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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |