IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0146728.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing Three Species Distribution Modelling Strategies to Define Fish Assemblage Reference Conditions for Stream Bioassessment and Related Applications

Author

Listed:
  • Peter M Rose
  • Mark J Kennard
  • David B Moffatt
  • Fran Sheldon
  • Gavin L Butler

Abstract

Species distribution models are widely used for stream bioassessment, estimating changes in habitat suitability and identifying conservation priorities. We tested the accuracy of three modelling strategies (single species ensemble, multi-species response and community classification models) to predict fish assemblages at reference stream segments in coastal subtropical Australia. We aimed to evaluate each modelling strategy for consistency of predictor variable selection; determine which strategy is most suitable for stream bioassessment using fish indicators; and appraise which strategies best match other stream management applications. Five models, one single species ensemble, two multi-species response and two community classification models, were calibrated using fish species presence-absence data from 103 reference sites. Models were evaluated for generality and transferability through space and time using four external reference site datasets. Elevation and catchment slope were consistently identified as key correlates of fish assemblage composition among models. The community classification models had high omission error rates and contributed fewer taxa to the ‘expected’ component of the taxonomic completeness (O/E50) index than the other strategies. This potentially decreases the model sensitivity for site impact assessment. The ensemble model accurately and precisely modelled O/E50 for the training data, but produced biased predictions for the external datasets. The multi-species response models afforded relatively high accuracy and precision coupled with low bias across external datasets and had lower taxa omission rates than the community classification models. They inherently included rare, but predictable species while excluding species that were poorly modelled among all strategies. We suggest that the multi-species response modelling strategy is most suited to bioassessment using freshwater fish assemblages in our study area. At the species level, the ensemble model exhibited high sensitivity without reductions in specificity, relative to the other models. We suggest that this strategy is well suited to other non-bioassessment stream management applications, e.g., identifying priority areas for species conservation.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter M Rose & Mark J Kennard & David B Moffatt & Fran Sheldon & Gavin L Butler, 2016. "Testing Three Species Distribution Modelling Strategies to Define Fish Assemblage Reference Conditions for Stream Bioassessment and Related Applications," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-23, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0146728
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0146728
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0146728
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0146728&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0146728?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Freeman, Elizabeth A. & Moisen, Gretchen G., 2008. "A comparison of the performance of threshold criteria for binary classification in terms of predicted prevalence and kappa," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 217(1), pages 48-58.
    2. Hallstan, Simon & Johnson, Richard K. & Willén, Eva & Grandin, Ulf, 2012. "Comparison of classification-then-modelling and species-by-species modelling for predicting lake phytoplankton assemblages," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 231(C), pages 11-19.
    3. Sébastien Bonthoux & Andrés Baselga & Gérard Balent, 2013. "Assessing Community-Level and Single-Species Models Predictions of Species Distributions and Assemblage Composition after 25 Years of Land Cover Change," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(1), pages 1-8, January.
    4. Virgilio Hermoso & Mark J Kennard & Simon Linke, 2013. "Data Acquisition for Conservation Assessments: Is the Effort Worth It?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(3), pages 1-9, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hillary Mugiyo & Vimbayi G. P. Chimonyo & Mbulisi Sibanda & Richard Kunz & Cecilia R. Masemola & Albert T. Modi & Tafadzwanashe Mabhaudhi, 2021. "Evaluation of Land Suitability Methods with Reference to Neglected and Underutilised Crop Species: A Scoping Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-24, January.
    2. Jiaxun Li & Feifei Cao & Di Wu & Xiao Fu & Ye Tian & Gang Wu, 2018. "Determining Soil Nutrients Reference Condition in Alpine Region Grassland, China: A Case Study of Hulun Buir Grassland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-12, December.

    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. 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.
    2. Gastón, Aitor & García-Viñas, Juan I., 2013. "Evaluating the predictive performance of stacked species distribution models applied to plant species selection in ecological restoration," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 263(C), pages 103-108.
    3. Sillero, Neftalí & Arenas-Castro, Salvador & Enriquez‐Urzelai, Urtzi & Vale, Cândida Gomes & Sousa-Guedes, Diana & Martínez-Freiría, Fernando & Real, Raimundo & Barbosa, A.Márcia, 2021. "Want to model a species niche? A step-by-step guideline on correlative ecological niche modelling," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 456(C).
    4. Vu, Khoa & Vuong, Nguyen Dinh Tuan & Vu-Thanh, Tu-Anh & Nguyen, Anh Ngoc, 2022. "Income shock and food insecurity prediction Vietnam under the pandemic," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    5. Watling, James I. & Romañach, Stephanie S. & Bucklin, David N. & Speroterra, Carolina & Brandt, Laura A. & Pearlstine, Leonard G. & Mazzotti, Frank J., 2012. "Do bioclimate variables improve performance of climate envelope models?," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 246(C), pages 79-85.
    6. Salvador Arenas-Castro & João Gonçalves & Paulo Alves & Domingo Alcaraz-Segura & João P Honrado, 2018. "Assessing the multi-scale predictive ability of ecosystem functional attributes for species distribution modelling," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-31, June.
    7. Freeman, Elizabeth A. & Moisen, Gretchen G. & Frescino, Tracey S., 2012. "Evaluating effectiveness of down-sampling for stratified designs and unbalanced prevalence in Random Forest models of tree species distributions in Nevada," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 233(C), pages 1-10.
    8. Dean Fantazzini & Yufeng Xiao, 2023. "Detecting Pump-and-Dumps with Crypto-Assets: Dealing with Imbalanced Datasets and Insiders’ Anticipated Purchases," Econometrics, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-73, August.
    9. Liu, Fang & McShea, William J. & Li, Diqiang, 2017. "Correlating habitat suitability with landscape connectivity: A case study of Sichuan golden monkey in China," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 353(C), pages 37-46.
    10. Toshiya Matsuura & Ken Sugimura & Asako Miyamoto & Nobuhiko Tanaka, 2013. "Knowledge-Based Estimation of Edible Fern Harvesting Sites in Mountainous Communities of Northeastern Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-18, December.
    11. Pecchi, Matteo & Marchi, Maurizio & Burton, Vanessa & Giannetti, Francesca & Moriondo, Marco & Bernetti, Iacopo & Bindi, Marco & Chirici, Gherardo, 2019. "Species distribution modelling to support forest management. A literature review," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 411(C).
    12. Aziza Usmanova & Ahmed Aziz & Dilshodjon Rakhmonov & Walid Osamy, 2022. "Utilities of Artificial Intelligence in Poverty Prediction: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-39, October.
    13. 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.
    14. Alexandra D Syphard & Avi Bar Massada & Van Butsic & Jon E Keeley, 2013. "Land Use Planning and Wildfire: Development Policies Influence Future Probability of Housing Loss," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-12, August.
    15. Nenzén, H.K. & Araújo, M.B., 2011. "Choice of threshold alters projections of species range shifts under climate change," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(18), pages 3346-3354.
    16. Alessandra Guglielmi & Francesca Ieva & Anna M. Paganoni & Fabrizio Ruggeri & Jacopo Soriano, 2014. "Semiparametric Bayesian models for clustering and classification in the presence of unbalanced in-hospital survival," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 63(1), pages 25-46, January.
    17. 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).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0146728. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.