Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 109

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Akaike information criterion should not be a “test” of geographical prediction accuracy in ecological niche modelling

Velasco, Julián A., González-Salazar, Constantino·2019·Ecological Informatics
DOI 10.1016/j.ecoinf.2019.02.005
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Abstract Model complexity in ecological niche modelling has been recently considered as an important issue that might affect model performance. New methodological developments have implemented the Akaike information criterion (AIC) to capture model complexity in the Maxent algorithm model. AIC is calculated based on the number of parameters and likelihoods of continuous raw outputs. ENMeval R package allows users to perform a species-specific tuning of Maxent settings running models with different combinations of regularization multiplier and feature classes and finally, all these models are compared using AIC corrected for small sample size. This approach is focused to find the “best” model parametrization and it is thought to maximize the model complexity and therefore, its predictability. We found that most niche modelling studies examined by us (68%) tend to consider AIC as a criterion of predictive accuracy in geographical distribution. In other words, AIC is used as a criterion to choose those models with the highest capacity to discriminate between presences and absences. However, the link between AIC and geographical predictive accuracy has not been tested so far. Here, we evaluated this relationship using a set of simulated (virtual) species. We created a set of nine virtual species with different ecological and geographical traits (e.g., niche position, niche breadth, range size) and generated different sets of true presences and absences data across geography. We built a set of models using Maxent algorithm with different regularization values and features schemes and calculated AIC values for each model. For each model, we obtained binary predictions using different threshold criteria and validated using independent presence and absences data. We correlated AIC values against standard validation metrics (e.g., Kappa, TSS) and the number of pixels correctly predicted as presences and absences. We did not find a correlation between AIC values and predictive accuracy from validation metrics. In general, those models with the lowest AIC values tend to generate geographical predictions with high commission and omission errors. The results were consistent across all species simulated. Finally, we suggest that AIC should not be used if users are interested in prediction more than explanation in ecological niche modelling.

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 · 10.1016/j.ecoinf.2019.02.005

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Image 1
CC-BY-NC-ND · From the PDF
Image 2
CC-BY-NC-ND · From the PDF
Image 3
CC-BY-NC-ND · From the PDF
Image 4
CC-BY-NC-ND · From the PDF
Image 5
CC-BY-NC-ND · From the PDF

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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 109

Metadata

Authors
Velasco, J. A., & González-Salazar, C.
ORCID
González-Salazar, Constantino
Venue
Ecological Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-05
Volume
51
Pages
25-32
ISSN
1574-9541
DOI
10.1016/j.ecoinf.2019.02.005
Cited by
109
References
45
Language
en
Licence

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.