之下,局部不确定性高的数据集预计会产生不太相似的地图。使用BIOCLIM, DOMAIN, Maxent和GARP预测1200个模拟数据集(3个物种x 4个缓冲大小x 100个随机数据集)的分布。因此,我们的实验设计总共产生了4800个相似性度量,并将每个模拟分布与原始数据集的预测和相应的建模方法进行了比较。一般线性模型(GLM)分析使我们能够同时测量缓冲区大小、建模方法和物种的影响,以及所有变量之间的相互作用。我们的研究结果表明,建模方法对相似性得分的影响最大,并且唯一地占模型总方差的40%。第二个最重要的因素是缓冲区大小,但它只占模型变化的3%。较新的和目前更流行的方法,GARP和Maxent,被证明比早期和更简单的方法,BIOCLIM和DOMAIN产生更多不一致的预测。了解不同地理不确定性水平下不同生态位建模方法的性能是实现历史生物多样性收集更有效应用的重要一步。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信