Dealing with sampling bias and inferring absence data to improve distribution models of a widely distributed vulnerable marsupial

Abstract

AbstractSpecies distribution models are widely used to identify potential and high‐quality habitat of endangered species to inform conservation decisions. However, their usefulness is constrained by the amount and quality of biodiversity data and the approaches for dealing with data deficiencies. Presence‐only data, used in presence/background modelling methods, are widely available but are often affected by sampling bias. Presence/absence modelling methods are less affected by biases, but data are less common. We modelled the distribution of a widely distributed, endangered species from Australia – the greater glider – and tested how predictions were influenced by data treatment and modelling framework. We collated available species data and fitted generalized linear models and boosted regression trees using presence/absence data, as well as using an augmented dataset that included additional presences alongside absences inferred from survey data. We also fitted presence/background models, adopting three common strategies for bias correction. We compared model performance quantitatively through evaluation metrics calculated internally and on held out data, and qualitatively by identifying areas of agreement of spatial predictions. We found that presence/background models with bias correction performed better than not corrected, though evaluation metrics did not favour a single strategy. Presence/absence models outperformed presence/background models in comparable metrics and delivered different spatial predictions. Importantly, differences in spatial predictions between models had the potential to substantially alter decisions about where to protect high‐quality habitat. The approach to inferring absences proved useful, as models fitted with these outperformed all other models. Dealing with sampling bias requires additional time and data management strategies, but we found that the time invested allowed improvement of models and more reliable predictions. Our results suggest that ancillary occurrence data and careful data handling can improve both presence/background and presence/absence models.