Back

Increasing spatial approximation complexity can degrade prediction quality in distribution models

Ward, E. J.; Anderson, S. C.

2026-03-19 ecology
10.1101/2025.11.14.688354 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Spatial and spatiotemporal models are increasingly critical for understanding species distributions, tracking population change, and informing conservation decisions. As biological processes are influenced by increasing external pressures, including human disturbance or environmental change, accurate model predictions become essential for adaptive management. However, the reliability of spatial predictions depends on often-overlooked modelling choices, including the spatial resolution used to approximate underlying processes. Using long term monitoring data from a large-scale groundfish survey in the California Current ecosystem, we investigated how spatial model complexity affects the quality of ecological predictions and derived indices used for management. We fit spatial and spatiotemporal models of ocean temperature and fish biomass density for 27 commercially important species using varying levels of spatial resolution. We evaluated both in-sample and out-of-sample prediction, and effects on area-weighted biomass indices. Counter to common assumptions, increasing spatial approximation resolution did not universally improve predictions. Our case studies demonstrate that for many datasets, out-of-sample prediction quality peaked at intermediate spatial resolutions and declined at the finest scales. Through simulation testing, we found this pattern was strongest when spatial patterning had a small range and high spatial variance, and observation error was low. For most species, spatial resolution had a minimal effect on biomass trend estimates used in management, but for several commercially important rockfish species, resolution choices substantially affected both the scale and uncertainty of population indices. Our findings demonstrate that spatial model specification can substantially affect ecological inference, with direct implications for management and conservation planning. We provide practical guidance for ecologists on selecting appropriate spatial complexity through cross-validation. When out-of-sample prediction is a focus, appropriate approximation complexity should improve both parameter estimation accuracy and derived quantities.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Ecological Applications
28 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.5%
2
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 3%
9.9%
3
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
160 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
9.9%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 32%
4.8%
5
Ecography
50 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.8%
6
Movement Ecology
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.8%
7
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
8
Ecosphere
53 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.5%
50% of probability mass above
9
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.5%
10
Biological Conservation
43 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.5%
11
Ecological Informatics
29 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.5%
12
Ecology and Evolution
232 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
13
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
60 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.0%
14
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.9%
15
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 38%
1.9%
16
Ecology
70 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.8%
17
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 60%
1.6%
18
Journal of Applied Ecology
35 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.6%
19
Conservation Science and Practice
13 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
20
Global Change Biology
69 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
21
Landscape Ecology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.2%
22
Diversity and Distributions
26 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
23
Journal of Animal Ecology
63 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.9%
24
Environmental Research Letters
15 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
25
Conservation Letters
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
26
Ecology Letters
121 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
27
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
189 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
28
Conservation Biology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%
29
Ecological Modelling
24 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
30
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%