You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I am using Hmsc with opportunistic data (mainly from GBIF; the model does not employ trait info). As expected, the data shows signs of sampling bias. I only used presence-(?)absence information per grid cell of 10 kilometres. This spatial thinning can, to some extent, reduce the effect of sampling bias, but this is clearly not sufficient.
To correct for sampling bias, I use a layer representing sampling efforts (sampling intensity of all GBIF data of higher taxonomic level than the species of interest) as a predictor of the model. A similar method is used in many cases in the literature (including Hmsc; e.g. section 7.9 of Ovaskainen & Abrego (2020)). However, I see some concern that the predictions will reflect the sampling bias in the data rather than the predicted biological information (i.e., intensively sampled areas will be likely to be predicted with high probability; as expected, almost all species show a positive effect and positive response curve to the sampling intensity predictor). Although it is possible to use Warton et al.'s approach to correct for it by assigning all sampling units the same value representing optimum (e.g. median) sampling efforts during prediction, my previous experience with this method showed overprediction.
I question whether it is possible to consider the sampling intensity differently in Hmsc? In glm, for example, it is possible to use sampling efforts as weights to the model. It seems that this is not directly allowed using a weights argument. Is it possible to use such info as informed priors or offset? And if so, please give me a snippet of code on how this should be identified.
Thanks in advance,
Ahmed
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hello,
I am using Hmsc with opportunistic data (mainly from GBIF; the model does not employ trait info). As expected, the data shows signs of sampling bias. I only used presence-(?)absence information per grid cell of 10 kilometres. This spatial thinning can, to some extent, reduce the effect of sampling bias, but this is clearly not sufficient.
To correct for sampling bias, I use a layer representing sampling efforts (sampling intensity of all GBIF data of higher taxonomic level than the species of interest) as a predictor of the model. A similar method is used in many cases in the literature (including Hmsc; e.g. section 7.9 of Ovaskainen & Abrego (2020)). However, I see some concern that the predictions will reflect the sampling bias in the data rather than the predicted biological information (i.e., intensively sampled areas will be likely to be predicted with high probability; as expected, almost all species show a positive effect and positive response curve to the sampling intensity predictor). Although it is possible to use Warton et al.'s approach to correct for it by assigning all sampling units the same value representing optimum (e.g. median) sampling efforts during prediction, my previous experience with this method showed overprediction.
I question whether it is possible to consider the sampling intensity differently in Hmsc? In
glm
, for example, it is possible to use sampling efforts asweights
to the model. It seems that this is not directly allowed using aweights
argument. Is it possible to use such info as informed priors or offset? And if so, please give me a snippet of code on how this should be identified.Thanks in advance,
Ahmed
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: