Species distribution modelling—Effect of design and sample size of pseudo-absence observations

We explored the effect of varying pseudo-absence data in species distribution modelling using empirical data for four real species and simulated data for two imaginary species. In all analyses we used a fixed study area, a fixed set of environmental predictors and a fixed set of presence observations. Next, we added pseudo-absence data generated by different sampling designs and in different numbers to assess their relative importance for the output from the species distribution model. The sampling design strongly influenced the predictive performance of the models while the number of pseudo-absences had minimal effect on the predictive performance. We attribute much of these results to the relationship between the environmental range of the pseudo-absences (i.e. the extent of the environmental space being considered) and the environmental range of the presence observations (i.e. under which environmental conditions the species occurs). The number of generated pseudo-absences had a direct effect on the predicted probability, which translated to different distribution areas. Pseudo-absence observations that fell within grid cells with presence observations were purposely included in our analyses. We discourage the practice of excluding certain pseudo-absence data because it involves arbitrary assumptions about what are (un)suitable environments for the species being modelled.     

Incorporating low-resolution historic species location data decreases performance of distribution models

Developing robust species distribution models is important as model outputs are increasingly being incorporated into conservation policy and management decisions. A largely overlooked component of model assessment and refinement is whether to include historic species occurrence data in distribution models to increase the data sample size. Data of different temporal provenance often differ in spatial accuracy and precision. We test the effect of inclusion of historic coarse-resolution occurrence data on distribution model outputs for 187 species of birds in Australian tropical savannas. Models using only recent (after 1990), fine-resolution data had significantly higher model performance scores measured with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) than models incorporating both fine- and coarse-resolution data. The drop in AUC score is positively correlated with the total area predicted to be suitable for the species (R² = 0.163-0.187, depending on the environmental predictors in the model), as coarser data generally leads to greater predicted areas. The remaining unexplained variation is likely to be due to the covariate errors resulting from resolution mismatch between species records and environmental predictors. We conclude that decisions regarding data use in species distribution models must be conscious of the variation in predictions that mixed-scale datasets might cause.     

Selecting pseudo-absence data for presence-only distribution modeling: How far should you stray from what you know?

An important decision in presence-only species distribution modeling is how to select background (or pseudo-absence) localities for model parameterization. The selection of such localities may influence model parameterization and thus, can influence the appropriateness and accuracy of the model prediction when extrapolating the species distribution across time and space. We used 12 species from the Australian Wet Tropics (AWT) to evaluate the relationship between the geographic extent from which pseudo-absences are taken and model performance, and shape and importance of predictor variables using the MAXENT modeling method. Model performance is lower when pseudo-absence points are taken from either a restricted or broad region with respect to species occurrence data than from an intermediate region. Furthermore, variable importance (i.e., contribution to the model) changed such that, models became increasingly simplified, dominated by just two variables, as the area from which pseudo-absence points were drawn increased. Our results suggest that it is important to consider the spatial extent from which pseudo-absence data are taken. We suggest species distribution modeling exercises should begin with exploratory analyses evaluating what extent might provide both the most accurate results and biologically meaningful fit between species occurrence and predictor variables. This is especially important when modeling across space or time—a growing application for species distributional modeling.