Back

Bioacoustics for in situ validation of species distribution modelling: An example with bats in Brazil

Hintze, F.; Machado, R. B.; Bernard, E.

2021-03-08 ecology
10.1101/2021.03.08.434378 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Species distribution modelling (SDM) gained importance on biodiversity distribution and conservation studies worldwide, including prioritizing areas for public policies and international treaties. Useful for large-scale approaches and estimates, is a plus considering that a minor fraction of the planet is adequately sampled. However, SDM needs to be as reliable as possible. Minimizing errors is challenging, but essential, considering the uses and consequences of such models. In situ validation of the SDM outputs should be a key-step - in some cases, urgent. Bioacoustics can be used to validate and refine those outputs, especially if the focal species vocalizations are conspicuous and species-specific. This is the case of echolocating bats. Here, we used extensive acoustic monitoring (>120 validation points, covering >758,000 km2, and >300,000 sound files) to validate MaxEnt outputs for six neotropical bat species in a poorly-sampled region of Brazil. Based on in situ validation, we evaluated four threshold-dependent theoretical evaluation metrics ability in predicting models performance. We also assessed the performance of three widely used thresholds to convert continuous SDMs into presence/absence maps. We demonstrated that MaxEnt produces very different outputs, requiring a careful choice on thresholds and modeling parameters. Although all theoretical evaluation metrics studied were positively correlated with accuracy, we empirically demonstrated that metrics based on specificity-sensitivity and sensitivity-precision are better for testing models, considering that most SDMs are based on unbalanced data. Without independent field validation, we found that using an arbitrary threshold for modelling can be a precarious approach with many possible outcomes, even after getting good evaluation scores. Bioacoustics proved to be important for validating SDMs for the six bat species analyzed, allowing a better refinement of SDMs in large and under-sampled regions, with relatively low sampling effort. Regardless of species assessing method used, our research highlighted the vital necessity of in situ validation for SDMs.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Ecological Informatics
29 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.6%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 19%
10.1%
3
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
160 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
8.4%
4
Ecological Indicators
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.8%
5
Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.8%
6
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
33 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
50% of probability mass above
7
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.0%
8
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 31%
4.0%
9
Global Ecology and Conservation
25 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.6%
10
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.4%
11
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
12
Biological Conservation
43 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.9%
13
Ecography
50 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.9%
14
Sensors
39 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.9%
15
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 40%
1.8%
16
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
17
Science of The Total Environment
179 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
18
Ecology and Evolution
232 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
19
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 20%
1.1%
20
Molecular Ecology Resources
161 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.9%
21
Global Ecology and Biogeography
41 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
22
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
378 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
23
Ecosphere
53 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
24
Conservation Science and Practice
13 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
25
Oikos
74 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
26
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
60 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
27
Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems
12 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
28
Malaria Journal
48 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%