Evaluation of machine learning methods for predicting eradication of aquatic invasive species
- 36 Downloads
Abstract
In the work, we evaluate the performance of machine learning approaches for predicting successful eradication of aquatic invasive species (AIS) and assess the extent to which eradication of an invasive species depends on the certain specified ecological features of the target ecosystem and/or features that characterize the planned intervention. We studied the outcomes of 143 planned attempts for eradicating AIS, where each attempt was described by ecological and eradication-strategy-related features of the target ecosystem. We considered several machine learning approaches to determine whether one could produce a classifier that accurately predicts weather an invasive species will be eradicated. To assess each learner’s performance, we examined its tenfold cross-validated prediction accuracy as well as the false positive rate, the F-measure, and the Area Under the ROC Curve. We also used Kaplan–Meier survival analysis to determine which features are relevant to predicting the time required for each eradication program. Across the five typical machine learning approaches, our analysis suggests that learners trained by the decision tree work well, and have the best performance. In particular, by examining the trained decision tree model, we found that if an occupied area was not large and/or containments of AIS dispersal were employed, the eradication of AIS was likely to be successful. We also trained decision tree models over only the ecological features and found that their performances were comparable with that of models trained using all features. As our trained decision tree models are accurate, decision makers can use them to estimate the result of the proposed actions before they commit to which specific strategy should be applied.
Keywords
Aquatic species Machine learning Survival analysis Ecological features Planned interventionNotes
Acknowledgements
MAL acknowledges support from a Canadian Research Chair, an NSERC Discovery Grant and a Killiam Research Fellowship. RG acknowledges support from NSERC and AMII. YX acknowledges support from the Simon foundations. We thank Boris Beric, David Drolet and Huge MacIsaac for their contribution on data collection and useful comments. This work was partially supported by the Alberta Innovates Centre for Machine Learning, the Canadian Aquatic Invasive Species Network, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
References
- Akers P (2009) Hydrilla eradication program progress report 2009. Technical report, California Department of Food and AgricultureGoogle Scholar
- Barahona-Segovia R, Grez A, Bozinovic F (2015) Testing the hypothesis of greater eurythermality in invasive than in native ladybird species: from physiological performance to life-history strategies. Ecol Entomol 41(2):182–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Boets P, Landuyt D, Everaert G, Broekx S, Goethals P (2015) Evaluation and comparison of data-driven and knowledge-supported Bayesian belief networks to assess the habitat suitability for alien macroinvertebrates. Environ Model Softw 74:92–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Breiman L, Friedman J, Stone C, Olshen R (1984) Classification and regression trees. Taylor & Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Cambray J (2003) Impact on indigenous species biodiversity caused by the globalisation of alien recreational freshwater fisheries. In: Martens K (ed) Aquatic biodiversity: a celebratory volume in honour of Henri J. Dumont. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 217–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Caudron A, Champigneulle A (2011) Multiple electrofishing as a mitigate tool for removing nonnative atlantic brown trout (Salmo trutte l.) threatening a native mediterranean brown trout population. Eur J Widlife Res 5(3):575–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cooling M, Hartley S, Sim D, Lester P (2011) The widespread collapse of an invasive species: Argentine ants (Linepithema humile) in New Zealand. Biol Lett 8:430–433CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Cox D, Oakes D (1984) Analysis of survival data. Chapman & Hall/CRC, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Drake D, Mercader R, Dobson T, Mandrak E (2015) Can we predict risky human behaviour involving invasive species? A case study of the release of fishes to the wild. Biol Invasions 17:309–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Drolet D, Locke A, Lewis MA, Davidson J (2014) User-friendly and evidence-based tool to evaluate probability of eradication of aquatic non-indigenous species. J Appl Ecol 51(4):1050–1056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Drolet D, Locke A, Lewis MA, Davidson J (2015) Evidence-based tool surpasses expert opinion in predicting probability of eradication of aquatic nonindigenous species. Ecol Appl 25(2):441–450CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Eilers J, Truemper H, Jackson L, Eilers B, Loomis D (2011) Eradication of an invasive cyprinid (Gila bicolor) to achieve water quality goals in Diamond Lake, Oregon (USA). Ecol Appl 27:194–204Google Scholar
- Fawcett T (2006) An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recognit Lett 27:861–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ferri C, Flach P, Hernandez-Orallo J (2002) Learning decision trees using the area under the ROC curve. In: Proceeding ICML ’02 proceedings of the nineteenth international conference on machine learning, pp 139–146Google Scholar
