2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.05.018
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A framework for species distribution modelling with improved pseudo-absence generation

Abstract: Species distribution models (SDMs) are an important tool in biogeography and phylogeography studies, that most often require explicit absence information to adequately model the environmental space on which species can potentially inhabit. In the so called background pseudo-absences approach, absence locations are simulated in order to obtain a complete sample of the environment. Whilst the commonest approach is random sampling of the entire study region, in its multiple variants, its performance may not be op… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

2
104
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 129 publications
(106 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
(76 reference statements)
2
104
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Therefore we identified those locations which are both climatically and geographically distant from the observed presence locations with a three step approach according to Senay et al (2013) assuming such locations as unsuitable for Douglas-fir. Traditionally when reliable absences or no absence locations are available pseudoabsences are selected randomly or based on geographic or climate alone profiling (Barbet-Massin et al 2012, Iturbide et al 2015. In general, the random selection of pseudoabsence was found to be the most error prone strategy (Barbet-Massin et al 2012, Senay et al 2013, Iturbide et al 2015.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore we identified those locations which are both climatically and geographically distant from the observed presence locations with a three step approach according to Senay et al (2013) assuming such locations as unsuitable for Douglas-fir. Traditionally when reliable absences or no absence locations are available pseudoabsences are selected randomly or based on geographic or climate alone profiling (Barbet-Massin et al 2012, Iturbide et al 2015. In general, the random selection of pseudoabsence was found to be the most error prone strategy (Barbet-Massin et al 2012, Senay et al 2013, Iturbide et al 2015.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To overcome this obstacle, we generated pseudo‐absence data (a.k.a. background points) by adapting the methodology in Iturbide et al () to our specific data. In the first step, we used the function OCSVMprofiling from the R package MOPA (Iturbide et al, ) to limit the geographic region for pseudo‐absence data generation using environmental profiling based on presence data.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Concurrently, many methodological studies have aimed to optimize model performance. Studies have explored the effect of presence sample size (Hernandez, Graham, Master, & Albert, 2006;Jiménez-Valverde, Lobo, & Hortal, 2009), spatial and/or environmental occurrence bias (Boria, Olson, Goodman, & Anderson, 2014;Park & Davis, 2017;Varela, Anderson, García-Valdés, & Fernández-González, 2014), various procedures of selecting pseudo-absences (Barbet-Massin, Jiguet, Albert, & Thuiller, 2012;Iturbide et al, 2015;Phillips et al, 2009), and designing a model training area that is ecologically valid (Anderson & Raza, 2010;Saupe et al, 2012). Additionally, studies have explored the selection of predictor variables using statistical approaches (correlation analysis, jackknifing, or contribution to model fit), as well as using knowledge about the species' ecology (Bucklin et al, 2015;Pliscoff, Luebert, Hilger, & Guisan, 2014;Synes & Osborne, 2011;Zeng, Low, & Yeo, 2016).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%