Mapping species distributions with MAXENT using a geographically biased sample of presence data: a performance assessment of methods for correcting sampling bias
MAXENT is now a common species distribution modeling (SDM) tool used by conservation practitioners for predicting the distribution of a species from a set of records and environmental predictors. However, datasets of species occurrence used to train the model are often biased in the geographical spa...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2014-05, Vol.9 (5), p.e97122-e97122 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | e97122 |
---|---|
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | e97122 |
container_title | PloS one |
container_volume | 9 |
creator | Fourcade, Yoan Engler, Jan O Rödder, Dennis Secondi, Jean |
description | MAXENT is now a common species distribution modeling (SDM) tool used by conservation practitioners for predicting the distribution of a species from a set of records and environmental predictors. However, datasets of species occurrence used to train the model are often biased in the geographical space because of unequal sampling effort across the study area. This bias may be a source of strong inaccuracy in the resulting model and could lead to incorrect predictions. Although a number of sampling bias correction methods have been proposed, there is no consensual guideline to account for it. We compared here the performance of five methods of bias correction on three datasets of species occurrence: one "virtual" derived from a land cover map, and two actual datasets for a turtle (Chrysemys picta) and a salamander (Plethodon cylindraceus). We subjected these datasets to four types of sampling biases corresponding to potential types of empirical biases. We applied five correction methods to the biased samples and compared the outputs of distribution models to unbiased datasets to assess the overall correction performance of each method. The results revealed that the ability of methods to correct the initial sampling bias varied greatly depending on bias type, bias intensity and species. However, the simple systematic sampling of records consistently ranked among the best performing across the range of conditions tested, whereas other methods performed more poorly in most cases. The strong effect of initial conditions on correction performance highlights the need for further research to develop a step-by-step guideline to account for sampling bias. However, this method seems to be the most efficient in correcting sampling bias and should be advised in most cases. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0097122 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_1523871445</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A418552833</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_91bb1374b9de42a59b3c0cec141b3ed4</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A418552833</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c726t-8321a639abdfb2399a68fdd8cc1aed6a7c02d213bf2f2e86908f660e8c91f903</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk9tu1DAQhiMEoqXwBggiISF6sYsPOThcIK2qQiu1VIIKcWdN7EniKolTOyn0cXhTnO626la9QL6wNf7-356xJ4peU7KkPKcfL-zkemiXg-1xSUiRU8aeRLu04GyRMcKf3lvvRC-8vyAk5SLLnkc7LBFUZCTfjf6ewjCYvo79gMqgj7XxozPlNBrb-_i3GZv4dPXr8Nt5PPmZg7hGWzsYGqOgba_j0oBHHXvohhZjW8WDQ4-9wljDCJ-CYEBXWdfBHAPv0fsO-3FGOxwbq30ctmNlnUM13txl9poXs_fL6FkFrcdXm3kvOv9yeH5wtDg5-3p8sDpZqJxl40JwRiHjBZS6KhkvCshEpbVQigLqDHJFmGaUlxWrGIqsIKLKMoJCFbQqCN-L3q5th9Z6uSmulzRlXOQ0SdJAHK8JbeFCDs504K6lBSNvAtbVEtxoVIuyoGUZHikpC40Jg7QouSIKFU1oyVEnwevz5rSp7FCrUA8H7Zbp9k5vGlnbK5kQKlhGg8H-2qB5IDtancg5RrhgjOf51cx-2Bzm7OWEfpSd8QrbFnq0002OCU9Yms05vnuAPl6JDVVDSNb0lQ13VLOpXCVUpCkTnAdq-QgVhsbOqPBrKxPiW4L9LUFgRvwz1jB5L49_fP9_9uznNvv-HtsgtGPjbbv-4ttgsgaVs947rO4qS4mcm-62GnJuOrlpuiB7c_8x70S3Xcb_AVbGKXo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1523871445</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Mapping species distributions with MAXENT using a geographically biased sample of presence data: a performance assessment of methods for correcting sampling bias</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Fourcade, Yoan ; Engler, Jan O ; Rödder, Dennis ; Secondi, Jean</creator><contributor>Valentine, John F.</contributor><creatorcontrib>Fourcade, Yoan ; Engler, Jan O ; Rödder, Dennis ; Secondi, Jean ; Valentine, John F.