IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecomod/v469y2022ics0304380022000898.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Discrepancies between point process models and environmental envelopes identify the niche centroid – geography configuration

Author

Listed:
  • Martín, Gerardo
  • Yáñez-Arenas, Carlos
  • Chiappa-Carrara, Xavier

Abstract

Contrasting outcomes of statistical modelling methods for the same data may represent critical pieces of information about the biological process. Ecological niche and species distribution modelling are notorious for their keenness on algorithm testing although differences between method outcomes are seldom used to gain biological insight. Here we use the differences and similarities between point process models (PPMs) and minimum volume ellipsoids (MVEs) to help identify the configuration of species’ climatic niches in relation to geographic space and species’ interactions. Poisson PPMs represent the abundance of points in an euclidean plane as a function of spatially defined covariates, while MVEs are used to estimate the (niche) centroid and represent similarity with its centroid via Mahalanobis distance. The niche centroid is receiving increasing attention due to its simplicity and ability to capture complex demographic processes such as species’ abundance. MVEs’ simplicity makes them sensitive to deviations from symmetry in the statistical distribution of environmental axes, or the lack of a defined centroid in geographic space. Using synthetic and real species we test the ability of PPMs and MVEs to characterise niche centroids in relation to each other and to the statistical properties of the environment. We also study a scenario in which non-linear responses and biological interactions define a species’ fundamental niche and realised distribution respectively. MVEs were less precise but estimated useful centroids more frequently than PPMs. When centroids clearly existed in geographic and environmental spaces, PPMs’ estimated centroids that were closer to the truth. MVEs’ ability to estimate a similarity surface, unlike PPMs, depends on the correct estimation of the centroid. We suggest then that contrasting similarity surfaces estimated by both methods indicate the absence of the centroid in geographic space.

