Home LiteratureArticle Details
PMID: 24818607 Published · epublish English Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Mapping species distributions with MAXENT using a geographically biased sample of presence data: a performance assessment of methods for correcting sampling bias.

PloS one ·Vol. 9 ·No. 5 ·2014-00-00 ·Pages e97122

Fourcade Y, Engler JO, Rödder D, Secondi J

Abstract

MAXENT is now a common species distribution modeling (SDM) tool used by conservation practitioners for predicting the distribution of a species from a set of records and environmental predictors. However, datasets of species occurrence used to train the model are often biased in the geographical space because of unequal sampling effort across the study area. This bias may be a source of strong inaccuracy in the resulting model and could lead to incorrect predictions. Although a number of sampling bias correction methods have been proposed, there is no consensual guideline to account for it. We compared here the performance of five methods of bias correction on three datasets of species occurrence: one "virtual" derived from a land cover map, and two actual datasets for a turtle (Chrysemys picta) and a salamander (Plethodon cylindraceus). We subjected these datasets to four types of sampling biases corresponding to potential types of empirical biases. We applied five correction methods to the biased samples and compared the outputs of distribution models to unbiased datasets to assess the overall correction performance of each method. The results revealed that the ability of methods to correct the initial sampling bias varied greatly depending on bias type, bias intensity and species. However, the simple systematic sampling of records consistently ranked among the best performing across the range of conditions tested, whereas other methods performed more poorly in most cases. The strong effect of initial conditions on correction performance highlights the need for further research to develop a step-by-step guideline to account for sampling bias. However, this method seems to be the most efficient in correcting sampling bias and should be advised in most cases.

MeSH Terms
Animals Bias Conservation of Natural Resources Geography Models, Statistical Statistics as Topic/methods Turtles Urodela
Authors & Affiliations
4 authors, click to expand affiliations / ORCID
Fourcade Yoan
LUNAM Université d'Angers, GECCO (Groupe écologie et conservation des vertébrés), Angers, France.
Engler Jan O
Department of Wildlife Ecology, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany; Zoological Research Museum Alexander Koenig, Bonn, Germany.
Rödder Dennis
Zoological Research Museum Alexander Koenig, Bonn, Germany.
Secondi Jean
LUNAM Université d'Angers, GECCO (Groupe écologie et conservation des vertébrés), Angers, France.
References (18)
18 references, click to expand
  1. Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of poverty.
    Science. 2004 Nov 12;306(5699):1146-9 PMID: 15539593
  2. Population distribution models: species distributions are better modeled using biologically relevant data partitions.
    BMC Ecol. 2011 Sep 19;11:20 PMID: 21929792
  3. Relating populations to habitats using resource selection functions.
    Trends Ecol Evol. 1999 Jul;14(7):268-272 PMID: 10370262
  4. Range size and extinction risk in forest birds.
    Conserv Biol. 2008 Feb;22(1):163-71 PMID: 18254861
  5. Environmental niche equivalency versus conservatism: quantitative approaches to niche evolution.
    Evolution. 2008 Nov;62(11):2868-83 PMID: 18752605
  6. Prioritizing multiple-use landscapes for conservation: methods for large multi-species planning problems.
    Proc Biol Sci. 2005 Sep 22;272(1575):1885-91 PMID: 16191593
  7. The value of the IUCN Red List for conservation.
    Trends Ecol Evol. 2006 Feb;21(2):71-6 PMID: 16701477
  8. Biodiversity hotspots.
    Trends Ecol Evol. 1998 Jul 1;13(7):275-80 PMID: 21238297
  9. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities.
    Nature. 2000 Feb 24;403(6772):853-8 PMID: 10706275
  10. Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems.
    Science. 1988 Jun 3;240(4857):1285-93 PMID: 3287615
  11. Sample selection bias and presence-only distribution models: implications for background and pseudo-absence data.
    Ecol Appl. 2009 Jan;19(1):181-97 PMID: 19323182
  12. The impact of conservation on the status of the world's vertebrates.
    Science. 2010 Dec 10;330(6010):1503-9 PMID: 20978281
  13. Usefulness of bioclimatic models for studying climate change and invasive species.
    Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008;1134:1-24 PMID: 18566088
  14. Quantification of extinction risk: IUCN's system for classifying threatened species.
    Conserv Biol. 2008 Dec;22(6):1424-42 PMID: 18847444
  15. Integrating GIS-based environmental data into evolutionary biology.
    Trends Ecol Evol. 2008 Mar;23(3):141-8 PMID: 18291557
  16. Predicting species distributions from samples collected along roadsides.
    Conserv Biol. 2012 Feb;26(1):68-77 PMID: 22010858
  17. The effects of sampling bias and model complexity on the predictive performance of MaxEnt species distribution models.
    PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e55158 PMID: 23457462
  18. Predicting extinction risk in declining species.
    Proc Biol Sci. 2000 Oct 7;267(1456):1947-52 PMID: 11075706
Article Info
Journal
PloS one
Abbr.
PLoS One
ISSN
1932-6203
Published
2014-00-00
Epub
2014-00-12
Pages
e97122
Language
English
Region
United States
NLM ID
101285081
PMCID
PMC4018261
Subset
IM
Analysis Services
Analysis Services

Contact

No. 2 Wenbo Road, Zhangqiu District, Jinan, Shandong

Qilu Normal University · Genelibs Bioinformatics Lab

750 Shunhua Rd, Jinan

2F, Bldg F, University Science Park

Tel: 0531-88819269

WeChat Official Account

Follow our WeChat subscription account for real-time updates and the latest in medical and biological research.


Business Email

E-mail: product@genelibs.com