Species detection vs. habitat suitability

Are we biasing habitat suitability models with remotely sensed data?

Bethany A. Bradley, Aaryn D. Olsson, Ophelia Wang, Brett G Dickson, Lori Pelech, Steven E. Sesnie, Luke J. Zachmann

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

44 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Remotely sensed datasets are increasingly being used to model habitat suitability for a variety of taxa. We review habitat suitability models (HSMs) developed for both plants and animals that include remote sensing predictor variables to determine how these variables could affect model projections. For models focused on plant species habitat, we find several instances of unintentional bias in HSMs of vegetation due to the inclusion of remote sensing variables. Notably, studies that include continuous remote sensing variables could be inadvertently mapping actual species distribution instead of potential habitat due to unique spectral or temporal characteristics of the target species. Additionally, HSMs including categorical classifications are rarely explicit about assumptions of habitat suitability related to land cover, which could lead to unintended exclusion of potential habitat due to current land use. Although we support the broader application of remote sensing in general, we caution developers of HSMs to be aware of introduced model bias. These biases are more likely to arise when remote sensing variables are added to models simply because they improve accuracy, rather than considering how they affect the model results and interpretation. When including land cover classifications as predictors, we recommend that modellers provide more explicit descriptions of how habitat is defined (e.g., is deforested land considered suitable for trees?). Further, we suggest that continuous remote sensing variables should only be included in habitat models if authors can demonstrate that their inclusion characterizes potential habitat rather than actual species distribution. Use of the term 'habitat suitability model' rather than 'species distribution model' could reduce confusion about modelling goals and improve communication between the remote sensing and ecological modelling communities.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)57-64
Number of pages8
JournalEcological Modelling
Volume244
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 10 2012

Fingerprint

habitat
remote sensing
detection
land cover
ecological modeling
communication
land use
animal
vegetation
modeling
distribution

Keywords

  • Bioclimatic envelope model
  • Ecological niche model
  • Habitat suitability model
  • Land cover classification
  • Remote sensing
  • Species distribution model
  • Vegetation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ecological Modeling

Cite this

Species detection vs. habitat suitability : Are we biasing habitat suitability models with remotely sensed data? / Bradley, Bethany A.; Olsson, Aaryn D.; Wang, Ophelia; Dickson, Brett G; Pelech, Lori; Sesnie, Steven E.; Zachmann, Luke J.

In: Ecological Modelling, Vol. 244, 10.10.2012, p. 57-64.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bradley, Bethany A. ; Olsson, Aaryn D. ; Wang, Ophelia ; Dickson, Brett G ; Pelech, Lori ; Sesnie, Steven E. ; Zachmann, Luke J. / Species detection vs. habitat suitability : Are we biasing habitat suitability models with remotely sensed data?. In: Ecological Modelling. 2012 ; Vol. 244. pp. 57-64.
@article{1a0503aa2e9f4ec4bbf8980d29c814ac,
title = "Species detection vs. habitat suitability: Are we biasing habitat suitability models with remotely sensed data?",
abstract = "Remotely sensed datasets are increasingly being used to model habitat suitability for a variety of taxa. We review habitat suitability models (HSMs) developed for both plants and animals that include remote sensing predictor variables to determine how these variables could affect model projections. For models focused on plant species habitat, we find several instances of unintentional bias in HSMs of vegetation due to the inclusion of remote sensing variables. Notably, studies that include continuous remote sensing variables could be inadvertently mapping actual species distribution instead of potential habitat due to unique spectral or temporal characteristics of the target species. Additionally, HSMs including categorical classifications are rarely explicit about assumptions of habitat suitability related to land cover, which could lead to unintended exclusion of potential habitat due to current land use. Although we support the broader application of remote sensing in general, we caution developers of HSMs to be aware of introduced model bias. These biases are more likely to arise when remote sensing variables are added to models simply because they improve accuracy, rather than considering how they affect the model results and interpretation. When including land cover classifications as predictors, we recommend that modellers provide more explicit descriptions of how habitat is defined (e.g., is deforested land considered suitable for trees?). Further, we suggest that continuous remote sensing variables should only be included in habitat models if authors can demonstrate that their inclusion characterizes potential habitat rather than actual species distribution. Use of the term 'habitat suitability model' rather than 'species distribution model' could reduce confusion about modelling goals and improve communication between the remote sensing and ecological modelling communities.",
keywords = "Bioclimatic envelope model, Ecological niche model, Habitat suitability model, Land cover classification, Remote sensing, Species distribution model, Vegetation",
author = "Bradley, {Bethany A.} and Olsson, {Aaryn D.} and Ophelia Wang and Dickson, {Brett G} and Lori Pelech and Sesnie, {Steven E.} and Zachmann, {Luke J.}",
year = "2012",
month = "10",
day = "10",
doi = "10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2012.06.019",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "244",
pages = "57--64",
journal = "Ecological Modelling",
issn = "0304-3800",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Species detection vs. habitat suitability

