Inhomogeneous Spatial Point Process Models for Species Distribution Analysis: A Systematic Review
Keywords:
Cox point process, Inhomogeneous point process, Inhomogeneous Poisson process, Markov point process, Spatial point process models.Abstract
This study aims to systematically review the application of inhomogeneous spatial point process models (ISPPMs) for species distribution analysis. The review focused on (i) the trend in the use of ISPPMs, (ii) the general characteristics of the studies reviewed, and (iii) the practice of inhomogeneous spatial point process modeling. Based on specific criteria, a search using Publish or Perish (PoP) software and Google Scholar databases was performed for published papers on ISPPMs from 2006 to 2020. The study revealed a significant evolution in the use of ISPPMs. Most of the studies were conducted at regional, national, and continental scales. More than 60% of the papers used presence-only data. The linear model was the most used (47.12%). Maximum likelihood (21%) and minimum contrast estimation (19%) were the primary methods for estimating the fitted model parameters. The goodness of fit, performance analysis and model comparison guided fitting model validation. Moreover, many of these studies (56.91%) did not explicitly address the issues of model specification and spatial dependence. Furthermore, 47% of the articles considered did not clarify the estimation method used. New challenges and perspectives are to be explored.References
C. Botella, A. Joly, P. Bonnet, P. Monestiez and F. Munoz, Species distribution modeling based on the automated identification of citizen observations, Applications in Plant Sciences, 6(2), 2018, e1029.
R. G. Pearson, Species’ distribution modeling for conservation educators and practitioners, Synthesis. American Museum of Natural History, 50, 2019, 54-89.
A. Guisan and W. Thuiller, Predicting species distribution: Offering more than simple habitat models, Ecology Letters, 8, 2005, 993-1009.
A. T. Peterson, J. Soberón, R. G. Pearson, R. P. Anderson, E. Martínez-Meyer, M. Nakamura and M. B. Araújo, Ecological Niches and Geographic Distributions (MPB-49), Princeton University Press, 2011.
A. H. Hirzel, J. Hausser, D. Chessel and N. Perrin, Ecological-niche factor analysis: How to compute habit suitability maps without absence data?, Ecology, 83(7), 2002, 2027-2036.
D. Stockwell, The GARP modelling system: problems and solutions to automated spatial prediction, International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 13, 1999, 143-158.
M. Dudík, S. Phillips and R. E. Schapire, Correcting sample selection bias in maximum entropy density estimation, In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS'05), 2005, 323-330.
F. Tonini, F. Divino, G. J. Lasinio, H. H. Hochmair and R. H. Scheffrahn, Predicting the geographical distribution of two invasive termite species from occurrence data, Environmental Entomology, 43, 2014, 1135-1144.
F. Divino, N. Golini, G. Jona Lasinio and A. Penttinen, Bayesian logistic regression for presence-only data, Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 29, 2015, 1721-1736.
D. I. Mackenzie, J. D. Nichols, J. E. Hines, M. G. Knutson and A. B. Franklin, Estimating site occupancy, colonization, and local extinction when a species is detected imperfectly, Ecology, 84, 2003, 2200-2207.
J. A. Royle, N‐Mixture models for estimating population size from spatially replicated counts, Biometrics, 60, 2004, 108-115.
N. A. C. Cressie, Statistics for Spatial Data, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1993.
W. Fithian and T. Hastie, Finite-sample equivalence in statistical models for presence-only data, Annals of Applied Statistics, 7, 2013, 1917.
S. J. Phillips, R. P. Anderson, M. Dudík, R. E. Schapire and M. E. Blair, Opening the black box: An open-source release of Maxent, Ecography, 40, 2017, 887-893.
I. W. Renner, J. Elith, A. Baddeley, W. Fithian, T. Hastie, S. J. Phillips, G. Popovic and D. I. Warton, Point process models for presence-only analysis, Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 6, 2015, 366-379.
D. I. Warton and L. C. Shepherd, Poisson point process models solve the “pseudo-absence problem” for presence-only data in ecology, Annals of Applied Statistics, 4, 2010, 1383-1402.
J. Møller, A. R. Syversveen and R. P. Waagepetersen, Log Gaussian cox processes, Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 25, 1998, 451-482.
