Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 432

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 113 of the 113 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A comparison between Ensemble and MaxEnt species distribution modelling approaches for conservation: A case study with Egyptian medicinal plants

Kaky, Emad, Nolan, Victoria, Alatawi, Abdulaziz, Gilbert, Francis·2020·Ecological Informatics

Abstract

Abstract Understanding the relationship between the geographical distribution of taxa and their environmental conditions is a key concept in ecology and conservation. The use of ensemble modelling methods for species distribution modelling (SDM) have been promoted over single algorithms such as Maximum Entropy (MaxEnt). Nevertheless, we suggest that in cases where data, technical support or computational power are limited, for example in developing countries, single algorithm methods produce robust and accurate distribution maps. We fit SDMs for 114 Egyptian medicinal plant species (nearly all native) with a total of 14,396 occurrence points. The predictive performances of eight single-algorithm methods (maxent, random forest (rf), support-vector machine (svm), maxlike, boosted regression trees (brt), classification and regression trees (cart), flexible discriminant analysis (fda) and generalised linear models (glm)) were compared to an ensemble modelling approach combining all eight algorithms. Predictions were based originally on the current climate, and then projected into the future time slice of 2050 based on four alternate climate change scenarios (A2a and B2a for CMIP3 and RCP 2.6 and RCP 8.5 for CMIP5). Ensemble modelling, MaxEnt and rf achieved the highest predictive performances based on AUC and TSS, while svm and cart had the poorest performance. There is high similarity in habitat suitability between MaxEnt and ensemble predictive maps for both current and future emission scenarios, but lower similarity between rf and ensemble, or rf and MaxEnt. We conclude that single-algorithm modelling methods, particularly MaxEnt, are capable of producing distribution maps of comparable accuracy to ensemble methods. Furthermore, the ease of use, reduced computational time and simplicity of methods like MaxEnt provides support for their use in scenarios when the choice of modelling methods, knowledge or computational power is limited but the need for robust and accurate conservation predictions is urgent.

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.2020.101150

Cites

113 of 113 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

Show all 113 references

Cited by

See all 432

Metadata

Authors
Kaky, E., Nolan, V., Alatawi, A., & Gilbert, F.
Venue
Ecological Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-11
Volume
60
Pages
101150
ISSN
1574-9541 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3083395511
Cited by
432
References
113
FWCI
78.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A comparison between Ensemble and MaxEnt species distribution modelling approaches for conservation: A case study with Egyptian medicinal plants. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2020.101150
The paper
Kaky, E., Nolan, V., Alatawi, A., & Gilbert, F. (2020). A comparison between Ensemble and MaxEnt species distribution modelling approaches for conservation: A case study with Egyptian medicinal plants. Ecological Informatics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2020.101150

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.