Advertisement

Theoretical Ecology

, Volume 2, Issue 4, pp 189–198 | Cite as

Profiling ecosystem vulnerability to invasion by zebra mussels with support vector machines

  • John M. Drake
  • Jonathan M. Bossenbroek
Original paper

Abstract

Decades since the initial establishment of zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) in North America, understanding and controlling the invasion of aquatic ecosystems continues to be a problem in continent-wide conservation and landscape management. While the high economic and conservation burden of this species makes accurate predictions of future invasions a research priority, forecasting is confounded by limited data, tenuous model assumptions, and the stochasticity of the invasion process. Using a new method for niche identification, we profiled invasion vulnerability for 1,017 lakes in the Great Lakes region of the Unites States. We used a nonparametric geoadditive regression model to test for effects of two water quality variables on the present distribution of zebra mussels. We then used the support vector data description (SVDD), a support vector machine for one-class classification, to estimate the boundary of the ecological niche. By disentangling niche estimation from distributional assumptions, computational niche models could be used to test an array of fundamental concepts in ecology and evolution, while species invasions forecasting is representative of the wide range of potential applications for niche identification in conservation and management.

Keywords

Invasive species Niche Support vector machines Zebra mussels 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was conducted while JMD was a postdoctoral fellow at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (Santa Barbara, California, USA). Additional support came from the University of Toledo, Department of Environmental Sciences and Lake Erie Center (to JMB) and the University of Georgia, Odum School of Ecology (to JMD). We thank D. Strayer and T. Peterson for comments on an earlier version of this paper and A. Silletti for comments and assistance preparing the manuscript.

This is publication No. 2009-07 from the University of Toledo Lake Erie Center.

