Nondetection sampling bias in marked presence-only data

Abstract

Species distribution models (SDM) are tools used to determine environmental features that influence the geographic distribution of species' abundance and have been used to analyze presence-only records. Analysis of presence-only records may require correction for nondetection sampling bias to yield reliable conclusions. In addition, individuals of some species of animals may be highly aggregated and standard SDMs ignore environmental features that may influence aggregation behavior.We contend that nondetection sampling bias can be treated as missing data. Statistical theory and corrective methods are well developed for missing data, but have been ignored in the literature on SDMs. We developed a marked inhomogeneous Poisson point process model that accounted for nondetection and aggregation behavior in animals and tested our methods on simulated data.Correcting for nondetection sampling bias requires estimates of the probability of detection which must be obtained from auxiliary data, as presence-only data do not contain information about the detection mechanism. Weighted likelihood methods can be used to correct for nondetection if estimates of the probability of detection are available. We used an inhomogeneous Poisson point process model to model group abundance, a zero-truncated generalized linear model to model group size, and combined these two models to describe the distribution of abundance. Our methods performed well on simulated data when nondetection was accounted for and poorly when detection was ignored.We recommend researchers consider the effects of nondetection sampling bias when modeling species distributions using presence-only data. If information about the detection process is available, we recommend researchers explore the effects of nondetection and, when warranted, correct the bias using our methods. We developed our methods to analyze opportunistic presence-only records of whooping cranes (Grus americana), but expect that our methods will be useful to ecologists analyzing opportunistic presence-only records of other species of animals.

References Aarts, G., J. Fieberg, and J. Matthiopoulos. 2012. Comparative interpretation of count, presence-absence and point methods for species distribution models. Methods Ecol. Evol. 3:177–187. Araújo, M. B., and A. Guisan. 2006. Five (or so) challenges for species distribution modelling. J. Biogeogr. 33:1677–1688. Austin, J., and A. Richert. 2001. A comprehensive review of observational and site evaluation data of migrant whooping cranes in the United States, 1943–99. Available at http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/wcdata/pdf/wcdata.pdf. (accessed 17 July 2013). Buckland, S. T., and D. A. Elston. 1993. Empirical models for the spatial distribution of wildlife. J. Appl. Ecol. 30:478–495. Cressie, N. 1993. Statistics for spatial data. Wiley, New York. Diggle, P. J. 2003. Statistical analysis of spatial point patterns. Hodder Education, London, U.K. Dorazio, R. 2012. Predicting the Geographic Distribution of a Species from Presence-Only Data Subject to Detection Errors. Biometrics 68:1–25. Efron, B., and R. J. Tibshirani. 1994. An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL. Elith, J., and J. Leathwick. 2007. Predicting species distributions from museum and herbarium records using multiresponse models fitted with multivariate adaptive regression splines. Divers. Distrib. 13:265–275. Elith, J., C. H. Graham, R. P. Anderson, M. Dudík, S. Ferrier, A. Guisan, et al. 2006. Novel methods improve prediction of species' distributions from occurrence data. Ecography, 29, 129–151. Elith, J., J. R. Leathwick, and T. Hastie. 2008. A working guide to boosted regression trees. J. Anim. Ecol. 77:802–813. Elliott, M. 2007. Bayesian weight trimming for generalized linear regression models. Surv. Methodol. 33:23–34. Fithian, W. and T. Hastie. 2013. Finite-sample equivalence in statistical models for presence only data. Ann. Appl. Stat. in press. Frair, J. L., S. E. Nielsen, E. H. Merrill, S. R. Lele, M. S. Boyce, R. H. M. Munro, et al. 2004. Removing GPS collar bias in habitat selection studies. J. Appl. Ecol. 41:201–212. Guisan, A., and N. E. Zimmermann. 2000. Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecol. Model. 135:147–186. Guisan, A., T. C. Edwards, and T. Hastie. 2002. Generalized linear and generalized additive models in studies of species distributions: setting the scene. Ecol. Model. 157:89–100. Hastie, T., and W. Fithian. 2013. Inference from presence-only data; the ongoing controversy. Ecography 36:864–867. Hastie, T., R. Tibshirani, and J. Friedman. 2009. The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and prediction. 2nd ed. Springer, New York, NY. Jackson, D., I. White, and M. Leese. 2010. How much can we learn about missing data?: an exploration of a clinical trial in psychiatry. J. Royal Statist. Soc.: Series A 173:593–612. Johnson, C. J., and M. P. Gillingham. 2008. Sensitivity of species-distribution models to error, bias, and model design: An application to resource selection functions for woodland caribou. Ecol. Model. 213:143–155. Kéry, M. 2011. Towards the modelling of true species distributions. J. Biogeogr. 38:617–618. Kramer-Schadt, S., J. Niedballa, J. D. Pilgrim, B. Schröder, J. Lindenborn, V. Reinfelder, et al. 2013. The importance of correcting for sampling bias in MaxEnt species distribution models (M. Robertson, Ed.). Divers. Distrib. 19:1366–1379. Little, R. J. A., and D. B. Rubin. 2002. Statistical analysis with missing data. Wiley, New York, NY. Manly, B. F., L. McDonald, D. L. Thomas, T. L. McDonald, and W. P. Erickson. 2002. Resource selection by animals: statistical design and analysis for field studies. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. Martin, T. G., M. A. Burgman, F. Fidler, P. M. Kuhnert, S. Low-Choy, M. Mcbride, and K. Mengersen. 2012. Eliciting expert knowledge in conservation science. Cons. Biol., 26, 29–38. Mason, A., S. Richardson, I. Plewis, and N. Best. 2012. Strategy for modelling nonrandom missing data mechanisms in observational studies using Bayesian methods. J. Offic. Stat. 28:279–302. Monk, J. 2013. How long should we ignore imperfect detection of species in the marine environment when modelling their distribution. Fish Fisheries. (in press). Pearce, J. L. and M. S. Boyce. 2006. Modelling distribution and abundance with presence-only data. J. Appl. Ecol. 43:405–412. Perera, A. H., C. A. Drew, and C. J. Johnson. 2012. Expert knowledge and its application in landscape ecology. Springer, New York, NY. Phillips, S. J., R. P. Anderson, and R. E. Schapire. 2006. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol. Model. 190:231–259. Phillips, S. J., M. Dudík, J. Elith, C. H. Graham, A. Lehmann, J. Leathwick, et al. 2009. Sample selection bias and presence-only distribution models: implications for background and pseudo-absence data. Ecol. Appl. 19:181–197. Renner, I. W., and D. I. Warton. 2013. Equivalence of MAXENT and Poisson point process models for species distribution modeling in ecology. Biometrics 69:274–281. Rota, C. T., R. J. Fletcher, J. M. Evans, and R. L. Hutto. 2011. Does accounting for imperfect detection improve species distribution models? Ecography 34:659–670. Rubin, D. 1976. Inference and missing data. Biometrika 63:581–592. Stoyan, D., and A. Penttinen. 2000. Recent applications of point process methods in forestry statistics. Stat. Sci. 15:61–78. Van Strien, A., C. van Swaay, and T. Termaat. 2013. Opportunistic citizen science data of animal species produce reliable estimates of distribution trends if analysed with occupancy models. J. Appl. Ecol. 50:1450–1458 Warton, D., and G. Aarts. 2013. Advancing our thinking in presence-only and used-available analysis. J. Anim. Ecol. 82:1125–1134 Warton, D. I., and L. C. Shepherd. 2010. Poisson point process models solve the “pseudo-absence problem” for presence-only data in ecology. Ann. Appl. Stat. 4:1383–1402. Welsh, A. H., D. B. Lindenmayer, and C. F. Donnelly. 2013. Fitting and interpreting occupancy models. PLoS ONE 8:e52015. White, I. R., J. Carpenter, S. Evans, and S. Schroter. 2007. Eliciting and using expert opinions about dropout bias in randomized controlled trials. Clinical Trials 4:125–139. Yackulic, C. B., R. Chandler, E. F. Zipkin, J. A. Royle, J. D. Nichols, E. H. Campbell Grant, et al. 2013. Presence-only modelling using MAXENT: when can we trust the inferences? Methods Ecol. Evol. 4:236–243. Zipkin, E. F., J. B. Leirness, B. P. Kinlan, A. F. O'Connell, and E. D. Silverman. 2012. Fitting statistical distributions to sea duck count data: implications for survey design and abundance estimation. Statist. Methodol. in press. Zuur, A., E. N. Ieno, N. Walker, A. A. Saveliev, and G. M. Smith. 2009. Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New York, NY.