</creatorcontrib><description>MAXENT is now a common species distribution modeling (SDM) tool used by conservation practitioners for predicting the distribution of a species from a set of records and environmental predictors. However, datasets of species occurrence used to train the model are often biased in the geographical space because of unequal sampling effort across the study area. This bias may be a source of strong inaccuracy in the resulting model and could lead to incorrect predictions. Although a number of sampling bias correction methods have been proposed, there is no consensual guideline to account for it. We compared here the performance of five methods of bias correction on three datasets of species occurrence: one "virtual" derived from a land cover map, and two actual datasets for a turtle (Chrysemys picta) and a salamander (Plethodon cylindraceus). We subjected these datasets to four types of sampling biases corresponding to potential types of empirical biases. We applied five correction methods to the biased samples and compared the outputs of distribution models to unbiased datasets to assess the overall correction performance of each method. The results revealed that the ability of methods to correct the initial sampling bias varied greatly depending on bias type, bias intensity and species. However, the simple systematic sampling of records consistently ranked among the best performing across the range of conditions tested, whereas other methods performed more poorly in most cases. The strong effect of initial conditions on correction performance highlights the need for further research to develop a step-by-step guideline to account for sampling bias. However, this method seems to be the most efficient in correcting sampling bias and should be advised in most cases.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0097122</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24818607</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Amphibians ; Animal behavior ; Animals ; Bias ; Biodiversity ; Biodiversity and Ecology ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Climate change ; Comparative analysis ; Conservation ; Conservation of Natural Resources ; Datasets ; Ecology ; Ecology and Environmental Sciences ; Endangered & extinct species ; Environmental Sciences ; Estrilda astrild ; Generalized linear models ; Geography ; Initial conditions ; Land cover ; Land use ; Methods ; Models, Statistical ; Museums ; Performance assessment ; Predictions ; Sampling ; Sampling methods ; Species ; Statistics as Topic - methods ; Studies ; Turtles ; Urodela ; Wildlife conservation</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2014-05, Vol.9 (5), p.e97122-e97122</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2014 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2014 Fourcade et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License</rights><rights>2014 Fourcade et al 2014 Fourcade et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c726t-8321a639abdfb2399a68fdd8cc1aed6a7c02d213bf2f2e86908f660e8c91f903</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c726t-8321a639abdfb2399a68fdd8cc1aed6a7c02d213bf2f2e86908f660e8c91f903</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-8130-1195 ; 0000-0003-3820-946X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4018261/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4018261/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,2095,2914,23846,27903,27904,53769,53771,79346,79347</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24818607$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://hal.u-pec.fr/hal-03822377$$DView record in HAL$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Valentine, John F.</contributor><creatorcontrib>Fourcade, Yoan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Engler, Jan O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rödder, Dennis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Secondi, Jean</creatorcontrib><title>Mapping species distributions with MAXENT using a geographically biased sample of presence data: a performance assessment of methods for correcting sampling bias</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>MAXENT is now a common species distribution modeling (SDM) tool used by conservation practitioners for predicting the distribution of a species from a set of records and environmental predictors. However, datasets of species occurrence used to train the model are often biased in the geographical space because of unequal sampling effort across the study area. This bias may be a source of strong inaccuracy in the resulting model and could lead to incorrect predictions. Although a number of sampling bias correction methods have been proposed, there is no consensual guideline to account for it. We compared here the performance of five methods of bias correction on three datasets of species occurrence: one "virtual" derived from a land cover map, and two actual datasets for a turtle (Chrysemys picta) and a salamander (Plethodon cylindraceus). We subjected these datasets to four types of sampling biases corresponding to potential types of empirical biases. We