IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecomod/v499y2025ics0304380024002977.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing commonly used aquatic habitat modeling methods for native fish

Author

Listed:
  • Turney, Eryn K.
  • Goodrum, Gregory C.
  • Saunders, W. Carl
  • Walsworth, Timothy E.
  • Null, Sarah E.

Abstract

Aquatic habitat suitability models are increasingly coupled with water management models to estimate environmental effects of water management. Many types of habitat models exist, but there are no standard methods to compare predictive performance of habitat model types for use with water management models. In this study, we compared three common aquatic habitat model types: a hydraulic-habitat model, a habitat threshold model, and a geospatial model. Each of the models predicted native Bonneville Cutthroat Trout distribution in the Bear River Watershed (Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming, USA) at a monthly timestep. We compared the differences in predictive performance among models by validating 1) environmental predictors of the models with field observations from summer 2022, using the coefficient of determination (R²), Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) index, and percent bias (PBIAS) and 2) habitat suitability estimates generated by each model with fish presence data and three accuracy metrics developed for this study. Validation of environmental predictors revealed observed conditions were not well represented by any of the three models—a function of either outdated, incorrect, or over-generalized input data. Validation of habitat suitability predictions using Bonneville Cutthroat Trout presence data showed the habitat threshold model most accurately classified fish presence observations in suitable habitat, but suitable habitat was likely overpredicted. While more precise habitat modeling methods may be useful to support generalized habitat estimates for native fish, overall, simple models, like the habitat threshold model, are promising for incorporating ecological objectives into water management models.

