Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 319

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 62 of the 62 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A comparison of absolute performance of different correlative and mechanistic species distribution models in an independent area

Open access
Shabani, Farzin, Kumar, Lalit, Ahmadi, Mohsen·2016·Ecology and Evolution
DOI 10.1002/ece3.2332
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

To investigate the comparative abilities of six different bioclimatic models in an independent area, utilizing the distribution of eight different species available at a global scale and in Australia. Global scale and Australia. We tested a variety of bioclimatic models for eight different plant species employing five discriminatory correlative species distribution models (SDM s) including Generalized Linear Model (GLM), MaxEnt, Random Forest (RF), Boosted Regression Tree (BRT), Bioclim, together with CLIMEX (CL) as a mechanistic niche model. These models were fitted using a training dataset of available global data, but with the exclusion of Australian locations. The capabilities of these techniques in projecting suitable climate, based on independent records for these species in Australia, were compared. Thus, Australia is not used to calibrate the models and therefore it is as an independent area regarding geographic locations. To assess and compare performance, we utilized the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves (AUC), true skill statistic (TSS), and fractional predicted areas for all SDM s. In addition, we assessed satisfactory agreements between the outputs of the six different bioclimatic models, for all eight species in Australia. The modeling method impacted on potential distribution predictions under current climate. However, the utilization of sensitivity and the fractional predicted areas showed that GLM, MaxEnt, Bioclim, and CL had the highest sensitivity for Australian climate conditions. Bioclim calculated the highest fractional predicted area of an independent area, while RF and BRT were poor. For many applications, it is difficult to decide which bioclimatic model to use. This research shows that variable results are obtained using different SDM s in an independent area. This research also shows that the SDM s produce different results for different species; for example, Bioclim may not be good for one species but works better for other species. Also, when projecting a “large” number of species into novel environments or in an independent area, the selection of the “best” model/technique is often less reliable than an ensemble modeling approach. In addition, it is vital to understand the accuracy of SDM s' predictions. Further, while TSS, together with fractional predicted areas, are appropriate tools for the measurement of accuracy between model results, particularly when undertaking projections on an independent area, AUC has been proved not to be. Our study highlights that each one of these models (CL, Bioclim, GLM, MaxEnt, BRT, and RF) provides slightly different results on projections and that it may be safer to use an ensemble of models.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ece3.2332

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 319

Metadata

Authors
Shabani, F., Kumar, L., & Ahmadi, M.
Venue
Ecology and Evolution
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-07-27
Volume
6
Issue
16
Pages
5973-5986
ISSN
2045-7758 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1002/ece3.2332
OpenAlex
W2476764914
Cited by
319
References
62
FWCI
11.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.