Geology topics

Carolina Speroterra

Publications and source records attributed to Carolina Speroterra.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2017

Comparison of climate envelope models developed using expert-selected variables versus statistical selection

Climate envelope models are widely used to describe potential future distribution of species under different climate change scenarios. It is broadly recognized that there are both strengths and limitations to using climate envelope models and that outcomes are sensitive to initial assumptions, inputs, and modeling methods Selection of predictor variables, a central step in modeling, is one of the areas where different techniques can yield varying results. Selection of climate variables to use as predictors is often done using statistical approaches that develop correlations between occurrences and climate data. These approaches have received criticism in that they rely on the statistical properties of the data rather than directly incorporating biological information about species responses to temperature and precipitation. We evaluated and compared models and prediction maps for 15 threatened or endangered species in Florida based on two variable selection techniques: expert opinion and a statistical method. We compared model performance between these two approaches for contemporary predictions, and the spatial correlation, spatial overlap and area predicted for contemporary and future climate predictions. In general, experts identified more variables as being important than the statistical method and there was low overlap in the variable sets (<40%) between the two methods Despite these differences in variable sets (expert versus statistical), models had high performance metrics (>0.9 for area under the curve (AUC) and >0.7 for true skill statistic (TSS). Spatial overlap, which compares the spatial configuration between maps constructed using the different variable selection techniques, was only moderate overall (about 60%), with a great deal of variability across species. Difference in spatial overlap was even greater under future climate projections, indicating additional divergence of model outputs from different variable selection techniques. Our work is in agreement with other studies which have found that for broad-scale species distribution modeling, using statistical methods of variable selection is a useful first step, especially when there is a need to model a large number of species or expert knowledge of the species is limited. Expert input can then be used to refine models that seem unrealistic or for species that experts believe are particularly sensitive to change. It also emphasizes the importance of using multiple models to reduce uncertainty and improve map outputs for conservation planning. Where outputs overlap or show the same direction of change there is greater certainty in the predictions. Areas of disagreement can be used for learning by asking why the models do not agree, and may highlight areas where additional on-the-ground data collection could improve the models.

Ecological Modelling↗

USGS2015

Performance metrics and variance partitioning reveal sources of uncertainty in species distribution models

Species distribution models (SDMs) are widely used in basic and applied ecology, making it important to understand sources and magnitudes of uncertainty in SDM performance and predictions. We analyzed SDM performance and partitioned variance among prediction maps for 15 rare vertebrate species in the southeastern USA using all possible combinations of seven potential sources of uncertainty in SDMs: algorithms, climate datasets, model domain, species presences, variable collinearity, CO 2 emissions scenarios, and general circulation models. The choice of modeling algorithm was the greatest source of uncertainty in SDM performance and prediction maps, with some additional variation in performance associated with the comprehensiveness of the species presences used for modeling. Other sources of uncertainty that have received attention in the SDM literature such as variable collinearity and model domain contributed little to differences in SDM performance or predictions in this study. Predictions from different algorithms tended to be more variable at northern range margins for species with more northern distributions, which may complicate conservation planning at the leading edge of species' geographic ranges. The clear message emerging from this work is that researchers should use multiple algorithms for modeling rather than relying on predictions from a single algorithm, invest resources in compiling a comprehensive set of species presences, and explicitly evaluate uncertainty in SDM predictions at leading range margins.

Ecological Modelling↗

USGS2014

Comparing species distribution models constructed with different subsets of environmental predictors

Aim To assess the usefulness of combining climate predictors with additional types of environmental predictors in species distribution models for range-restricted species, using common correlative species distribution modelling approaches. Location Florida, USA Methods We used five different algorithms to create distribution models for 14 vertebrate species, using seven different predictor sets: two with bioclimate predictors only, and five ‘combination’ models using bioclimate predictors plus ‘additional’ predictors from groups representing: human influence, land cover, extreme weather or noise (spatially random data).We use a linear mixed-model approach to analyse the effects of predictor set and algorithm on model accuracy, variable importance scores and spatial predictions. Results Regardless of modelling algorithm, no one predictor set produced significantly more accurate models than all others, though models including human influence predictors were the only ones with significantly higher accuracy than climate-only models. Climate predictors had consistently higher variable importance scores than additional predictors in combination models, though there was variation related to predictor type and algorithm. While spatial predictions varied moderately between predictor sets, discrepancies were significantly greater between modelling algorithms than between predictor sets. Furthermore, there were no differences in the level of agreement between binary ‘presence–absence’ maps and independent species range maps related to the predictor set used. Main conclusions Our results indicate that additional predictors have relatively minor effects on the accuracy of climate-based species distribution models and minor to moderate effects on spatial predictions. We suggest that implementing species distribution models with only climate predictors may provide an effective and efficient approach for initial assessments of environmental suitability.

Florida↗

USGS2014

Assessing effects of variation in global climate data sets on spatial predictions from climate envelope models

Climate change poses new challenges for natural resource managers. Predictive modeling of species–environment relationships using climate envelope models can enhance our understanding of climate change effects on biodiversity, assist in assessment of invasion risk by exotic organisms, and inform life-history understanding of individual species. While increasing interest has focused on the role of uncertainty in future conditions on model predictions, models also may be sensitive to the initial conditions on which they are trained. Although climate envelope models are usually trained using data on contemporary climate, we lack systematic comparisons of model performance and predictions across alternative climate data sets available for model training. Here, we seek to fill that gap by comparing variability in predictions between two contemporary climate data sets to variability in spatial predictions among three alternative projections of future climate. Overall, correlations between monthly temperature and precipitation variables were very high for both contemporary and future data. Model performance varied across algorithms, but not between two alternative contemporary climate data sets. Spatial predictions varied more among alternative general-circulation models describing future climate conditions than between contemporary climate data sets. However, we did find that climate envelope models with low Cohen's kappa scores made more discrepant spatial predictions between climate data sets for the contemporary period than did models with high Cohen's kappa scores. We suggest conservation planners evaluate multiple performance metrics and be aware of the importance of differences in initial conditions for spatial predictions from climate envelope models.

Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management↗

USGS2012

Climate downscaling effects on predictive ecological models: a case study for threatened and endangered vertebrates in the southeastern United States

High-resolution (downscaled) projections of future climate conditions are critical inputs to a wide variety of ecological and socioeconomic models and are created using numerous different approaches. Here, we conduct a sensitivity analysis of spatial predictions from climate envelope models for threatened and endangered vertebrates in the southeastern United States to determine whether two different downscaling approaches (with and without the use of a regional climate model) affect climate envelope model predictions when all other sources of variation are held constant. We found that prediction maps differed spatially between downscaling approaches and that the variation attributable to downscaling technique was comparable to variation between maps generated using different general circulation models (GCMs). Precipitation variables tended to show greater discrepancies between downscaling techniques than temperature variables, and for one GCM, there was evidence that more poorly resolved precipitation variables contributed relatively more to model uncertainty than more well-resolved variables. Our work suggests that ecological modelers requiring high-resolution climate projections should carefully consider the type of downscaling applied to the climate projections prior to their use in predictive ecological modeling. The uncertainty associated with alternative downscaling methods may rival that of other, more widely appreciated sources of variation, such as the general circulation model or emissions scenario with which future climate projections are created.

Alabama;Florida;Georgia;Mississippi;South Carolina↗

USGS2012

Do bioclimate variables improve performance of climate envelope models?

Climate envelope models are widely used to forecast potential effects of climate change on species distributions. A key issue in climate envelope modeling is the selection of predictor variables that most directly influence species. To determine whether model performance and spatial predictions were related to the selection of predictor variables, we compared models using bioclimate variables with models constructed from monthly climate data for twelve terrestrial vertebrate species in the southeastern USA using two different algorithms (random forests or generalized linear models), and two model selection techniques (using uncorrelated predictors or a subset of user-defined biologically relevant predictor variables). There were no differences in performance between models created with bioclimate or monthly variables, but one metric of model performance was significantly greater using the random forest algorithm compared with generalized linear models. Spatial predictions between maps using bioclimate and monthly variables were very consistent using the random forest algorithm with uncorrelated predictors, whereas we observed greater variability in predictions using generalized linear models.

Ecological Modelling↗