References

  1. Anderson RP, Lew D, Peterson AT (2003) Evaluating predictive models of species’ distributions: criteria for selecting optimal models. Ecol Model 162:211–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bossenbroek JM, Kraft CE, Nekola JC (2001) Prediction of long-distance dispersal using gravity models: zebra mussel invasion of inland lakes. Ecol Appl 11:1778–1788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bossenbroek JM, McNulty J, Keller RP (2005) Can ecologists heat up the debate on invasive species risk? Risk Anal 25:1595–1597CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bossenbroek JM, Finnoff DC, Shogren JF, Warziniack TW (2009) Advances in ecological and economical analysis of invasive species: dreissenid mussels as a case study. In: Keller RP, Lodge DM, Lewis MA, Shogren JF (eds) Bioeconomics of invasive species: integrating ecology, economics, policy, and management. Oxford University Press, pp 244–265Google Scholar
  5. Brotons L, Thuiller W, Araujo MB, Hirzel AH (2004) Presence–absence versus presence-only modelling methods for predicting bird habitat suitability. Ecography 27:437–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chase JM, Leibold MA (2003) Ecological niches: linking classical and contemporary approaches. Chicago University Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark JS, Carpenter SR, Barber M et al (2001) Ecological forecasts: an emerging imperative. Science 293:657–660CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Drake JM, Bossenbroek JM (2004) The potential distribution of zebra mussels in the United States. BioScience 54:931–941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Drake JM, Guisan A, Randin C (2006) Modelling ecological niches with support vector machines. J Appl Ecol 43:424–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duin RPW, Juszczak P, Paclik P et al (2004) Prtools4, a Matlab toolbox for pattern recognition. Delft University of Technology, DelftGoogle Scholar
  11. Elith J, Burgman MA (2003) Habitat models for PVA. In: Brigham CA, Schwartz MW (eds) Population viability in plants: conservation, management, and modeling of rare plants. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 203–238Google Scholar
  12. Elith J, Graham CH, Anderson RP et al (2006) Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data. Ecography 29:129–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Engen S, Lande R, Saether BE (2002) Migration and spatiotemporal variation in population dynamics in a heterogeneous environment. Ecology 83:570–579Google Scholar
  14. Engler R, Guisan A, Rechsteiner L (2004) An improved approach to predicting the distribution of rare and endangered species from occurrence and pseudo-absence data. J Appl Ecol 41:263–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gomulkiewicz R, Holt RD, Barfield M (1999) the effects of density dependence and immigration on local adaptation and niche evolution in a black-hole sink environment. Theor Popul Biol 55:283–296CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Grinell J (1917) The niche-relationships of the California thrasher. Auk 34:427–433Google Scholar
  17. Guisan A, Thuiller W (2005) Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol Lett 8:993–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. He F, Zhou J, Zhu H (2003) Autologistic regression model for the distribution of vegetation. J Agric Biol Envir S8:205–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hirzel AH, Hausser J, Chessel D, Perrin N (2002) Ecological-niche factor analysis: how to compute habitat-suitability maps without absence data? Ecology 83:2027–2036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Holt RD (1996) Adaptive evolution in source-sink environments: direct and indirect effects of density-dependence on niche evolution. Oikos 75:182–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hubbell SP (2001) The unified theory of biodiversity and biogeogrpahy. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  22. Hutchinson GE (1957) Population studies—animal ecology and demography—concluding remarks. Cold Spring Harb Sym 22:415–427Google Scholar
  23. Jackson ST, Overpeck JT (2000) Responses of plant populations and communities to environmental changes of the late Quaternary. Paleobiology 26:194–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jeppesen E, Sondergaard M, Sortkjoer O et al (1990) Interactions between phytoplankton, zooplankton, and fish in a shallow, hypertrophic lake—a study of phytoplankton collapses in Lake Sobygard, Denmark. Hydrobiologia 191:149–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jones LA, Ricciardi A (2005) Influence of physiochemical factors on the distribution and biomass of invasive mussels (Dreissena polymorpha and Dreissena bugensis) in the St. Lawrence River. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 62:1953–1962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kammann EE, Wand MP (2003) Geoadditive models. J Roy Stat Soc C-App 52:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Karatayev AY, Burlakova LE, Padilla DK (1997) The effects of Dreissena polymorpha (Pallas) invasion on aquatic communities in eastern Europe. J Shellfish Res 16:187–203Google Scholar
  28. Keating KA, Cherry S (2004) Use and interpretation of logistic regression in habitat selection studies. J Wildlife Manage 68:774–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kirkpatrick M, Barton NH (1997) Evolution of a species’ range. Am Nat 150:1–23CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Lele S, Keim JL (2006) Weighted distributions and estimation of resource selection probability functions. Ecology 87:3021–3028CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Leung B, Lodge DM, Finnoff D et al (2002) An ounce of prevention or a pound of cure: bioeconomic risk analysis of invasive species. Proc R Soc B 269:2407–2413CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Leung B, Bossenbroek JM, Lodge DM (2006) Boats, pathways, and aquatic biological invasions: estimating dispersal potential with gravity models. Bio Invasions 8:241–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Manevitz LM, Yousef M (2001) One-class SVM’s for document classification. J Mach Learn Res 2:139–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Manly BFJ (1991) Randomization and Monte Carlo methods in biology. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  35. Manly BF, McDonald LL, Thomas DL, McDonald TL, Erikson WP (2004) Resource selection by animals: statistical design and analysis for field studies. Kluwer, BostonGoogle Scholar
