{"title":"物种分布模型中的交叉验证问题:山羊鱼物种案例研究","authors":"Hongwei Huang, Zhixin Zhang, Ákos Bede-Fazekas, Stefano Mammola, Jiqi Gu, Jinxin Zhou, Junmei Qu, Qiang Lin","doi":"10.1111/ecog.07354","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In an era of ongoing biodiversity, it is critical to map biodiversity patterns in space and time for better-informing conservation and management. Species distribution models (SDMs) are widely applied in various types of such biodiversity assessments. Cross-validation represents a prevalent approach to assess the discrimination capacity of a target SDM algorithm and determine its optimal parameters. Several alternative cross-validation methods exist; however, the influence of choosing a specific cross-validation method on SDM performance and predictions remains unresolved. Here, we tested the performance of random versus spatial cross-validation methods for SDM using goatfishes (Actinopteri: Syngnathiformes: Mullidae) as a case study, which are recognized as indicator species for coastal waters. Our results showed that the random versus spatial cross-validation methods resulted in different optimal model parameterizations in 57 out of 60 modeled species. Significant difference existed in predictive performance between the random and spatial cross-validation methods, and the two cross-validation methods yielded different projected present-day spatial distribution and future projection patterns of goatfishes under climate change exposure. Despite the disparity in species distributions, both approaches consistently suggested the Indo-Australian Archipelago as the hotspot of goatfish species richness and also as the most vulnerable area to climate change. Our findings highlight that the choice of cross-validation method is an overlooked source of uncertainty in SDM studies. Meanwhile, the consistency in richness predictions highlights the usefulness of SDMs in marine conservation. These findings emphasize that we should pay special attention to the selection of cross-validation methods in SDM studies.","PeriodicalId":51026,"journal":{"name":"Ecography","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cross-validation matters in species distribution models: a case study with goatfish species\",\"authors\":\"Hongwei Huang, Zhixin Zhang, Ákos Bede-Fazekas, Stefano Mammola, Jiqi Gu, Jinxin Zhou, Junmei Qu, Qiang Lin\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ecog.07354\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In an era of ongoing biodiversity, it is critical to map biodiversity patterns in space and time for better-informing conservation and management. Species distribution models (SDMs) are widely applied in various types of such biodiversity assessments. Cross-validation represents a prevalent approach to assess the discrimination capacity of a target SDM algorithm and determine its optimal parameters. Several alternative cross-validation methods exist; however, the influence of choosing a specific cross-validation method on SDM performance and predictions remains unresolved. Here, we tested the performance of random versus spatial cross-validation methods for SDM using goatfishes (Actinopteri: Syngnathiformes: Mullidae) as a case study, which are recognized as indicator species for coastal waters. Our results showed that the random versus spatial cross-validation methods resulted in different optimal model parameterizations in 57 out of 60 modeled species. Significant difference existed in predictive performance between the random and spatial cross-validation methods, and the two cross-validation methods yielded different projected present-day spatial distribution and future projection patterns of goatfishes under climate change exposure. Despite the disparity in species distributions, both approaches consistently suggested the Indo-Australian Archipelago as the hotspot of goatfish species richness and also as the most vulnerable area to climate change. Our findings highlight that the choice of cross-validation method is an overlooked source of uncertainty in SDM studies. Meanwhile, the consistency in richness predictions highlights the usefulness of SDMs in marine conservation. These findings emphasize that we should pay special attention to the selection of cross-validation methods in SDM studies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51026,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ecography\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ecography\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.07354\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecography","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.07354","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
Cross-validation matters in species distribution models: a case study with goatfish species
In an era of ongoing biodiversity, it is critical to map biodiversity patterns in space and time for better-informing conservation and management. Species distribution models (SDMs) are widely applied in various types of such biodiversity assessments. Cross-validation represents a prevalent approach to assess the discrimination capacity of a target SDM algorithm and determine its optimal parameters. Several alternative cross-validation methods exist; however, the influence of choosing a specific cross-validation method on SDM performance and predictions remains unresolved. Here, we tested the performance of random versus spatial cross-validation methods for SDM using goatfishes (Actinopteri: Syngnathiformes: Mullidae) as a case study, which are recognized as indicator species for coastal waters. Our results showed that the random versus spatial cross-validation methods resulted in different optimal model parameterizations in 57 out of 60 modeled species. Significant difference existed in predictive performance between the random and spatial cross-validation methods, and the two cross-validation methods yielded different projected present-day spatial distribution and future projection patterns of goatfishes under climate change exposure. Despite the disparity in species distributions, both approaches consistently suggested the Indo-Australian Archipelago as the hotspot of goatfish species richness and also as the most vulnerable area to climate change. Our findings highlight that the choice of cross-validation method is an overlooked source of uncertainty in SDM studies. Meanwhile, the consistency in richness predictions highlights the usefulness of SDMs in marine conservation. These findings emphasize that we should pay special attention to the selection of cross-validation methods in SDM studies.
期刊介绍:
ECOGRAPHY publishes exciting, novel, and important articles that significantly advance understanding of ecological or biodiversity patterns in space or time. Papers focusing on conservation or restoration are welcomed, provided they are anchored in ecological theory and convey a general message that goes beyond a single case study. We encourage papers that seek advancing the field through the development and testing of theory or methodology, or by proposing new tools for analysis or interpretation of ecological phenomena. Manuscripts are expected to address general principles in ecology, though they may do so using a specific model system if they adequately frame the problem relative to a generalized ecological question or problem.
Purely descriptive papers are considered only if breaking new ground and/or describing patterns seldom explored. Studies focused on a single species or single location are generally discouraged unless they make a significant contribution to advancing general theory or understanding of biodiversity patterns and processes. Manuscripts merely confirming or marginally extending results of previous work are unlikely to be considered in Ecography.
Papers are judged by virtue of their originality, appeal to general interest, and their contribution to new developments in studies of spatial and temporal ecological patterns. There are no biases with regard to taxon, biome, or biogeographical area.