A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models
Abstract
Predicting the distribution of endangered species from habitat data is frequently perceived to be a useful technique. Models that predict the presence or absence of a species are normally judged by the number of prediction errors. These may be of two types: false positives and false negatives. Many of the prediction errors can be traced to ecological processes such as unsaturated habitat and species interactions. Consequently, if prediction errors are not placed in an ecological context the results of the model may be misleading. The simplest, and most widely used, measure of prediction accuracy is the number of correctly classified cases. There are other measures of prediction success that may be more appropriate. Strategies for assessing the causes and costs of these errors are discussed. A range of techniques for measuring error in presence/absence models, including some that are seldom used by ecologists (e.g. ROC plots and cost matrices), are described. A new approach to estimating prediction error, which is based on the spatial characteristics of the errors, is proposed. Thirteen recommendations are made to enable the objective selection of an error assessment technique for ecological presence/absence models.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
The random forest model was validated using 10-fold cross validation.
“The RF model was validated using 10-fold cross validation [32].”
From Landscape Analysis of Adult Florida Panther Habitat (2015) · cites this paper as [32]
Cites
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148 · see citing works
(1990) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.27-3338 · Cited by 35,305 · see citing works
Hosmer, D. W., Lemeshow, S., & Sturdivant, R. X. (2013) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/9781118548387 · Cited by 13,861 · see citing works
Model uncertainty, data mining and statistical inference
Chatfield, C. (1995) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (Statistics in Society) · doi:10.2307/2983440 · Cited by 1,103 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data
Elith*, J., H. Graham*, C., P. Anderson, R., Dudík, M., Ferrier, S., Guisan, A., J. Hijmans, R., Huettmann, F., R. Leathwick, J., Lehmann, A., et al. (2006) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/j.2006.0906-7590.04596.x · Cited by 9,088 · see citing works
Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology
Guisan, A., & Zimmermann, N. E. (2000) · Ecological Modelling · doi:10.1016/s0304-3800(00)00354-9 · Cited by 7,359 · see citing works
AUC: A misleading measure of the performance of predictive distribution models
Lobo, J. M., Jiménez‐Valverde, A., & Real, R. (2008) · Global Ecology and Biogeography · doi:10.1111/j.1466-8238.2007.00358.x · Cited by 3,499 · see citing works
Selecting thresholds of occurrence in the prediction of species distributions
Liu, C., Berry, P. M., Dawson, T. P., & Pearson, R. G. (2005) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/j.0906-7590.2005.03957.x · Cited by 2,701 · see citing works
Guisan, A., Edwards, T. C., & Hastie, T. (2002) · Ecological Modelling · doi:10.1016/s0304-3800(02)00204-1 · Cited by 2,356 · see citing works
Environmental controls on the distribution of wildfire at multiple spatial scales
Parisien, M.-A., & Moritz, M. A. (2009) · Ecological Monographs · doi:10.1890/07-1289.1 · Cited by 383 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Predicting spatial patterns of fire on a southern California landscape
Syphard, A. D., Radeloff, V. C., Keuler, N. S., Taylor, R. S., Hawbaker, T. J., Stewart, S. I., & Clayton, M. K. (2008) · International Journal of Wildland Fire · doi:10.1071/wf07087 · Cited by 288 · see citing works
The global distribution of known and undiscovered ant biodiversity
Kass, J. M., Guénard, B., Dudley, K. L., Jenkins, C. N., Azuma, F., Fisher, B. L., Parr, C. L., Gibb, H., Longino, J. T., Ward, P. S., et al. (2022) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abp9908 · Cited by 194 · see citing works
Eisen, L., & Eisen, R. J. (2011) · Annual Review of Entomology · doi:10.1146/annurev-ento-120709-144847 · Cited by 194 · see citing works
COMPARING CLIMATE AND VEGETATION AS LIMITING FACTORS FOR SPECIES RANGES OF AFRICAN TICKS
Cumming, G. S. (2002) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[0255:ccaval]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 155 · see citing works
Biotic and Climatic Velocity Identify Contrasting Areas of Vulnerability to Climate Change
Carroll, C., Lawler, J. J., Roberts, D. R., & Hamann, A. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0140486 · Cited by 143 · see citing works
Hermoso, V., Kennard, M. J., & Linke, S. (2012) · Diversity and Distributions · doi:10.1111/j.1472-4642.2011.00879.x · Cited by 136 · see citing works
Vågen, T.-G., Winowiecki, L. A., Abegaz, A., & Hadgu, K. M. (2013) · Remote Sensing of Environment · doi:10.1016/j.rse.2013.03.006 · Cited by 109 · see citing works
Breece, C. R., Kolb, T. E., Dickson, B. G., McMillin, J. D., & Clancy, K. M. (2008) · Forest Ecology and Management · doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2007.08.026 · Cited by 109 · see citing works
Ramasamy, M., Das, B., & Ramesh, R. (2022) · Journal of Pest Science · doi:10.1007/s10340-021-01411-1 · Cited by 107 · see citing works
Feria-Arroyo, T. P., Castro-Arellano, I., Gordillo-Perez, G., Cavazos, A. L., Vargas-Sandoval, M., Grover, A., Torres, J., Medina, R. F., de León, A. A. P., & Esteve-Gassent, M. D. (2014) · Parasites & Vectors · doi:10.1186/1756-3305-7-199 · Cited by 102 · see citing works
Assessing octopus vulgaris distribution using presence-only model methods
Hermosilla, C., Rocha, F., & Valavanis, V. D. (2011) · Hydrobiologia · doi:10.1007/s10750-011-0671-y · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Landscape Analysis of Adult Florida Panther Habitat
Frakes, R. A., Belden, R. C., Wood, B. E., & James, F. E. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0133044 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
“The RF model was validated using 10-fold cross validation [32].”
MethodDo projections from bioclimatic envelope models and climate change metrics match
Garcia, R. A., Cabeza, M., Altwegg, R., & Araújo, M. B. (2016) · Global Ecology and Biogeography · doi:10.1111/geb.12386 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Yousefi, M., Naderloo, R., & Keikhosravi, A. (2022) · Global Ecology and Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2022.e02266 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Oliveira, A. G. D., Peláez, O., & Agostinho, A. A. (2021) · Neotropical Ichthyology · doi:10.1590/1982-0224-2021-0034 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Key Enhancements to the WFRC/MAG Four-Step Travel Demand Model
University of Utah, Ewing, R., Sabouri, S., University of Utah, Park, K., University of Utah, Lyons, T., University of Utah, Tian, G., & University of Utah (2019) · doi:10.15760/trec.246 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
- Authors
- FIELDING, A. H., & BELL, J. F.
- Affiliations
- Manchester Metropolitan University (GB)
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- ORCID
- FIELDING, Alan H.
- Venue
- Environmental Conservation
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1997-03
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 38-49
- ISSN
- 0376-8929 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-4387
- OpenAlex
- W2115268776
- Cited by
- 6,956
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 298 · 2025: 352 · 2024: 327 · 2023: 389 · 2022: 359 · 2021: 397 · 2020: 366 · 2019: 344 · 2018: 354 · 2017: 347 · 2016: 339 · 2015: 323 · 2014: 324 · 2013: 384 · 2012: 331
- FWCI
- 18.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Environmental Conservation (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecological Modeling › Species Distribution and Climate Change
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
- Keywords
- presence-absence models, species distribution modeling, threatened species, false positives, false-negative results, cost matrix, species interactions, model evaluation
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
