Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34026369›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2021

Mahalanobis distances for ecological niche modelling and outlier detection: implications of sample size, error, and bias for selecting and parameterising a multivariate location and scatter method.

Thomas R Etherington

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. A Novel Information-Theory-Based Genetic Distance That Approximates Phenotypic Differences.Journal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Thomas R EtheringtonManaaki Whenua -Landcare Research, Lincoln, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Mahalanobis distance is a statistical technique that has been used in statistics and data science for data classification and outlier detection, and in ecology to quantify species-environment relationships in habitat and ecological niche models. Mahalanobis distances are based on the location and scatter of a multivariate normal distribution, and can measure how distant any point in space is from the centre of this kind of distribution. Three different methods for calculating the multivariate location and scatter are commonly used: the sample mean and variance-covariance, the minimum covariance determinant, and the minimum volume ellipsoid. The minimum covariance determinant and minimum volume ellipsoid were developed to be robust to outliers by minimising the multivariate location and scatter for a subset of the full sample, with the proportion of the full sample forming the subset being controlled by a user-defined parameter. This outlier robustness means the minimum covariance determinant and the minimum volume ellipsoid are highly relevant for ecological niche analyses, which are usually based on natural history observations that are likely to contain errors. However, natural history observations will also contain extreme bias, to which the minimum covariance determinant and the minimum volume ellipsoid will also be sensitive. To provide guidance for selecting and parameterising a multivariate location and scatter method, a series of virtual ecological niche modelling experiments were conducted to demonstrate the performance of each multivariate location and scatter method under different levels of sample size, errors, and bias. The results show that there is no optimal modelling approach, and that choices need to be made based on the individual data and question. The sample mean and variance-covariance method will perform best on very small sample sizes if the data are free of error and bias. At larger sample sizes the minimum covariance determinant and minimum volume ellipsoid methods perform as well or better, but only if they are appropriately parameterised. Modellers who are more concerned about the prevalence of errors should retain a smaller proportion of the full data set, while modellers more concerned about the prevalence of bias should retain a larger proportion of the full data set. I conclude that Mahalanobis distances are a useful niche modelling technique, but only for questions relating to the fundamental niche of a species where the assumption of multivariate normality is reasonable. Users of the minimum covariance determinant and minimum volume ellipsoid methods must also clearly report their parameterisations so that the results can be interpreted correctly.

Indexed as

Habitat suitability modellingMinimum covariance determinantMinimum volume ellipsoidResource selection functionsSpecies distribution modelling

Identifiers

PMID34026369
PMCPMC8121071

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.