Does accounting for imperfect detection improve species distribution models

Models of species distributions are increasingly being used to address a variety of problems in ecology and conservation biology. In many applications, perfect detectability of species, given presence, is assumed. While this problem has been acknowledged and addressed through the development of occupancy models, we still know little regarding whether or not addressing the potential for imperfect detection improves the predictive performance of species distribution models in nature. Here, we ask if explicitly accounting for imperfect detection improves predictive performance of species distribution models relative to approaches that assume perfect detection. We contrast logistic regression models of species occurrence that do not correct for detectability to hierarchical occupancy models that explicitly estimate and adjust for detectability, and maximum entropy models that circumvent the detectability problem by using data from known presence locations only. We use a large-scale, long-term monitoring database across western Montana and northern Idaho to contrast these models for nine landbird species that cover a broad spectrum in detectability. Overall, occupancy models were similar to or better than other approaches in terms of predictive accuracy, as measured by the Area Under the ROC Curve (AUC) and Kappa, with maximum entropy tending to provide the lowest predictive accuracy. Models varied in the types of errors associated with predictions, such that some model approaches may be preferred over others in certain situations. As expected, predictive performance varied across a gradient in species detectability, with logistic regression providing lower relative performance for less detectable species and Maxent providing lower performance for highly detectable species. Occupancy models showed no strong relationship with detection probability and any source of predictive error, suggesting this approach can perform as well for highly detectable species as for difficult to detect species. We conclude by suggesting that occupancy modeling approaches hold promise for improving models of species distributions. However, occupancy models did not always significantly improve predictive performance of species distribution models. In these instances, issues of sampling design other than imperfect detection may be of greater importance for inference, and the onus is on ecologists to address the detection issue and other problems in sampling design in rigorous ways to evaluate potential biases in inference.

[1]  Darryl I. MacKenzie,et al.  Designing occupancy studies: general advice and allocating survey effort , 2005 .

[2]  Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) , 2020 .

[3]  T. Hastie,et al.  Presence‐Only Data and the EM Algorithm , 2009, Biometrics.

[4]  R. L. Hutto,et al.  Habitat Relationships of Landbirds in the Northern Region, USDA Forest Service , 1999 .

[5]  A. Gelman Prior distributions for variance parameters in hierarchical models (comment on article by Browne and Draper) , 2004 .

[6]  Robert J. Fletcher,et al.  Does attraction to conspecifics explain the patch-size effect? An experimental test , 2009 .

[7]  W. Thuiller,et al.  Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. , 2005, Ecology letters.

[8]  R. Swihart,et al.  Absent or undetected? Effects of non-detection of species occurrence on wildlife-habitat models , 2004 .

[9]  Steven J. Phillips,et al.  Sample selection bias and presence-only distribution models: implications for background and pseudo-absence data. , 2009, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[10]  J. Andrew Royle,et al.  ESTIMATING ABUNDANCE FROM REPEATED PRESENCE–ABSENCE DATA OR POINT COUNTS , 2003 .

[11]  Christopher T. Rota,et al.  Insights from Ecological Theory on Temporal Dynamics and Species Distribution Modeling , 2011 .

[12]  P. Dixon,et al.  Accounting for Spatial Pattern When Modeling Organism- Environment Interactions , 2022 .

[13]  Robert M. Dorazio,et al.  Occupancy estimation and the closure assumption , 2009 .

[14]  David M Marsh,et al.  Current Trends in Plant and Animal Population Monitoring , 2008, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[15]  Geoffrey R. Geupel,et al.  Handbook of Field Methods for Monitoring Landbirds , 2012 .

[16]  M. Araújo,et al.  Presence-absence versus presence-only modelling methods for predicting bird habitat suitability , 2004 .

[17]  Kenneth H. Pollock,et al.  A REMOVAL MODEL FOR ESTIMATING DETECTION PROBABILITIES FROM POINT-COUNT SURVEYS , 2002 .

[18]  J. Andrew Royle,et al.  ESTIMATING SITE OCCUPANCY RATES WHEN DETECTION PROBABILITIES ARE LESS THAN ONE , 2002, Ecology.

[19]  M. Austin Species distribution models and ecological theory: A critical assessment and some possible new approaches , 2007 .

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

[21]  F. Palomares,et al.  Landscape evaluation in conservation: molecular sampling and habitat modeling for the Iberian lynx. , 2006, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[22]  Richard L. Hutto,et al.  Regional landbird monitoring: perspectives from the Northern Rocky Mountains , 2002 .

[23]  Wayne E. Thogmartin,et al.  A HIERARCHICAL SPATIAL MODEL OF AVIAN ABUNDANCE WITH APPLICATION TO CERULEAN WARBLERS , 2004 .

[24]  C. Carroll,et al.  The Importance of Being Spatial (and Reserved): Assessing Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Relationships with Hierarchical Bayesian Models , 2008, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[25]  Andrew Gelman,et al.  R2WinBUGS: A Package for Running WinBUGS from R , 2005 .

[26]  Hugh P Possingham,et al.  Zero tolerance ecology: improving ecological inference by modelling the source of zero observations. , 2005, Ecology letters.

[27]  Miroslav Dudík,et al.  Modeling of species distributions with Maxent: new extensions and a comprehensive evaluation , 2008 .

[28]  R. G. Davies,et al.  Methods to account for spatial autocorrelation in the analysis of species distributional data : a review , 2007 .

[29]  H. Possingham,et al.  IMPROVING PRECISION AND REDUCING BIAS IN BIOLOGICAL SURVEYS: ESTIMATING FALSE‐NEGATIVE ERROR RATES , 2003 .

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

[31]  Thomas Lengauer,et al.  ROCR: visualizing classifier performance in R , 2005, Bioinform..

[32]  Robert P. Anderson,et al.  Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions , 2006 .

[33]  N. Yoccoz Occupancy Estimation and Modeling. Inferring patterns and dynamics of species occurrence , 2006 .

[34]  Géraldine Lassalle,et al.  Diadromous fish conservation plans need to consider global warming issues: An approach using biogeographical models , 2008 .

[35]  K. Burnham,et al.  GOALS AND STRATEGIES FOR ESTIMATING TRENDS IN LANDBIRD ABUNDANCE , 2004 .

[36]  John Bell,et al.  A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models , 1997, Environmental Conservation.

[37]  J. Andrew Royle,et al.  A Bayesian state-space formulation of dynamic occupancy models. , 2007, Ecology.

[38]  R. Real,et al.  AUC: a misleading measure of the performance of predictive distribution models , 2008 .

[39]  T. Dawson,et al.  Selecting thresholds of occurrence in the prediction of species distributions , 2005 .

[40]  W. Link,et al.  Observer differences in the North American Breeding Bird Survey , 1994 .

[41]  B. Manly,et al.  Resource selection by animals: statistical design and analysis for field studies. , 1994 .

[42]  A. Townsend Peterson,et al.  Novel methods improve prediction of species' distributions from occurrence data , 2006 .