Cargando…

Predictive ability of a process‐based versus a correlative species distribution model

Species distribution modeling is a widely used tool in many branches of ecology and evolution. Evaluations of the transferability of species distribution models—their ability to predict the distribution of species in independent data domains—are, however, rare. In this study, we contrast the transfe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Higgins, Steven I., Larcombe, Matthew J., Beeton, Nicholas J., Conradi, Timo, Nottebrock, Henning
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7593166/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33144947
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6712
_version_ 1783601323562762240
author Higgins, Steven I.
Larcombe, Matthew J.
Beeton, Nicholas J.
Conradi, Timo
Nottebrock, Henning
author_facet Higgins, Steven I.
Larcombe, Matthew J.
Beeton, Nicholas J.
Conradi, Timo
Nottebrock, Henning
author_sort Higgins, Steven I.
collection PubMed
description Species distribution modeling is a widely used tool in many branches of ecology and evolution. Evaluations of the transferability of species distribution models—their ability to predict the distribution of species in independent data domains—are, however, rare. In this study, we contrast the transferability of a process‐based and a correlative species distribution model. Our case study uses 664 Australian eucalypt and acacia species. We estimate models for these species using data from their native Australia and then assess whether these models can predict the adventive range of these species. We find that the correlative model—MaxEnt—has a superior ability to describe the data in the training data domain (Australia) and that the process‐based model—TTR‐SDM—has a superior ability to predict the distribution of the study species outside of Australia. The implication of this analysis, that process‐based models may be more appropriate than correlative models when making projections outside of the domain of the training data, needs to be tested in other case studies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7593166
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75931662020-11-02 Predictive ability of a process‐based versus a correlative species distribution model Higgins, Steven I. Larcombe, Matthew J. Beeton, Nicholas J. Conradi, Timo Nottebrock, Henning Ecol Evol Original Research Species distribution modeling is a widely used tool in many branches of ecology and evolution. Evaluations of the transferability of species distribution models—their ability to predict the distribution of species in independent data domains—are, however, rare. In this study, we contrast the transferability of a process‐based and a correlative species distribution model. Our case study uses 664 Australian eucalypt and acacia species. We estimate models for these species using data from their native Australia and then assess whether these models can predict the adventive range of these species. We find that the correlative model—MaxEnt—has a superior ability to describe the data in the training data domain (Australia) and that the process‐based model—TTR‐SDM—has a superior ability to predict the distribution of the study species outside of Australia. The implication of this analysis, that process‐based models may be more appropriate than correlative models when making projections outside of the domain of the training data, needs to be tested in other case studies. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-10-08 /pmc/articles/PMC7593166/ /pubmed/33144947 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6712 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Higgins, Steven I.
Larcombe, Matthew J.
Beeton, Nicholas J.
Conradi, Timo
Nottebrock, Henning
Predictive ability of a process‐based versus a correlative species distribution model
title Predictive ability of a process‐based versus a correlative species distribution model
title_full Predictive ability of a process‐based versus a correlative species distribution model
title_fullStr Predictive ability of a process‐based versus a correlative species distribution model
title_full_unstemmed Predictive ability of a process‐based versus a correlative species distribution model
title_short Predictive ability of a process‐based versus a correlative species distribution model
title_sort predictive ability of a process‐based versus a correlative species distribution model
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7593166/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33144947
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6712
work_keys_str_mv AT higginssteveni predictiveabilityofaprocessbasedversusacorrelativespeciesdistributionmodel
AT larcombematthewj predictiveabilityofaprocessbasedversusacorrelativespeciesdistributionmodel
AT beetonnicholasj predictiveabilityofaprocessbasedversusacorrelativespeciesdistributionmodel
AT conraditimo predictiveabilityofaprocessbasedversusacorrelativespeciesdistributionmodel
AT nottebrockhenning predictiveabilityofaprocessbasedversusacorrelativespeciesdistributionmodel