MaxEnt’s parameter configuration and small samples: are we paying attention to recommendations? A systematic review
Tóm tắt
Environmental niche modeling (ENM) is commonly used to develop probabilistic maps of species distribution. Among available ENM techniques, MaxEnt has become one of the most popular tools for modeling species distribution, with hundreds of peer-reviewed articles published each year. MaxEnt’s popularity is mainly due to the use of a graphical interface and automatic parameter configuration capabilities. However, recent studies have shown that using the default automatic configuration may not be always appropriate because it can produce non-optimal models; particularly when dealing with a small number of species presence points. Thus, the recommendation is to evaluate the best potential combination of parameters (feature classes and regularization multiplier) to select the most appropriate model. In this work we reviewed 244 articles published between 2013 and 2015 to assess whether researchers are following recommendations to avoid using the default parameter configuration when dealing with small sample sizes, or if they are using MaxEnt as a “black box tool.” Our results show that in only 16% of analyzed articles authors evaluated best feature classes, in 6.9% evaluated best regularization multipliers, and in a meager 3.7% evaluated simultaneously both parameters before producing the definitive distribution model. We analyzed 20 articles to quantify the potential differences in resulting outputs when using software default parameters instead of the alternative best model. Results from our analysis reveal important differences between the use of default parameters and the best model approach, especially in the total area identified as suitable for the assessed species and the specific areas that are identified as suitable by both modelling approaches. These results are worrying, because publications are potentially reporting over-complex or over-simplistic models that can undermine the applicability of their results. Of particular importance are studies used to inform policy making. Therefore, researchers, practitioners, reviewers and editors need to be very judicious when dealing with MaxEnt, particularly when the modelling process is based on small sample sizes.
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
Aguiar, 2015, Effect of chronological addition of records to species distribution maps: the case of Tonatia saurophila maresi (Chiroptera, Phyllostomidae) in South America, Austral Ecology, 40, 836, 10.1111/aec.12261
Alamgir, 2015, Modelling spatial distribution of critically endangered Asian elephant and Hoolock gibbon in Bangladesh forest ecosystems under a changing climate, Applied Geography, 60, 10, 10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.03.001
Alfaro-Saiz, 2015, Incorporating bioclimatic and biogeographic data in the construction of species distribution models in order to prioritize searches for new populations of threatened flora, Plant Biosystems, 149, 827, 10.1080/11263504.2014.976289
Amici, 2015, Habitat suitability and landscape structure: a maximum entropy approach in a mediterranean area, Landscape Research, 40, 208, 10.1080/01426397.2013.774329
Anderson, 2011, Species-specific tuning increases robustness to sampling bias in models of species distributions: an implementation with Maxent, Ecological Modelling, 222, 2796, 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.04.011
Bernardes, 2013, Habitat characterization and potential distribution of Tylototriton vietnamensis in northern Vietnam, Journal of Natural History, 47, 1161, 10.1080/00222933.2012.743611
Bouchet, 2015, Drifting baited stereo-videography: a novel sampling tool for surveying pelagic wildlife in offshore marine reserves, Ecosphere, 6, 1, 10.1890/ES14-00174.1
Brambilla, 2013, Modelling distribution and potential overlap between Boreal Owl Aegolius funereus and Black Woodpecker Dryocopus martius: implications for management and monitoring plans, Bird Conservation International, 23, 502, 10.1017/S0959270913000117
Cao, 2013, Using Maxent to model the historic distributions of stonefly species in Illinois streams: the effects of regularization and threshold selections, Ecological Modelling, 259, 30, 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2013.03.012
Carvalho, 2015, Predicting priority areas for conservation from historical climate modelling: stingless bees from Atlantic Forest hotspot as a case study, Journal of Insect Conservation, 19, 581, 10.1007/s10841-015-9780-7
Ceccarelli, 2015, Global climate change effects on Venezuela’s vulnerability to chagas disease is linked to the geographic distribution of five triatomine species, Journal of Medical Entomology, 52, 1333, 10.1093/jme/tjv119
Chetan, 2014, Delineating ecological boundaries of Hanuman Langur species complex in Peninsular India using MaxEnt modeling approach, PLOS ONE, 9, e87804, 10.1371/journal.pone.0087804
Chłond, 2015, Current and potential geographical distribution of Platymeris biguttatus (Linnaeus, 1767) with description of nymphs, Zoological Studies, 54, 9, 10.1186/s40555-014-0092-5
Chunco, 2013, Predicting environmental suitability for a rare and threatened species (Lao Newt, Laotriton laoensis) using validated species distribution models, PLOS ONE, 8, e59853, 10.1371/journal.pone.0059853
Conflitti, 2015, The speciation continuum: ecological and chromosomal divergence in the Simulium arcticum complex (Diptera: Simuliidae), Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 115, 13, 10.1111/bij.12480
Crafton, 2015, Modeling invasion risk for coastal marine species utilizing environmental and transport vector data, Hydrobiologia, 746, 349, 10.1007/s10750-014-2027-x
De Castro Pena, 2014, Assessing the conservation status of species with limited available data and disjunct distribution, Biological Conservation, 170, 130, 10.1016/j.biocon.2013.12.015
