IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecomod/v312y2015icp308-317.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact of model complexity on cross-temporal transferability in Maxent species distribution models: An assessment using paleobotanical data

Author

Listed:
  • Moreno-Amat, Elena
  • Mateo, Rubén G.
  • Nieto-Lugilde, Diego
  • Morueta-Holme, Naia
  • Svenning, Jens-Christian
  • García-Amorena, Ignacio

Abstract

Maximum entropy modeling (Maxent) is a widely used algorithm for predicting species distributions across space and time. Properly assessing the uncertainty in such predictions is non-trivial and requires validation with independent datasets. Notably, model complexity (number of model parameters) remains a major concern in relation to overfitting and, hence, transferability of Maxent models. An emerging approach is to validate the cross-temporal transferability of model predictions using paleoecological data. In this study, we assess the effect of model complexity on the performance of Maxent projections across time using two European plant species (Alnus glutinosa (L.) Gaertn. and Corylus avellana L.) with an extensive late Quaternary fossil record in Spain as a study case. We fit 110 models with different levels of complexity under present time and tested model performance using AUC (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) and AICc (corrected Akaike Information Criterion) through the standard procedure of randomly partitioning current occurrence data. We then compared these results to an independent validation by projecting the models to mid-Holocene (6000 years before present) climatic conditions in Spain to assess their ability to predict fossil pollen presence–absence and abundance. We find that calibrating Maxent models with default settings result in the generation of overly complex models. While model performance increased with model complexity when predicting current distributions, it was higher with intermediate complexity when predicting mid-Holocene distributions. Hence, models of intermediate complexity resulted in the best trade-off to predict species distributions across time. Reliable temporal model transferability is especially relevant for forecasting species distributions under future climate change. Consequently, species-specific model tuning should be used to find the best modeling settings to control for complexity, notably with paleoecological data to independently validate model projections. For cross-temporal projections of species distributions for which paleoecological data is not available, models of intermediate complexity should be selected.