applied five correction methods to the biased samples and compared the outputs of distribution models to unbiased datasets to assess the overall correction performance of each method. The results revealed that the ability of methods to correct the initial sampling bias varied greatly depending on bias type, bias intensity and species. However, the simple systematic sampling of records consistently ranked among the best performing across the range of conditions tested, whereas other methods performed more poorly in most cases. The strong effect of initial conditions on correction performance highlights the need for further research to develop a step-by-step guideline to account for sampling bias. However, this method seems to be the most efficient in correcting sampling bias and should be advised in most cases.</description><subject>Amphibians</subject><subject>Animal behavior</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Biodiversity</subject><subject>Biodiversity and Ecology</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Climate change</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Conservation</subject><subject>Conservation of Natural Resources</subject><subject>Datasets</subject><subject>Ecology</subject><subject>Ecology and Environmental Sciences</subject><subject>Endangered & extinct species</subject><subject>Environmental Sciences</subject><subject>Estrilda astrild</subject><subject>Generalized linear models</subject><subject>Geography</subject><subject>Initial conditions</subject><subject>Land cover</subject><subject>Land use</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Models, Statistical</subject><subject>Museums</subject><subject>Performance assessment</subject><subject>Predictions</subject><subject>Sampling</subject><subject>Sampling methods</subject><subject>Species</subject><subject>Statistics as Topic - methods</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Turtles</subject><subject>Urodela</subject><subject>Wildlife conservation</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk9tu1DAQhiMEoqXwBggiISF6sYsPOThcIK2qQiu1VIIKcWdN7EniKolTOyn0cXhTnO626la9QL6wNf7-356xJ4peU7KkPKcfL-zkemiXg-1xSUiRU8aeRLu04GyRMcKf3lvvRC-8vyAk5SLLnkc7LBFUZCTfjf6ewjCYvo79gMqgj7XxozPlNBrb-_i3GZv4dPXr8Nt5PPmZg7hGWzsYGqOgba_j0oBHHXvohhZjW8WDQ4-9wljDCJ-CYEBXWdfBHAPv0fsO-3FGOxwbq30ctmNlnUM13txl9poXs_fL6FkFrcdXm3kvOv9yeH5wtDg5-3p8sDpZqJxl40JwRiHjBZS6KhkvCshEpbVQigLqDHJFmGaUlxWrGIqsIKLKMoJCFbQqCN-L3q5th9Z6uSmulzRlXOQ0SdJAHK8JbeFCDs504K6lBSNvAtbVEtxoVIuyoGUZHikpC40Jg7QouSIKFU1oyVEnwevz5rSp7FCrUA8H7Zbp9k5vGlnbK5kQKlhGg8H-2qB5IDtancg5RrhgjOf51cx-2Bzm7OWEfpSd8QrbFnq0002OCU9Yms05vnuAPl6JDVVDSNb0lQ13VLOpXCVUpCkTnAdq-QgVhsbOqPBrKxPiW4L9LUFgRvwz1jB5L49_fP9_9uznNvv-HtsgtGPjbbv-4ttgsgaVs947rO4qS4mcm-62GnJuOrlpuiB7c_8x70S3Xcb_AVbGKXo</recordid><startdate>20140512</startdate><enddate>20140512</enddate><creator>Fourcade, Yoan</creator><creator>Engler, Jan O</creator><creator>Rödder, Dennis</creator><creator>Secondi, Jean</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>1XC</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8130-1195</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3820-946X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20140512</creationdate><title>Mapping species distributions with MAXENT using a geographically biased sample of presence data: a performance assessment of methods for correcting sampling bias</title><author>Fourcade, Yoan ; Engler, Jan O ; Rödder, Dennis ; Secondi, Jean</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c726t-8321a639abdfb2399a68fdd8cc1aed6a7c02d213bf2f2e86908f660e8c91f903</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Amphibians</topic><topic>Animal behavior</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Biodiversity</topic><topic>Biodiversity and Ecology</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Climate change</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Conservation</topic><topic>Conservation of Natural Resources</topic><topic>Datasets</topic><topic>Ecology</topic><topic>Ecology and Environmental Sciences</topic><topic>Endangered & extinct species</topic><topic>Environmental Sciences</topic><topic>Estrilda astrild</topic><topic>Generalized linear models</topic><topic>Geography</topic><topic>Initial conditions</topic><topic>Land cover</topic><topic>Land use</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Models, Statistical</topic><topic>Museums</topic><topic>Performance assessment</topic><topic>Predictions</topic><topic>Sampling</topic><topic>Sampling methods</topic><topic>Species</topic><topic>Statistics as Topic - methods</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Turtles</topic><topic>Urodela</topic><topic>Wildlife conservation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Fourcade, Yoan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Engler, Jan O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rödder, Dennis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Secondi, Jean</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL)</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Fourcade, Yoan</au><au>Engler, Jan O</au><au>Rödder, Dennis</au><au>Secondi, Jean</au><au>Valentine, John F.