The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
No silver bullets in correlative ecological niche modelling: insights from testing among many potential algorithms for niche estimation
Open accessAbstract
Summary: The field of ecological niche modelling or species distribution modelling has seen enormous activity and attention in recent years, in the light of exciting biological inferences that can be drawn from correlational models of species' environmental requirements (i.e. ecological niches) and inferences of potential geographic distributions. Among the many methods used in the field, one or two are in practice assumed to be ‘best’ and are used commonly, often without explicit testing. We explore herein implications of the ‘no free lunch’ theorem, which suggests that no single optimization approach will prove to be best under all circumstances: we developed diverse virtual species with known niche and dispersal properties to test a suite of niche modelling algorithms designed to estimate potential areas of distribution. The result was that (i) indeed, no single ‘best’ algorithm was found and (ii) different algorithms performing very different manners depending on the particularities of the virtual species. The conclusion is that niche or distribution modelling studies should begin by testing a suite of algorithms for predictive ability under the particular circumstances of the study and choose an algorithm for a particular challenge based on the results of those tests. Studies that do not take this step may use algorithms that are not optimal for that particular challenge.
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
Breiman, L. (2001) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1010933404324 · Cited by 133,538
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
A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists
Elith, J., Phillips, S. J., Hastie, T., Dudík, M., Chee, Y. E., & Yates, C. J. (2011) · Diversity and Distributions · doi:10.1111/j.1472-4642.2010.00725.x · Cited by 6,699
Hutchinson, G. E. (1957) · Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology · doi:10.1101/sqb.1957.022.01.039 · Cited by 6,228
Warren, D. L., & Seifert, S. N. (2011) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/10-1171.1 · Cited by 2,312
Species Distribution Modeling and Ecological Niche Modeling: Getting the Concepts Right
Peterson, A. T., & Soberón, J. (2012) · Natureza & Conservação · doi:10.4322/natcon.2012.019 · Cited by 702
Self-citation
Cited by
A checklist for maximizing reproducibility of ecological niche models
Feng, X., Park, D. S., Walker, C., Peterson, A. T., Merow, C., & Papeş, M. (2019) · Nature Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1038/s41559-019-0972-5 · Cited by 323
Self-citationPotential adaptive strategies for 29 sub-Saharan crops under future climate change
Pironon, S., Etherington, T. R., Borrell, J. S., Kühn, N., Macias-Fauria, M., Ondo, I., Tovar, C., Wilkin, P., & Willis, K. J. (2019) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/s41558-019-0585-7 · Cited by 116
Velasco, J. A., & González-Salazar, C. (2019) · Ecological Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ecoinf.2019.02.005 · Cited by 109
Metadata
- Authors
- Qiao, H., Soberón, J., & Peterson, A. T.
- Venue
- Methods in Ecology and Evolution
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-05-14
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1126-1136
- ISSN
- 2041-210X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2036581019
- Cited by
- 448
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 13.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
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.