Evaluating presence–absence models in ecology: the need to account for prevalence
Abstract
Summary: Models for predicting the distribution of organisms from environmental data are widespread in ecology and conservation biology. Their performance is invariably evaluated from the percentage success at predicting occurrence at test locations. Using logistic regression with real data from 34 families of aquatic invertebrates in 180 Himalayan streams, we illustrate how this widespread measure of predictive accuracy is affected systematically by the prevalence (i.e. the frequency of occurrence) of the target organism. Many evaluations of presence–absence models by ecologists are inherently misleading. With the same invertebrate models, we examined alternative performance measures used in remote sensing and medical diagnostics. We particularly explored receiver‐operating characteristic (ROC) plots, from which were derived (i) the area under each curve (AUC), considered an effective indicator of model performance independent of the threshold probability at which the presence of the target organism is accepted, and (ii) optimized probability thresholds that maximize the percentage of true absences and presences that are correctly identified. We also evaluated Cohen's kappa, a measure of the proportion of all possible cases of presence or absence that are predicted correctly after accounting for chance effects. AUC measures from ROC plots were independent of prevalence, but highly significantly correlated with the much more easily computed kappa. Moreover, when applied in predictive mode to test data, models with thresholds optimized by ROC erroneously overestimated true occurrence among scarcer organisms, often those of greatest conservation interest. We advocate caution in using ROC methods to optimize thresholds required for real prediction. Our strongest recommendation is that ecologists reduce their reliance on prediction success as a performance measure in presence–absence modelling. Cohen's kappa provides a simple, effective, standardized and appropriate statistic for evaluating or comparing presence–absence models, even those based on different statistical algorithms. None of the performance measures we examined tests the statistical significance of predictive accuracy, and we identify this as a priority area for research and development.
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?
Models with an AUC value between 0.7 and 0.9 are considered 'useful applications' and those with values greater than 0.9 as 'high accuracy'.
“Following Swets (1988) and Manel et al. (2001), models with an AUC value ranging between 0.7 and 0.9 as 'useful applications' and those with values greater than 0.9 as being of 'high accuracy.'”
From Key Enhancements to the WFRC/MAG Four-Step Travel Demand Model (2019) · cites this paper as Manel et al. (2001)
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
DeLong, E. R., DeLong, D. M., & Clarke-Pearson, D. L. (1988) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2531595 · Cited by 22,649 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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
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
- Manel, S., Williams, H. C., & Ormerod, S. J.
- Affiliations
- Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
- Cardiff University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Ormerod, S.J.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-10
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 921-931
- ISSN
- 0021-8901 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2664
- OpenAlex
- W1552647955
- Cited by
- 1,759
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 32 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 63 · 2023: 63 · 2022: 61 · 2021: 78 · 2020: 90 · 2019: 60 · 2018: 82 · 2017: 73 · 2016: 69 · 2015: 76 · 2014: 96 · 2013: 107 · 2012: 94
- FWCI
- 33.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Applied Ecology (publishedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK Government
- Royal Society
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecological Modeling › Species Distribution and Climate Change
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Freshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecology
- Keywords
- presence-absence models, model evaluation, prevalence, Cohen's kappa, area under the curve, receiver operating characteristic, prediction accuracy, aquatic invertebrates, Himalayan streams, species distribution modeling, conservation biology
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