Abstract
The MaxEnt software package is one of the most popular tools for species-distribution modeling. Despite its popularity, researchers usually underestimate the influence of the initial parameters and spatial bias in the occurrence data. The choice of the feature types and regularization multiplier notably affects the spatial “compactness” or “smoothness” of the model. A nonrandom distribution of occurrence points in geographical space requires data correction. The determination of the ecological factors that influence the range formation require the minimization of multicollinearity in the predictor dataset.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Aiello-Lammens, M.E., Boria, R.A., Radosavljevic, A., Vilela, B., and Anderson, R.P., spThin: an R package for spatial thinning of species occurrence records for use in ecological niche models, Ecography, 2015, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 541–545.
Anderson, R.P. and Gonzalez, I., Species-specific tuning increases robustness to sampling bias in models of species distributions: an implementation with Maxent, Ecol. Modell., 2011, vol. 222, no. 15, pp. 2796–2811.
Araújo, M.B., Pearson, R.G., Thuiller, W., and Erhard, M., Validation of species-climate impact models under climate change, Global Change Biol., 2005, vol. 11, no. 9, pp. 1504–1513.
Araújo, M.B., Anderson, R.P., Barbosa, A.M., Beale, C.M., Dormann, C.F., et al., Standards for distribution models in biodiversity assessments, Sci. Adv., 2019, vol. 5, no. 1, p. eaat4858.
Austin, M.P., Spatial prediction of species distribution: an interface between ecological theory and statistical modeling, Ecol. Modell., 2002, vol. 157, no. 2, pp. 101–118.
Barbosa, A.M., fuzzySim: Applying fuzzy logic to binary similarity indices in ecology, Methods Ecol. Evol., 2015, vol. 6, no. 7, pp. 853–858.
Bean, W.T., Stafford, R., and Brashares, J.S., The effects of small sample size and sample bias on threshold selection and accuracy assessment of species distribution models, Ecography, 2012, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 250–258.
Boria, R.A., Olson, L.E., Goodman, S.M., and Anderson, R.P., Spatial filtering to reduce sampling bias can improve the performance of ecological niche models, Ecol. Modell., 2014, vol. 275, pp. 73–77.
Braunisch, V. and Suchant, R., Predicting species distributions based on incomplete survey data: the trade-off between precision and scale, Ecography, 2010, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 826–840.
Brown, J.L., SDMtoolbox: a python-based GIS toolkit for landscape genetic, biogeographic and species distribution model analyses, Methods Ecol. Evol., 2014, vol. 5, no. 7, pp. 694–700.
Cobos, M.E., Peterson, A.T., Barve, N., and Osorio-Olvera, L., kuenm: an R package for detailed development of ecological niche models using Maxent, PeerJ, 2019, vol. 7, p. e6281.
Conrad, O., Bechtel, B., Bock, M., Dietrich, H., Fischer, E., et al., System for Automated Geoscientific Analyses (SAGA) v. 2.1.4, Geosci. Modell. Dev., 2015, vol. 8, no. 7, pp. 1991–2007.
Cord, A.F., Klein, D., Gernandt, D.S., de la Rosa, J.A.P., and Dech, S., Remote sensing data can improve predictions of species richness by stacked species distribution models: a case study for Mexican pines, J. Biogeogr., 2014, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 736–748.
Dormann, C.F., Elith, J., Bacher, S., Buchmann, C., Carl, G., et al., Collinearity: a review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance, Ecography, 2013, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 27–46.
Dubinin, M.Yu. and Kostikova, A.A., Introduction into GIS systems, Vector and raster data, 2008. http://gis-lab.info/docs/giscourse/11-vector-raster.html.
El-Gabbas, A. and Dormann, C.F., Improved species-occurrence predictions in data-poor regions: using large-scale data and bias correction with down-weighted Poisson regression and Maxent, Ecography, 2018, vol. 41, no. 7, pp. 1161–1172.
Elith, J., Kearney, M., and Phillips, S., The art of modeling range-shifting species, Methods Ecol. Evol., 2010, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 330–342.
Elith, J., Phillips, S.J., Hastie, T., Dudík, M., Chee, Y.E., and Yates, C.J., A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists, Diversity Distrib., 2011, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 43–57.
Fei, S. and Yu, F., Quality of presence data determines species distribution model performance: a novel index to evaluate data quality, Landscape Ecol., 2016, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 31–42.
Fourcade, Y., Engler, J.O., Rödder, D., and Secondi, J., Mapping species distributions with MAXENT using a geographically biased sample of presence data: a performance assessment of methods for correcting sampling bias, PLoS One, 2014, vol. 9, no. 5, p. e97122.
Fourcade, Y., Besnard, A.G., and Secondi, J., Paintings predict the distribution of species, or the challenge of selecting environmental predictors and evaluation statistics, Global Ecol. Biogeogr., 2018, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 245–256.
Guillera-Arroita, G., Lahoz-Monfort, J.J., Elith, J., Gordon, A., Kujala, H., et al., Is my species distribution model fit for purpose? Matching data and models to applications: matching distribution models to applications, Global Ecol. Biogeogr., 2015, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 276–292.
Hijmans, R.J., Cross-validation of species distribution models: removing spatial sorting bias and calibration with a null model, Ecology, 2012, vol. 93, no. 3, pp. 679–688.
Hijmans, R.J., Cameron, S.E., Parra, J.L., Jones, P.G., and Jarvis, A., Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas, Int. J. Climatol., 2005, vol. 25, no. 15, pp. 1965–1978.
Kramer-Schadt, S., Niedballa, J., Pilgrim, J.D., Schröder, B., Lindenborn, J., et al., The importance of correcting for sampling bias in MaxEnt species distribution models, Diversity Distrib., 2013, vol. 19, no. 11, pp. 1366–1379.
Krenke, A.N. and Puzachenko, Yu.G., Compilation of the map of landscape cover based on remote data, Ekol. Plan. Upr., 2008, vol. 2, no. 7, pp. 10–25.
Lissovsky, A.A., Dudov, S.V., and Obolenskaya, E.V., Species-distribution modeling: advantages and limitations of its application. 1. General approaches, Biol. Bull. Rev., 2021, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 254–264.
Liu, C., White, M., and Newell, G., Selecting thresholds for the prediction of species occurrence with presence-only data, J. Biogeogr., 2013, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 778–789.
Merow, C., Smith, M.J., and Silander, J.A., A practical guide to MaxEnt for modeling species’ distributions: What it does, and why inputs and settings matter, Ecography, 2013, vol. 36, no. 10, pp. 1058–1069.
Morales, N.S., Fernández, I.C., and Baca-González, V., MaxEnt’s parameter configuration and small samples: Are we paying attention to recommendations? A systematic review, PeerJ, 2017, vol. 5, p. e3093.
Muscarella, R., Galante, P.J., Soley-Guardia, M., Boria, R.A., Kass, J.M., et al., ENMeval: an R package for conducting spatially independent evaluations and estimating optimal model complexity for Maxent ecological niche models, Methods Ecol. Evol., 2014, vol. 5, no. 11, pp. 1198–1205.
Naimi, B. and Araújo, M.B., sdm: A reproducible and extensible R platform for species distribution modeling, Ecography, 2016, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 368–375.
Neteler, M., Bowman, M.H., Landa, M., and Metz, M., GRASS GIS: a multi-purpose open source GIS, Environ. Modell. Software, 2012, vol. 31, pp. 124–130.
Nuñez, M.A. and Medley, K.A., Pine invasions: climate predicts invasion success; something else predicts failure, Diversity Distrib., 2011, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 703–713.
Pearson, R.G., Raxworthy, C.J., Nakamura, M., and Townsend Peterson, A., Predicting species distributions from small numbers of occurrence records: a test case using cryptic geckos in Madagascar, J. Biogeogr., 2007, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 102–117.