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Mapping species distributions with MAXENT using a geographically biased sample of presence data: a performance assessment of methods for correcting sampling bias</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2014-05-12</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>9</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>e97122</spage><epage>e97122</epage><pages>e97122-e97122</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>MAXENT is now a common species distribution modeling (SDM) tool used by conservation practitioners for predicting the distribution of a species from a set of records and environmental predictors. However, datasets of species occurrence used to train the model are often biased in the geographical space because of unequal sampling effort across the study area. This bias may be a source of strong inaccuracy in the resulting model and could lead to incorrect predictions. Although a number of sampling bias correction methods have been proposed, there is no consensual guideline to account for it. We compared here the performance of five methods of bias correction on three datasets of species occurrence: one "virtual" derived from a land cover map, and two actual datasets for a turtle (Chrysemys picta) and a salamander (Plethodon cylindraceus). We subjected these datasets to four types of sampling biases corresponding to potential types of empirical biases. We applied five correction methods to the biased samples and compared the outputs of distribution models to unbiased datasets to assess the overall correction performance of each method. The results revealed that the ability of methods to correct the initial sampling bias varied greatly depending on bias type, bias intensity and species. However, the simple systematic sampling of records consistently ranked among the best performing across the range of conditions tested, whereas other methods performed more poorly in most cases. The strong effect of initial conditions on correction performance highlights the need for further research to develop a step-by-step guideline to account for sampling bias. However, this method seems to be the most efficient in correcting sampling bias and should be advised in most cases.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>24818607</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0097122</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8130-1195</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3820-946X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
ispartof | PloS one, 2014-05, Vol.9 (5), p.e97122-e97122 |
issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_plos_journals_1523871445 |
source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
subjects | Amphibians Animal behavior Animals Bias Biodiversity Biodiversity and Ecology Biology and Life Sciences Climate change Comparative analysis Conservation Conservation of Natural Resources Datasets Ecology Ecology and Environmental Sciences Endangered & extinct species Environmental Sciences Estrilda astrild Generalized linear models Geography Initial conditions Land cover Land use Methods Models, Statistical Museums Performance assessment Predictions Sampling Sampling methods Species Statistics as Topic - methods Studies Turtles Urodela Wildlife conservation |
title | Mapping species distributions with MAXENT using a geographically biased sample of presence data: a performance assessment of methods for correcting sampling bias |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-26T16%3A30%3A31IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Mapping%20species%20distributions%20with%20MAXENT%20using%20a%20geographically%20biased%20sample%20of%20presence%20data:%20a%20performance%20assessment%20of%20methods%20for%20correcting%20sampling%20bias&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Fourcade,%20Yoan&rft.date=2014-05-12&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=e97122&rft.epage=e97122&rft.pages=e97122-e97122&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0097122&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA418552833%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1523871445&rft_id=info:pmid/24818607&rft_galeid=A418552833&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_91bb1374b9de42a59b3c0cec141b3ed4&rfr_iscdi=true |