The DOI matches its Crossref record; 70 of the 70 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A comparison of statistical approaches for modelling fish species distributions
Open accessAbstract
SUMMARY 1. The prediction of species distributions is of primary importance in ecology and conservation biology. Statistical models play an important role in this regard; however, researchers have little guidance when choosing between competing methodologies because few comparative studies have been conducted. 2. We provide a comprehensive comparison of traditional and alternative techniques for predicting species distributions using logistic regression analysis, linear discriminant analysis, classification trees and artificial neural networks to model: (1) the presence/absence of 27 fish species as a function of habitat conditions in 286 temperate lakes located in south‐central Ontario, Canada and (2) simulated data sets exhibiting deterministic, linear and non‐linear species response curves. 3. Detailed evaluation of model predictive power showed that approaches produced species models that differed in overall correct classification, specificity (i.e. ability to correctly predict species absence) and sensitivity (i.e. ability to correctly predict speciespresence) and in terms of which of the study lakes they correctly classified. Onaverage, neural networks outperformed the other modelling approaches, although all approaches predicted species presence/absence with moderate to excellent success. 4. Based on simulated non‐linear data, classification trees and neural networks greatly outperformed traditional approaches, whereas all approaches exhibited similar correct classification rates when modelling simulated linear data. 5. Detailed evaluation of model explanatory insight showed that the relative importance of the habitat variables in the species models varied among the approaches, where habitat variable importance was similar among approaches for some species and very different for others. 6. In general, differences in predictive power (both correct classification rate and identity of the lakes correctly classified) among the approaches corresponded with differences in habitat variable importance, suggesting that non‐linear modelling approaches (i.e. classification trees and neural networks) are better able to capture and model complex, non‐linear patterns found in ecological data. The results from the comparisons using simulated data further support this notion. 7. By employing parallel modelling approaches with the same set of data and focusing on comparing multiple metrics of predictive performance, researchers can begin to choose predictive models that not only provide the greatest predictive power, but also best fit the proposed application.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Learning representations by back-propagating errors
Rumelhart, D. E., Hinton, G. E., & Williams, R. J. (1986) · Nature · doi:10.1038/323533a0 · Cited by 31,892
Classification and Regression Trees.
Gordon, A. D., Breiman, L., Friedman, J. H., Olshen, R. A., & Stone, C. J. (1984) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2530946 · Cited by 23,522
Multilayer feedforward networks are universal approximators
Hornik, K., Stinchcombe, M., & White, H. (1989) · Neural Networks · doi:10.1016/0893-6080(89)90020-8 · Cited by 21,728
Classification and Regression Trees.
Ryzin, J. V., Breiman, L., Friedman, J. H., Olshen, R. A., & Stone, C. J. (1986) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2288003 · Cited by 20,825
Neural networks for pattern recognition
(1994) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.31-5500 · Cited by 18,538
Feinleib, M., & Zar, J. H. (1975) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2285423 · Cited by 12,680
Neural Networks for Pattern Recognition
Bishop, C. M. (1995) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198538493.001.0001 · Cited by 12,287
Multilayer feedforward networks are universal approximators
HornikK., StinchcombeM., & WhiteH. (1989) · Neural Networks · doi:10.5555/70405.70408 · Cited by 9,081
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
A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models
FIELDING, A. H., & BELL, J. F. (1997) · Environmental Conservation · doi:10.1017/s0376892997000088 · Cited by 6,956
Cited by
Ensemble forecasting of species distributions
ARAUJO, M., & NEW, M. (2007) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2006.09.010 · Cited by 3,640
Five (or so) challenges for species distribution modelling
Araújo, M. B., & Guisan, A. (2006) · Journal of Biogeography · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2699.2006.01584.x · Cited by 1,901
Machine Learning Methods Without Tears: A Primer for Ecologists
Olden, J. D., Lawler, J. J., & Poff, N. L. (2008) · The Quarterly Review of Biology · doi:10.1086/587826 · Cited by 823
Self-citationNorberg, A., Abrego, N., Blanchet, F. G., Adler, F. R., Anderson, B. J., Anttila, J., Araújo, M. B., Dallas, T., Dunson, D., Elith, J., et al. (2019) · Ecological Monographs · doi:10.1002/ecm.1370 · Cited by 573
Leathwick, J. R., Elith, J., & Hastie, T. (2006) · Ecological Modelling · doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.05.022 · Cited by 451
Metadata
- Authors
- Olden, J. D., & Jackson, D. A.
- Venue
- Freshwater Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-09-30
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1976-1995
- ISSN
- 0046-5070 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2427
- OpenAlex
- W2104132255
- Cited by
- 255
- References
- 70
- FWCI
- 7.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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 of statistical approaches for modelling fish species distributions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2427.2002.00945.x
- The paper
- Olden, J. D., & Jackson, D. A. (2002). A comparison of statistical approaches for modelling fish species distributions. Freshwater Biology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.2002.00945.x
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.