abstract |
Niche modeling of species has become increasingly important in the context of accelerating climate change and anthropogenic impacts on the biosphere. One such tool for predicting the potential distribution of species is the maximum entropy method (MaxEnt). This method is particularly valuable when working with biodiversity data collected from herbaria and museum collections, as such data typically only contains information about where a species has been recorded, rather than where it is absent. It is precisely this feature of MaxEnt that makes it an indispensable tool for biodiversity research based on historical data. This allows for the reconstruction of historical species ranges, the detection of changes in their distribution, and the forecasting of future trends, namely the prediction of potential ranges, the assessment of the impact of climate change and anthropogenic pressure, and the development of effective biodiversity conservation strategies. This article provides a brief overview of the MaxEnt program's operating principle, its capabilities, and limitations. In particular, it analyzes the impact of data quality on modeling results and considers various approaches to assessing the importance of ecological factors for species distribution. One of the key issues discussed in the article is the problem of sampling bias. Sampling bias arises because data on the presence of species are often collected non-randomly and depend on the accessibility of the locality, the interests of researchers, and other factors. This can lead to distortions in modeling results. Various methods can be used to correct these biases, such as the bias grid method and the background points method. Another important aspect is the choice of the territory for the background sample. It should be taken into account that when using projections where cells have different areas, MaxEnt may give incorrect results. The article also emphasizes the need for cautious interpretation of modeling results. Assessing niche models solely based on AUC can be misleading, therefore, for a more reliable assessment of variable importance, it is worth supplementing it with permutation importance and the jackknife method. Examples of modeling for various groups, including mammals of the Ukrainian fauna, were considered. |
references |
Elith, J., S. J. Phillips, T. Hastie, M. Dudík, Y. E. Chee, C. J. Yates. 2011. A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists. Diversity and distributions, 17(1): 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2010.00725.x
Meshkova, V., O. Zinchenko, V. Us, Y. Skrylnyk. 2024. Emerald ash borer in the park with a long-time history of black ash sawfly defoliation. Environmental and Earth Sciences Proceedings, 31 (1): 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/eesp2024031004
Mupfiga, U., O. Mutanga, T. Dube. 2024. Assessing drivers of vegetation fire occurrence in Zimbabwe-insights from Maxent modelling and historical data analysis. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment, 37: 101404 (1–13). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsase.2024.101404
Novoseltseva, Y. 2024. Analysis of the distribution of Muscardinus avellanarius (Rodentia) in Ukraine using the Maxent model. Theriologia Ukrainica, 27: 48–54. https://doi.org/10.53452/TU2706
Pearce, J. L., M. S. Boyce. 2006. Modelling distribution and abundance with presence‐only data. Journal of applied ecology, 43 (3): 405–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01112.x
Phillips, S. J., R. P. Anderson, R. E. Schapire. 2006. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecological Modelling, 190 (3–4): 231–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.03.026
Phillips, S. J., M. Dudík. 2008. Modeling of species distributions with Maxent: new extensions and a comprehensive evaluation. Ecography, 31 (2): 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0906-7590.2008.5203.x
Phillips, S. J., M. Dudík, J. Elith, C. H. Graham, A. Lehmann, [et al.]. 2009. Sample selection bias and presence‐only distribution models: implications for background and pseudo‐absence data. Ecological applications, 19 (1): 181–197. https://doi.org/10.1890/07-2153.1
Phillips, S. J., R. P. Anderson, M. Dudík, R. E. Schapire, M. E. Blair. 2017. Opening the black box: An open‐source release of Maxent. Ecography, 40 (7): 887–893. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.03049
Phillips, S. J. 2017. A Brief Tutorial on Maxent. URL: http://biodiversityinformatics.amnh.org/open_source/maxent/
Rhoden, C. M., W. E. Peterman, C. A. Taylor. 2017. Maxent-directed field surveys identify new populations of narrowly endemic habitat specialists. PeerJ, 5: 1–21. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3632
Tytar, V., O. Lashkova, I. Dzeverin, I. Kozynenko. 2023. Species distribution modelling of the yellow-necked mouse, Sylvaemus tauricus, with special reference to Ukraine. Theriologia Ukrainica, 26: 147–158. https://doi.org/10.53452/TU2613
Tytar, V., I., Kozynenko, M. Pupins, A. Škute, A. Čeirāns, J. Y. Georges, O. Nekrasova. 2024. Species Distribution Modeling of Ixodes ricinus (Linnaeus, 1758) Under Current and Future Climates, with a Special Focus on Latvia and Ukraine. Climate, 12(11), 184. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli12110184
Yackulic, C. B., R. Chandler, E. F. Zipkin, J. A. Royle, J. D. Nichols, [et al.]. 2013. Presence‐only modelling using MAXENT: when can we trust the inferences? Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 4 (3): 236–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.12004
VanDerWal, J., L. P. Shoo, C. Graham, S. E. Williams. 2009. Selecting pseudo-absence data for presence-only distribution modeling: how far should you stray from what you know? Ecological modelling, 220 (4): 589–594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2008.11.010
Wilson, P. D., P. O. Downey, M. Leishman, R. Gallagher, L. Hughes, J. O'Donnell. 2009. Weeds in a warmer world: predicting the impact of climate change on Australia's alien plant species using MaxEnt. Plant Protection Quarterly, 24 (3): 84–87. |