Elith, 2006, Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data, Ecography, 29, 129, 10.1111/j.2006.0906-7590.04596.x
Elith, 2010, The art of modelling range-shifting species, Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 1, 330, 10.1111/j.2041-210X.2010.00036.x
Elith, 2009, Species distribution models: ecological explanation and prediction across space and time, Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 40, 677, 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.110308.120159
Fernández, 2016, A spatial multicriteria decision analysis for selecting priority sites for plant species restoration: a case study from the Chilean biodiversity hotspot, Restoration Ecology, 24, 599, 10.1111/rec.12354
Fitzpatrick, 2013, MaxEnt versus MaxLike: empirical comparisons with ant species distributions, Ecosphere, 4, 1, 10.1890/ES13-00066.1
Fois, 2015, A practical method to speed up the discovery of unknown populations using Species Distribution Models, Journal for Nature Conservation, 24, 42, 10.1016/j.jnc.2015.02.001
Gelviz-Gelvez, 2015, Ecological niche modeling under climate change to select shrubs for ecological restoration in Central Mexico, Ecological Engineering, 74, 302, 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2014.09.082
Guisan, 2000, Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology, Ecological Modelling, 135, 147, 10.1016/S0304-3800(00)00354-9
Halvorsen, 2015, Opportunities for improved distribution modelling practice via a strict maximum likelihood interpretation of MaxEnt, Ecography, 38, 172, 10.1111/ecog.00565
Hu, 2014, Unveiling the conservation biogeography of a data-deficient endangered bird species under climate change, PLOS ONE, 9, e84529, 10.1371/journal.pone.0084529
Kramer-Schadt, 2013, The importance of correcting for sampling bias in MaxEnt species distribution models, Diversity and Distributions, 19, 1366, 10.1111/ddi.12096
Merow, 2013, A practical guide to MaxEnt for modeling species’ distributions: what it does, and why inputs and settings matter, Ecography, 36, 1058, 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2013.07872.x
Mestre, 2015, Combining distribution modelling and non-invasive genetics to improve range shift forecasting, Ecological Modelling, 297, 171, 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.11.018
Meyer, 2014, Assessing the exposure of lion tamarins (Leontopithecus spp.) to future climate change, American Journal of Primatology, 76, 551, 10.1002/ajp.22247
Miller, 2010, Species distribution modeling, Geography Compass, 4, 490, 10.1111/j.1749-8198.2010.00351.x
Moher, 2009, Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement, PLOS Medicine, 6, e1000097, 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
Mweya, 2013, Predicting distribution of Aedes aegypti and Culex pipiens complex, potential vectors of Rift Valley fever virus in relation to disease epidemics in East Africa, Infection Ecology & Epidemiology, 3, 21748, 10.3402/iee.v3i0.21748
Orr, 2014, Taxonomic utility of niche models in validating species concepts: a case study in Anthophora (Heliophila) (Hymenoptera: Apidae), Zootaxa, 3846, 10.11646/zootaxa.3846.3.5
Palmas-Pérez, 2013, Diversidad y distribución de Marcgraviaceae en México, Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad, 84, 170, 10.7550/rmb.29666
Pedersen, 2014, Modelling spatial distribution of snails transmitting parasitic worms with importance to human and animal health and analysis of distributional changes in relation to climate, Geospatial Health, 8, 10.4081/gh.2014.23
Phillips, 2006, Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions, Ecological Modelling, 190, 231, 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.03.026
Phillips, 2008, Modeling of species distributions with Maxent: new extensions and a comprehensive evaluation, Ecography, 31, 161, 10.1111/j.0906-7590.2008.5203.x
Radosavljevic, 2014, Making better Maxent models of species distributions: complexity, overfitting and evaluation, Journal of Biogeography, 41, 629, 10.1111/jbi.12227
Shcheglovitova, 2013, Estimating optimal complexity for ecological niche models: a jackknife approach for species with small sample sizes, Ecological Modelling, 269, 9, 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2013.08.011
Simo, 2014, A predictive modeling approach to test distributional uniformity of Uruguayan harvestmen (Arachnida: Opiliones), Zoological Studies, 53, 50, 10.1186/s40555-014-0050-2
Stigall, 2014, Relating environmental change and species stability in Late Ordovician seas, GFF, 136, 249, 10.1080/11035897.2013.852619
Syfert, 2013, The effects of sampling bias and model complexity on the predictive performance of MaxEnt species distribution models, PLOS ONE, 8, e55158, 10.1371/journal.pone.0055158
Urbani, 2015, Maximum entropy modeling of geographic distributions of the flea beetle species endemic in Italy (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Galerucinae: Alticini), Zoologischer Anzeiger, 258, 99, 10.1016/j.jcz.2015.08.002
Velásquez-Tibatá, 2016, Using measurement error models to account for georeferencing error in species distribution models, Ecography, 39, 305, 10.1111/ecog.01205
Vergara, 2015, More on the Mesopotamian-Yungas disjunction in subtropical and temperate Argentina: bioclimatic distribution models of the harvestman Discocyrtus dilatatus (Opiliones: Gonyleptidae), Zoologia (Curitiba), 32, 445, 10.1590/s1984-46702015000600003
Warren, 2011, Ecological niche modeling in Maxent: the importance of model complexity and the performance of model selection criteria, Ecological Applications, 21, 335, 10.1890/10-1171.1
Yackulic, 2013, Presence-only modelling using MAXENT: when can we trust the inferences?, Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 4, 236, 10.1111/2041-210x.12004