Evaluating model transferability for a threatened species to adjacent areas: Implications for rock‐wallaby conservation

Abstract When modelling the distribution of a species, it is often not possible to comprehensively sample the whole distribution of the species and managers may have habitat models based on data from one area that they want to apply in other areas. Hence, an important question is: how accurate are models of the distributions of species when applied beyond the areas where they were developed? A first step in measuring model transferability could be testing models in adjacent areas. We predicted the habitat associations of the brush‐tailed rock‐wallaby ( Petrogale penicillata ) across two spatial scales in two neighbouring study areas in eastern Australia, south‐east Queensland and north‐east New South Wales. We used classification trees for exploratory data analysis of habitat relationships and then applied logistic regression models to predict species occurrence. We assessed the within‐area discriminative ability of the habitat models using cross‐validation and threshold plots, and tested the predictive ability of the models for adjacent areas using the receiver operating characteristic statistic to determine the area under the curve. We found that models performed well within an area and extrapolating them to adjacent areas resulted in good predictive performance at the site scale but substantially poorer predictive performance at the landscape scale. We conclude that distribution models for wildlife species should only be extrapolated to neighbouring areas with caution when using landscape‐scale environmental variables. Alternatively, only key habitat associations predicted by the models at this scale should be transferred across adjacent areas once verified against local knowledge of the ecology of the study species.