The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Selecting pseudo-absence data for presence-only distribution modeling: How far should you stray from what you know?
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
Pseudo-absence points allow us to admit the limitations of our data by stating that presence or absence at the location is unknown.
“Pseudo-absence points allow us to admit the limitations of our data by stating that presence or absence at the location is unknown [60,61].”
From Advancing predictive modeling in archaeology: an evaluation of regression and machine learning methods on the grand staircase-escalante national monument (2020) · cites this paper as [61]
GLM, GAM, and RF all assume that pseudo-absence points are true-absence points.
“The first is that GLM, GAM, and RF all assume that pseudo-absence points are true-absence points.”
From Advancing predictive modeling in archaeology: an evaluation of regression and machine learning methods on the grand staircase-escalante national monument (2020) · cites this paper as [61]
MaxEnt differs from GLM, GAM, and RF in that it is capable of incorporating the pseudo-absence points without any assumption of certainty.
“MaxEnt differs from GLM, GAM, and RF in that it is capable of incorporating the pseudo-absence points without any assumption of certainty [60,61].”
From Advancing predictive modeling in archaeology: an evaluation of regression and machine learning methods on the grand staircase-escalante national monument (2020) · cites this paper as [61]
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 18
- Araújo, 2007, Ensemble forecasting of species distributions, Trends Ecol. Evol., 22, 42, 10.1016/j.tree.2006.09.010 · DOI · Paper page
- Chefaoui, 2008, Assessing the effects of pseudo-absences on predictive distribution model performance, Ecol. Model., 210, 478, 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2007.08.010 · DOI
- Elith, 2006, Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data, Ecography, 29, 129, 10.1111/j.2006.0906-7590.04596.x · DOI · Paper page
- Elith, 2007, Predicting species distributions from museum and herbarium records using multiresponse models fitted with multivariate adaptive regression splines, Divers. Distrib., 13, 265, 10.1111/j.1472-4642.2007.00340.x · DOI
- Growns, 2008, Classification of aquatic bioregions through the use of distributional modelling of freshwater fish, Ecol. Model., 217, 79, 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2008.06.009 · DOI
- Harris, 2005, Redefining biodiversity conservation priorities, Conserv. Biol., 19, 1957, 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00307.x · DOI
- Hernandez, 2006, The effect of sample size and species characteristics on performance of different species distribution modeling methods, Ecography, 29, 773, 10.1111/j.0906-7590.2006.04700.x · DOI
- Hilbert, 2001, The utility of artificial neural networks for modelling the distribution of vegetation in past, present and future climates, Ecol. Model., 146, 311, 10.1016/S0304-3800(01)00323-4 · DOI
- Hirzel, 2001, Assessing habitat-suitability models with a virtual species, Ecol. Model., 145, 111, 10.1016/S0304-3800(01)00396-9 · DOI
- Lobo, 2008, AUC: a misleading measure of the performance of predictive distribution models, Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr., 17, 145, 10.1111/j.1466-8238.2007.00358.x · DOI · Paper page
- Lütolf, 2006, The ghost of past species occurrence: improving species distribution models for presence-only data, J. Appl. Ecol., 43, 802, 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01191.x · DOI
- Mau-Crimmins, 2006, Can the invaded range of a species be predicted sufficiently using only native-range data? Lehmann lovegrass (Eragrostis lehmanniana) in the southwestern United States, Ecol. Model., 193, 736, 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.09.002 · DOI
- Phillips, 2006, Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions, Ecol. Model., 190, 231, 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.03.026 · DOI · Paper page
- Phillips, 2008, Modeling of species distributions with Maxent: new extensions and a comprehensive evaluation, Ecography, 31, 161, 10.1111/j.0906-7590.2008.5203.x · DOI · Paper page
- Steiner, 2008, Combined modelling of distribution and niche in invasion biology: a case study of two invasive Tetramorium ant species, Divers. Distrib., 14, 538, 10.1111/j.1472-4642.2008.00472.x · DOI
- Stockwell, 1999, The GARP modelling system: problems and solutions to automated spatial prediction, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., 13, 143, 10.1080/136588199241391 · DOI
- Thuiller, 2004, Effects of restricting environmental range of data to project current and future species distributions, Ecography, 27, 165, 10.1111/j.0906-7590.2004.03673.x · DOI
- Zaniewski, 2002, Predicting species spatial distributions using presence-only data: a case study of native New Zealand ferns, Ecol. Model., 157, 261, 10.1016/S0304-3800(02)00199-0 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The global distribution and burden of dengue
Bhatt, S., Gething, P. W., Brady, O. J., Messina, J. P., Farlow, A. W., Moyes, C. L., Drake, J. M., Brownstein, J. S., Hoen, A. G., Sankoh, O., et al. (2013) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature12060 · Cited by 10,037
A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists
Elith, J., Phillips, S. J., Hastie, T., Dudík, M., Chee, Y. E., & Yates, C. J. (2011) · Diversity and Distributions · doi:10.1111/j.1472-4642.2010.00725.x · Cited by 6,699
A checklist for maximizing reproducibility of ecological niche models
Feng, X., Park, D. S., Walker, C., Peterson, A. T., Merow, C., & Papeş, M. (2019) · Nature Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1038/s41559-019-0972-5 · Cited by 323
Yaworsky, P. M., Vernon, K. B., Spangler, J. D., Brewer, S. C., & Codding, B. F. (2020) · PLOS One · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0239424 · Cited by 104
Species Distribution Modeling for Machine Learning Practitioners: A Review
Beery, S., Cole, E., Parker, J., Perona, P., & Winner, K. (2021) · ACM SIGCAS Conference on Computing and Sustainable Societies · doi:10.1145/3460112.3471966 · Cited by 100
Kantar, M. B., Sosa, C. C., Khoury, C. K., Castañeda-Álvarez, N. P., Achicanoy, H. A., Bernau, V., Kane, N. C., Marek, L., Seiler, G., & Rieseberg, L. H. (2015) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2015.00841 · Cited by 76
Potential distributions of pre-columbian people in tropical andean landscapes
Sales, R. K., McMichael, C. N. H., Flantua, S. G. A., Hagemans, K., Zondervan, J. R., González-Arango, C., Church, W. B., & Bush, M. B. (2022) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2020.0502 · Cited by 14
Metadata
- Authors
- VanDerWal, J., Shoo, L. P., Graham, C., & Williams, S. E.
- Venue
- Ecological Modelling
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-02
- Volume
- 220
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 589-594
- ISSN
- 0304-3800
- Cited by
- 793
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
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
