DSpace Repository

What do we gain from simplicity versus complexity in species distribution models?

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Merow, Cory en
dc.contributor.author Smith, Mathew J. en
dc.contributor.author Edwards, Thomas C. en
dc.contributor.author Guisan, Antoine en
dc.contributor.author McMahon, Sean M. en
dc.contributor.author Normand, Signe en
dc.contributor.author Thuiller, Wilfried en
dc.contributor.author Wüest, Rafael O. en
dc.contributor.author Zimmermann, Niklaus E. en
dc.contributor.author Elith, Jane en
dc.date.accessioned 2015-04-20T15:15:38Z
dc.date.available 2015-04-20T15:15:38Z
dc.date.issued 2014
dc.identifier.citation Merow, Cory, Smith, Mathew J., Edwards, Thomas C., Guisan, Antoine, McMahon, Sean M., Normand, Signe, Thuiller, Wilfried, Wüest, Rafael O., Zimmermann, Niklaus E., and Elith, Jane. 2014. "What do we gain from simplicity versus complexity in species distribution models?." <em>Ecography</em>. 37 (12):1267&ndash;1281. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.00845">https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.00845</a> en
dc.identifier.issn 0906-7590
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10088/25410
dc.description.abstract Species distribution models (SDMs) are widely used to explain and predict species ranges and environmental niches. They are most commonly constructed by inferring species&#39; occurrence environment relationships using statistical and machine-learning methods. The variety of methods that can be used to construct SDMs (e.g. generalized linear/additive models, tree-based models, maximum entropy, etc.), and the variety of ways that such models can be implemented, permits substantial flexibility in SDM complexity. Building models with an appropriate amount of complexity for the study objectives is critical for robust inference. We characterize complexity as the shape of the inferred occurrence environment relationships and the number of parameters used to describe them, and search for insights into whether additional complexity is informative or superfluous. By building under fit models, having insufficient flexibility to describe observed occurrence environment relationships, we risk misunderstanding the factors shaping species distributions. By building over fit models, with excessive flexibility, we risk inadvertently ascribing pattern to noise or building opaque models. However, model selection can be challenging, especially when comparing models constructed under different modeling approaches. Here we argue for a more pragmatic approach: researchers should constrain the complexity of their models based on study objective, attributes of the data, and an understanding of how these interact with the underlying biological processes. We discuss guidelines for balancing under fitting with over fitting and consequently how complexity affects decisions made during model building. Although some generalities are possible, our discussion reflects differences in opinions that favor simpler versus more complex models. We conclude that combining insights from both simple and complex SDM building approaches best advances our knowledge of current and future species ranges. en
dc.relation.ispartof Ecography en
dc.title What do we gain from simplicity versus complexity in species distribution models? en
dc.type Journal Article en
dc.identifier.srbnumber 127968
dc.identifier.doi 10.1111/ecog.00845
rft.jtitle Ecography
rft.volume 37
rft.issue 12
rft.spage 1267
rft.epage 1281
dc.description.SIUnit SERC en
dc.description.SIUnit Peer-reviewed en
dc.citation.spage 1267
dc.citation.epage 1281


Files in this item

Files Size Format View

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search DSpace


Browse

My Account