Testing prediction accuracy in short-term ecological studies

Abstract Applied ecology is based on an assumption that a management action will result in a predicted outcome. Testing the prediction accuracy of ecological models is the most powerful way of evaluating the knowledge implicit in this cause-effect relationship, however, the prevalence of predictive modeling and prediction testing are spreading slowly in ecology. The challenge of prediction testing is particularly acute for small-scale studies, because withholding data for prediction testing (e.g., via k-fold cross validation) can reduce model precision. However, by necessity small-scale studies are common. We use one such study that explored small mammal abundance along an elevational gradient to test prediction accuracy of models with varying degrees of information content. For each of three small mammal species, we conducted 5000 iterations of the following process: (1) randomly selected 75 % of the data to develop generalized linear models of species abundance that used detailed site measurements as covariates, (2) used an information theoretic approach to compare the top model with detailed covariates to habitat type-only and null models constructed with the same data, (3) tested those models’ ability to predict the 25 % of the randomly withheld data, and (4) evaluated prediction accuracy with a quadratic loss function. Detailed models fit the model-evaluation data best but had greater expected prediction error when predicting out-of-sample data relative to the habitat type models. Relationships between species and detailed site variables may be evident only within the framework of explicitly hierarchical analyses. We show that even with a small but relatively typical dataset (n = 28 sampling locations across 125 km over two years), researchers can effectively compare models with different information content and measure models’ predictive power, thus evaluating their own ecological understanding and defining the limits of their inferences. Identifying the appropriate scope of inference through prediction testing is ecologically valuable and is attainable even with small datasets.

[1]  A. Hastings Transients: the key to long-term ecological understanding? , 2004, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[2]  Brian Beckage,et al.  Projecting the distribution of forests in New England in response to climate change , 2010 .

[3]  Edward J. Rykiel,et al.  Testing ecological models: the meaning of validation , 1996 .

[4]  Craig R Allen,et al.  Adaptive management for a turbulent future. , 2011, Journal of environmental management.

[5]  David M. Cairns,et al.  The suitability of montane ecotones as indicators of global climatic change , 1996 .

[6]  William J. McShea,et al.  PREDICTING PRESENCE AND ABUNDANCE OF A SMALL MAMMAL SPECIES: THE EFFECT OF SCALE AND RESOLUTION , 2000 .

[7]  R. Hobbs,et al.  The Precision Problem in Conservation and Restoration. , 2016, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[8]  S. Williams,et al.  Spatial scale, species diversity, and habitat structure: small mammals in Australian tropical rain forest , 2002 .

[9]  Galit Shmueli,et al.  To Explain or To Predict? , 2010 .

[10]  R. Callaway,et al.  Indirect effects of host-specific biological control agents , 2003 .

[11]  R. Julliard,et al.  REVIEW: Predictive ecology in a changing world , 2015 .

[12]  P. Drapeau,et al.  Small mammal responses to coarse woody debris distribution at different spatial scales in managed and unmanaged boreal forests , 2012 .

[13]  B. McGill,et al.  Testing the predictive performance of distribution models , 2013 .

[14]  C. Krebs Demographic Changes in Fluctuating Populations of Microtus californicus , 1966 .

[15]  Tim G Benton,et al.  Predictive ecology: systems approaches , 2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[16]  Brian J. McGill,et al.  The priority of prediction in ecological understanding , 2017 .

[17]  John G. Kie,et al.  LANDSCAPE HETEROGENEITY AT DIFFERING SCALES: EFFECTS ON SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF MULE DEER , 2002 .

[18]  L. Brudvig Toward prediction in the restoration of biodiversity , 2017 .

[19]  David R. Anderson,et al.  Model selection and multimodel inference : a practical information-theoretic approach , 2003 .

[20]  Damaris Zurell,et al.  Outstanding Challenges in the Transferability of Ecological Models. , 2018, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[21]  Connor M. Wood,et al.  Intraspecific functional diversity of common species enhances community stability , 2017, Ecology and evolution.

[22]  Seth Bigelow,et al.  HABITAT ASSOCIATIONS OF SMALL MAMMALS AT TWO SPATIAL SCALES IN THE NORTHERN SIERRA NEVADA , 2006 .

[23]  Angela K. Fuller,et al.  Movement paths reveal scale-dependent habitat decisions by Canada lynx , 2010 .

[24]  Andrew J Tyre,et al.  Evaluating the efficacy of adaptive management approaches: is there a formula for success? , 2011, Journal of environmental management.

[25]  B. Ripley Support Functions and Datasets for Venables and Ripley's MASS , 2015 .

[26]  Mevin B Hooten,et al.  Iterative near-term ecological forecasting: Needs, opportunities, and challenges , 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[27]  Michael C Runge,et al.  Structured decision making as a conceptual framework to identify thresholds for conservation and management. , 2009, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[28]  Bruce D. Patterson,et al.  Scale dependence and scale independence in habitat associations of small mammals in southern temperate rainforest , 1999 .

[29]  J. Betancourt,et al.  Anticipatory natural resource science and management for a changing future , 2018 .

[30]  M. Julian Caley,et al.  Transferability of predictive models of coral reef fish species richness , 2016 .