Alternative methods for predicting species distribution: an illustration with Himalayan river birds

Abstract

Summary1. Current emphasis on species conservation requires the development of speci®c distribution models. Several modelling methods are available, but their performance has seldom been compared. We therefore used discriminant analysis, logistic regression and arti®cial neural networks with environmental data to predict the presence or absence of six river birds along 180 Himalayan streams. We applied each method to calibration sites and independent test sites. With logistic regression, we compared performance in predicting presence±absence using map-derived predictors (river slope and altitude) as opposed to detailed data from a standardized river habitat survey (RHS). 2. Using the entire calibration data, overall success at predicting presence or absence was only slightly greater using arti®cial neural networks (89±100%) than either logistic regression (75±92%) or discriminant analysis (81±95%), and on this criterion all methods gave good performance. 3. When applied to independent test data, overall prediction success averaged 71± 80%, with logistic regression marginally but signi®cantly out-performing the other methods. Encouragingly for researchers with limited data, model performance in jack-knife tests faithfully represented performance in more rigorous validations where calibration (n = 119) and test sites (n = 61) were in separate geographical regions. 4. All three methods predicted true absences (83±92% success) better than true presences (31±44%). Results from logistic regression were the most variable across species, but positive prediction declined with increasing species rarity in each method. 5. Applications with logistic regression illustrated that signi®cant habitat predictors varied between data sets within species. Hypotheses about causal eects by habitat structure on distribution were thus dicult to erect or test. Logistic regression also showed that detailed data from the river habitat survey substantially improved positive prediction by comparison with prediction using slope or altitude alone. 6. We conclude that discriminant analysis, logistic regression and arti®cial neural networks dier only marginally in performance when predicting species distributions. Model choice should therefore depend on the nature of the data, on the needs of any particular analysis, and on whether assumptions for each method are satis®ed. All three methods share drawbacks due to systematic eects by species rarity on performance measures. They also share limitations due to the correlative nature of survey data often used for model development at the spatial scales required in macro-ecology and conservation biology. Tests with independent data, *Correspondence: Dr Steve Ormerod (e-mail: ormerod@cardi.ac.uk). {Present address: Laboratoire de Biologie des Populations d'Altitude, CNRS UMR 5553, Universite Joseph Fourier, BP53-38041 Grenoble Cedex 9, France. Journal of Applied Ecology 1999, 36, 734±747# 1999 British Ecological Society using a wider range of performance measures than those used traditionally, will be...

An improved species distribution model for Scots pine and downy oak under future climate change in the NW Italian Alps

“…Therefore, they are particularly appropriate in an exploratory context. On the other hand, they are sensitive to multicollinearity and prone to overfitting, and interpretation of causal relationships for individual predictors is not straightforward (Manel et al 1999). The differences are apparent in species response curves ( Figure S2), with MARS and ANN capable of detecting non-linear responses to some explanatory variables that were not picked up by GLM, despite a similar predictive performance.…”

Uses and Requirements of Ecological Niche Models and Related Distributional Models

“…This use of ENM hearkens directly back to Grinnell's original efforts. Examples of this sort of ENM application are numerous (Anderson et al 2002a;Graham et al 2004;Manel et al 1999;Pearce et al 2001;Robertson et al 2004;Rojas-Soto et al 2003;Skidmore et al 1996;Svenning and Skov 2004). Further extensions of these applications has addressed the seasonal distributions of migratory species (Joseph 2003;Joseph and Stockwell 2000;Martínez-Meyer et al 2004b;Nakazawa et al 2004), detection of species' interactions (Anderson et al 2002b), and fine-scale temporal distributions of ephemeral species (Peterson et al 2005a).…”

Roe deer reintroduction in central Portugal: a tool for Iberian wolf conservation

“…The choice of the method is often subject to the model's objective, the species, and the data available (Manel et al 1999) and several techniques include expert opinion in habitat suitability models (Carver 1991, Pereira & Duckstein 1993, Pearce et al 2001, Store & Kangas 2001. The model could not be validated with presence data because these were unavailable.…”