4.5 Article

Assessment of alternative approaches for bioclimatic modeling with special emphasis on the Mahalanobis distance

期刊

ECOLOGICAL MODELLING
卷 160, 期 1-2, 页码 115-130

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0304-3800(02)00327-7

关键词

BIOCLIM; climatic envelope models; distribution range; GIS; ecological niche; Kappa; predictive maps

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We introduce the concept of the Mahalanobis distance to bioclimatic modeling. Specifically, we argue that climatic envelopes defined by the Mahalanobis distance produce more accurate predictions of species distribution than standard rectilinear envelopes (e.g. those produced by BIOCLIM). We base our hypothesis on three rationales: (1) the climatic envelope generated by the Mahalanobis distance is oblique, and therefore, may cope with correlations and interactions among the climatic variables; (2) the Mahalanobis envelope is elliptic, a rid therefore, better reflects the principle of central tendency as expressed by niche theory; (3) Mahalanobian predictions are based on the whole data rather than on the outermost observations, and are therefore, less sensitive to outliers. We test our hypothesis using data on the distribution of 192 species of woody plants in Israel. Validation tests based on four measures of accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, overall accuracy and the Kappa statistic) support our hypothesis, and suggest that Mahalanobis models produce predictions that are significantly more accurate than those produced by corresponding rectilinear models. Additional simulation experiments demonstrate that the superiority of Mahalanobian models cannot be related to their elliptic-shape, of their ability to cope with correlations among the climatic variables. Accordingly, our conclusion is that the prime advantage of Mahalanobian models originates from the fact that their climatic envelopes are defined using all the observations, as opposed to rectilinear envelopes that are founded on the outermost observations. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据