Phillips, S.J. and Dudík, M., Modeling of species distributions with Maxent: new extensions and a comprehensive evaluation, Ecography, 2008, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 161–175.
Phillips, S.J., Dudík, M., and Schapire, R.E., A maximum entropy approach to species distribution modeling, Proc. 21st Int. Conf. on Machine Learning, July 4–8, 2004, Banff, 2004, pp. 655–662.
Phillips, S.J., Anderson, R.P., and Schapire, R.E., Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions, Ecol. Modell., 2006, vol. 190, nos. 3–4, pp. 231–259.
Phillips, S.J., Dudík, M., Elith, J., Graham, C.H., Lehmann, A., et al., Sample selection bias and presence-only distribution models: implications for background and pseudo-absence data, Ecol. Appl., 2009, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 181–197.
Phillips, S.J., Anderson, R.P., Dudík, M., Schapire, R.E., and Blair, M.E., Opening the black box: an open-source release of Maxent, Ecography, 2017, vol. 40, no. 7, pp. 887–893.
Phillips, S.J., Dudík, M., and Schapire, R.E., Maxent software for modeling species niches and distributions, Version 3.4.1, 2019. http://biodiversityinformatics.amnh.org/open_source/maxent.
Radosavljevic, A. and Anderson, R.P., Making better Maxent models of species distributions: complexity, overfitting and evaluation, J. Biogeogr., 2014, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 629–643.
Rangel, T.F.L.V.B., Diniz-Filho, J.A.F., and Bini, L.M., Towards an integrated computational tool for spatial analysis in macroecology and biogeography, Global Ecol. Biogeogr., 2006, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 321–327.
Renner, I.W. and Warton, D.I., Equivalence of MAXENT and Poisson point process models for species distribution modeling in ecology, Biometrics, 2013, vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 274–281.
Shcheglovitova, M. and Anderson, R.P., Estimating optimal complexity for ecological niche models: a jackknife approach for species with small sample sizes, Ecol. Model., 2013, vol. 269, pp. 9–17.
Syfert, M.M., Smith, M.J., and Coomes, D.A., The effects of sampling bias and model complexity on the predictive performance of MaxEnt species distribution models, PLoS One, 2013, vol. 8, no. 2, p. e55158.
Thuiller, W., Georges, D., Engler, R., and Breiner, F., biomod2: Ensemble platform for species distribution modeling, R package version 3.3-7.1, 2019. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/biomod2.
Velazco, S.J.E., Galvão, F., Villalobos, F., and de Marco, P., Using worldwide edaphic data to model plant species niches: an assessment at a continental extent, PLoS One, 2017, vol. 12, no. 10, pp. 1–24.
Ward, G., Hastie, T., Barry, S., Elith, J., and Leathwick, J.R., Presence-only data and the EM algorithm, Biometrics, 2009, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 554–563.
Warren, D.L. and Seifert, S.N., Ecological niche modeling in Maxent: the importance of model complexity and the performance of model selection criteria, Ecol. Appl., 2011, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 335–342.
Warren, D.L., Glor, R.E., and Turelli, M., ENMTools: a toolbox for comparative studies of environmental niche models, Ecography, 2010, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 607–611.
Warren, D.L., Wright, A.N., Seifert, S.N., and Shaffer, H.B., Incorporating model complexity and spatial sampling bias into ecological niche models of climate change risks faced by 90 California vertebrate species of concern, Diversity Distrib., 2014, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 334–343.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their detailed work on the text of the manuscript and valuable comments.
Funding
The work was financial supported by the Russian Science Foundation, project no. 18-14-00093.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interests. The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Statement on the welfare of humans or animals. This article does not contain any studies involving animals performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
Translated by T. Kuznetsova
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lissovsky, A.A., Dudov, S.V. Species-Distribution Modeling: Advantages and Limitations of Its Application. 2. MaxEnt. Biol Bull Rev 11, 265–275 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1134/S2079086421030087
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S2079086421030087