减轻生态位模型中取样偏差的最佳空间过滤距离缺失

IF 3.4 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q2 ECOLOGY Journal of Biogeography Pub Date : 2024-04-25 DOI:10.1111/jbi.14854
Quentin Lamboley, Yoan Fourcade
{"title":"减轻生态位模型中取样偏差的最佳空间过滤距离缺失","authors":"Quentin Lamboley,&nbsp;Yoan Fourcade","doi":"10.1111/jbi.14854","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>The continuous development of statistical tools applied to ecology has contributed to great advances for modelling species' niches and distributions from opportunistic observations. However, as these observations are subject to biases caused by spatial variation in sampling effort, ecological niche models (ENMs) are also frequently biased. Among several bias correction methods that have been proposed, spatial filtering—imposing a minimum distance between occurrences—is widely used, yet lacks clear guidelines for choosing the filtering distance. Here, we aimed to explore the impact of spatial filtering distances on the performance of ENMs.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Location</h3>\n \n <p>Europe.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Taxon</h3>\n \n <p>Virtual species.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We applied ENMs to two virtual species with contrasting levels of specialisation, across a spectrum of modelling conditions, bias types and sample sizes.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Models applied to the specialist species had on average a lower performance than those applied to the generalist species. Using a biased sample reduced model performance, especially when the bias was strong, and when the sample size was large. In many cases, spatial filtering failed to improve model performance or even reduced it. We did find an improvement for the generalist species modelled with large and strongly biased datasets. However, there was no optimal filtering distance, as this improvement was linearly and positively associated with filtering distance. Moreover, because the initial bias was strong and the filtered dataset became very small, the resulting models had only very low accuracy.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Main Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Our results suggest that there is no optimal filtering distance for dealing with sampling bias in ENMs, and that spatial filtering never improves model performance enough to draw accurate predictions. We therefore recommend spatial filtering to be employed cautiously, only when enough data are available, and bearing in mind that its effectiveness remains highly uncertain.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15299,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Biogeography","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jbi.14854","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"No optimal spatial filtering distance for mitigating sampling bias in ecological niche models\",\"authors\":\"Quentin Lamboley,&nbsp;Yoan Fourcade\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jbi.14854\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Aim</h3>\\n \\n <p>The continuous development of statistical tools applied to ecology has contributed to great advances for modelling species' niches and distributions from opportunistic observations. However, as these observations are subject to biases caused by spatial variation in sampling effort, ecological niche models (ENMs) are also frequently biased. Among several bias correction methods that have been proposed, spatial filtering—imposing a minimum distance between occurrences—is widely used, yet lacks clear guidelines for choosing the filtering distance. Here, we aimed to explore the impact of spatial filtering distances on the performance of ENMs.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Location</h3>\\n \\n <p>Europe.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Taxon</h3>\\n \\n <p>Virtual species.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We applied ENMs to two virtual species with contrasting levels of specialisation, across a spectrum of modelling conditions, bias types and sample sizes.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Models applied to the specialist species had on average a lower performance than those applied to the generalist species. Using a biased sample reduced model performance, especially when the bias was strong, and when the sample size was large. In many cases, spatial filtering failed to improve model performance or even reduced it. We did find an improvement for the generalist species modelled with large and strongly biased datasets. However, there was no optimal filtering distance, as this improvement was linearly and positively associated with filtering distance. Moreover, because the initial bias was strong and the filtered dataset became very small, the resulting models had only very low accuracy.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Main Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>Our results suggest that there is no optimal filtering distance for dealing with sampling bias in ENMs, and that spatial filtering never improves model performance enough to draw accurate predictions. We therefore recommend spatial filtering to be employed cautiously, only when enough data are available, and bearing in mind that its effectiveness remains highly uncertain.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15299,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Biogeography\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jbi.14854\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Biogeography\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jbi.14854\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Biogeography","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jbi.14854","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

应用于生态学的统计工具的不断发展,极大地促进了根据机会观察结果建立物种生态位和分布模型的工作。然而,由于这些观察结果会受到采样工作的空间变化造成的偏差的影响,生态位模型(ENM)也经常会出现偏差。在已提出的几种偏差校正方法中,空间过滤--在出现点之间施加最小距离--被广泛使用,但在选择过滤距离时缺乏明确的指导原则。在这里,我们旨在探索空间过滤距离对 ENMs 性能的影响。在欧洲,我们将 ENMs 应用于两个具有截然不同专业化水平的虚拟物种,涵盖了一系列建模条件、偏差类型和样本大小。使用有偏差的样本会降低模型的性能,尤其是当偏差较强且样本量较大时。在许多情况下,空间过滤并不能提高模型的性能,甚至会降低性能。我们确实发现,使用大样本和强偏倚数据集建模的广义物种模型性能有所改善。然而,并没有最佳的过滤距离,因为这种改善与过滤距离呈线性正相关。我们的研究结果表明,在处理 ENM 中的采样偏差时,并没有最佳的过滤距离,而且空间过滤对模型性能的改善程度也不足以得出准确的预测结果。因此,我们建议谨慎使用空间过滤,只有在有足够数据的情况下才使用,同时考虑到其有效性仍有很大的不确定性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
No optimal spatial filtering distance for mitigating sampling bias in ecological niche models

Aim

The continuous development of statistical tools applied to ecology has contributed to great advances for modelling species' niches and distributions from opportunistic observations. However, as these observations are subject to biases caused by spatial variation in sampling effort, ecological niche models (ENMs) are also frequently biased. Among several bias correction methods that have been proposed, spatial filtering—imposing a minimum distance between occurrences—is widely used, yet lacks clear guidelines for choosing the filtering distance. Here, we aimed to explore the impact of spatial filtering distances on the performance of ENMs.

Location

Europe.

Taxon

Virtual species.

Methods

We applied ENMs to two virtual species with contrasting levels of specialisation, across a spectrum of modelling conditions, bias types and sample sizes.

Results

Models applied to the specialist species had on average a lower performance than those applied to the generalist species. Using a biased sample reduced model performance, especially when the bias was strong, and when the sample size was large. In many cases, spatial filtering failed to improve model performance or even reduced it. We did find an improvement for the generalist species modelled with large and strongly biased datasets. However, there was no optimal filtering distance, as this improvement was linearly and positively associated with filtering distance. Moreover, because the initial bias was strong and the filtered dataset became very small, the resulting models had only very low accuracy.

Main Conclusions

Our results suggest that there is no optimal filtering distance for dealing with sampling bias in ENMs, and that spatial filtering never improves model performance enough to draw accurate predictions. We therefore recommend spatial filtering to be employed cautiously, only when enough data are available, and bearing in mind that its effectiveness remains highly uncertain.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Biogeography
Journal of Biogeography 环境科学-生态学
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
5.10%
发文量
203
审稿时长
2.2 months
期刊介绍: Papers dealing with all aspects of spatial, ecological and historical biogeography are considered for publication in Journal of Biogeography. The mission of the journal is to contribute to the growth and societal relevance of the discipline of biogeography through its role in the dissemination of biogeographical research.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Cover Species Distribution Models for Mesopelagic Mesozooplankton Community Issue Information Cover
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1