The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Alternative methods for predicting species distribution: an illustration with Himalayan river birds
Abstract
Summary: 1. Current emphasis on species conservation requires the development of specific distribution models. Several modelling methods are available, but their performance has seldom been compared. We therefore used discriminant analysis, logistic regression and artificial neural networks with environmental data to predict the presence or absence of six river birds along 180 Himalayan streams. We applied each method to calibration sites and independent test sites. With logistic regression, we compared performance in predicting presence–absence using map‐derived predictors (river slope and altitude) as opposed to detailed data from a standardized river habitat survey (RHS). 2. Using the entire calibration data, overall success at predicting presence or absence was only slightly greater using artificial neural networks (89–100%) than either logistic regression (75–92%) or discriminant analysis (81–95%), and on this criterion all methods gave good performance. 3. When applied to independent test data, overall prediction success averaged 71–80%, with logistic regression marginally but significantly out‐performing the other methods. Encouragingly for researchers with limited data, model performance in jack‐knife tests faithfully represented performance in more rigorous validations where calibration (n = 119) and test sites (n = 61) were in separate geographical regions. 4. All three methods predicted true absences (83–92% success) better than true presences (31–44%). Results from logistic regression were the most variable across species, but positive prediction declined with increasing species rarity in each method. 5. Applications with logistic regression illustrated that significant habitat predictors varied between data sets within species. Hypotheses about causal effects by habitat structure on distribution were thus difficult to erect or test. Logistic regression also showed that detailed data from the river habitat survey substantially improved positive prediction by comparison with prediction using slope or altitude alone. 6. We conclude that discriminant analysis, logistic regression and artificial neural networks differ only marginally in performance when predicting species distributions. Model choice should therefore depend on the nature of the data, on the needs of any particular analysis, and on whether assumptions for each method are satisfied. All three methods share drawbacks due to systematic effects by species rarity on performance measures. They also share limitations due to the correlative nature of survey data often used for model development at the spatial scales required in macro‐ecology and conservation biology. Tests with independent data, using a wider range of performance measures than those used traditionally, will be important in examining models and testing hypotheses for such applications.
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
Herne, H., Cooley, W. W., & Lohnes, P. R. (1973) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General) · doi:10.2307/2344428 · Cited by 35,697
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
Neural Networks for Pattern Recognition
Bishop, C. M. (1995) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198538493.001.0001 · Cited by 12,287
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
Pattern Recognition and Neural Networks
Ripley, B. D. (1996) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511812651 · Cited by 6,459
Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology
(1957) · Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union · doi:10.1029/tr038i006p00913 · Cited by 5,959
Data Analysis in Community and Landscape Ecology
Jongman, R. H. G., Braak, C. J. F. T., & Tongeren, O. F. R. V. (1995) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511525575 · Cited by 4,548
Bürgel, O. (2000) · ZEW Economic Studies · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-57671-3_6 · Cited by 3,570
Collett, D. (1991) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-4475-7 · Cited by 1,936
Generalized Linear Models, 2nd Edn.
Cheek, P. J., McCullagh, P., & Nelder, J. A. (1990) · Applied Statistics · doi:10.2307/2347392 · Cited by 1,512
Cited by
Evaluating presence–absence models in ecology: the need to account for prevalence
Manel, S., Williams, H. C., & Ormerod, S. J. (2001) · Journal of Applied Ecology · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2664.2001.00647.x · Cited by 1,759
Self-citationECOLOGICAL-NICHE FACTOR ANALYSIS: HOW TO COMPUTE HABITAT-SUITABILITY MAPS WITHOUT ABSENCE DATA?
Hirzel, A. H., Hausser, J., Chessel, D., & Perrin, N. (2002) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[2027:enfaht]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 1,524
Evaluation of consensus methods in predictive species distribution modelling
Marmion, M., Parviainen, M., Luoto, M., Heikkinen, R. K., & Thuiller, W. (2009) · Diversity and Distributions · doi:10.1111/j.1472-4642.2008.00491.x · Cited by 1,435
Thuiller, W. (2003) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2486.2003.00666.x · Cited by 1,079
Threshold criteria for conversion of probability of species presence to either–or presence–absence
Jiménez-Valverde, A., & Lobo, J. M. (2007) · Acta Oecologica · doi:10.1016/j.actao.2007.02.001 · Cited by 892
Metadata
- Authors
- Manel, S., Dias, J. M., Buckton, S. T., & Ormerod, S. J.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1999-10
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 734-747
- ISSN
- 0021-8901 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2664
- OpenAlex
- W1987782259
- Cited by
- 311
- References
- 44
- FWCI
- 14.06
- 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: Alternative methods for predicting species distribution: an illustration with Himalayan river birds. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2664.1999.00440.x
- The paper
- Manel, S., Dias, J. M., Buckton, S. T., & Ormerod, S. J. (1999). Alternative methods for predicting species distribution: an illustration with Himalayan river birds. Journal of Applied Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.1999.00440.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.