Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 573

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 156 of the 156 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A comprehensive evaluation of predictive performance of 33 species distribution models at species and community levels

Open access
Norberg, Anna, Abrego, Nerea, Blanchet, F. Guillaume, Adler, Frederick R., Anderson, Barbara J., Anttila, Jani, Araújo, Miguel B., Dallas, Tad, Dunson, David, Elith, Jane, Foster, Scott D., Fox, Richard, Franklin, Janet, Godsoe, William, Guisan, Antoine, O'Hara, Bob, Hill, Nicole A., Holt, Robert D., Hui, Francis K. C., Husby, Magne, Kålås, John Atle, Lehikoinen, Aleksi, Luoto, Miska, Mod, Heidi K., Newell, Graeme, Renner, Ian, Roslin, Tomas, Soininen, Janne, Thuiller, Wilfried, Vanhatalo, Jarno, Warton, David, White, Matt, Zimmermann, Niklaus E., Gravel, Dominique, Ovaskainen, Otso·2019·Ecological Monographs
DOI 10.1002/ecm.1370
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

A large array of species distribution model (SDM) approaches has been developed for explaining and predicting the occurrences of individual species or species assemblages. Given the wealth of existing models, it is unclear which models perform best for interpolation or extrapolation of existing data sets, particularly when one is concerned with species assemblages. We compared the predictive performance of 33 variants of 15 widely applied and recently emerged SDM s in the context of multispecies data, including both joint SDM s that model multiple species together, and stacked SDM s that model each species individually combining the predictions afterward. We offer a comprehensive evaluation of these SDM approaches by examining their performance in predicting withheld empirical validation data of different sizes representing five different taxonomic groups, and for prediction tasks related to both interpolation and extrapolation. We measure predictive performance by 12 measures of accuracy, discrimination power, calibration, and precision of predictions, for the biological levels of species occurrence, species richness, and community composition. Our results show large variation among the models in their predictive performance, especially for communities comprising many species that are rare. The results do not reveal any major trade‐offs among measures of model performance; the same models performed generally well in terms of accuracy, discrimination, and calibration, and for the biological levels of individual species, species richness, and community composition. In contrast, the models that gave the most precise predictions were not well calibrated, suggesting that poorly performing models can make overconfident predictions. However, none of the models performed well for all prediction tasks. As a general strategy, we therefore propose that researchers fit a small set of models showing complementary performance, and then apply a cross‐validation procedure involving separate data to establish which of these models performs best for the goal of the study.

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/ecm.1370

Cites

156 of 156 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 573

Metadata

Authors
Norberg, A., Abrego, N., Blanchet, F. G., Adler, F. R., Anderson, B. J., Anttila, J., Araújo, M. B., Dallas, T., Dunson, D., Elith, J., Foster, S. D., Fox, R., Franklin, J., Godsoe, W., Guisan, A., O'Hara, B., Hill, N. A., Holt, R. D., Hui, F. K. C., Husby, M., Kålås, J. A., Lehikoinen, A., Luoto, M., Mod, H. K., Newell, G., Renner, I., Roslin, T., Soininen, J., Thuiller, W., Vanhatalo, J., Warton, D., White, M., Zimmermann, N. E., Gravel, D., & Ovaskainen, O.
Venue
Ecological Monographs
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-06-12
Volume
89
Issue
3
ISSN
  • 0012-9615 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-7015
DOI
10.1002/ecm.1370
OpenAlex
W2941774662
Cited by
573
References
156
FWCI
76.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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.