| Título: | LOCALITY UNCERTAINTY AND THE DIFFERENTIAL PERFORMANCE OF FOUR COMMON NICHE-BASED MODELING TECHNIQUES |
| Autores: |
Fernandez, Miguel; University of California Merced Blum, Stanley; Research Informatics, California Academy of Sciences Reichle, Steffen; The Nature Conservancy Guo, Qinghua; Sierra Nevada Research Institute, University of California Merced Holzman, Barbara; Department of Geography, San Francisco State University Hamilton, Healy; Center for Biodiversity & Research, California Academy of Sciences |
| Fecha: | 2009-02-13 |
| Publicador: | Biodiversity Informatics |
| Fuente: |
 |
| Tipo: |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article Peer-reviewed Article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
| Tema: | georeferencing; spatial uncertainty; ecological niche modeling; comparative performance; fuzzy kappa |
| Descripción: | We address a poorly understood aspect of ecological niche modeling: its sensitivity to different levels of geographic uncertainty in organism occurrence data. Our primary interest was to assess how accuracy degrades under increasing uncertainty, with performance measured indirectly through model consistency. We used Monte Carlo simulations and a similarity measure to assess model sensitivity across three variables: locality accuracy, niche modeling method, and species. Randomly generated data sets with known levels of locality uncertainty were compared to an original prediction using Fuzzy Kappa. Data sets where locality uncertainty is low were expected to produce similar distribution maps to the original. In contrast, data sets where locality uncertainty is high were expected to produce less similar maps. BIOCLIM, DOMAIN, Maxent and GARP were used to predict the distributions for 1200 simulated datasets (3 species x 4 buffer sizes x 100 randomized data sets). Thus, our experimental design produced a total of 4800 similarity measures, with each of the simulated distributions compared to the prediction of the original data set and corresponding modeling method. A general linear model (GLM) analysis was performed which enables us to simultaneously measure the effect of buffer size, modeling method, and species, as well as interactions among all variables. Our results show that modeling method has the largest effect on similarity scores and uniquely accounts for 40% of the total variance in the model. The second most important factor was buffer size, but it uniquely accounts for only 3% of the variation in the model. The newer and currently more popular methods, GARP and Maxent, were shown to produce more inconsistent predictions than the earlier and simpler methods, BIOCLIM and DOMAIN. Understanding the performance of different niche modeling methods under varying levels of geographic uncertainty is an important step toward more productive applications of historical biodiversity collections. |
| Idioma: | Inglés |
1 Global Biodiversity Informatics: setting the scene for a “new world” of ecological forecasting por Canhos, Vanderlei Perez; Centro de Referência em Informação Ambiental, CRIA,Souza, Sidnei de; Centro de Referência em Informação Ambiental, CRIA,Giovanni, Renato De; Centro de Referência em Informação Ambiental, CRIA,Canhos, Dora Ann Lange; Centro de Referência em Informação Ambiental, CRIA | 6 Climate Change and Biodiversity: Some Considerations in Forecasting Shifts in Species' Potential Distributions por Martinez-Meyer, Enrique; Instituto de Biologia, UNAM |
2 Interpretation of Models of Fundamental Ecological Niches and Species’ Distributional Areas por Soberon, Jorge; CONABIO,Peterson, A. Townsend; Natural History Museum, KU | 7 Place prioritization for biodiversity content using species ecological niche modeling por Sánchez-Cordero, Víctor; Departamento de Zoologia, Instituto de Biologia, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico.,Cirelli, Verónica; Departamento de Zoologia, Instituto de Biologia, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico.,Munguial, Mariana; Departamento de Zoologia, Instituto de Biologia, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico.,Sarkar, Sahotra; Section of Integrative Biology and Department of Philosophy, University of Texas |
3 Environmental Information: Placing Biodiversity Phenomena in an Ecological and Environmental Context por Chapman, Arthur D; Australian Biodiversity information Services,Muñoz, Mauro E.S.; Centro de Referência em Informação Ambiental (CRIA),Koch, Ingrid; Centro de Referência em Informação Ambiental (CRIA), | 8 Resolving taxonmic discrepancies: Role of Electronic Catalogues of Known Organisms por Chavan, Vishwas Shravan; National Chemical Laboratory,Rane, Nilesh Sunil; National Chemical Laboratory,Watve, Aparna; National Chemical Laboratory,Ruggiero, Michael; Integrated Taxonomic Information System, US Geological Survey, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC, USA |
4 Bioinformatics, the Clearing-House Mechanism and the Convention on Biological Diversity por Silva, Marcos R.; Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity | 9 TaxonGrab: Extracting Taxonomic Names From Text por Koning, Drew; American Museum of Natural History,Sarkar, Indra Neil; American Museum of Natural History,Moritz, Thomas; American Museum of Natural History |
5 Mammals of the World: MaNIS as an example of data integration in a distributed network environment por Stein, Barbara R; Museum of Vertebrate Zoology,Wieczorek, John R.; Museum of Vertebrate Zoology | 10 Challenges Building Online GIS Services to Support Global Biodiversity Mapping and Analysis: Lessons from the Mountain and Plains Database and Informatics project. por Guralnick, Robert P; University of Colorado,Neufeld, David; University of Colorado |