Importance of spatial predictor variable selection in machine learning applications -- Moving from data reproduction to spatial prediction

TL;DR

This paper emphasizes the importance of spatial variable selection and validation strategies in machine learning models for ecological spatial prediction, demonstrating how ignoring spatial autocorrelation can lead to overfitting and unreliable predictions.

Contribution

It introduces the use of spatial variable selection combined with spatial cross-validation to improve the reliability of ecological spatial predictions using machine learning.

Findings

Spatial cross-validation prevents overoptimistic performance estimates.

Highly autocorrelated predictors cause overfitting and artefacts in predictions.

Spatial variable selection improves model reliability and reduces overfitting.

Abstract

Machine learning algorithms find frequent application in spatial prediction of biotic and abiotic environmental variables. However, the characteristics of spatial data, especially spatial autocorrelation, are widely ignored. We hypothesize that this is problematic and results in models that can reproduce training data but are unable to make spatial predictions beyond the locations of the training samples. We assume that not only spatial validation strategies but also spatial variable selection is essential for reliable spatial predictions. We introduce two case studies that use remote sensing to predict land cover and the leaf area index for the "Marburg Open Forest", an open research and education site of Marburg University, Germany. We use the machine learning algorithm Random Forests to train models using non-spatial and spatial cross-validation strategies to understand how spatial variable selection affects the predictions. Our findings confirm that spatial cross-validation is essential in preventing overoptimistic model performance. We further show that highly autocorrelated predictors (such as geolocation variables, e.g. latitude, longitude) can lead to considerable overfitting and result in models that can reproduce the training data but fail in making spatial predictions. The problem becomes apparent in the visual assessment of the spatial predictions that show clear artefacts that can be traced back to a misinterpretation of the spatially autocorrelated predictors by the algorithm. Spatial variable selection could automatically detect and remove such variables that lead to overfitting, resulting in reliable spatial prediction patterns and improved statistical spatial model performance. We conclude that in addition to spatial validation, a spatial variable selection must be considered in spatial predictions of ecological data to produce reliable predictions.