  36. Markou M, Singh S (2003) Novelty detection: a review—part 1: statistical approaches. Signal Process 83:2481–2497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Moisen GG, Edwards TC Jr, Osborne PE (2006) Further advances in predicting species distributions. Ecol Model 199:129–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mooney HA, Hobbs RJ (2000) Invasive species in a changing world. Island, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  39. Mooney HA, Mack RN, McNeely JA et al (2005) Invasive alien species: a new synthesis. Island, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  40. O’Neill CR (1997) Economic impact of zebra mussels—results of the 1995 National Zebra Mussel Information Clearinghouse study. Great Lakes Res Rev 3:35–42Google Scholar
  41. Pearce JL, Boyce MS (2006) Modelling distribution and abundance with presence-only data. J Appl Ecol 43:405–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Peterson AT (2003) Predicting the geography of species’ invasions via ecological niche modeling. Q Rev Biol 78:419–433CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Phillips SJ, Anderson RP, Schapire RE (2006) Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol Model 190:231–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pulliam HR (2000) On the relationship between niche and distribution. Ecol Lett 3:349–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. R Development Core Team (2007) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org
  46. Rahel F (2002) Homogenization of freshwater faunas. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 33:291–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ramcharan CW, Padilla DK, Dodson SI (1992) Models to predict potential occurrence and density of the zebra mussle, Dreissena polymorpha. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 49:2611–2620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Reed-Andersen TE, Bennett BS, Jorgensen G et al (2000) Distribution of recreational boating across lakes: do landscapes variables affect recreational use? Freshwater Biol 43:439–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ricciardi A, Neves RJ, Rasmussen JB (1998) Impending extinctions of North American freshwater mussels (Unionidae) following the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) invasion. J Anim Ecol 67:613–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sala OE, Chapin FS, Armesto JJ et al (2000) Biodiversity—global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287:1770–1774CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Schloesser D, Nalepa T, Mackie GL (1996) Zebra mussel infestation of unionid bivalves (Unionidae) in North America. Am Zool 36:300–310Google Scholar
  52. Schölkopf B, Smola A (2002) Learning with kernels: support vector machines, regularization, optimization and beyond. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  53. Stockwell D (2007) Niche modeling: predictions from statistical distributions. Chapman and Hall, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  54. Stockwell D, Peters D (1999) The GARP modelling system: problems and solutions to automated spatial prediction. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 13:143–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stockwell DRB, Peterson AT (2002) Effects of sample size on accuracy of species distribution models. Ecol Model 148:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Strayer DL (1991) Projected distribution of the zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha, in North America. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 48:1389–1395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Strayer DL, Caraco NF, Cole JJ, Findlay S, Pace ML (1999) Transformation of freshwater ecosystems by bivalves—a case study of zebra mussels in the Hudson River. BioScience 49:19–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Strayer DL, Eviner VT, Jeschke JM, Pace ML (2006) Understanding the long-term effects of species invasions. TREE 21:645–651PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Tax DMJ (2001) One-class classification; concept-learning in the absence of counter-examples. Dissertation, Delft University of Technology. Available online: http://www.ict.et.tudelft.nl/∼davidt/papers/thesis.pdf
  60. Tax DMJ (2006) DDtools, the data description toolbox for Matlab (v 1.5.4). Delft University of Technology, DelftGoogle Scholar
  61. Tax DMJ, Duin RPW (2002) Uniform object generation for optimizing one-class classifiers. J Mach Learn Res 2:155–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tax DMJ, Duin RPW (2004) Support vector data description. Mach Learn 54:45–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vanderploeg HA, Nalepa TF, Jude DJ et al (2002) Dispersal and merging ecological impacts of Ponto-Caspian species in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 59:1209–1228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Vinogradov GA, Smirnova NF, Sokolov VA, Bruznitsky AA (1993) Influence of chemical composition of the water on the mollusk Dreissena polymorpha. In: Nalepa TF, Schloesser DW (eds) Zebra mussels: biology impacts, and control. Lewis, Boca Raton, pp 283–293Google Scholar
  65. Wetzel RG (2001) Limnology: lake and river ecosystems. Academic, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  66. Whittier TR, Ringold PL, Herlihy AT, Pierson SM (2008) A calcium-based invasion risk assessment for zebra and quagga mussels (Dreissena spp.). Front Ecol Environ 6:180–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wolfenbarger LL, Phifer PR (2000) Biotechnology and ecology—the ecological risks and benefits of genetically engineered plants. Science 290:2088–2093CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Wood SN (2001) mgcv: GAMs and generalized ridge regression for R R News 1:20-25Google Scholar
  69. Wood SN (2004) Stable and efficient multiple smoothing parameter estimation for generalized additive models. J Am Stat Assoc 99:673–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wood SN (2006) Generalized additive models: an introduction with R. Chapman and Hall, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  71. Wood SN, Augustin NH (2002) GAMs with integrated model selection using penalized regression splines and applications to environmental modelling. Ecol Model 157:157–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Odum School of Ecology, Ecology BuildingUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  2. 2.Department of Environmental Sciences and Lake Erie CenterUniversity of ToledoToledoUSA

Personalised recommendations