Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 284

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Incorporating model complexity and spatial sampling bias into ecological niche models of climate change risks faced by 90 California vertebrate species of concern

Open access
Warren, Dan L., Wright, Amber N., Seifert, Stephanie N., Shaffer, H. Bradley·2014·Diversity and Distributions

Abstract

Aim: Ecological niche models are increasingly being used to aid in predicting the effects of future climate change on species distributions. Complex models that show high predictive performance on current distribution data may do a poor job of predicting new data due to overfitting. In addition, model performance is often evaluated using techniques that are sensitive to spatial sampling bias. Here, we explore the effects of model complexity and spatial sampling bias on niche models for 90 vertebrate taxa of conservation concern. Location: California, USA. Methods: We used Akaike information criterion (AIC c) to select variables and tune M axent's built‐in regularization parameter (β) to constrain model complexity. In addition, we incorporated several estimates of spatial sampling bias based on interpolations of target group data. Ensemble forecasts were developed for future conditions from two emission scenarios and three climate change models for the year 2050. Results: Reducing the number of predictors and tuning β resulted in a reduction in the number of parameters in models built with sample sizes greater than approximately 10 occurrence points. Reducing the number of predictors had a substantially higher impact on the relative prioritization of different grid cells than did increasing regularization. There was little difference in prioritization of habitat when comparing models built using different spatial sampling bias estimates. Over half of the taxa were predicted to experience >80% reductions in environmental suitability in currently occupied cells, and this pattern was consistent across taxonomic groups. Main Conclusions: Our results demonstrate that reducing the number of correlated predictor variables tends to decrease the breadth of models, while tuning regularization using AIC c tends to increase it. These two strategies may provide a reasonable bracketing strategy for assessing climate change impacts.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/ddi.12160

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Warren, D. L., Wright, A. N., