The shadow model: how and why small choices in spatially explicit species distribution models affect predictions
Christian J C Commander,Lewis A K Barnett,Eric J Ward,Sean C Anderson,Timothy E Essington
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.12783
IF: 3.061
2022-02-14
PeerJ
Abstract:The use of species distribution models (SDMs) has rapidly increased over the last decade, driven largely by increasing observational evidence of distributional shifts of terrestrial and aquatic populations. These models permit, for example, the quantification of range shifts, the estimation of species co-occurrence, and the association of habitat to species distribution and abundance. The increasing complexity of contemporary SDMs presents new challenges-as the choices among modeling options increase, it is essential to understand how these choices affect model outcomes. Using a combination of original analysis and literature review, we synthesize the effects of three common model choices in semi-parametric predictive process species distribution modeling: model structure, spatial extent of the data, and spatial scale of predictions. To illustrate the effects of these choices, we develop a case study centered around sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) distribution on the west coast of the USA. The three modeling choices represent decisions necessary in virtually all ecological applications of these methods, and are important because the consequences of these choices impact derived quantities of interest (e.g., estimates of population size and their management implications). Truncating the spatial extent of data near the observed range edge, or using a model that is misspecified in terms of covariates and spatial and spatiotemporal fields, led to bias in population biomass trends and mean distribution compared to estimates from models using the full dataset and appropriate model structure. In some cases, these suboptimal modeling decisions may be unavoidable, but understanding the tradeoffs of these choices and impacts on predictions is critical. We illustrate how seemingly small model choices, often made out of necessity or simplicity, can affect scientific advice informing management decisions-potentially leading to erroneous conclusions about changes in abundance or distribution and the precision of such estimates. For example, we show how incorrect decisions could cause overestimation of abundance, which could result in management advice resulting in overfishing. Based on these findings and literature gaps, we outline important frontiers in SDM development.