Ecological relevance of performance criteria for species distribution models
In: Ecological Modelling. Elsevier: Amsterdam; Lausanne; New York; Oxford; Shannon; Tokyo. ISSN 0304-3800; e-ISSN 1872-7026, more
|  |
| Author keywords |
Prevalence; Omission; commission errors; CCI; Kappa; TSS |
| Abstract |
Species distribution models have often been developed based on ecological data. To develop reliable data-driven models, however, a sound model training and evaluation procedures are needed. A crucial step in these procedures is the assessment of the model performance, with as key component the applied performance criterion. Therefore, we reviewed seven performance criteria commonly applied in presence–absence modelling (the correctly classified instances, Kappa, sensitivity, specificity, the normalised mutual information statistic, the true skill statistic and the odds ratio) and analysed their application in both the model training and evaluation process. Although estimates of predictive performance have been used widely to assess final model quality, a systematic overview was missing because most analyses of performance criteria have been empirical and only focused on specific aspects of the performance criteria. This paper provides such an overview showing that different performance criteria evaluate a model differently and that this difference may be explained by the dependency of these criteria on the prevalence of the validation set. We showed theoretically that these prevalence effects only occur if the data are inseparable by an n-dimensional hyperplane, n being the number of input variables. Given this inseparability, different performance criteria focus on different aspects of model performance during model training, such as sensitivity, specificity or predictive accuracy. These findings have important consequences for ecological modelling because ecological data are mostly inseparable due to data noise and the complexity of the studied system. Consequently, it should be very clear which aspect of the model performance is evaluated, and models should be evaluated consistently, that is, independent of, or taking into account, species prevalence. The practical implications of these findings are clear. They provide further insight into the evaluation of ecological presence/absence models and attempt to assist modellers in their choice of suitable performance criteria. |
|
