Back

Essential ingredients in Joint Species Distribution Models: influence on interpretability, explanatory and predictive power

Violet, C.; Boye, A.; Chevalier, M.; Gauthier, O.; Grall, J.; Marzloff, M. P.

2022-12-19 ecology
10.1101/2022.12.19.519605 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Joint Species Distribution Models (jSDM) are increasingly used to explain and predict biodiversity patterns. By accounting for species co-occurrence patterns and potentially including species-specific information, jSDMs capture the processes that shape ecological communities. Yet, factors like missing covariates or omitting ecologically-important species may alter the interpretability and effectiveness of jSDMs. Additionally, while the specific formulation of a jSDM directly affects its performances, the effects of choices related to model structure, such as inclusion, or not of phylogeny or trait information, are not well-explored. Here, we developed a multifaceted framework to comprehensively assess performances of alternative jSDM formulations at both species and community levels. We applied this framework to four alternative models fitted on presence/absence and abundance data of a polychaete assemblage sampled in two coastal habitats over 500 km and 8 years. Relative to a benchmark jSDM only capturing the effects of abiotic predictors and residual co-occurrence patterns, we explored the performance of alternative formulations that also included species phylogeny, traits, or some additional 179 non-target species, which were sampled alongside the species of interest. For both presence/absence and abundance data, explanatory power was good for all models but their interpretability and predictive power varied. Relative to the benchmark model, predictive errors on species abundances decreased by 95% or 53%, when including non-target species, or phylogeny, respectively. These differences across models relate to changes in both species-environment relationships and residual co-occurrence patterns. While considering trait data did not improve explanatory or predictive power, it facilitated interpretation of trait-mediated species response to environmental gradients. This study demonstrates trade-offs in jSDM formulation for explaining or predicting species data, highlighting the importance of using a comprehensive framework to compare models. Furthermore, our study provides some guidance for model selection tailored to specific objectives and available data.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Ecography
50 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
25.5%
2
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
160 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
18.3%
3
Ecology Letters
121 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.0%
50% of probability mass above
4
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 4%
8.3%
5
Journal of Biogeography
37 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.9%
6
Ecological Informatics
29 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.5%
7
Ecology
70 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.5%
8
Global Ecology and Biogeography
41 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.5%
9
Ecological Modelling
24 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
10
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.6%
11
Oikos
74 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.5%
12
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
341 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.3%
13
Global Change Biology
69 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
14
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.9%
15
Ecological Applications
28 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
16
Journal of Animal Ecology
63 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.9%
17
Molecular Ecology Resources
161 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.9%
18
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 65%
0.9%
19
New Phytologist
309 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
20
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
21
Ecology and Evolution
232 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
22
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
60 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
23
Diversity and Distributions
26 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.6%