Cargando…

MaxEnt’s parameter configuration and small samples: are we paying attention to recommendations? A systematic review

Environmental niche modeling (ENM) is commonly used to develop probabilistic maps of species distribution. Among available ENM techniques, MaxEnt has become one of the most popular tools for modeling species distribution, with hundreds of peer-reviewed articles published each year. MaxEnt’s populari...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Morales, Narkis S., Fernández, Ignacio C., Baca-González, Victoria
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: PeerJ Inc. 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5354112/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28316894
http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3093
_version_ 1782515265355907072
author Morales, Narkis S.
Fernández, Ignacio C.
Baca-González, Victoria
author_facet Morales, Narkis S.
Fernández, Ignacio C.
Baca-González, Victoria
author_sort Morales, Narkis S.
collection PubMed
description Environmental niche modeling (ENM) is commonly used to develop probabilistic maps of species distribution. Among available ENM techniques, MaxEnt has become one of the most popular tools for modeling species distribution, with hundreds of peer-reviewed articles published each year. MaxEnt’s popularity is mainly due to the use of a graphical interface and automatic parameter configuration capabilities. However, recent studies have shown that using the default automatic configuration may not be always appropriate because it can produce non-optimal models; particularly when dealing with a small number of species presence points. Thus, the recommendation is to evaluate the best potential combination of parameters (feature classes and regularization multiplier) to select the most appropriate model. In this work we reviewed 244 articles published between 2013 and 2015 to assess whether researchers are following recommendations to avoid using the default parameter configuration when dealing with small sample sizes, or if they are using MaxEnt as a “black box tool.” Our results show that in only 16% of analyzed articles authors evaluated best feature classes, in 6.9% evaluated best regularization multipliers, and in a meager 3.7% evaluated simultaneously both parameters before producing the definitive distribution model. We analyzed 20 articles to quantify the potential differences in resulting outputs when using software default parameters instead of the alternative best model. Results from our analysis reveal important differences between the use of default parameters and the best model approach, especially in the total area identified as suitable for the assessed species and the specific areas that are identified as suitable by both modelling approaches. These results are worrying, because publications are potentially reporting over-complex or over-simplistic models that can undermine the applicability of their results. Of particular importance are studies used to inform policy making. Therefore, researchers, practitioners, reviewers and editors need to be very judicious when dealing with MaxEnt, particularly when the modelling process is based on small sample sizes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5354112
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher PeerJ Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53541122017-03-17 MaxEnt’s parameter configuration and small samples: are we paying attention to recommendations? A systematic review Morales, Narkis S. Fernández, Ignacio C. Baca-González, Victoria PeerJ Biogeography Environmental niche modeling (ENM) is commonly used to develop probabilistic maps of species distribution. Among available ENM techniques, MaxEnt has become one of the most popular tools for modeling species distribution, with hundreds of peer-reviewed articles published each year. MaxEnt’s popularity is mainly due to the use of a graphical interface and automatic parameter configuration capabilities. However, recent studies have shown that using the default automatic configuration may not be always appropriate because it can produce non-optimal models; particularly when dealing with a small number of species presence points. Thus, the recommendation is to evaluate the best potential combination of parameters (feature classes and regularization multiplier) to select the most appropriate model. In this work we reviewed 244 articles published between 2013 and 2015 to assess whether researchers are following recommendations to avoid using the default parameter configuration when dealing with small sample sizes, or if they are using MaxEnt as a “black box tool.” Our results show that in only 16% of analyzed articles authors evaluated best feature classes, in 6.9% evaluated best regularization multipliers, and in a meager 3.7% evaluated simultaneously both parameters before producing the definitive distribution model. We analyzed 20 articles to quantify the potential differences in resulting outputs when using software default parameters instead of the alternative best model. Results from our analysis reveal important differences between the use of default parameters and the best model approach, especially in the total area identified as suitable for the assessed species and the specific areas that are identified as suitable by both modelling approaches. These results are worrying, because publications are potentially reporting over-complex or over-simplistic models that can undermine the applicability of their results. Of particular importance are studies used to inform policy making. Therefore, researchers, practitioners, reviewers and editors need to be very judicious when dealing with MaxEnt, particularly when the modelling process is based on small sample sizes. PeerJ Inc. 2017-03-14 /pmc/articles/PMC5354112/ /pubmed/28316894 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3093 Text en ©2017 Morales et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.
spellingShingle Biogeography
Morales, Narkis S.
Fernández, Ignacio C.
Baca-González, Victoria
MaxEnt’s parameter configuration and small samples: are we paying attention to recommendations? A systematic review
title MaxEnt’s parameter configuration and small samples: are we paying attention to recommendations? A systematic review
title_full MaxEnt’s parameter configuration and small samples: are we paying attention to recommendations? A systematic review
title_fullStr MaxEnt’s parameter configuration and small samples: are we paying attention to recommendations? A systematic review
title_full_unstemmed MaxEnt’s parameter configuration and small samples: are we paying attention to recommendations? A systematic review
title_short MaxEnt’s parameter configuration and small samples: are we paying attention to recommendations? A systematic review
title_sort maxent’s parameter configuration and small samples: are we paying attention to recommendations? a systematic review
topic Biogeography
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5354112/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28316894
http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3093
work_keys_str_mv AT moralesnarkiss maxentsparameterconfigurationandsmallsamplesarewepayingattentiontorecommendationsasystematicreview
AT fernandezignacioc maxentsparameterconfigurationandsmallsamplesarewepayingattentiontorecommendationsasystematicreview
AT bacagonzalezvictoria maxentsparameterconfigurationandsmallsamplesarewepayingattentiontorecommendationsasystematicreview