21
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      On the selection of thresholds for predicting species occurrence with presence‐only data

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Presence‐only data present challenges for selecting thresholds to transform species distribution modeling results into binary outputs. In this article, we compare two recently published threshold selection methods (max SSS and max F pb) and examine the effectiveness of the threshold‐based prevalence estimation approach. Six virtual species with varying prevalence were simulated within a real landscape in southeastern Australia. Presence‐only models were built with DOMAIN, generalized linear model, Maxent, and Random Forest. Thresholds were selected with two methods max SSS and max F pb with four presence‐only datasets with different ratios of the number of known presences to the number of random points ( KPRP ratio). Sensitivity, specificity, true skill statistic, and F measure were used to evaluate the performance of the results. Species prevalence was estimated as the ratio of the number of predicted presences to the total number of points in the evaluation dataset. Thresholds selected with max F pb varied as the KPRP ratio of the threshold selection datasets changed. Datasets with the KPRP ratio around 1 generally produced better results than scores distant from 1. Results produced by We conclude that maxF pb had specificity too low for very common species using Random Forest and Maxent models. In contrast, max SSS produced consistent results whichever dataset was used. The estimation of prevalence was almost always biased, and the bias was very large for DOMAIN and Random Forest predictions. We conclude that max F pb is affected by the KPRP ratio of the threshold selection datasets, but max SSS is almost unaffected by this ratio. Unbiased estimations of prevalence are difficult to be determined using the threshold‐based approach.

          Related collections

          Most cited references7

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Random forests for classification in ecology.

          Classification procedures are some of the most widely used statistical methods in ecology. Random forests (RF) is a new and powerful statistical classifier that is well established in other disciplines but is relatively unknown in ecology. Advantages of RF compared to other statistical classifiers include (1) very high classification accuracy; (2) a novel method of determining variable importance; (3) ability to model complex interactions among predictor variables; (4) flexibility to perform several types of statistical data analysis, including regression, classification, survival analysis, and unsupervised learning; and (5) an algorithm for imputing missing values. We compared the accuracies of RF and four other commonly used statistical classifiers using data on invasive plant species presence in Lava Beds National Monument, California, USA, rare lichen species presence in the Pacific Northwest, USA, and nest sites for cavity nesting birds in the Uinta Mountains, Utah, USA. We observed high classification accuracy in all applications as measured by cross-validation and, in the case of the lichen data, by independent test data, when comparing RF to other common classification methods. We also observed that the variables that RF identified as most important for classifying invasive plant species coincided with expectations based on the literature.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Selection, use, choice and occupancy: clarifying concepts in resource selection studies.

            1. During the last decade, there has been a proliferation of statistical methods for studying resource selection by animals. While statistical techniques are advancing at a fast pace, there is confusion in the conceptual understanding of the meaning of various quantities that these statistical techniques provide. 2. Terms such as selection, choice, use, occupancy and preference often are employed as if they are synonymous. Many practitioners are unclear about the distinctions between different concepts such as 'probability of selection,' 'probability of use,' 'choice probabilities' and 'probability of occupancy'. 3. Similarly, practitioners are not always clear about the differences between and relevance of 'relative probability of selection' vs. 'probability of selection' to effective management. 4. Practitioners also are unaware that they are using only a single statistical model for modelling resource selection, namely the exponential probability of selection, when other models might be more appropriate. Currently, such multimodel inference is lacking in the resource selection literature. 5. In this paper, we attempt to clarify the concepts and terminology used in animal resource studies by illustrating the relationships among these various concepts and providing their statistical underpinnings. © 2013 The Authors. Journal of Animal Ecology © 2013 British Ecological Society.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Limited scope for latitudinal extension of reef corals

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Ecol Evol
                Ecol Evol
                10.1002/(ISSN)2045-7758
                ECE3
                Ecology and Evolution
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                2045-7758
                29 December 2015
                January 2016
                : 6
                : 1 ( doiID: 10.1002/ece3.2016.6.issue-1 )
                : 337-348
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ]Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning Heidelberg Victoria 3084Australia
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Canran Liu, Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, 123 Brown Street, Heidelberg, Victoria 3084, Australia.

                Tel: + 61 3 9450 8622;

                Fax: + 61 3 9450 8799;

                E‐mail: canran.liu@ 123456delwp.vic.gov.au

                Article
                ECE31878
                10.1002/ece3.1878
                4716501
                26811797
                2e74f265-e73f-41c3-af2c-f632f8d29d1c
                © 2015 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 28 September 2015
                : 09 November 2015
                : 25 November 2015
                Page count
                Pages: 12
                Funding
                Funded by: Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Victoria, Australia
                Categories
                Original Research
                Original Research
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                ece31878
                January 2016
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_NLMPMC version:4.7.5 mode:remove_FC converted:18.01.2016

                Evolutionary Biology
                f measure,presence‐only,prevalence,species distribution modeling,specificity,threshold

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content53

                Cited by153

                Most referenced authors93