Cross-validation matters in species distribution models: a case study with goatfish species

IF 5.4 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Ecography Pub Date : 2024-09-17 DOI:10.1111/ecog.07354
Hongwei Huang, Zhixin Zhang, Ákos Bede-Fazekas, Stefano Mammola, Jiqi Gu, Jinxin Zhou, Junmei Qu, Qiang Lin
{"title":"Cross-validation matters in species distribution models: a case study with goatfish species","authors":"Hongwei Huang, Zhixin Zhang, Ákos Bede-Fazekas, Stefano Mammola, Jiqi Gu, Jinxin Zhou, Junmei Qu, Qiang Lin","doi":"10.1111/ecog.07354","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In an era of ongoing biodiversity, it is critical to map biodiversity patterns in space and time for better-informing conservation and management. Species distribution models (SDMs) are widely applied in various types of such biodiversity assessments. Cross-validation represents a prevalent approach to assess the discrimination capacity of a target SDM algorithm and determine its optimal parameters. Several alternative cross-validation methods exist; however, the influence of choosing a specific cross-validation method on SDM performance and predictions remains unresolved. Here, we tested the performance of random versus spatial cross-validation methods for SDM using goatfishes (Actinopteri: Syngnathiformes: Mullidae) as a case study, which are recognized as indicator species for coastal waters. Our results showed that the random versus spatial cross-validation methods resulted in different optimal model parameterizations in 57 out of 60 modeled species. Significant difference existed in predictive performance between the random and spatial cross-validation methods, and the two cross-validation methods yielded different projected present-day spatial distribution and future projection patterns of goatfishes under climate change exposure. Despite the disparity in species distributions, both approaches consistently suggested the Indo-Australian Archipelago as the hotspot of goatfish species richness and also as the most vulnerable area to climate change. Our findings highlight that the choice of cross-validation method is an overlooked source of uncertainty in SDM studies. Meanwhile, the consistency in richness predictions highlights the usefulness of SDMs in marine conservation. These findings emphasize that we should pay special attention to the selection of cross-validation methods in SDM studies.","PeriodicalId":51026,"journal":{"name":"Ecography","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecography","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.07354","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In an era of ongoing biodiversity, it is critical to map biodiversity patterns in space and time for better-informing conservation and management. Species distribution models (SDMs) are widely applied in various types of such biodiversity assessments. Cross-validation represents a prevalent approach to assess the discrimination capacity of a target SDM algorithm and determine its optimal parameters. Several alternative cross-validation methods exist; however, the influence of choosing a specific cross-validation method on SDM performance and predictions remains unresolved. Here, we tested the performance of random versus spatial cross-validation methods for SDM using goatfishes (Actinopteri: Syngnathiformes: Mullidae) as a case study, which are recognized as indicator species for coastal waters. Our results showed that the random versus spatial cross-validation methods resulted in different optimal model parameterizations in 57 out of 60 modeled species. Significant difference existed in predictive performance between the random and spatial cross-validation methods, and the two cross-validation methods yielded different projected present-day spatial distribution and future projection patterns of goatfishes under climate change exposure. Despite the disparity in species distributions, both approaches consistently suggested the Indo-Australian Archipelago as the hotspot of goatfish species richness and also as the most vulnerable area to climate change. Our findings highlight that the choice of cross-validation method is an overlooked source of uncertainty in SDM studies. Meanwhile, the consistency in richness predictions highlights the usefulness of SDMs in marine conservation. These findings emphasize that we should pay special attention to the selection of cross-validation methods in SDM studies.
物种分布模型中的交叉验证问题:山羊鱼物种案例研究
在生物多样性不断发展的时代,绘制生物多样性的时空模式图对于更好地进行保护和管理至关重要。物种分布模型(SDM)被广泛应用于各种类型的生物多样性评估中。交叉验证是评估目标 SDM 算法的判别能力和确定其最佳参数的常用方法。然而,选择特定的交叉验证方法对 SDM 性能和预测的影响仍未得到解决。在此,我们以被认为是近海水域指示物种的山羊鱼(腕足动物:鞘形目:鲻科)为例,测试了随机交叉验证法和空间交叉验证法在 SDM 中的性能。结果表明,随机交叉验证法与空间交叉验证法对 60 个建模物种中的 57 个产生了不同的最佳模型参数。随机交叉验证法和空间交叉验证法在预测性能上存在显著差异,两种交叉验证法预测的羊栖菜的现今空间分布和气候变化暴露下的未来预测模式也不同。尽管物种分布存在差异,但两种方法都一致认为印澳群岛是山羊鱼物种丰富的热点地区,也是最易受气候变化影响的地区。我们的研究结果突出表明,交叉验证方法的选择是 SDM 研究中一个被忽视的不确定性来源。同时,物种丰富度预测的一致性凸显了 SDM 在海洋保护中的实用性。这些发现强调,我们应该特别关注 SDM 研究中交叉验证方法的选择。
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
Ecography
Ecography 环境科学-生态学
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
3.40%
发文量
122
审稿时长
8-16 weeks
期刊介绍: ECOGRAPHY publishes exciting, novel, and important articles that significantly advance understanding of ecological or biodiversity patterns in space or time. Papers focusing on conservation or restoration are welcomed, provided they are anchored in ecological theory and convey a general message that goes beyond a single case study. We encourage papers that seek advancing the field through the development and testing of theory or methodology, or by proposing new tools for analysis or interpretation of ecological phenomena. Manuscripts are expected to address general principles in ecology, though they may do so using a specific model system if they adequately frame the problem relative to a generalized ecological question or problem. Purely descriptive papers are considered only if breaking new ground and/or describing patterns seldom explored. Studies focused on a single species or single location are generally discouraged unless they make a significant contribution to advancing general theory or understanding of biodiversity patterns and processes. Manuscripts merely confirming or marginally extending results of previous work are unlikely to be considered in Ecography. Papers are judged by virtue of their originality, appeal to general interest, and their contribution to new developments in studies of spatial and temporal ecological patterns. There are no biases with regard to taxon, biome, or biogeographical area.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信