IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecomod/v438y2020ics0304380020303537.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is my sdm good enough? insights from a citizen science dataset in a point process modeling framework

Author

Listed:
  • Leandro, Camila
  • Jay-Robert, Pierre
  • Mériguet, Bruno
  • Houard, Xavier
  • Renner, Ian W.

Abstract

Citizen science programs, and particularly atlas schemes based on opportunistic biological records, are very important sources of data for species distribution models and conservation. Nevertheless, these data are prone to bias, particularly when they come from less popular or hard to detect/identify species, such as insects. With such biased data, it is important to evaluate the stability of the model predictions. In recent years, point process models (PPMs) have shown their strength as a unifying framework to fit presence-only species distribution models with many advantages in model implementation and interpretation; PPMs are closely connected to methods already in widespread use in ecology such as MaxEnt and to logistic regression and benefit from being more transparent about resource selection and absence handling. Moreover, there is a well-developed set of tools to fit these models and assess various features of the underlying model, including model stability. However, such tools are currently unavailable when point process models are fitted with a lasso penalty, which has been shown to improve predictive performance. Based on the French citizen science program “Stag beetle Quest”, we propose new methods to assess model stability in this context. The ultimate goal was to develop a set of functions to analyze PPM models with lasso penalties fitted with presence-only data. To assess model stability, we randomly sampled different subsets of locations with varying size from the whole dataset and used the proposed tools to compare fitted intensities and model coefficients. All the developed measures are complementary and can be used to identify at what number of point locations the model stabilizes, which will be dependent on the dataset. Our work presents a new toolbox to explore questions around model stability based on the number of locations in the context of point process models with a lasso penalty and confirms once more the use of the point process modeling framework as a flexible and unifying framework to fit presence-only species distribution models.

Suggested Citation

  • 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).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:438:y:2020:i:c:s0304380020303537
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2020.109283
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380020303537
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2020.109283?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. Auriane Virgili & Matthieu Authier & Pascal Monestiez & Vincent Ridoux, 2018. "How many sightings to model rare marine species distributions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(3), pages 1-21, March.
    2. Mark Berman & T. Rolf Turner, 1992. "Approximating Point Process Likelihoods with Glim," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 41(1), pages 31-38, March.
    3. 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.
    4. David I Warton & Ian W Renner & Daniel Ramp, 2013. "Model-Based Control of Observer Bias for the Analysis of Presence-Only Data in Ecology," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-9, November.
    5. Jesús Aguirre-Gutiérrez & Luísa G Carvalheiro & Chiara Polce & E Emiel van Loon & Niels Raes & Menno Reemer & Jacobus C Biesmeijer, 2013. "Fit-for-Purpose: Species Distribution Model Performance Depends on Evaluation Criteria – Dutch Hoverflies as a Case Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-11, May.
    6. 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.
    7. Baddeley, Adrian & Turner, Rolf, 2005. "spatstat: An R Package for Analyzing Spatial Point Patterns," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 12(i06).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. Martín, Gerardo & Yáñez-Arenas, Carlos & Chiappa-Carrara, Xavier, 2022. "Discrepancies between point process models and environmental envelopes identify the niche centroid – geography configuration," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 469(C).
    3. 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.
    4. D'Angelo, Nicoletta & Adelfio, Giada & Mateu, Jorge, 2023. "Locally weighted minimum contrast estimation for spatio-temporal log-Gaussian Cox processes," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    5. 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.
    6. Jeffrey Daniel & Julie Horrocks & Gary J. Umphrey, 2020. "Efficient Modelling of Presence-Only Species Data via Local Background Sampling," Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics, Springer;The International Biometric Society;American Statistical Association, vol. 25(1), pages 90-111, March.
    7. Hossain, Md. Monir & Lawson, Andrew B., 2009. "Approximate methods in Bayesian point process spatial models," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 53(8), pages 2831-2842, June.
    8. Florian Ploeckl, 2012. "Space, settlements, towns: the influence of geography and market access on settlement distribution and urbanization," Working Papers 2012/23, Institut d'Economia de Barcelona (IEB).
    9. Florian Ploeckl, 2012. "Space, settlements, towns: the influence of geography and market access on settlement distribution and urbanization," Working Papers 2012/23, Institut d'Economia de Barcelona (IEB).
    10. 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).
    11. Arii, Ken & Caspersen, John P. & Jones, Trevor A. & Thomas, Sean C., 2008. "A selection harvesting algorithm for use in spatially explicit individual-based forest simulation models," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 211(3), pages 251-266.
    12. Giuseppe Espa & Giuseppe Arbia & Diego Giuliani, 2013. "Conditional versus unconditional industrial agglomeration: disentangling spatial dependence and spatial heterogeneity in the analysis of ICT firms’ distribution in Milan," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 31-50, January.
    13. Jiao Jieying & Hu Guanyu & Yan Jun, 2021. "A Bayesian marked spatial point processes model for basketball shot chart," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 17(2), pages 77-90, June.
    14. Frank Davenport, 2017. "Estimating standard errors in spatial panel models with time varying spatial correlation," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 96, pages 155-177, March.
    15. Amanda M E D’Andrea & Vera L D Tomazella & Hassan M Aljohani & Pedro L Ramos & Marco P Almeida & Francisco Louzada & Bruna A W Verssani & Amanda B Gazon & Ahmed Z Afify, 2021. "Objective bayesian analysis for multiple repairable systems," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-19, November.
    16. Vijay Rajagopal & Gregory Bass & Cameron G Walker & David J Crossman & Amorita Petzer & Anthony Hickey & Ivo Siekmann & Masahiko Hoshijima & Mark H Ellisman & Edmund J Crampin & Christian Soeller, 2015. "Examination of the Effects of Heterogeneous Organization of RyR Clusters, Myofibrils and Mitochondria on Ca2+ Release Patterns in Cardiomyocytes," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-31, September.
    17. Christoph Lambio & Tillman Schmitz & Richard Elson & Jeffrey Butler & Alexandra Roth & Silke Feller & Nicolai Savaskan & Tobia Lakes, 2023. "Exploring the Spatial Relative Risk of COVID-19 in Berlin-Neukölln," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(10), pages 1-22, May.
    18. Liao, Jinbao & Li, Zhenqing & Quets, Jan J. & Nijs, Ivan, 2013. "Effects of space partitioning in a plant species diversity model," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 251(C), pages 271-278.
    19. Fernández, Daniel & Nakamura, Miguel, 2015. "Estimation of spatial sampling effort based on presence-only data and accessibility," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 299(C), pages 147-155.
    20. Herguido Sevillano, E. & Lavado Contador, J.F. & Schnabel, S. & Pulido, M. & Ibáñez, J., 2018. "Using spatial models of temporal tree dynamics to evaluate the implementation of EU afforestation policies in rangelands of SW Spain," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 166-175.

    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:438:y:2020:i:c:s0304380020303537. 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.