Suggested Citation

  • Martín, Gerardo & Yáñez-Arenas, Carlos & Chiappa-Carrara, Xavier, 2022. "Discrepancies between point process models and environmental envelopes identify the niche centroid – geography configuration," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 469(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:469:y:2022:i:c:s0304380022000898
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2022.109974
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380022000898
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2022.109974?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. González-Salazar, Constantino & Stephens, Christopher R. & Marquet, Pablo A., 2013. "Comparing the relative contributions of biotic and abiotic factors as mediators of species’ distributions," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 248(C), pages 57-70.
    2. Ian W. Renner & David I. Warton, 2013. "Equivalence of MAXENT and Poisson Point Process Models for Species Distribution Modeling in Ecology," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 69(1), pages 274-281, March.
    3. David I Warton & Ian W Renner & Daniel Ramp, 2013. "Model-Based Control of Observer Bias for the Analysis of Presence-Only Data in Ecology," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-9, November.
    4. Baddeley, Adrian & Turner, Rolf, 2005. "spatstat: An R Package for Analyzing Spatial Point Patterns," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 12(i06).
    5. Peterson, A. Townsend & Papeş, Monica & Soberón, Jorge, 2008. "Rethinking receiver operating characteristic analysis applications in ecological niche modeling," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 213(1), pages 63-72.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Leandro, Camila & Jay-Robert, Pierre & Mériguet, Bruno & Houard, Xavier & Renner, Ian W., 2020. "Is my sdm good enough? insights from a citizen science dataset in a point process modeling framework," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 438(C).
    2. Wiltshire, Kathryn H & Tanner, Jason E, 2020. "Comparing maximum entropy modelling methods to inform aquaculture site selection for novel seaweed species," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 429(C).
    3. Abdollah Jalilian, 2017. "Modelling and classification of species abundance: a case study in the Barro Colorado Island plot," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(13), pages 2401-2409, October.
    4. Christophe Botella & Alexis Joly & Pascal Monestiez & Pierre Bonnet & François Munoz, 2020. "Bias in presence-only niche models related to sampling effort and species niches: Lessons for background point selection," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-18, May.
    5. Lucas Kruger, 2018. "Population Estimates of Trindade Petrel (Pterodroma arminjoniana) by Ensemble Nesting Habitat Modelling," International Journal of Environmental Sciences & Natural Resources, Juniper Publishers Inc., vol. 10(4), pages 145-157, April.
    6. Arii, Ken & Caspersen, John P. & Jones, Trevor A. & Thomas, Sean C., 2008. "A selection harvesting algorithm for use in spatially explicit individual-based forest simulation models," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 211(3), pages 251-266.
    7. Václavík, Tomáš & Meentemeyer, Ross K., 2009. "Invasive species distribution modeling (iSDM): Are absence data and dispersal constraints needed to predict actual distributions?," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 220(23), pages 3248-3258.
    8. Wongsathit Wongloet & Prach Kongthong & Aingorn Chaiyes & Worapong Singchat & Warong Suksavate & Nattakan Ariyaraphong & Thitipong Panthum & Artem Lisachov & Kitipong Jaisamut & Jumaporn Sonongbua & T, 2023. "Genetic Monitoring of the Last Captive Population of Greater Mouse-Deer on the Thai Mainland and Prediction of Habitat Suitability before Reintroduction," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-22, February.
    9. Jiao Jieying & Hu Guanyu & Yan Jun, 2021. "A Bayesian marked spatial point processes model for basketball shot chart," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 17(2), pages 77-90, June.
    10. Inês Silva & Matthew Crane & Pongthep Suwanwaree & Colin Strine & Matt Goode, 2018. "Using dynamic Brownian Bridge Movement Models to identify home range size and movement patterns in king cobras," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-20, September.
    11. Frank Davenport, 2017. "Estimating standard errors in spatial panel models with time varying spatial correlation," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 96, pages 155-177, March.
    12. Wei Yang & Yuanxu Ma & Linhai Jing & Siyuan Wang & Zhongchang Sun & Yunwei Tang & Hui Li, 2022. "Differential Impacts of Climatic and Land Use Changes on Habitat Suitability and Protected Area Adequacy across the Asian Elephant’s Range," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-22, April.
    13. Haoxiang Zhao & Shanqing Yi & Yu Zhang & Nianwan Yang & Jianyang Guo & Hongmei Li & Xiaoqing Xian & Wanxue Liu, 2024. "Estimating the Optimal Control Areas of Two Classical Biocontrol Agents Against the Fall Armyworm Based on Hotspot Matching Analysis," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-14, December.
    14. Ramos, Rodrigo Soares & Kumar, Lalit & Shabani, Farzin & Picanço, Marcelo Coutinho, 2019. "Risk of spread of tomato yellow leaf curl virus (TYLCV) in tomato crops under various climate change scenarios," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 524-535.
    15. Liu, Canran & White, Matt & Newell, Graeme & Griffioen, Peter, 2013. "Species distribution modelling for conservation planning in Victoria, Australia," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 249(C), pages 68-74.
    16. Guangshun Bai & Xuemei Yang & Guangxin Bai & Zhigang Kong & Jieyong Zhu & Shitao Zhang, 2024. "Examining the Controls on the Spatial Distribution of Landslides Triggered by the 2008 Wenchuan Ms 8.0 Earthquake, China, Using Methods of Spatial Point Pattern Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-24, August.
    17. Vijay Rajagopal & Gregory Bass & Cameron G Walker & David J Crossman & Amorita Petzer & Anthony Hickey & Ivo Siekmann & Masahiko Hoshijima & Mark H Ellisman & Edmund J Crampin & Christian Soeller, 2015. "Examination of the Effects of Heterogeneous Organization of RyR Clusters, Myofibrils and Mitochondria on Ca2+ Release Patterns in Cardiomyocytes," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-31, September.
    18. Steen, Bart & Broennimann, Olivier & Maiorano, Luigi & Guisan, Antoine, 2024. "How sensitive are species distribution models to different background point selection strategies? A test with species at various equilibrium levels," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 493(C).
    19. Christoph Lambio & Tillman Schmitz & Richard Elson & Jeffrey Butler & Alexandra Roth & Silke Feller & Nicolai Savaskan & Tobia Lakes, 2023. "Exploring the Spatial Relative Risk of COVID-19 in Berlin-Neukölln," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(10), pages 1-22, May.
    20. Liao, Jinbao & Li, Zhenqing & Quets, Jan J. & Nijs, Ivan, 2013. "Effects of space partitioning in a plant species diversity model," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 251(C), pages 271-278.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:469:y:2022:i:c:s0304380022000898. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecological-modelling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.