Variation, Use, and Misuse of Statistical Models: A Review of the Effects on the Interpretation of Research Results
The field of predictive habitat modeling evolved somewhat separately within the sub-disciplines of theoretical ecology, wildlife management, and landscape ecology. This chapter suggests that this is due to slightly different worldviews, cultures, and research applications within each subfield (Table 11.1). Within the theoretical ecology literature, models of all kinds (e.g., movement, foraging, competition, demographic) have been widespread for many years. The evolution from descriptive models of habitat quality (e.g., Whittaker and McCuen 1976), to mathematical formulations of niche (e.g., Austin 1985), to spatially-explicit predictive habitat models (e.g., Saarenmaa et al. 1988) was a gradual one. The driving force in this literature appears to be underlying theoretical formulations of a host of ecological processes and interactions (e.g., population dynamics, movement, predation, competition).
KeywordsEntropy Posit Autocorrelation
F. Huettmann, M. Hooten, T. Lookingbill and two anonymous reviewers provided helpful comments on an earlier draft of this chapter. Also thanks to N. Laite for assistance with compilation of journal articles for the meta-analysis.
- Breiman L, Friedman JH, Olshen RA, Stone CJ (1984) Classification and regression trees. Wadsworth International Group. Belmont, California.Google Scholar
- Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. 2nd edition. Springer, New York.Google Scholar
- Busby JR (1991) BIOCLIM – a bioclimate analysis and prediction system. In: Margules CR, Austin MR (eds) Nature conservation: cost effective biological surveys and data analysis. CSIRO, Melbourne.Google Scholar
- Chamberlin TC (1965) The method of multiple working hypotheses. Science 148:754–759.Google Scholar
- Dettmers R, Buehler DA, Bartlett JB (2002) A test and comparison of wildlife-habitat modeling techniques for predicting bird occurrence at a regional scale. Pages 607–615 In: Scott JM, Heglund PJ, Morrison ML, Haufler JB, Raphael MG, W. A. Wall WA, Samson FB (eds) Predicting species occurrences: issues of accuracy and scale. Island Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
- Elith J, Graham CH, Anderson RP, Dudík M, Ferrier S, Guisan A, Hijmans RJ, Huettmann F, Leathwick JR, Lehmann A, Li J, Lohmann LG, Loiselle BA, Manion G, Moritz C, Nakamura M, Nakazawa Y, Overton JMC, Peterson AT, Philips SJ, Richardson K, Scachetti-Pereira R, Schapire RE, Soberón J, Williams S, Wisz MS, Zimmerman NE (2006) Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data. Ecography 29:129–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Royle JA, Pollock KH, Bailey LL, Hines JE (2006) Occupancy estimation and modeling: inferring patterns and dynamics of species occurrence. Academic Press, Burlington, MA.Google Scholar
- Manly BJF (1985) Measuring selectivity from multiple choice feeding-preference experiments. Biometrics 5:709–715.Google Scholar
- Manly BJF, McDonald LL, Thomas DL (1993) Resource selection by animals: statistical design and analysis for field studies. 1st edition. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
- Manly BJF, McDonald LL, Thomas DL, McDonald TL, Erickson WP (2003) Resource selection by animals: statistical design and analysis for field studies. 2nd edition. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, NL.Google Scholar
- Rotenberry JT, Knick ST, Dunn JE (2002) A minimalist approach to mapping species’ habitat: Pearson’s planes of closest fit. Pages 281–289 In: Scott JM, Heglund PJ, Morrison ML, Haufler JB, Raphael MG, Wall WA, Samson FB (eds) Predicting species occurrences: issues of accuracy and scale. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
- Wisz MS, Hijmans RJ, Li J, Peterson AT, Graham CH, Guisan A, NCEAS PSDWG (2008) Effects of sample size on the performance of species distribution models. Divers Distrib 14:736–773.Google Scholar