Performance of alternative methods for generating species distribution models for invasive species in the Laurentian Great Lakes

被引:0
|
作者
Prescott, Victoria A. [1 ]
Marte, Jack [1 ]
Keller, Reuben P. [1 ]
机构
[1] Loyola Univ Chicago, Sch Environm Sustainabil, Chicago, IL 60611 USA
关键词
CRAYFISH PROCAMBARUS-CLARKII; FRESH-WATER BIODIVERSITY; RISK-ASSESSMENT; CLIMATE-CHANGE; POTENTIAL DISTRIBUTION; ESTABLISHMENT SUCCESS; NICHE SHIFTS; PREDICTION; STRESSORS; THREATS;
D O I
10.1093/fshmag/vuaf012
中图分类号
S9 [水产、渔业];
学科分类号
0908 ;
摘要
The Risk Assessment Mapping Program (RAMP) is a user-friendly tool that uses climate data and known occurrences of nonnative species to predict where the species may be able to survive. We compared the performance of RAMP and two machine learning methods, boosted regression trees and maximum entropy, at estimating distributions of 30 aquatic species that are nonnative to the Laurentian Great Lakes Basin. For each species and method, we created models and tested them against subsets of known occurrences to calculate true skill statistics (TSS). This measure ranges between -1 (no better than random) and 1 (perfect assessment). Average TSS values were 0.81 +/- 0.09 (boosted regression tree), 0.76 +/- 0.12 (maximum entropy), and 0.09 +/- 0.06 (RAMP). Despite having high TSS values, our machine learning models generally underestimate potential distributions across the Great Lakes Basin. The RAMP forecasts much greater areas of the basin to be climatically appropriate for each species and may therefore be more suitable for conservative management decisions.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Invasive dreissenid mussels benefit invasive crayfish but not native crayfish in the Laurentian Great Lakes
    Glon, M. G.
    Larson, E. R.
    Reisinger, L. S.
    Pangle, K. L.
    JOURNAL OF GREAT LAKES RESEARCH, 2017, 43 (02) : 289 - 297
  • [32] Metabarcoding of native and invasive species in stomach contents of Great Lakes fishes
    Mychek-Londer, Justin G.
    Chaganti, Subba Rao
    Heath, Daniel D.
    PLOS ONE, 2020, 15 (08):
  • [33] Evaluating an invasive species policy: Ballast water exchange in the Great Lakes
    Costello, Christopher
    Drake, John M.
    Lodge, David M.
    ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS, 2007, 17 (03) : 655 - 662
  • [34] A Synthesis of the Biology and Ecology of Sculpin Species in the Laurentian Great Lakes and Implications for the Adaptive Capacity of the Benthic Ecosystem
    Robinson, Kelly F.
    Bronte, Charles R.
    Bunnell, David B.
    Euclide, Peter T.
    Hondorp, Darryl W.
    Janssen, John A.
    Kornis, Matthew S.
    Ogle, Derek H.
    Otte, Will
    Riley, Stephen C.
    Vinson, Mark R.
    Volkel, Shea L.
    Weidel, Brian C.
    REVIEWS IN FISHERIES SCIENCE & AQUACULTURE, 2021, 29 (01) : 96 - 121
  • [35] Comparison of alternative strategies for invasive species distribution modeling
    Robinson, Todd P.
    van Klinken, Rieks D.
    Metternicht, Graciela
    ECOLOGICAL MODELLING, 2010, 221 (19) : 2261 - 2269
  • [36] Can species distribution models really predict the expansion of invasive species?
    Barbet-Massin, Morgane
    Rome, Quentin
    Villemant, Claire
    Courchamp, Franck
    PLOS ONE, 2018, 13 (03):
  • [37] Species distribution models have limited spatial transferability for invasive species
    Liu, Chunlong
    Wolter, Christian
    Xian, Weiwei
    Jeschke, Jonathan M.
    ECOLOGY LETTERS, 2020, 23 (11) : 1682 - 1692
  • [38] The role of anglers in preventing the spread of aquatic invasive species in the Great Lakes region
    Connelly, Nancy A.
    Lauber, T. Bruce
    Stedman, Richard C.
    Knuth, Barbara A.
    JOURNAL OF GREAT LAKES RESEARCH, 2016, 42 (03) : 703 - 707
  • [39] Sampling Design for Early Detection of Aquatic Invasive Species in Great Lakes Ports
    Hoffman, Joel C.
    Schloesser, Joshua
    Trebitz, Anett S.
    Peterson, Greg S.
    Gutsch, Michelle
    Quinlan, Henry
    Kelly, John R.
    FISHERIES, 2016, 41 (01) : 26 - 37
  • [40] Invasive plant species in diked vs. undiked Great Lakes wetlands
    Herrick, BM
    Wolf, AT
    JOURNAL OF GREAT LAKES RESEARCH, 2005, 31 (03) : 277 - 287