Squares of different sizes: effect of geographical projection on model parameter estimates in species distribution modeling
Open Access
- 17 December 2015
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Ecology and Evolution
- Vol. 6 (1) , 202-211
Abstract
In species distribution analyses, environmental predictors and distribution data for large spatial extents are often available in long‐lat format, such as degree raster grids. Long‐lat projections suffer from unequal cell sizes, as a degree of longitude decreases in length from approximately 110 km at the equator to 0 km at the poles. Here we investigate whether long‐lat and equal‐area projections yield similar model parameter estimates, or result in a consistent bias. We analyzed the environmental effects on the distribution of 12 ungulate species with a northern distribution, as models for these species should display the strongest effect of projectional distortion. Additionally we choose four species with entirely continental distributions to investigate the effect of incomplete cell coverage at the coast. We expected that including model weights proportional to the actual cell area should compensate for the observed bias in model coefficients, and similarly that using land coverage of a cell should decrease bias in species with coastal distribution. As anticipated, model coefficients were different between long‐lat and equal‐area projections. Having progressively smaller and a higher number of cells with increasing latitude influenced the importance of parameters in models, increased the sample size for the northernmost parts of species ranges, and reduced the subcell variability of those areas. However, this bias could be largely removed by weighting long‐lat cells by the area they cover, and marginally by correcting for land coverage. Overall we found little effect of using long‐lat rather than equal‐area projections in our analysis. The fitted relationship between environmental parameters and occurrence probability differed only very little between the two projection types. We still recommend using equal‐area projections to avoid possible bias. More importantly, our results suggest that the cell area and the proportion of a cell covered by land should be used as a weight when analyzing distribution of terrestrial species.Keywords
Funding Information
- Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DO 786/5‐1)
This publication has 32 references indexed in Scilit:
- Dynamic occupancy models for analyzing species' range dynamics across large geographic scalesEcology and Evolution, 2013
- Stacking species distribution models and adjusting bias by linking them to macroecological modelsGlobal Ecology and Biogeography, 2013
- Small range size and narrow niche breadth predict range contractions in South African frogsGlobal Ecology and Biogeography, 2012
- Collinearity: a review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performanceEcography, 2012
- What spatial data do we need to develop global mammal conservation strategies?Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2011
- Do geographic distribution, niche property and life form explain plants' vulnerability to global change?Global Change Biology, 2006
- Structure of the species–energy relationshipProceedings Of The Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 2004
- Correcting for Regression Dilution Bias: Comparison of Methods for a Single Predictor VariableJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society, 2000
- Using between‐model comparisons to fine‐tune linear models of species rangesJournal of Biogeography, 2000
- Measurement Error Models1987