- Fielding A (1999) Machine learning methods for ecological applications. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gurevitch J, Padilla DK (2004) Are invasive species a major cause of extinctions? Trends Ecol Evol 19(9):470–474CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hall M, Frank E, Holmes G, Pfahringer B, Reutemann P, Witten I (2009) The weka data mining software: an update. SIGKDD Explor 11(1):10–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Houlahan J, Findlay CS (2004) Effect of invasive plant species on temperate wetland plant diversity. Conserv Biol 18(4):1132–1138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kaukeinen D (1983) Vertebrate pest control and management materials: fourth symposium. ASTM International, PhiladelphiaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Keller R, Kocev D, Dzeroski S (2011) Trait-based risk assessment for invasive species: high performance across diverse taxonomic groups, geographic ranges and machine learning/statistical tools. Divers Distrib 17(3):451–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Klein J, Moeschberger M (1997) Survival analysis—techniques for censored and truncated data—statistics for biology and health. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Kleinbaum D, Klein M (2005) Survival analysis: statistics for biology and health, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Kolar C, Lodge D (2001) Progress in invasion biology: predicting invaders. Trends Ecol Evol 16:199–204CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kolar C, Lodge DM (2002) Ecological predictions and risk assessment for alien fishes in North America. Science 298(5596):1233–1236CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kulp M, Moore S (2000) Multiple electrofishing removals for eliminating rainbow trout in a small southern appalachian stream. N Am J Fish Manag 20(1):259–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lawless J (2002) Statistical models and methods for lifetime data. Wiley-Interscience, HobokenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lawrence J (2005) Introduction to neural networks, 2nd edn. California Scientific Software Press, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
- Lek S, Guacgan J (1999) Artificial neural networks as a tool in ecological modelling, an introduction. Ecol Model 120:65–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lockwood J, Cassey P, Blackburn T (2005) The role of propagule pressure in explaining species invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 20:223–228CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Mantel N (1966) Evaluation of survival data and two new rank order statistics arising in its consideration. Cancer Chemother Rep 50(3):163–170PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Mantel N, Haenszel W (1959) Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 22(4):719–748PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Massey F (1951) The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test for goodness of fit. J Am Stat Assoc 46(253):68–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- McDonald J (2014) Handbook of biological statistics, 3rd edn. Sparky House Publishing, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
- Miller L (1956) Table of percentage points of Kolmogorov statistics. J Am Stat Assoc 51(273):111–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mitchell T (1997) Machine learning. Mc-Graw-Hill Companies Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Nagar L, Shenkar N (2016) Temperature and salinity sensitivity of the invasive ascidian Microcosmus exasperatus Heller, 1878. Aquat Invasions 11(1):33–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Olden J, Jackson D (2002) Illuminating the black box; understanding variable contributions in artificial neural networks. Ecol Model 154:135–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Olden J, Lawler J, Poff N (2008) Machine learning methods without tears: a primer for ecologists. Q Rev Biol 83(2):171–193CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Peto R, Peto J (1972) Asymptotically efficient rank invariant test procedures. J R Stat Soc Ser A 135(2):185–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Powers D (2011) Evaluation: from precision, recall and F-measure to ROC, informedness, markedness and correlation. J Mach Learn Technol 2(1):37–63Google Scholar
- Pu R, Gong P, Tian Y, Miao X, Carruthers R, Anderson G (2008) Invasive species change detection using artificial neural networks and CASI hyperspectral imagery. Environ Monit Assess 140(1–3):15–32CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Pullin A, Knight T, Stone D, Charman K (2004) Do conservation managers use scientific evidence to support their decision-making? Biol Conserv 119:245–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Quinlan JR (1993) C4.5: programs for machine learning. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
- Raymond B, McInnes J, Dambacher J, Way S, Bergstrom D (2011) Qualitative modelling of invasive species eradication on subantarctic macquarie island. J Appl Ecol 48(1):181–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Reichard S, Hamilton C (1997) Predicting invasions of woody plants introduced into North America. Conserv Biol 11(1):193–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ricciardi A, Neves RJ, Richard J, Rasmussen J (1998) Impending extinctions of North American freshwater mussels (Unionoida) following the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) invasion. J Anim Ecol 67(4):613–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rowe D, Champion P (1994) Biomanipulation of plants and fish to restore Lake Parkinson: a case study and its implications. In: Collier K (ed) Restoration of aquatic habitat. Selected papers from the second day of the New Zealand Limnological Society 1993 annual conference, pp 53–65Google Scholar
- Van-Dyke J, Leslie JA, Nall L (1984) The effects of the grass carp on the aquatic macrophytes of four Florida lakes. J Aquat Plant Manag 22:87–95Google Scholar