{"title":"我们是否应该利用具有物种联合分布模型的机会主义数据库?人工和真实数据表明,这取决于采样的完整性","authors":"Daniel Romera-Romera, Diego Nieto-Lugilde","doi":"10.1111/ecog.07340","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Anticipating the effects of global change on biodiversity has become a global challenge requiring new methods. Approaches like species distribution models have limitations which have fueled the development of joint species distribution models (JSDMs). However, JSDMs rely on systematic surveys community data, and no assessment has been made of their suitability with unstructured opportunistic databases data. We used hierarchical modeling of species communities (HMSC) to test JSDMs performance when using opportunistic databases. Using artificial data that mimic the limitations of such databases by subsampling complete co-occurrence matrices (i.e. original data), we analysed how the completeness of opportunistic databases affects JSDMs regarding 1) the role of independent variables on species occurrence, 2) residual species co-occurrence (as a proxy of biotic interactions) and 3) species distributions. Moreover, we illustrate how to evaluate completeness at the pixel level of real data with a study case of forest tree species in Europe, and evaluate the role of data completeness in model estimation. Our results with artificial data demonstrate that decreasing the completion percentage (the rate of original data presences represented in the subsampled matrices) increases false negatives and negative co-occurrence probabilities, resulting in a loss of ecological information. However, HMSC tolerates different levels of degradation depending on the model aspect being considered. Models with 50% of missing data are valid for estimating species niches and distribution, but interaction matrices require databases with at least 75% of completion data. Furthermore, HMSC's predictions often resemble the original community data (without false negatives) even more than the subsampled data (with false negatives) in the training dataset. These findings were confirmed with the real study case. We conclude that opportunistic databases are a valuable resource for JSDMs, but require an analysis of data completeness for the target taxa in the study area at the spatial resolution of interest.","PeriodicalId":51026,"journal":{"name":"Ecography","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Should we exploit opportunistic databases with joint species distribution models? Artificial and real data suggest it depends on the sampling completeness\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Romera-Romera, Diego Nieto-Lugilde\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ecog.07340\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Anticipating the effects of global change on biodiversity has become a global challenge requiring new methods. Approaches like species distribution models have limitations which have fueled the development of joint species distribution models (JSDMs). However, JSDMs rely on systematic surveys community data, and no assessment has been made of their suitability with unstructured opportunistic databases data. We used hierarchical modeling of species communities (HMSC) to test JSDMs performance when using opportunistic databases. Using artificial data that mimic the limitations of such databases by subsampling complete co-occurrence matrices (i.e. original data), we analysed how the completeness of opportunistic databases affects JSDMs regarding 1) the role of independent variables on species occurrence, 2) residual species co-occurrence (as a proxy of biotic interactions) and 3) species distributions. Moreover, we illustrate how to evaluate completeness at the pixel level of real data with a study case of forest tree species in Europe, and evaluate the role of data completeness in model estimation. Our results with artificial data demonstrate that decreasing the completion percentage (the rate of original data presences represented in the subsampled matrices) increases false negatives and negative co-occurrence probabilities, resulting in a loss of ecological information. However, HMSC tolerates different levels of degradation depending on the model aspect being considered. Models with 50% of missing data are valid for estimating species niches and distribution, but interaction matrices require databases with at least 75% of completion data. Furthermore, HMSC's predictions often resemble the original community data (without false negatives) even more than the subsampled data (with false negatives) in the training dataset. These findings were confirmed with the real study case. We conclude that opportunistic databases are a valuable resource for JSDMs, but require an analysis of data completeness for the target taxa in the study area at the spatial resolution of interest.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51026,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ecography\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-16\",\"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.07340\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecography","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.07340","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}
Should we exploit opportunistic databases with joint species distribution models? Artificial and real data suggest it depends on the sampling completeness
Anticipating the effects of global change on biodiversity has become a global challenge requiring new methods. Approaches like species distribution models have limitations which have fueled the development of joint species distribution models (JSDMs). However, JSDMs rely on systematic surveys community data, and no assessment has been made of their suitability with unstructured opportunistic databases data. We used hierarchical modeling of species communities (HMSC) to test JSDMs performance when using opportunistic databases. Using artificial data that mimic the limitations of such databases by subsampling complete co-occurrence matrices (i.e. original data), we analysed how the completeness of opportunistic databases affects JSDMs regarding 1) the role of independent variables on species occurrence, 2) residual species co-occurrence (as a proxy of biotic interactions) and 3) species distributions. Moreover, we illustrate how to evaluate completeness at the pixel level of real data with a study case of forest tree species in Europe, and evaluate the role of data completeness in model estimation. Our results with artificial data demonstrate that decreasing the completion percentage (the rate of original data presences represented in the subsampled matrices) increases false negatives and negative co-occurrence probabilities, resulting in a loss of ecological information. However, HMSC tolerates different levels of degradation depending on the model aspect being considered. Models with 50% of missing data are valid for estimating species niches and distribution, but interaction matrices require databases with at least 75% of completion data. Furthermore, HMSC's predictions often resemble the original community data (without false negatives) even more than the subsampled data (with false negatives) in the training dataset. These findings were confirmed with the real study case. We conclude that opportunistic databases are a valuable resource for JSDMs, but require an analysis of data completeness for the target taxa in the study area at the spatial resolution of interest.
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.