National Museum of Natural Sciences, Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), 28006 Madrid, Spain.
Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate, Natural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Sci Adv. 2019 Jan 16;5(1):eaat4858. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aat4858. eCollection 2019 Jan.
Demand for models in biodiversity assessments is rising, but which models are adequate for the task? We propose a set of best-practice standards and detailed guidelines enabling scoring of studies based on species distribution models for use in biodiversity assessments. We reviewed and scored 400 modeling studies over the past 20 years using the proposed standards and guidelines. We detected low model adequacy overall, but with a marked tendency of improvement over time in model building and, to a lesser degree, in biological data and model evaluation. We argue that implementation of agreed-upon standards for models in biodiversity assessments would promote transparency and repeatability, eventually leading to higher quality of the models and the inferences used in assessments. We encourage broad community participation toward the expansion and ongoing development of the proposed standards and guidelines.
对生物多样性评估中模型的需求正在增加,但哪些模型适合这项任务呢?我们提出了一套最佳实践标准和详细指南,使基于物种分布模型的研究能够根据这些标准和指南进行评分,从而用于生物多样性评估。我们使用提出的标准和指南,对过去 20 年的 400 项建模研究进行了回顾和评分。我们发现整体模型充分性较低,但随着时间的推移,在模型构建方面有明显的改进趋势,在生物数据和模型评估方面的改进程度较小。我们认为,在生物多样性评估中实施针对模型的既定标准将提高透明度和可重复性,最终提高模型以及评估中使用的推论的质量。我们鼓励广大社区参与,扩大和不断发展拟议的标准和指南。