A. J. Baddeley and M. N. M. Van Lieshout, Area-interaction point processes, Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 47, 1995, 601-619.
Y. R. Yue and J. M. Loh, Variable selection for inhomogeneous spatial point process models, Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 43, 2015, 288-305.
U. Hahn, E. B. V. Jensen, M. -C. Van Lieshout and L. S. Nielsen, Inhomogeneous spatial point processes by location-dependent scaling, Advances in Applied Probability, 35(2), 2003, 319-336.
C. Liu, G. Newell and M. White, The effect of sample size on the accuracy of species distribution models: considering both presences and pseudo-absences or background sites, Ecography, 42, 2019, 535-548.
B. Hutton, G. Salanti, A. Chaimani, D. M. Caldwell, C. Schmid, K. Thorlund, E. Mills, F. Catalá-López, L. Turner, D. G. Altman and D. Moher, The quality of reporting methods and results in network meta-analyses: An overview of reviews and suggestions for improvement, PLOS ONE, 9, 2014, e92508.
D. Moher, A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff and D. G. Altman, The PRISMA Group, preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement, PLOS Medicine, 6, 2009, e1000097.
J. Velásquez-Tibatá, C. H. Graham and S. B. Munch, Using measurement error models to account for georeferencing error in species distribution models, Ecography, 39, 2016, 305-316.
N. E. Zimmermann, T. C. Edwards Jr, C. H. Graham, P. B. Pearman and J.-C. Svenning, New trends in species distribution modelling, Ecography, 33, 2010, 985-989.
I. W. Renner, J. Elith, A. Baddeley, W. Fithian, T. Hastie, S. J. Phillips, G. Popovic and D. I. Warton, Point process models for presence-only analysis, Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 6, 2015, 366-379.
A. Guisan, R. Tingley, J. B. Baumgartner, I. Naujokaitis-Lewis, P. R. Sutcliffe, A. I. Tulloch, T. J. Regan, L. Brotons, E. McDonald-Madden and C. Mantyka-Pringle, Predicting species distributions for conservation decisions, Ecology Letters, 16, 2013, 1424-1435.
J. Elith and J. R. Leathwick, Species distribution models: ecological explanation and prediction across space and time, Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, And Systematics, 40, 2009, 677-697.
M. Perera and C. Tsokos, A statistical model with non-linear effects and non-proportional hazards for breast cancer survival analysis, Advances in Breast Cancer Research, 7, 2018, 65.
R. Halvorsen, A gradient analytic perspective on distribution modelling, Sommerfeltia, 35, 2012, 1-165.
T. Hastie and R. Tibshirani, Generalized additive models: some applications, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82, 1987, 371-386.
C. F. Dormann, J. M. McPherson, M. B. Araújo, R. Bivand, J. Bolliger, G. Carl, R. G. Davies, A. Hirzel, W. Jetz and W. Daniel Kissling, Methods to account for spatial autocorrelation in the analysis of species distributional data: A review, Ecography, 30, 2007, 609-628.
M. -J. Fortin, P. Drapeau and P. Legendre, Spatial autocorrelation and sampling design in plant ecology, Vegetatio, 83(1:2), 1990, 209-222.
R. Halvorsen, S. Mazzoni, J. W. Dirksen, E. Næsset, T. Gobakken and M. Ohlson, How important are choice of model selection method and spatial autocorrelation of presence data for distribution modelling by MaxEnt?, Ecological Modelling, 328, 2016, 108-118.
J. Elith, M. Kearney and S. Phillips, The art of modelling range-shifting species, Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 1, 2010, 330-342.
P. De Marco and C. C. Nóbrega, Evaluating collinearity effects on species distribution models: An approach based on virtual species simulation, PLOS ONE, 13, 2018, e0202403.
C. F. Dormann, J. Elith, S. Bacher, C. Buchmann, G. Carl, G. Carré, J. R. G. Marquéz, B. Gruber, B. Lafourcade, P. J. Leitão, T. Münkemüller, C. McClean, P. E. Osborne, B. Reineking, B. Schröder, A. K. Skidmore, D. Zurell and S. Lautenbach, Collinearity: A review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance, Ecography, 36, 2013, 27-46.
