Predictive Species and Habitat Modeling in Landscape Ecology 2010
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4419-7390-0_8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Modeling Species Distribution and Change Using Random Forest

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
238
1
1

Year Published

2013
2013
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 270 publications
(259 citation statements)
references
References 55 publications
0
238
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Default values (square root of the number of environmental variables for classification models, 1/3 the number of environmental variables for regression models), consistently produced the best results and were used in all models. Classification trees are highly sensitive to imbalances in the response variable, as the model will minimize the overall error rate at the expense of the error rate of the minority class (Chen et al, 2004;Evans et al, 2011). As our taxa data were skewed (>10:1 ratio of absences to presences for all species), we set the "cutoff " parameter in "randomForest" equal to species prevalence for each presence-absence model (Guo et al, 2004), which greatly reduced omission errors without affecting overall model performance.…”
Section: Random Forest (Rf)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Default values (square root of the number of environmental variables for classification models, 1/3 the number of environmental variables for regression models), consistently produced the best results and were used in all models. Classification trees are highly sensitive to imbalances in the response variable, as the model will minimize the overall error rate at the expense of the error rate of the minority class (Chen et al, 2004;Evans et al, 2011). As our taxa data were skewed (>10:1 ratio of absences to presences for all species), we set the "cutoff " parameter in "randomForest" equal to species prevalence for each presence-absence model (Guo et al, 2004), which greatly reduced omission errors without affecting overall model performance.…”
Section: Random Forest (Rf)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Given the minor differences in the outcomes of the correlation and the random forest analysis for the UK, both methods appear recommendable. Generally, the strength of the random forest algorithm is that it can handle interactions and nonlinearities among variables, and thus identify non-intuitive relationships (Evans et al, 2011;Hastie et al, 2009). Furthermore, random forests are robust to noise (Breiman, 2001;Hastie et al, 2009), and the bootstrap sampling provides a way to account for the uncertainty of the impact data.…”
Section: Performance Of Drought Indicatorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, the lack of distributional assumptions and the use of a subset of variables in each splitting node result in several advantages for classification trees over traditional methods such as discriminant function analyses or linear discriminant analyses (see for instance [62] for a discussion). RF has been applied in ecology [62,63], bioinformatics [64], the health sciences [65] and recently in statistical phylogeography [66].…”
Section: (E) Random Forest Analysesmentioning
confidence: 99%