Non‐stationarity and local approaches to modelling the distributions of wildlife

Despite a growing interest in species distribution modelling, relatively little attention has been paid to spatial autocorrelation and non‐stationarity. Both spatial autocorrelation (the tendency for adjacent locations to be more similar than distant ones) and non‐stationarity (the variation in modelled relationships over space) are likely to be common properties of ecological systems. This paper focuses on non‐stationarity and uses two local techniques, geographically weighted regression (GWR) and varying coefficient modelling (VCM), to assess its impact on model predictions. We extend two published studies, one on the presence–absence of calandra larks in Spain and the other on bird species richness in Britain, to compare GWR and VCM with the more usual global generalized linear modelling (GLM) and generalized additive modelling (GAM). For the calandra lark data, GWR and VCM produced better‐fitting models than GLM or GAM. VCM in particular gave significantly reduced spatial autocorrelation in the model residuals. GWR showed that individual predictors became stationary at different spatial scales, indicating that distributions are influenced by ecological processes operating over multiple scales. VCM was able to predict occurrence accurately on independent data from the same geographical area as the training data but not beyond, whereas the GAM produced good results on all areas. Individual predictions from the local methods often differed substantially from the global models. For the species richness data, VCM and GWR produced far better predictions than ordinary regression. Our analyses suggest that modellers interpolating data to produce maps for practical actions (e.g. conservation) should consider local methods, whereas they should not be used for extrapolation to new areas. We argue that local methods are complementary to global methods, revealing details of habitat associations and data properties which global methods average out and miss.

[1]  A. Hirzel,et al.  Evaluating the ability of habitat suitability models to predict species presences , 2006 .

[2]  R. G. Pontlus.  Quantification Error Versus Location Error in Comparison of Categorical Maps , 2006 .

[3]  M. Luoto,et al.  Uncertainty of bioclimate envelope models based on the geographical distribution of species , 2005 .

[4]  G. Foody,et al.  Mapping the richness and composition of British breeding birds from coarse spatial resolution satellite sensor imagery , 2005 .

[5]  N. Pettorelli,et al.  Using the satellite-derived NDVI to assess ecological responses to environmental change. , 2005, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[6]  Jeffrey H. Gove,et al.  Spatial residual analysis of six modeling techniques , 2005 .

[7]  Ian Phillip Vaughan,et al.  The continuing challenges of testing species distribution models , 2005 .

[8]  John Tenhunen,et al.  Application of a geographically‐weighted regression analysis to estimate net primary production of Chinese forest ecosystems , 2005 .

[9]  M. Ehlers,et al.  Review article: Thirty years of analysing and modelling avian habitat relationships using satellite imagery data: a review , 2005 .

[10]  David Wheeler,et al.  Multicollinearity and correlation among local regression coefficients in geographically weighted regression , 2005, J. Geogr. Syst..

[11]  Walter Jetz,et al.  Local and global approaches to spatial data analysis in ecology , 2005 .

[12]  M. Araújo,et al.  An evaluation of methods for modelling species distributions , 2004 .

[13]  D. Rogers,et al.  The effects of species’ range sizes on the accuracy of distribution models: ecological phenomenon or statistical artefact? , 2004 .

[14]  Giles M. Foody,et al.  Spatial nonstationarity and scale-dependency in the relationship between species richness and environmental determinants for the sub-Saharan endemic avifauna , 2004 .

[15]  Huiquan Bi,et al.  Modeling spatial variation in tree diameter–height relationships , 2004 .

[16]  N. Gotelli.  Predicting Species Occurrences: Issues of Accuracy and Scale , 2003 .

[17]  Renato M. Assunção,et al.  Space varying coefficient models for small area data , 2003 .

[18]  Patrick E. Osborne,et al.  Should data be partitioned spatially before building large-scale distribution models? , 2002 .

[19]  M. Austin.  Spatial prediction of species distribution: an interface between ecological theory and statistical modelling , 2002 .

[20]  S. Suárez‐Seoane,et al.  Large-scale habitat selection by agricultural steppe birds in Spain: identifying species–habitat responses using generalized additive models , 2002 .

[21]  Vic Barnett,et al.  Statistically meaningful standards for contaminated sites using composite sampling , 2002 .

[22]  David R. B. Stockwell,et al.  Effects of sample size on accuracy of species distribution models , 2002 .

[23]  M. Fortin,et al.  Spatial autocorrelation and statistical tests in ecology , 2002 .

[24]  Barry Boots,et al.  Local measures of spatial association , 2002 .

[25]  Antoine Guisan,et al.  Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology , 2000 .

[26]  S. Fotheringham,et al.  Geographically weighted regression : modelling spatial non-stationarity , 1998 .

[27]  S. Fotheringham,et al.  Geographically Weighted Regression , 1998 .

[28]  S. T. Buckland,et al.  An autologistic model for the spatial distribution of wildlife , 1996 .

[29]  A. Fielding,et al.  Testing the Generality of Bird‐Habitat Models , 1995 .

[30]  P. Legendre.  Spatial Autocorrelation: Trouble or New Paradigm? , 1993 .

[31]  Gareth Jones,et al.  The new atlas of breeding birds in Britain and Ireland 1988-1991 , 1993 .

[32]  J R Beck,et al.  The use of relative operating characteristic (ROC) curves in test performance evaluation. , 1986, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[33]  Stanley R. Johnson,et al.  Varying Coefficient Models , 1984 .