IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecomod/v408y2019ic1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Species distribution models can be highly sensitive to algorithm configuration

Author

Listed:
  • Hallgren, W.
  • Santana, F.
  • Low-Choy, S.
  • Zhao, Y.
  • Mackey, B.

Abstract

In pursuit of a more robust provenance in the field of species distribution modelling, an extensive literature search was undertaken to find the typical default values, and the range of values, for configuration settings of a large number of the most commonly used statistical algorithms available for constructing species distribution models (SDM), as implemented in the R script packages (such as Dismo and Biomod2) or other species distribution modelling programs like MaxEnt. We found that documentation of SDM algorithm configuration option settings in the SDM literature is, overall, very uncommon, and the justifications for these settings were minimal, when present. Such settings were often the R default values, or were the result of trial and error. This is potentially concerning since: (i) it detracts from the robustness of the provenance for such SDM studies; (ii) a lack of documentation of configuration option settings in a paper prevents the replication of an experiment, which contravenes one of the main tenets of the scientific method; (iii) inappropriate or uninformed configuration option settings are particularly concerning if they represent a poorly understood ecological variable or process, and if the algorithm is sensitive to such settings, this could result in erroneous and/or unrealistic SDMs. Therefore, this study sets out to comprehensively test the sensitivity of eight widely used SDM algorithms to variation in configuration options settings: MaxEnt, Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Generalized Linear Model (GLM), Generalized Additive Model (GAM), Multivariate Adaptive Regression Splines (MARS), Flexible Discriminant Analysis (FDA), Surface Range Envelope (SRE) and Classification tree analysis (CTA). A process of expert elicitation was used to derive a range of appropriate values with which to test the sensitivity of our algorithms. We chose to use species occurrence records for two species - Koala (Phascolartos cinereus) and Thorny Devil (Moloch horridus) - in order to investigate how algorithm sensitivity depends on the species being modelled. Results were assessed by comparing the modelled distribution of the control SDM (default settings) to the modelled distribution from each sensitivity test SDM (i.e. non-default configuration settings). This was done using the visual and statistical measures of predictive performance available in the Biodiversity and Climate Change Virtual Laboratory (BCCVL), including the area under the (receiver operating characteristic) curve. The aim of our study was to be able to draw conclusions as to how the sensitivity of SDM algorithms to their configuration option settings may detract from the reliability of SDM results, given the often unjustified and unscrutinized use of the default settings, and generally infrequent and largely perfunctory attendance to this issue in most of the published SDM literature. Our results indicate that all of the algorithms tested showed sensitivity to alternative (non-default) values for some of their configuration settings and that often this sensitivity is species-dependent. Therefore we can conclude that the choice of configuration settings in these widely used SDM algorithms can have a large impact on the resulting projected distribution. This has important ramifications for decision-making and policy outcomes wherever SDMs are used to inform species and biodiversity management plans and policy settings. This study demonstrates that assigning suitable values for these settings is a very important consideration and as such should always be published along with the model. Documenting all configuration settings is necessary to increase the scientific robustness, transparency and reproducibility of species distribution modelling studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Hallgren, W. & Santana, F. & Low-Choy, S. & Zhao, Y. & Mackey, B., 2019. "Species distribution models can be highly sensitive to algorithm configuration," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 408(C), pages 1-1.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:408:y:2019:i:c:1
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2019.108719
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380019302194
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2019.108719?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. Jarnevich, Catherine S. & Talbert, Marian & Morisette, Jeffery & Aldridge, Cameron & Brown, Cynthia S. & Kumar, Sunil & Manier, Daniel & Talbert, Colin & Holcombe, Tracy, 2017. "Minimizing effects of methodological decisions on interpretation and prediction in species distribution studies: An example with background selection," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 363(C), pages 48-56.