T2 - Are we biasing habitat suitability models with remotely sensed data?

AU - Bradley, Bethany A.

AU - Olsson, Aaryn D.

AU - Wang, Ophelia

AU - Dickson, Brett G

AU - Pelech, Lori

AU - Sesnie, Steven E.

AU - Zachmann, Luke J.

PY - 2012/10/10

Y1 - 2012/10/10

N2 - Remotely sensed datasets are increasingly being used to model habitat suitability for a variety of taxa. We review habitat suitability models (HSMs) developed for both plants and animals that include remote sensing predictor variables to determine how these variables could affect model projections. For models focused on plant species habitat, we find several instances of unintentional bias in HSMs of vegetation due to the inclusion of remote sensing variables. Notably, studies that include continuous remote sensing variables could be inadvertently mapping actual species distribution instead of potential habitat due to unique spectral or temporal characteristics of the target species. Additionally, HSMs including categorical classifications are rarely explicit about assumptions of habitat suitability related to land cover, which could lead to unintended exclusion of potential habitat due to current land use. Although we support the broader application of remote sensing in general, we caution developers of HSMs to be aware of introduced model bias. These biases are more likely to arise when remote sensing variables are added to models simply because they improve accuracy, rather than considering how they affect the model results and interpretation. When including land cover classifications as predictors, we recommend that modellers provide more explicit descriptions of how habitat is defined (e.g., is deforested land considered suitable for trees?). Further, we suggest that continuous remote sensing variables should only be included in habitat models if authors can demonstrate that their inclusion characterizes potential habitat rather than actual species distribution. Use of the term 'habitat suitability model' rather than 'species distribution model' could reduce confusion about modelling goals and improve communication between the remote sensing and ecological modelling communities.

AB - Remotely sensed datasets are increasingly being used to model habitat suitability for a variety of taxa. We review habitat suitability models (HSMs) developed for both plants and animals that include remote sensing predictor variables to determine how these variables could affect model projections. For models focused on plant species habitat, we find several instances of unintentional bias in HSMs of vegetation due to the inclusion of remote sensing variables. Notably, studies that include continuous remote sensing variables could be inadvertently mapping actual species distribution instead of potential habitat due to unique spectral or temporal characteristics of the target species. Additionally, HSMs including categorical classifications are rarely explicit about assumptions of habitat suitability related to land cover, which could lead to unintended exclusion of potential habitat due to current land use. Although we support the broader application of remote sensing in general, we caution developers of HSMs to be aware of introduced model bias. These biases are more likely to arise when remote sensing variables are added to models simply because they improve accuracy, rather than considering how they affect the model results and interpretation. When including land cover classifications as predictors, we recommend that modellers provide more explicit descriptions of how habitat is defined (e.g., is deforested land considered suitable for trees?). Further, we suggest that continuous remote sensing variables should only be included in habitat models if authors can demonstrate that their inclusion characterizes potential habitat rather than actual species distribution. Use of the term 'habitat suitability model' rather than 'species distribution model' could reduce confusion about modelling goals and improve communication between the remote sensing and ecological modelling communities.

KW - Bioclimatic envelope model

KW - Ecological niche model

KW - Habitat suitability model

KW - Land cover classification

KW - Remote sensing

KW - Species distribution model

KW - Vegetation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84864416479&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84864416479&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2012.06.019

DO - 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2012.06.019

M3 - Article

VL - 244

SP - 57

EP - 64

JO - Ecological Modelling

JF - Ecological Modelling

SN - 0304-3800

ER -