Suggested Citation

  • Turney, Eryn K. & Goodrum, Gregory C. & Saunders, W. Carl & Walsworth, Timothy E. & Null, Sarah E., 2025. "Comparing commonly used aquatic habitat modeling methods for native fish," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 499(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:499:y:2025:i:c:s0304380024002977
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2024.110909
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380024002977
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2024.110909?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. Yi, Yujun & Cheng, Xi & Yang, Zhifeng & Wieprecht, Silke & Zhang, Shanghong & Wu, Yingjie, 2017. "Evaluating the ecological influence of hydraulic projects: A review of aquatic habitat suitability models," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 68(P1), pages 748-762.
    2. Gill Ward & Trevor Hastie & Simon Barry & Jane Elith & John R. Leathwick, 2009. "Presence-Only Data and the EM Algorithm," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 65(2), pages 554-563, June.
    3. Sarah E. Null & Harrison Zeff & Jeffrey Mount & Brian Gray & Anna M. Sturrock & Gokce Sencan & Kristen Dybala & Barton Thompson, 2024. "Storing and managing water for the environment is more efficient than mimicking natural flows," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-13, December.
    4. Somodi, Imelda & Bede-Fazekas, Ákos & Botta-Dukát, Zoltán & Molnár, Zsolt, 2024. "Confidence and consistency in discrimination: A new family of evaluation metrics for potential distribution models," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 491(C).
    5. Bellido-Leiva, F.J. & Lusardi, Robert A. & Lund, Jay R., 2021. "Modeling the effect of habitat availability and quality on endangered winter-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) production in the Sacramento Valley," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 447(C).
    6. Benkendorf, Donald J. & Schwartz, Samuel D. & Cutler, D. Richard & Hawkins, Charles P., 2023. "Correcting for the effects of class imbalance improves the performance of machine-learning based species distribution models," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 483(C).
    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. Masahiro Kato & Shota Yasui, 2020. "Learning Classifiers under Delayed Feedback with a Time Window Assumption," Papers 2009.13092, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2022.
    2. Schwemmer, Philipp & Güpner, Franziska & Adler, Sven & Klingbeil, Knut & Garthe, Stefan, 2016. "Modelling small-scale foraging habitat use in breeding Eurasian oystercatchers (Haematopus ostralegus) in relation to prey distribution and environmental predictors," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 320(C), pages 322-333.
    3. Ly, Sophanna & Uk, Sovannara & Theng, Vouchlay & Kaing, Vinhteang & Yoshimura, Chihiro, 2024. "Integration of life cycle and habitat conditions in modeling fish biomass in the floodplain of the Lower Mekong Basin," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 488(C).
    4. Yue Wang & Jihong Xia & Wangwei Cai & Zewen Liu & Jingjiang Li & Jingyun Yin & Jiayi Zu & Chuanbin Dou, 2023. "Response of Fish Habitat Quality to Weir Distribution Change in Mountainous River Based on the Two-Dimensional Habitat Suitability Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-17, May.
    5. Saupe, E.E. & Barve, V. & Myers, C.E. & Soberón, J. & Barve, N. & Hensz, C.M. & Peterson, A.T. & Owens, H.L. & Lira-Noriega, A., 2012. "Variation in niche and distribution model performance: The need for a priori assessment of key causal factors," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 237, pages 11-22.
    6. Herkt, K. Matthias B. & Barnikel, Günter & Skidmore, Andrew K. & Fahr, Jakob, 2016. "A high-resolution model of bat diversity and endemism for continental Africa," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 320(C), pages 9-28.
    7. Riley, Tanya G & Mouat, Beth & Shucksmith, Rachel, 2024. "Real world data for real world problems: Importance of appropriate spatial resolution modelling to inform decision makers in marine management," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 498(C).
    8. Erard Brian, 2022. "Modeling Qualitative Outcomes by Supplementing Participant Data with General Population Data: A New and More Versatile Approach," Journal of Econometric Methods, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 35-53, January.
    9. Masahiro Kato, 2019. "Identifying Different Definitions of Future in the Assessment of Future Economic Conditions: Application of PU Learning and Text Mining," Papers 1909.03348, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2020.
    10. Boudreault, Jeremie & Bergeron, Normand E & St-Hilaire, Andre & Chebana, Fateh, 2022. "A new look at habitat suitability curves through functional data analysis," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 467(C).
    11. Yao, Weiwei, 2021. "Ecohydraulic tools for aquatic fauna habitat and population status assessment, analysis and monitoring aimed at promoting integrated river management," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 456(C).
    12. Somodi, Imelda & Bede-Fazekas, Ákos & Botta-Dukát, Zoltán & Molnár, Zsolt, 2024. "Confidence and consistency in discrimination: A new family of evaluation metrics for potential distribution models," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 491(C).
    13. Wang, Junhui & Fang, Yixin, 2013. "Analysis of presence-only data via semi-supervised learning approaches," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 134-143.
    14. Małgorzata Łazęcka & Jan Mielniczuk & Paweł Teisseyre, 2021. "Estimating the class prior for positive and unlabelled data via logistic regression," Advances in Data Analysis and Classification, Springer;German Classification Society - Gesellschaft für Klassifikation (GfKl);Japanese Classification Society (JCS);Classification and Data Analysis Group of the Italian Statistical Society (CLADAG);International Federation of Classification Societies (IFCS), vol. 15(4), pages 1039-1068, December.
    15. Keretz, Shay S. & Woolnough, Daelyn A. & Morris, Todd J. & Roseman, Edward F. & Zanatta, David T., 2024. "Habitat modelling of native freshwater mussels distinguishes river specific differences in the Detroit and St. Clair rivers of the Laurentian Great Lakes," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 487(C).
    16. Takolander, Antti & Forsblom, Louise & Hellsten, Seppo & Ilmonen, Jari & Jokinen, Ari-Pekka & Kallio, Niko & Koponen, Sampsa & Väkevä, Sakari & Virtanen, Elina, 2025. "Cross-realm transferability of species distribution models–Species characteristics and prevalence matter more than modelling methods applied," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 499(C).
    17. Brice B Hanberry & Hong S He & Brian J Palik, 2012. "Pseudoabsence Generation Strategies for Species Distribution Models," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(8), pages 1-12, August.
    18. Fern, Rachel R. & Morrison, Michael L. & Wang, Hsiao-Hsuan & Grant, William E. & Campbell, Tyler A., 2019. "Incorporating biotic relationships improves species distribution models: Modeling the temporal influence of competition in conspecific nesting birds," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 408(C), pages 1-1.
    19. Zhang, Yulin & Pichon, Léo & Pellegrino, Anne & Roux, Sébastien & Péruzzaro, Cécile & Tisseyre, Bruno, 2024. "Predicting predawn leaf water potential while accounting for uncertainty using vine shoot growth and weather data in Mediterranean rainfed vineyards," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 302(C).
    20. Wenkai Li & Yuanchi Liu & Ziyue Liu & Zhen Gao & Huabing Huang & Weijun Huang, 2022. "A Positive-Unlabeled Learning Algorithm for Urban Flood Susceptibility Modeling," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-17, November.

    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:499:y:2025:i:c:s0304380024002977. 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.