Cited by 823Statistical Methods and ApplicationsSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeData Mining and Machine Learning Applications

Machine Learning Methods Without Tears: A Primer for Ecologists

Olden, Julian D., Lawler, Joshua J., Poff, N. LeRoy·2008·The Quarterly Review of Biology

Abstract

Machine learning methods, a family of statistical techniques with origins in the field of artificial intelligence, are recognized as holding great promise for the advancement of understanding and prediction about ecological phenomena. These modeling techniques are flexible enough to handle complex problems with multiple interacting elements and typically outcompete traditional approaches (e.g., generalized linear models), making them ideal for modeling ecological systems. Despite their inherent advantages, a review of the literature reveals only a modest use of these approaches in ecology as compared to other disciplines. One potential explanation for this lack of interest is that machine learning techniques do not fall neatly into the class of statistical modeling approaches with which most ecologists are familiar. In this paper, we provide an introduction to three machine learning approaches that can be broadly used by ecologists: classification and regression trees, artificial neural networks, and evolutionary computation. For each approach, we provide a brief background to the methodology, give examples of its application in ecology, describe model development and implementation, discuss strengths and weaknesses, explore the availability of statistical software, and provide an illustrative example. Although the ecological application of machine learning approaches has increased, there remains considerable skepticism with respect to the role of these techniques in ecology.…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/587826

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Olden, J. D., Lawler, J. J., & Poff, N. L.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Venue
The Quarterly Review of Biology
Published
2008-06
Volume
83
Issue
2
Pages
171-193
ISSN
  • 0033-5770 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-7718
OpenAlex
W2058731966
Cited by
823
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 85 · 2025: 67 · 2024: 54 · 2023: 66 · 2022: 55 · 2021: 74 · 2020: 61 · 2019: 44 · 2018: 49 · 2017: 34 · 2016: 38 · 2015: 37 · 2014: 37 · 2013: 37 · 2012: 29
FWCI
15.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Quarterly Review of Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Colorado State University
  • Ministry of Natural Resources
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecological Modeling › Species Distribution and Climate Change
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Data Mining and Machine Learning Applications
Keywords
machine learning, classification and regression trees, artificial neural networks, evolutionary computation, ecological modeling, ecological forecasting, statistical software, model selection, ecologists
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Animals, Artificial Intelligence, Decision Trees, Ecology, Biological Evolution, Fishes, Fresh Water, Models, Genetic, Software, Species Specificity, Neural Networks, Computer, Ecosystem, Computational 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