    2. Peterson, A. Townsend & Papeş, Monica & Soberón, Jorge, 2008. "Rethinking receiver operating characteristic analysis applications in ecological niche modeling," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 213(1), pages 63-72.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    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. Junhee Lee & Youngjae Yoo & Raeik Jang & Seongwoo Jeon, 2023. "Mapping the Species Richness of Woody Plants in Republic of Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-14, March.
    2. Carlos Mestanza-Ramón & Robinson J. Herrera Feijoo & Cristhian Chicaiza-Ortiz & Isabel Domínguez Gaibor & Rubén G. Mateo, 2021. "Estimation of Current and Future Suitable Areas for Tapirus pinchaque in Ecuador," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-14, 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. 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).
    2. Akpoti, Komlavi & Groen, Thomas & Dossou-Yovo, Elliott & Kabo-bah, Amos T. & Zwart, Sander J., 2022. "Climate change-induced reduction in agricultural land suitability of West-Africa's inland valley landscapes," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Wongsathit Wongloet & Prach Kongthong & Aingorn Chaiyes & Worapong Singchat & Warong Suksavate & Nattakan Ariyaraphong & Thitipong Panthum & Artem Lisachov & Kitipong Jaisamut & Jumaporn Sonongbua & T, 2023. "Genetic Monitoring of the Last Captive Population of Greater Mouse-Deer on the Thai Mainland and Prediction of Habitat Suitability before Reintroduction," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-22, February.
    7. Inês Silva & Matthew Crane & Pongthep Suwanwaree & Colin Strine & Matt Goode, 2018. "Using dynamic Brownian Bridge Movement Models to identify home range size and movement patterns in king cobras," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-20, September.
    8. 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.
    9. Wei Yang & Yuanxu Ma & Linhai Jing & Siyuan Wang & Zhongchang Sun & Yunwei Tang & Hui Li, 2022. "Differential Impacts of Climatic and Land Use Changes on Habitat Suitability and Protected Area Adequacy across the Asian Elephant’s Range," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-22, April.
    10. Ramos, Rodrigo Soares & Kumar, Lalit & Shabani, Farzin & Picanço, Marcelo Coutinho, 2019. "Risk of spread of tomato yellow leaf curl virus (TYLCV) in tomato crops under various climate change scenarios," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 524-535.
    11. Liu, Canran & White, Matt & Newell, Graeme & Griffioen, Peter, 2013. "Species distribution modelling for conservation planning in Victoria, Australia," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 249(C), pages 68-74.
    12. 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).
    13. Amaro, George & Fidelis, Elisangela Gomes & da Silva, Ricardo Siqueira & Marchioro, Cesar Augusto, 2023. "Effect of study area extent on the potential distribution of Species: A case study with models for Raoiella indica Hirst (Acari: Tenuipalpidae)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 483(C).
    14. Lin, Yu-Pin & Wang, Cheng-Long & Yu, Hsiao-Hsuan & Huang, Chung-Wei & Wang, Yung-Chieh & Chen, Yu-Wen & Wu, Wei-Yao, 2011. "Monitoring and estimating the flow conditions and fish presence probability under various flow conditions at reach scale using genetic algorithms and kriging methods," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(3), pages 762-775.
    15. Srivastava, Vivek & Carroll, Allan L., 2023. "Dynamic distribution modelling using a native invasive species, the mountain pine beetle," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 482(C).
    16. Muhammad Waheed & Shiekh Marifatul Haq & Fahim Arshad & Muhammad Azhar Jameel & Manzer H. Siddiqui & Rainer W. Bussmann & Nabeel Manshoor & Saud Alamri, 2023. "Where Will Threatened Aegle marmelos L., a Tree of the Semi-Arid Region, Go under Climate Change? Implications for the Reintroduction of the Species," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-19, July.
    17. Gisel Garza & Crystian Sadiel Venegas Barrera & Jon Dale & José Guadalupe Martínez-Ávalos & Teresa Patricia Feria Arroyo, 2022. "Towards Conserving Crop Wild Relatives along the Texas–Mexico Border: The Case of Manihot walkerae," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-15, April.
    18. Götz Schroth & Peter Läderach & Armando Isaac Martinez-Valle & Christian Bunn, 2017. "From site-level to regional adaptation planning for tropical commodities: cocoa in West Africa," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 22(6), pages 903-927, August.
    19. 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).
    20. 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).

    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:408:y:2019:i:c:1. 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.