Cited by 323Species Distribution and Climate ChangeResearch Data Management PracticesScientific Computing and Data Management

A checklist for maximizing reproducibility of ecological niche models

Open access
Feng, Xiao, Park, Daniel S., Walker, Cassondra, Peterson, A. Townsend, Merow, Cory, Papeş, Monica·2019·Nature Ecology & Evolution

Abstract

Reporting specific modelling methods and metadata is essential to the reproducibility of ecological studies, yet guidelines rarely exist regarding what information should be noted. Here, we address this issue for ecological niche modelling or species distribution modelling, a rapidly developing toolset in ecology used across many aspects of biodiversity science. Our quantitative review of the recent literature reveals a general lack of sufficient information to fully reproduce the work. Over two-thirds of the examined studies neglected to report the version or access date of the underlying data, and only half reported model parameters. To address this problem, we propose adopting a checklist to guide studies in reporting at least the minimum information necessary for ecological niche modelling reproducibility, offering a straightforward way to balance efficiency and accuracy. We encourage the ecological niche modelling community, as well as journal reviewers and editors, to utilize and further develop this framework to facilitate and improve the reproducibility of future work. The proposed checklist framework is generalizable to other areas of ecology, especially those utilizing biodiversity data, environmental data and statistical modelling, and could also be adopted by a broader array of disciplines.

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 · 10.1038/s41559-019-0972-5

Cites

178 of 178 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • MaxEnt has a predictive performance that is consistently competitive with other high-performing methods.

    “This method also has a predictive performance that is consistently competitive with other high-performing methods (Elith et al., 2006; Feng et al., 2019).”

    From Projecting future climate change impacts on the distribution of the ‘Octopus vulgaris species complex’ (2022) · cites this paper as Feng et al., 2019

    The Ecological niche modelling section calls Maxent popular, and Model calibration (C) discusses how settings can affect model performance. Neither compares Maxent’s predictive performance with other high-performing methods; searches for that comparison found no such passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. QA Note: Case #PM_MOD16_17166 (LAADS and DAAC, 2017); https:// go.nature.com/2lu5NCw
  2. Mahammad, S. S. & Ramakrishnan, R. GeoTIFF: a standard image file format for GIS applications. In Map India Conf. 2003 28-31 (2003).
  3. iNaturalist Research-grade Observations (iNaturalist.org, 2018); https://doi. org/10.15468/ab3s5x · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Feng, X., Park, D. S., Walker, C., Peterson, A. T., Merow, C., & Papeş, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Arizona (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Oklahoma State University (US)
  • University of Kansas (US)
  • University of Connecticut (US)
  • University of Tennessee at Knoxville (US)
Corresponding author
Feng, Xiao
Venue
Nature Ecology & Evolution
Published
2019-09-23
Volume
3
Issue
10
Pages
1382-1395
ISSN
2397-334X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2974478553
Cited by
323
References
178
Citations by year
2026: 37 · 2025: 55 · 2024: 66 · 2023: 65 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 1
FWCI
1.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Ecology & Evolution (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1661510, 1913673)
  • University of Arizona
  • National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecological Modeling › Species Distribution and Climate Change
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Research Data Management Practices
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Scientific Computing and Data Management
Keywords
ecological niche modeling, species distribution modeling, reproducibility, reporting guidelines, reporting checklist, model parameters, data provenance, metadata, biodiversity data, journal peer review
MeSH terms
Ecology, Reproducibility of Results, Ecosystem, Biodiversity, Checklist

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