C. Merow, M. J. Smith, T. C. Edwards, A. Guisan, S. M. McMahon, S. Normand, W. Thuiller, R. O. Wüest, N. E. Zimmermann and J. Elith, What do we gain from simplicity versus complexity in species distribution models?, Ecography, 37, 2014, 1267-1281.
R. J. Fletcher Jr, T. J. Hefley, E. P. Robertson, B. Zuckerberg, R. A. McCleery and R. M. Dorazio, A practical guide for combining data to model species distributions, Ecology, 100, 2019, e02710.
Y. Fourcade, J. O. Engler, D. Rödder and J. Secondi, Mapping species distributions with MAXENT using a geographically biased sample of presence data: A performance assessment of methods for correcting sampling bias, PLOS ONE, 9, 2014, e97122.
S. J. Phillips, M. Dudík, J. Elith, C. H. Graham, A. Lehmann, J. Leathwick and S. Ferrier, Sample selection bias and presence-only distribution models: implications for background and pseudo-absence data, Ecological Applications, 19, 2009, 181-197.
T. J. Hefley, A. J. Tyre, D. M. Baasch and E. E. Blankenship, Nondetection sampling bias in marked presence-only data, Ecology and Evolution, 3, 2013, 5225-5236.
J. A. Royle, R. B. Chandler, C. Yackulic and J. D. Nichols, Likelihood analysis of species occurrence probability from presence-only data for modelling species distributions, Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 3, 2012, 545-554.
R. M. Dorazio, Predicting the geographic distribution of a species from presence-only data subject to detection errors, Biometrics, 68, 2012, 1303-1312.
L. Bedriñana-Romano, R. Hucke-Gaete, F. A. Viddi, J. Morales, R. Williams, E. Ashe, J. Garcés-Vargas, J. P. Torres-Florez and J. Ruiz, Integrating multiple data sources for assessing blue whale abundance and distribution in Chilean Northern Patagonia, Diversity and Distributions, 24, 2018, 991-1004.
W. Fithian, J. Elith, T. Hastie and D.A. Keith, Bias correction in species distribution models: pooling survey and collection data for multiple species, Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 6, 2015, 424-438.
K. Pacifici, B. J. Reich, D. A. Miller, B. Gardner, G. Stauffer, S. Singh, A. McKerrow and J. A. Collazo, Integrating multiple data sources in species distribution modeling: A framework for data fusion, Ecology, 98, 2017, 840-850.
I. W. Renner, J. Louvrier and O. Gimenez, Combining multiple data sources in species distribution models while accounting for spatial dependence and overfitting with combined penalized likelihood maximization, Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 10, 2019, 2118-2128.
J. P. Rose, B. J. Halstead and R. N. Fisher, Integrating multiple data sources and multi-scale land-cover data to model the distribution of a declining amphibian, Biological Conservation, 241, 2020, 108374.
S. L. Peel, N. A. Hill, S. D. Foster, S. J. Wotherspoon, C. Ghiglione and S. Schiaparelli, Reliable species distributions are obtainable with sparse, patchy and biased data by leveraging over species and data types, Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 10, 2019, 1002-1014.
M.V. Talluto, I. Boulangeat, A. Ameztegui, I. Aubin, D. Berteaux, A. Butler, F. Doyon, C.R. Drever, M.-J. Fortin, T. Franceschini, J. Liénard, D. McKenney, K.A. Solarik, N. Strigul, W. Thuiller and D. Gravel, Cross-scale integration of knowledge for predicting species ranges: A metamodelling framework, Global Ecology and Biogeography, 25, 2016, 238-249.
L. Mair, P. J. Harrison, M. Jönsson, S. Löbel, J. Nordén, J. Siitonen, T. Lämaas, A. Lundström and T. Snäll, Evaluating citizen science data for forecasting species responses to national forest management, Ecology and Evolution, 7, 2017, 368-378.
A. Srivathsa, M. Puri, N. S. Kumar, D. Jathanna and K. U. Karanth, Substituting space for time: Empirical evaluation of spatial replication as a surrogate for temporal replication in occupancy modelling, Journal of Applied Ecology, 55, 2018, 754-765.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:Authors hold and retain copyright, and grant the journal right of first publication, with the work after publication simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License CC BY that permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work and article without further permission provided that the original work is properly cited.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online in institutional repositories, website and other social media before and after publication, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
