Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSimmonds, Emily Grace
dc.contributor.authorJarvis, Susan G.
dc.contributor.authorHenrys, Peter A.
dc.contributor.authorIsaac, Nick J.B.
dc.contributor.authorOHara, Robert Brian
dc.date.accessioned2022-09-01T12:19:08Z
dc.date.available2022-09-01T12:19:08Z
dc.date.created2021-01-27T22:05:06Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifier.citationEcography. 2020, 43 1413-1422.en_US
dc.identifier.issn0906-7590
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/3015162
dc.description.abstractSpecies distribution models are popular and widely applied ecological tools. Recent increases in data availability have led to opportunities and challenges for species distribution modelling. Each data source has different qualities, determined by how it was collected. As several data sources can inform on a single species, ecologists have often analysed just one of the data sources, but this loses information, as some data sources are discarded. Integrated distribution models (IDMs) were developed to enable inclusion of multiple datasets in a single model, whilst accounting for different data collection protocols. This is advantageous because it allows efficient use of all data available, can improve estimation and account for biases in data collection. What is not yet known is when integrating different data sources does not bring advantages. Here, for the first time, we explore the potential limits of IDMs using a simulation study integrating a spatially biased, opportunistic, presence-only dataset with a structured, presence–absence dataset. We explore four scenarios based on real ecological problems; small sample sizes, low levels of detection probability, correlations between covariates and a lack of knowledge of the drivers of bias in data collection. For each scenario we ask; do we see improvements in parameter estimation or the accuracy of spatial pattern prediction in the IDM versus modelling either data source alone? We found integration alone was unable to correct for spatial bias in presence-only data. Including a covariate to explain bias or adding a flexible spatial term improved IDM performance beyond single dataset models, with the models including a flexible spatial term producing the most accurate and robust estimates. Increasing the sample size of presence–absence data and having no correlated covariates also improved estimation. These results demonstrate under which conditions integrated models provide benefits over modelling single data sources.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherWiley Open Accessen_US
dc.rightsNavngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no*
dc.titleIs more data always better? A simulation study of benefits and limitations of integrated distribution modelsen_US
dc.title.alternativeIs more data always better? A simulation study of benefits and limitations of integrated distribution modelsen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.source.pagenumber1413-1422en_US
dc.source.volume43en_US
dc.source.journalEcographyen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/ecog.05146
dc.identifier.cristin1880819
dc.relation.projectNorges forskningsråd: 223257en_US
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode2


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal