The importance of correcting for sampling bias in MaxEnt species distribution models
Open accessAbstract
Abstract Aim Advancement in ecological methods predicting species distributions is a crucial precondition for deriving sound management actions. Maximum entropy (MaxEnt) models are a popular tool to predict species distributions, as they are considered able to cope well with sparse, irregularly sampled data and minor location errors. Although a fundamental assumption of MaxEnt is that the entire area of interest has been systematically sampled, in practice, MaxEnt models are usually built from occurrence records that are spatially biased towards better‐surveyed areas. Two common, yet not compared, strategies to cope with uneven sampling effort are spatial filtering of occurrence data and background manipulation using environmental data with the same spatial bias as occurrence data. We tested these strategies using simulated data and a recently collated dataset on Malay civet Viverra tangalunga in Borneo. Location Borneo, Southeast Asia. Methods We collated 504 occurrence records of Malay civets from Borneo of which 291 records were from 2001 to 2011 and used them in the MaxEnt analysis (baseline scenario) together with 25 environmental input variables. We simulated datasets for two virtual species (similar to a range‐restricted highland and a lowland species) using the same number of records for model building. As occurrence records were biased towards north‐eastern Borneo, we investigated the efficacy of spatial filtering versus background manipulation to reduce overprediction or underprediction in specific areas. Results Spatial filtering minimized omission errors (false negatives) and commission errors (false positives). We recommend that when sample size is insufficient to allow spatial filtering, manipulation of the background dataset is preferable to not correcting for sampling bias, although predictions were comparatively weak and commission errors increased. Main Conclusions We conclude that a substantial improvement in the quality of model predictions can be achieved if uneven sampling effort is taken into account, thereby improving the efficacy of species conservation planning.
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?
Using a combined method to generate background points reduces potential model overestimation of environmental suitability in regions of greater occurrence point densities.
“Using a combined method to generate background points reduces potential model overestimation of environmental suitability that typically arises in regions of greater occurrence point densities, usually in more easily sampled areas ( i.e. , spatial bias), and which random background point generation by itself does not consider (Lobo et al., 2010; Kramer-Schadt et al., 2013).”
From Projecting future climate change impacts on the distribution of the ‘Octopus vulgaris species complex’ (2022) · cites this paper as Kramer-Schadt et al., 2013
Cites
(1990) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.27-3338 · Cited by 35,305 · see citing works
Warren, D. L., & Seifert, S. N. (2011) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/10-1171.1 · Cited by 2,312 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Environmental filtering improves ecological niche models across multiple scales
Castellanos, A. A., Huntley, J. W., Voelker, G., & Lawing, A. M. (2019) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.13142 · Cited by 118 · see citing works
megaSDM: Integrating dispersal and time-step analyses into species distribution models
Shipley, B. R., Bach, R., Do, Y., Strathearn, H., McGuire, J. L., & Dilkina, B. (2022) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/ecog.05450 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
Bouchet, P. J., & Meeuwig, J. J. (2015) · Ecosphere · doi:10.1890/es14-00380.1 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Borges, F. O., Guerreiro, M., Santos, C. P., Paula, J. R., & Rosa, R. (2022) · Frontiers in Marine Science · doi:10.3389/fmars.2022.1018766 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
“, spatial bias), and which random background point generation by itself does not consider (Lobo et al., 2010; Kramer-Schadt et al., 2013).”
Background
- Authors
- Kramer‐Schadt, S., Niedballa, J., Pilgrim, J. D., Schröder, B., Lindenborn, J., Reinfelder, V., Stillfried, M., Heckmann, I., Scharf, A. K., Augeri, D. M., Cheyne, S. M., Hearn, A. J., Ross, J., Macdonald, D. W., Mathai, J., Eaton, J., Marshall, A. J., Semiadi, G., Rustam, R., Bernard, H., Alfred, R., Samejima, H., Duckworth, J. W., Breitenmoser‐Wuersten, C., Belant, J. L., Hofer, H., & Wilting, A.
- Affiliations
- Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research (DE)
- The Biodiversity Consultancy 3E King's Parade Cambridge CB2 1SJ UK
- University of Potsdam (DE)
- Colorado State University (US)
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Wildlife Conservation Society (US)
- A‐3A‐5, Casa Indah I, Persiaran Surian Petaling Jaya 47410 Malaysia
- University of California, Davis (US)
- Indonesian Institute of Sciences (ID)
- Mulawarman University (ID)
- Universiti of Malaysia Sabah (MY)
- Borneo Conservation Trust 5th Floor, Block B, Wisma MUIS 88100 Kota Kinabalu Sabah Malaysia
- Kyoto University (JP)
- 6 Stratton Road, Saltford Bristol BS31 3BS UK
- IUCN/SSC Cat Specialist Group c/o KORA Muri b. Bern Switzerland
- Mississippi State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kramer‐Schadt, Stephanie
- Wilting, Andreas
- ORCID
- Venue
- Diversity and Distributions
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-07-02
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1366-1379
- ISSN
- 0967-9952 (ISSN-L)
- 1366-9516
- 1472-4642
- OpenAlex
- W2109735604
- Cited by
- 1,321
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 138 · 2025: 146 · 2024: 132 · 2023: 142 · 2022: 132 · 2021: 144 · 2020: 108 · 2019: 104 · 2018: 74 · 2017: 68 · 2016: 50 · 2015: 48 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 5
- FWCI
- 29.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- nbn-resolving.de
- Locations
- Diversity and Distributions (publishedVersion)
- KOPS (University of Konstanz) (submittedVersion)
- publish.UP (University of Potsdam) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Mississippi State University
- Columbus Zoo and Aquarium
- Ecological Society of America
- British Ecological Society
- Chester Zoo
- Leibniz-Institut für Zoo- und Wildtierforschung
- Leibniz-Gemeinschaft
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecological Modeling › Species Distribution and Climate Change
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
- Keywords
- sampling bias, MaxEnt, species distribution modeling, spatial filtering, Viverra tangalunga, species occurrence records, Borneo
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