Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Methods in Ecology & Evolution”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2014

Reply to Efford on ‘Integrating resource selection information with spatial capture-recapture’

1. We proposed ( Methods in Ecology and Evolution , 2013, 4) a model for combining telemetry data with spatial capture–recapture (SCR) data that was vigorously criticized by Efford ( Methods in Ecology and Evolution , 2014, 000, 000). Efford's main claim was that our encounter probability model was incorrect, and therefore our R code and simulation results were wrong. 2. In fact, our encounter probability model is correct under the Poisson point process model that we used as a basis for our integrated model. On the other hand, the basis for Efford's claims clearly rest on the assumption of an alternative model which, while possibly useful, is distinct from that analysed in Royle et al. (Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 2013, 4). 3. A key point of Royle et al. ( Methods in Ecology and Evolution , 2013, 4) was that active resource selection induces heterogeneity in encounter probability which, if unaccounted for, should bias estimates of population size or density. The models of Royle et al. ( Methods in Ecology and Evolution , 2013, 4) and Efford ( Methods in Ecology and Evolution , 2014, 000, 000) merely amount to alternative models of resource selection, and hence varying amounts of heterogeneity in encounter probability.

Methods in Ecology and Evolution↗
USGS2020

AMMonitor: Remote monitoring of biodiversity in an adaptive framework with R

Ecological research and management programs are increasingly using autonomous monitoring units (AMUs) to collect large volumes of acoustic and/or photo data to address pressing management objectives or research goals. The data management requirements of an AMU-based monitoring effort are often overwhelming, with a considerable amount of processing to translate raw data into models and analyses that have research and management utility. We created the r package AMMonitor to simplify the process of moving from remotely collected data to analysis and results, using a comprehensive SQLite database for data management that tracks all components of a remote monitoring program. This framework enables the tracking of analyses and research/management objectives through time. We illustrate the AMMonitor approach with the example of evaluating an occurrence-based management objective for a target species. First, we provide an overview of the database and data management approach. Next, we illustrate a few available workflows: temporally adaptive sampling, automated detection of species sounds from acoustic recordings and aggregation of automated detections into an encounter history for use in an occupancy analysis, the outcome of which can be analysed with respect to the motivating management objective. Without a comprehensive framework for efficiently moving from raw remote monitoring data collection to results and analysis, monitoring programs are limited in their capacity to systematically characterize ecological processes and inform management decisions through time. AMMonitor provides an option for such a framework. Code, comprehensive documentation, and step-by-step examples are available online at https://code.usgs.gov/vtcfwru/AMMonitor

Methods in Ecology and Evolution↗
USGS2022

A practical guide to understanding and validating complex models using data simulations

Biologists routinely fit novel and complex statistical models to push the limits of our understanding. Examples include, but are not limited to, flexible Bayesian approaches (e.g. BUGS, stan), frequentist and likelihood-based approaches (e.g. packages lme4 ) and machine learning methods. These software and programs afford the user greater control and flexibility in tailoring complex hierarchical models. However, this level of control and flexibility places a higher degree of responsibility on the user to evaluate the robustness of their statistical inference. To determine how often biologists are running model diagnostics on hierarchical models, we reviewed 50 recently published papers in 2021 in the journal Nature Ecology & Evolution , and we found that the majority of published papers did not report any validation of their hierarchical models, making it difficult for the reader to assess the robustness of their inference. This lack of reporting likely stems from a lack of standardized guidance for best practices and standard methods. Here, we provide a guide to understanding and validating complex models using data simulations. To determine how often biologists use data simulation techniques, we also reviewed 50 recently published papers in 2021 in the journal Methods Ecology & Evolution . We found that 78% of the papers that proposed a new estimation technique, package or model used simulations or generated data in some capacity (18 of 23 papers); but very few of those papers (5 of 23 papers) included either a demonstration that the code could recover realistic estimates for a dataset with known parameters or a demonstration of the statistical properties of the approach. To distil the variety of simulations techniques and their uses, we provide a taxonomy of simulation studies based on the intended inference. We also encourage authors to include a basic validation study whenever novel statistical models are used, which in general, is easy to implement. Simulating data helps a researcher gain a deeper understanding of the models and their assumptions and establish the reliability of their estimation approaches. Wider adoption of data simulations by biologists can improve statistical inference, reliability and open science practices.

Methods in Ecology and Evolution↗
USGS2023

The unmarked R package: Twelve years of advances in occurrence and abundance modelling in ecology

Species distribution models (SDMs) are widely applied to understand the processes governing spatial and temporal variation in species abundance and distribution but often do not account for measurement errors such as false negatives and false positives. We describe unmarked , a package for the freely available and open-source R software that provides a complete workflow for modelling species distribution and abundance while explicitly accounting for measurement errors. Here we focus on recent advances in unmarked functionality to support multi-species, multi-state, and multi-season data, as well as support for fitting models with random effects. For illustration, we present an analysis of Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax virescens abundance on Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge, North Carolina, USA, over 18 years. We found that Acadian Flycatcher abundance was initially greater in hardwood plantation habitat relative to bottomland hardwood forest along river levees but that abundance declined over time in both habitats. We plan for unmarked development to keep pace with advances in hierarchical modelling in ecology, including better handling of continuous-time data from camera trap and automated recording units and integrated models for multiple data streams.

Methods in Ecology & Evolution↗
USGS2024

Facilitating comparable research in seedling functional ecology

Ecologists have worked to ascribe function to the variation found in plant populations, communities and ecosystems across environments for at least the past century. The vast body of research in functional ecology has drastically improved understanding of how individuals respond to their environment, communities are assembled and ecosystems function. However, with limited exceptions, few studies have quantified differences in plant function during the earliest stages of the plant life cycle, and fewer have tested how this early variability shapes populations, communities and ecosystems. Drawing from the literature and our collective experience, we describe the current state of knowledge in seedling functional ecology and provide examples of how this subdiscipline can enrich our fundamental understanding of plant function across levels of organisation. To inspire progressive work in this area, we also outline key considerations involved in seedling functional research (who, what, when, where and how to measure seedling traits) and identify remaining challenges and gaps in understanding around methodological approaches. Within this conceptual synthesis, we highlight three critical areas in seedling ecology for future research to target. First, given wide variation in the definition of a ‘seedling’, we provide a standard definition based on seed reserve dependence while emphasising the need to measure ontogenetic variation more clearly both within and following the seedling stage. Second, studies demonstrate that seedlings can be studied in multiple media (e.g. soil, agar, filter paper) and conditions (e.g. field, greenhouse, laboratory). We recommend that researchers select methods based on explicit goals, yet follow standard guidelines to reduce methodological noise across studies. Third, research is critically needed to assess the implications of different methodologies on trait measurement and compatibility across studies. By highlighting the importance of seedling functional ecology and suggesting pathways to address key challenges, we aim to inspire future research that generates useful and comparable data on seedling functional ecology. This work is critical to explain variation within and among populations, communities and ecosystems and integrate this most vulnerable stage of plant life into ecological frameworks.

Methods in Ecology & Evolution↗
USGS2023

Improving ecological data science with workflow management software

Pressing environmental research questions demand the integration of increasingly diverse and large-scale ecological datasets as well as complex analytical methods, which require specialized tools and resources. Computational training for ecological and evolutionary sciences has become more abundant and accessible over the past decade, but tool development has outpaced the availability of specialized training. Most training for scripted analyses focuses on individual analysis steps in one script rather than creating a scripted pipeline, where modular functions comprise an ecosystem of interdependent steps. Although current computational training creates an excellent starting place, linear styles of scripting can risk becoming labor- and time-intensive and less reproducible by often requiring manual execution. Pipelines, however, can be easily automated or tracked by software to increase efficiency and reduce potential errors. Ecology and evolution would benefit from techniques that reduce these risks by managing analytical pipelines in a modular, readily parallelizable format with clear documentation of dependencies. Workflow management software (WMS) can aid in the reproducibility, intelligibility and computational efficiency of complex pipelines. To date, WMS adoption in ecology and evolutionary research has been slow. We discuss the benefits and challenges of implementing WMS and illustrate its use through a case study with the targets r package to further highlight WMS benefits through workflow automation, dependency tracking and improved clarity for reviewers. Although WMS requires familiarity with function-oriented programming and careful planning for more advanced applications and pipeline sharing, investment in training will enable access to the benefits of WMS and impart transferable computing skills that can facilitate ecological and evolutionary data science at large scales.

Methods in Ecology and Evolution↗
USGS2012

Representing the acquisition and use of energy by individuals in agent-based models of animal populations

1. Agent-based models (ABMs) are widely used to predict how populations respond to changing environments. As the availability of food varies in space and time, individuals should have their own energy budgets, but there is no consensus as to how these should be modelled. Here, we use knowledge of physiological ecology to identify major issues confronting the modeller and to make recommendations about how energy budgets for use in ABMs should be constructed. 2. Our proposal is that modelled animals forage as necessary to supply their energy needs for maintenance, growth and reproduction. If there is sufficient energy intake, an animal allocates the energy obtained in the order: maintenance, growth, reproduction, energy storage, until its energy stores reach an optimal level. If there is a shortfall, the priorities for maintenance and growth/reproduction remain the same until reserves fall to a critical threshold below which all are allocated to maintenance. Rates of ingestion and allocation depend on body mass and temperature. We make suggestions for how each of these processes should be modelled mathematically. 3. Mortality rates vary with body mass and temperature according to known relationships, and these can be used to obtain estimates of background mortality rate. 4. If parameter values cannot be obtained directly, then values may provisionally be obtained by parameter borrowing, pattern-oriented modelling, artificial evolution or from allometric equations. 5. The development of ABMs incorporating individual energy budgets is essential for realistic modelling of populations affected by food availability. Such ABMs are already being used to guide conservation planning of nature reserves and shell fisheries, to assess environmental impacts of building proposals including wind farms and highways and to assess the effects on nontarget organisms of chemicals for the control of agricultural pests.

Methods in Ecology and Evolution↗
USGS2012

Presence-only modeling using MAXENT: when can we trust the inferences?

1. Recently, interest in species distribution modelling has increased following the development of new methods for the analysis of presence-only data and the deployment of these methods in user-friendly and powerful computer programs. However, reliable inference from these powerful tools requires that several assumptions be met, including the assumptions that observed presences are the consequence of random or representative sampling and that detectability during sampling does not vary with the covariates that determine occurrence probability. 2. Based on our interactions with researchers using these tools, we hypothesized that many presence-only studies were ignoring important assumptions of presence-only modelling. We tested this hypothesis by reviewing 108 articles published between 2008 and 2012 that used the MAXENT algorithm to analyse empirical (i.e. not simulated) data. We chose to focus on these articles because MAXENT has been the most popular algorithm in recent years for analysing presence-only data. 3. Many articles (87%) were based on data that were likely to suffer from sample selection bias; however, methods to control for sample selection bias were rarely used. In addition, many analyses (36%) discarded absence information by analysing presence–absence data in a presence-only framework, and few articles (14%) mentioned detection probability. We conclude that there are many misconceptions concerning the use of presence-only models, including the misunderstanding that MAXENT, and other presence-only methods, relieve users from the constraints of survey design. 4. In the process of our literature review, we became aware of other factors that raised concerns about the validity of study conclusions. In particular, we observed that 83% of articles studies focused exclusively on model output (i.e. maps) without providing readers with any means to critically examine modelled relationships and that MAXENT's logistic output was frequently (54% of articles) and incorrectly interpreted as occurrence probability. 5. We conclude with a series of recommendations foremost that researchers analyse data in a presence–absence framework whenever possible, because fewer assumptions are required and inferences can be made about clearly defined parameters such as occurrence probability.

Methods in Ecology and Evolution↗
USGS2013

Integrating resource selection information with spatial capture--recapture

1. Understanding space usage and resource selection is a primary focus of many studies of animal populations. Usually, such studies are based on location data obtained from telemetry, and resource selection functions (RSFs) are used for inference. Another important focus of wildlife research is estimation and modeling population size and density. Recently developed spatial capture–recapture (SCR) models accomplish this objective using individual encounter history data with auxiliary spatial information on location of capture. SCR models include encounter probability functions that are intuitively related to RSFs, but to date, no one has extended SCR models to allow for explicit inference about space usage and resource selection. 2. In this paper we develop the first statistical framework for jointly modeling space usage, resource selection, and population density by integrating SCR data, such as from camera traps, mist-nets, or conventional catch traps, with resource selection data from telemetered individuals. We provide a framework for estimation based on marginal likelihood, wherein we estimate simultaneously the parameters of the SCR and RSF models. 3. Our method leads to increases in precision for estimating parameters of ordinary SCR models. Importantly, we also find that SCR models alone can estimate parameters of RSFs and, as such, SCR methods can be used as the sole source for studying space-usage; however, precision will be higher when telemetry data are available. 4. Finally, we find that SCR models using standard symmetric and stationary encounter probability models may not fully explain variation in encounter probability due to space usage, and therefore produce biased estimates of density when animal space usage is related to resource selection. Consequently, it is important that space usage be taken into consideration, if possible, in studies focused on estimating density using capture–recapture methods.

Methods in Ecology and Evolution↗
USGS2013

Strategies for fitting nonlinear ecological models in R, AD Model Builder, and BUGS

1. Ecologists often use nonlinear fitting techniques to estimate the parameters of complex ecological models, with attendant frustration. This paper compares three open-source model fitting tools and discusses general strategies for defining and fitting models. 2. R is convenient and (relatively) easy to learn, AD Model Builder is fast and robust but comes with a steep learning curve, while BUGS provides the greatest flexibility at the price of speed. 3. Our model-fitting suggestions range from general cultural advice (where possible, use the tools and models that are most common in your subfield) to specific suggestions about how to change the mathematical description of models to make them more amenable to parameter estimation. 4. A companion web site (https://groups.nceas.ucsb.edu/nonlinear-modeling/projects) presents detailed examples of application of the three tools to a variety of typical ecological estimation problems; each example links both to a detailed project report and to full source code and data.

Methods in Ecology and Evolution↗
USGS2013

Advances and applications of occupancy models

Summary: The past decade has seen an explosion in the development and application of models aimed at estimating species occurrence and occupancy dynamics while accounting for possible non-detection or species misidentification. We discuss some recent occupancy estimation methods and the biological systems that motivated their development. Collectively, these models offer tremendous flexibility, but simultaneously place added demands on the investigator. Unlike many mark–recapture scenarios, investigators utilizing occupancy models have the ability, and responsibility, to define their sample units (i.e. sites), replicate sampling occasions, time period over which species occurrence is assumed to be static and even the criteria that constitute ‘detection’ of a target species. Subsequent biological inference and interpretation of model parameters depend on these definitions and the ability to meet model assumptions. We demonstrate the relevance of these definitions by highlighting applications from a single biological system (an amphibian–pathogen system) and discuss situations where the use of occupancy models has been criticized. Finally, we use these applications to suggest future research and model development.

Methods in Ecology and Evolution↗
USGS2013

Estimating true instead of apparent survival using spatial Cormack-Jolly-Seber models

Survival is often estimated from capture–recapture data using Cormack–Jolly–Seber (CJS) models, where mortality and emigration cannot be distinguished, and the estimated apparent survival probability is the product of the probabilities of true survival and of study area fidelity. Consequently, apparent survival is lower than true survival unless study area fidelity equals one. Underestimation of true survival from capture–recapture data is a main limitation of the method. We develop a spatial version of the CJS model that allows estimation of true survival. Besides the information about whether a specific individual was encountered at a given occasion, it is often recorded where the encounter occurred. Thus, information is available about the fraction of dispersal that occurs within the study area, and we use it to model dispersal and estimate true survival. Our model is formulated hierarchically and consists of survival, dispersal and observation submodels, assuming that encounters are possible anywhere within a study area. In a simulation study, our new spatial CJS model produced accurate estimates of true survival and dispersal behaviour for various sizes and shapes of the study area, even if emigration is substantial. However, when the information about dispersal is scarce due to low survival, low recapture probabilities and high emigration, the estimators are positively biased. Moreover, survival estimates are sensitive to the assumed dispersal kernel. We applied the spatial CJS model to a data set of adult red-backed shrikes ( Lanius collurio ). Apparent survival of males ( c . 0·5) estimated with the CJS model was larger than in females ( c . 0·4), but the application of the spatial CJS model revealed that both sexes had similar survival probabilities ( c . 0·6). The mean breeding dispersal distance in females was c . 700 m, while males dispersed only c . 250 m between years. Spatial CJS models enable study of dispersal and survival independent of study design constraints such as imperfect detection and size of the study area provided that some of the dispersing individuals remain in the study area. We discuss possible extensions of our model: alternative dispersal models and the inclusion of covariates and of a habitat suitability map.

Methods in Ecology and Evolution↗
USGS2013

Hierarchical spatial capture-recapture models: Modeling population density from stratified populations

Capture–recapture studies are often conducted on populations that are stratified by space, time or other factors. In this paper, we develop a Bayesian spatial capture–recapture (SCR) modelling framework for stratified populations – when sampling occurs within multiple distinct spatial and temporal strata. We describe a hierarchical model that integrates distinct models for both the spatial encounter history data from capture–recapture sampling, and also for modelling variation in density among strata. We use an implementation of data augmentation to parameterize the model in terms of a latent categorical stratum or group membership variable, which provides a convenient implementation in popular BUGS software packages. We provide an example application to an experimental study involving small-mammal sampling on multiple trapping grids over multiple years, where the main interest is in modelling a treatment effect on population density among the trapping grids. Many capture–recapture studies involve some aspect of spatial or temporal replication that requires some attention to modelling variation among groups or strata. We propose a hierarchical model that allows explicit modelling of group or strata effects. Because the model is formulated for individual encounter histories and is easily implemented in the BUGS language and other free software, it also provides a general framework for modelling individual effects, such as are present in SCR models.

Methods in Ecology and Evolution↗
USGS2013

Mark-resight abundance estimation under incomplete identification of marked individuals

Often less expensive and less invasive than conventional mark–recapture, so-called 'mark-resight' methods are popular in the estimation of population abundance. These methods are most often applied when a subset of the population of interest is marked (naturally or artificially), and non-invasive sighting data can be simultaneously collected for both marked and unmarked individuals. However, it can often be difficult to identify marked individuals with certainty during resighting surveys, and incomplete identification of marked individuals is potentially a major source of bias in mark-resight abundance estimators. Previously proposed solutions are ad hoc and will tend to underperform unless marked individual identification rates are relatively high (>90%) or individual sighting heterogeneity is negligible. Based on a complete data likelihood, we present an approach that properly accounts for uncertainty in marked individual detection histories when incomplete identifications occur. The models allow for individual heterogeneity in detection, sampling with (e.g. Poisson) or without (e.g. Bernoulli) replacement, and an unknown number of marked individuals. Using a custom Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm to facilitate Bayesian inference, we demonstrate these models using two example data sets and investigate their properties via simulation experiments. We estimate abundance for grassland sparrow populations in Pennsylvania, USA when sampling was conducted with replacement and the number of marked individuals was either known or unknown. To increase marked individual identification probabilities, extensive territory mapping was used to assign incomplete identifications to individuals based on location. Despite marked individual identification probabilities as low as 67% in the absence of this territorial mapping procedure, we generally found little return (or need) for this time-consuming investment when using our proposed approach. We also estimate rookery abundance from Alaskan Steller sea lion counts when sampling was conducted without replacement, the number of marked individuals was unknown, and individual heterogeneity was suspected as non-negligible. In terms of estimator performance, our simulation experiments and examples demonstrated advantages of our proposed approach over previous methods, particularly when marked individual identification probabilities are low and individual heterogeneity levels are high. Our methodology can also reduce field effort requirements for marked individual identification, thus, allowing potential investment into additional marking events or resighting surveys.

Methods in Ecology and Evolution↗
USGS2014

Multiseason occupancy models for correlated replicate surveys

Occupancy surveys collecting data from adjacent (sometimes correlated) spatial replicates have become relatively popular for logistical reasons. Hines et al . ( 2010 ) presented one approach to modelling such data for single-season occupancy surveys. Here, we present a multiseason analogue of this model (with corresponding software) for inferences about occupancy dynamics. We include a new parameter to deal with the uncertainty associated with the first spatial replicate for both single-season and multiseason models. We use a case study, based on the brown-headed nuthatch, to assess the need for these models when analysing data from the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS), and we test various hypotheses about occupancy dynamics for this species in the south-eastern United States. The new model permits inference about local probabilities of extinction, colonization and occupancy for sampling conducted over multiple seasons. The model performs adequately, based on a small simulation study and on results of the case study analysis. The new model incorporating correlated replicates was strongly favoured by model selection for the BBS data for brown-headed nuthatch ( Sitta pusilla ). Latitude was found to be an important source of variation in local colonization and occupancy probabilities for brown-headed nuthatch, with both probabilities being higher near the centre of the species range, as opposed to more northern and southern areas. We recommend this new occupancy model for detection–nondetection studies that use potentially correlated replicates.

North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Georgia↗
USGS2014

Using mark-recapture distance sampling methods on line transect surveys

Mark–recapture distance sampling (MRDS) methods are widely used for density and abundance estimation when the conventional DS assumption of certain detection at distance zero fails, as they allow detection at distance zero to be estimated and incorporated into the overall probability of detection to better estimate density and abundance. However, incorporating MR data in DS models raises survey and analysis issues not present in conventional DS. Conversely, incorporating DS assumptions in MR models raises issues not present in conventional MR. As a result, being familiar with either conventional DS methods or conventional MR methods does not on its own put practitioners in good a position to apply MRDS methods appropriately. This study explains the sometimes subtly different varieties of MRDS survey methods and the associated concepts underlying MRDS models. This is done as far as possible without giving mathematical details – in the hope that this will make the key concepts underlying the methods accessible to a wider audience than if we were to present the concepts via equations. We illustrate use of the two main types of MRDS model by using data collected on two different types of survey: a survey of ungulate faecal pellets where two observers searched independently of each other; and a cetacean survey that used a search protocol that could accommodate responsive movement, with only one observer searching independently and the other being aware of all detections. Synthesis and applications . Mark–recapture DS is a widely used method for estimating animal density and abundance when detection of animals at distance zero is not certain. Two observer configurations and three statistical models are described, and it is important to choose the most appropriate model for the observer configuration and target species in question. By way of making the methods more accessible to practicing ecologists, we describe the key ideas underlying MRDS methods, the sometimes subtle differences between them, and we illustrate these by applying different kinds of MRDS method to surveys of two different target species using different survey configurations.

Methods in Ecology and Evolution↗
USGS2014

Modelling non-Euclidean movement and landscape connectivity in highly structured ecological networks

Movement is influenced by landscape structure, configuration and geometry, but measuring distance as perceived by animals poses technical and logistical challenges. Instead, movement is typically measured using Euclidean distance, irrespective of location or landscape structure, or is based on arbitrary cost surfaces. A recently proposed extension of spatial capture-recapture (SCR) models resolves this issue using spatial encounter histories of individuals to calculate least-cost paths (ecological distance: Ecology , 94 , 2013, 287) thereby relaxing the Euclidean assumption. We evaluate the consequences of not accounting for movement heterogeneity when estimating abundance in highly structured landscapes, and demonstrate the value of this approach for estimating biologically realistic space-use patterns and landscape connectivity. We simulated SCR data in a riparian habitat network, using the ecological distance model under a range of scenarios where space-use in and around the landscape was increasingly associated with water (i.e. increasingly less Euclidean). To assess the influence of miscalculating distance on estimates of population size, we compared the results from the ecological and Euclidean distance based models. We then demonstrate that the ecological distance model can be used to estimate home range geometry when space use is not symmetrical. Finally, we provide a method for calculating landscape connectivity based on modelled species-landscape interactions generated from capture-recapture data. Using ecological distance always produced unbiased estimates of abundance. Explicitly modelling the strength of the species-landscape interaction provided a direct measure of landscape connectivity and better characterised true home range geometry. Abundance under the Euclidean distance model was increasingly (negatively) biased as space use was more strongly associated with water and, because home ranges are assumed to be symmetrical, produced poor characterisations of home range geometry and no information about landscape connectivity. The ecological distance SCR model uses spatially indexed capture-recapture data to estimate how activity patterns are influenced by landscape structure. As well as reducing bias in estimates of abundance, this approach provides biologically realistic representations of home range geometry, and direct information about species-landscape interactions. The incorporation of both structural (landscape) and functional (movement) components of connectivity provides a direct measure of species-specific landscape connectivity.

Methods in Ecology and Evolution↗
USGS2015

On the existence of maximum likelihood estimates for presence-only data

Presence-only data can be used to determine resource selection and estimate a species’ distribution. Maximum likelihood is a common parameter estimation method used for species distribution models. Maximum likelihood estimates, however, do not always exist for a commonly used species distribution model – the Poisson point process. We demonstrate the issue with conventional maximum likelihood mathematically, using a data example, and a simulation experiment and show alternative estimation methods. We found that when habitat preferences are strong or the number of presence-only locations is small, by chance, maximum likelihood coefficient estimates for the Poisson point process model may not exist. We found that several alternative estimation methods can produce reliable estimates, but results will depend on the chosen method. It is important to identify conditions for which maximum likelihood estimates are unlikely to be identifiable from presence-only data. In data sets where the maximum likelihood estimates do not exist, penalized likelihood and Bayesian methods will produce coefficient estimates, but these are sensitive to the choice of estimation procedure and prior or penalty term. When sample size is small or it is thought that habitat preferences are strong, we propose a suite of estimation procedures researchers can consider using.

Methods in Ecology and Evolution↗