Suggested Citation

  • Moreno-Amat, Elena & Mateo, Rubén G. & Nieto-Lugilde, Diego & Morueta-Holme, Naia & Svenning, Jens-Christian & García-Amorena, Ignacio, 2015. "Impact of model complexity on cross-temporal transferability in Maxent species distribution models: An assessment using paleobotanical data," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 312(C), pages 308-317.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:312:y:2015:i:c:p:308-317
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.05.035
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380015002483
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.05.035?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shcheglovitova, Mariya & Anderson, Robert P., 2013. "Estimating optimal complexity for ecological niche models: A jackknife approach for species with small sample sizes," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 269(C), pages 9-17.
    2. Cao, Yong & DeWalt, R. Edward & Robinson, Jason L. & Tweddale, Tari & Hinz, Leon & Pessino, Massimo, 2013. "Using Maxent to model the historic distributions of stonefly species in Illinois streams: The effects of regularization and threshold selections," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 259(C), pages 30-39.
    3. Anderson, Robert P. & Gonzalez, Israel, 2011. "Species-specific tuning increases robustness to sampling bias in models of species distributions: An implementation with Maxent," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(15), pages 2796-2811.
    4. Ian W. Renner & David I. Warton, 2013. "Equivalence of MAXENT and Poisson Point Process Models for Species Distribution Modeling in Ecology," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 69(1), pages 274-281, March.
    5. Austin, Mike, 2007. "Species distribution models and ecological theory: A critical assessment and some possible new approaches," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 200(1), pages 1-19.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Worthington, Thomas A. & Zhang, Tianjiao & Logue, Daniel R. & Mittelstet, Aaron R. & Brewer, Shannon K., 2016. "Landscape and flow metrics affecting the distribution of a federally-threatened fish: Improving management, model fit, and model transferability," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 342(C), pages 1-18.
    2. Zeng, Yiwen & Low, Bi Wei & Yeo, Darren C.J., 2016. "Novel methods to select environmental variables in MaxEnt: A case study using invasive crayfish," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 341(C), pages 5-13.
    3. Uzma Ashraf & Hassan Ali & Muhammad Nawaz Chaudry & Irfan Ashraf & Adila Batool & Zafeer Saqib, 2016. "Predicting the Potential Distribution of Olea ferruginea in Pakistan incorporating Climate Change by Using Maxent Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-11, July.
    4. Duque-Lazo, J. & van Gils, H. & Groen, T.A. & Navarro-Cerrillo, R.M., 2016. "Transferability of species distribution models: The case of Phytophthora cinnamomi in Southwest Spain and Southwest Australia," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 320(C), pages 62-70.
    5. G. Mateo, Rubén & Aroca-Fernández, María José & Gastón, Aitor & Gómez-Rubio, Virgilio & Saura, Santiago & García-Viñas, Juan Ignacio, 2019. "Looking for an optimal hierarchical approach for ecologically meaningful niche modelling," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 409(C), pages 1-1.
    6. Cesar A Marchioro, 2016. "Global Potential Distribution of Bactrocera carambolae and the Risks for Fruit Production in Brazil," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-16, November.
    7. Robin Lines & Dimitrios Bormpoudakis & Panteleimon Xofis & Joseph Tzanopoulos, 2021. "Modelling Multi-Species Connectivity at the Kafue-Zambezi Interface: Implications for Transboundary Carnivore Conservation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-15, November.
    8. Mateo, Rubén G. & Arellano, Gabriel & Gómez-Rubio, Virgilio & Tello, J. Sebastián & Fuentes, Alfredo F. & Cayola, Leslie & Loza, M. Isabel & Cala, Victoria & Macía, Manuel J., 2022. "Insights on biodiversity drivers to predict species richness in tropical forests at the local scale," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 473(C).
    9. Fois, Mauro & Cuena-Lombraña, Alba & Fenu, Giuseppe & Bacchetta, Gianluigi, 2018. "Using species distribution models at local scale to guide the search of poorly known species: Review, methodological issues and future directions," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 385(C), pages 124-132.
    10. Sutton, G.F. & Martin, G.D., 2022. "Testing MaxEnt model performance in a novel geographic region using an intentionally introduced insect," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 473(C).
    11. Beaumont, Linda J. & Graham, Erin & Duursma, Daisy Englert & Wilson, Peter D. & Cabrelli, Abigail & Baumgartner, John B. & Hallgren, Willow & Esperón-Rodríguez, Manuel & Nipperess, David A. & Warren, , 2016. "Which species distribution models are more (or less) likely to project broad-scale, climate-induced shifts in species ranges?," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 342(C), pages 135-146.
    12. Gabriel Fernando Cardoza-Martínez & Jorge Luis Becerra-López & Citlalli Edith Esparza-Estrada & José Luis Estrada-Rodríguez & Alexander Czaja & Muhammad Ehsan & Eduardo Baltierra-Trejo & Ulises Romero, 2019. "Shifts in Climatic Niche Occupation in Astrophytum Coahuilense (H. Möller) Kayser and Its Potential Distribution in Mexico," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-13, February.
    13. Ignacio García-Amorena & Elena Moreno-Amat & María Encina Aulló-Maestro & María Cruz Mateo-Sánchez & Silvia Merino-De-Miguel & Jaime Ribalaygua & Robert Marchant, 2021. "Combining Remote Sensing and Species Distribution Modelling to Assess Pinus hartwegii Response to Climate Change and Land Use from Izta-Popo National Park, Mexico," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-20, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Holder, Anna M. & Markarian, Arev & Doyle, Jessie M. & Olson, John R., 2020. "Predicting geographic distributions of fishes in remote stream networks using maximum entropy modeling and landscape characterizations," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 433(C).
    2. Halvorsen, Rune & Mazzoni, Sabrina & Dirksen, John Wirkola & Næsset, Erik & Gobakken, Terje & Ohlson, Mikael, 2016. "How important are choice of model selection method and spatial autocorrelation of presence data for distribution modelling by MaxEnt?," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 328(C), pages 108-118.
    3. Worthington, Thomas A. & Zhang, Tianjiao & Logue, Daniel R. & Mittelstet, Aaron R. & Brewer, Shannon K., 2016. "Landscape and flow metrics affecting the distribution of a federally-threatened fish: Improving management, model fit, and model transferability," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 342(C), pages 1-18.
    4. Ortner, Olivia & Wallentin, Gudrun, 2020. "Integration of landscape metric surfaces derived from vector data improves species distribution models," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 431(C).
    5. Wiltshire, Kathryn H & Tanner, Jason E, 2020. "Comparing maximum entropy modelling methods to inform aquaculture site selection for novel seaweed species," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 429(C).
    6. Herkt, K. Matthias B. & Barnikel, Günter & Skidmore, Andrew K. & Fahr, Jakob, 2016. "A high-resolution model of bat diversity and endemism for continental Africa," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 320(C), pages 9-28.
    7. Santiago José Elías Velazco & Franklin Galvão & Fabricio Villalobos & Paulo De Marco Júnior, 2017. "Using worldwide edaphic data to model plant species niches: An assessment at a continental extent," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-24, October.
    8. Boria, Robert A. & Olson, Link E. & Goodman, Steven M. & Anderson, Robert P., 2014. "Spatial filtering to reduce sampling bias can improve the performance of ecological niche models," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 275(C), pages 73-77.
    9. Abel Chemura & Dumisani Kutywayo & Danisile Hikwa & Christoph Gornott, 2022. "Climate change and cocoyam (Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott) production: assessing impacts and potential adaptation strategies in Zimbabwe," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 27(6), pages 1-20, August.
    10. Václavík, Tomáš & Meentemeyer, Ross K., 2009. "Invasive species distribution modeling (iSDM): Are absence data and dispersal constraints needed to predict actual distributions?," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 220(23), pages 3248-3258.
    11. Muñoz-Mas, Rafael & Vezza, Paolo & Alcaraz-Hernández, Juan Diego & Martínez-Capel, Francisco, 2016. "Risk of invasion predicted with support vector machines: A case study on northern pike (Esox Lucius, L.) and bleak (Alburnus alburnus, L.)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 342(C), pages 123-134.
    12. Wolke Tobón-Niedfeldt & Alicia Mastretta-Yanes & Tania Urquiza-Haas & Bárbara Goettsch & Angela P. Cuervo-Robayo & Esmeralda Urquiza-Haas & M. Andrea Orjuela-R & Francisca Acevedo Gasman & Oswaldo Oli, 2022. "Incorporating evolutionary and threat processes into crop wild relatives conservation," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-18, December.
    13. Leandro, Camila & Jay-Robert, Pierre & Mériguet, Bruno & Houard, Xavier & Renner, Ian W., 2020. "Is my sdm good enough? insights from a citizen science dataset in a point process modeling framework," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 438(C).
    14. Meineri, Eric & Dahlberg, C. Johan & Hylander, Kristoffer, 2015. "Using Gaussian Bayesian Networks to disentangle direct and indirect associations between landscape physiography, environmental variables and species distribution," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 313(C), pages 127-136.
    15. Marmion, Mathieu & Luoto, Miska & Heikkinen, Risto K. & Thuiller, Wilfried, 2009. "The performance of state-of-the-art modelling techniques depends on geographical distribution of species," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 220(24), pages 3512-3520.
    16. Kaiping Wang & Weiqi Wang & Niyi Zha & Yue Feng & Chenlan Qiu & Yunlu Zhang & Jia Ma & Rui Zhang, 2022. "Spatially Heterogeneity Response of Critical Ecosystem Service Capacity to Address Regional Development Risks to Rapid Urbanization: The Case of Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Urban Agglomeration in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-21, June.
    17. Sellami, Mohamed Habib & Sifaoui, Mohamed Salah, 2008. "Modelling of heat and mass transfer inside a traditional oasis: Experimental validation," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 210(1), pages 144-154.
    18. Schmidt, Heiko & Radinger, Johannes & Teschlade, Daniel & Stoll, Stefan, 2020. "The role of spatial units in modelling freshwater fish distributions: Comparing a subcatchment and river network approach using MaxEnt," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 418(C).
    19. Abdollah Jalilian, 2017. "Modelling and classification of species abundance: a case study in the Barro Colorado Island plot," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(13), pages 2401-2409, October.
    20. Christophe Botella & Alexis Joly & Pascal Monestiez & Pierre Bonnet & François Munoz, 2020. "Bias in presence-only niche models related to sampling effort and species niches: Lessons for background point selection," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-18, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:312:y:2015:i:c:p:308-317. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecological-modelling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.