Cargando…

Evaluating Bayesian spatial methods for modelling species distributions with clumped and restricted occurrence data

Statistical approaches for inferring the spatial distribution of taxa (Species Distribution Models, SDMs) commonly rely on available occurrence data, which is often clumped and geographically restricted. Although available SDM methods address some of these factors, they could be more directly and ac...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Redding, David W., Lucas, Tim C. D., Blackburn, Tim M., Jones, Kate E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5708625/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29190296
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187602
_version_ 1783282644625129472
author Redding, David W.
Lucas, Tim C. D.
Blackburn, Tim M.
Jones, Kate E.
author_facet Redding, David W.
Lucas, Tim C. D.
Blackburn, Tim M.
Jones, Kate E.
author_sort Redding, David W.
collection PubMed
description Statistical approaches for inferring the spatial distribution of taxa (Species Distribution Models, SDMs) commonly rely on available occurrence data, which is often clumped and geographically restricted. Although available SDM methods address some of these factors, they could be more directly and accurately modelled using a spatially-explicit approach. Software to fit models with spatial autocorrelation parameters in SDMs are now widely available, but whether such approaches for inferring SDMs aid predictions compared to other methodologies is unknown. Here, within a simulated environment using 1000 generated species’ ranges, we compared the performance of two commonly used non-spatial SDM methods (Maximum Entropy Modelling, MAXENT and boosted regression trees, BRT), to a spatial Bayesian SDM method (fitted using R-INLA), when the underlying data exhibit varying combinations of clumping and geographic restriction. Finally, we tested how any recommended methodological settings designed to account for spatially non-random patterns in the data impact inference. Spatial Bayesian SDM method was the most consistently accurate method, being in the top 2 most accurate methods in 7 out of 8 data sampling scenarios. Within high-coverage sample datasets, all methods performed fairly similarly. When sampling points were randomly spread, BRT had a 1–3% greater accuracy over the other methods and when samples were clumped, the spatial Bayesian SDM method had a 4%-8% better AUC score. Alternatively, when sampling points were restricted to a small section of the true range all methods were on average 10–12% less accurate, with greater variation among the methods. Model inference under the recommended settings to account for autocorrelation was not impacted by clumping or restriction of data, except for the complexity of the spatial regression term in the spatial Bayesian model. Methods, such as those made available by R-INLA, can be successfully used to account for spatial autocorrelation in an SDM context and, by taking account of random effects, produce outputs that can better elucidate the role of covariates in predicting species occurrence. Given that it is often unclear what the drivers are behind data clumping in an empirical occurrence dataset, or indeed how geographically restricted these data are, spatially-explicit Bayesian SDMs may be the better choice when modelling the spatial distribution of target species.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5708625
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57086252017-12-15 Evaluating Bayesian spatial methods for modelling species distributions with clumped and restricted occurrence data Redding, David W. Lucas, Tim C. D. Blackburn, Tim M. Jones, Kate E. PLoS One Research Article Statistical approaches for inferring the spatial distribution of taxa (Species Distribution Models, SDMs) commonly rely on available occurrence data, which is often clumped and geographically restricted. Although available SDM methods address some of these factors, they could be more directly and accurately modelled using a spatially-explicit approach. Software to fit models with spatial autocorrelation parameters in SDMs are now widely available, but whether such approaches for inferring SDMs aid predictions compared to other methodologies is unknown. Here, within a simulated environment using 1000 generated species’ ranges, we compared the performance of two commonly used non-spatial SDM methods (Maximum Entropy Modelling, MAXENT and boosted regression trees, BRT), to a spatial Bayesian SDM method (fitted using R-INLA), when the underlying data exhibit varying combinations of clumping and geographic restriction. Finally, we tested how any recommended methodological settings designed to account for spatially non-random patterns in the data impact inference. Spatial Bayesian SDM method was the most consistently accurate method, being in the top 2 most accurate methods in 7 out of 8 data sampling scenarios. Within high-coverage sample datasets, all methods performed fairly similarly. When sampling points were randomly spread, BRT had a 1–3% greater accuracy over the other methods and when samples were clumped, the spatial Bayesian SDM method had a 4%-8% better AUC score. Alternatively, when sampling points were restricted to a small section of the true range all methods were on average 10–12% less accurate, with greater variation among the methods. Model inference under the recommended settings to account for autocorrelation was not impacted by clumping or restriction of data, except for the complexity of the spatial regression term in the spatial Bayesian model. Methods, such as those made available by R-INLA, can be successfully used to account for spatial autocorrelation in an SDM context and, by taking account of random effects, produce outputs that can better elucidate the role of covariates in predicting species occurrence. Given that it is often unclear what the drivers are behind data clumping in an empirical occurrence dataset, or indeed how geographically restricted these data are, spatially-explicit Bayesian SDMs may be the better choice when modelling the spatial distribution of target species. Public Library of Science 2017-11-30 /pmc/articles/PMC5708625/ /pubmed/29190296 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187602 Text en © 2017 Redding 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, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Redding, David W.
Lucas, Tim C. D.
Blackburn, Tim M.
Jones, Kate E.
Evaluating Bayesian spatial methods for modelling species distributions with clumped and restricted occurrence data
title Evaluating Bayesian spatial methods for modelling species distributions with clumped and restricted occurrence data
title_full Evaluating Bayesian spatial methods for modelling species distributions with clumped and restricted occurrence data
title_fullStr Evaluating Bayesian spatial methods for modelling species distributions with clumped and restricted occurrence data
title_full_unstemmed Evaluating Bayesian spatial methods for modelling species distributions with clumped and restricted occurrence data
title_short Evaluating Bayesian spatial methods for modelling species distributions with clumped and restricted occurrence data
title_sort evaluating bayesian spatial methods for modelling species distributions with clumped and restricted occurrence data
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5708625/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29190296
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187602
work_keys_str_mv AT reddingdavidw evaluatingbayesianspatialmethodsformodellingspeciesdistributionswithclumpedandrestrictedoccurrencedata
AT lucastimcd evaluatingbayesianspatialmethodsformodellingspeciesdistributionswithclumpedandrestrictedoccurrencedata
AT blackburntimm evaluatingbayesianspatialmethodsformodellingspeciesdistributionswithclumpedandrestrictedoccurrencedata
AT joneskatee evaluatingbayesianspatialmethodsformodellingspeciesdistributionswithclumpedandrestrictedoccurrencedata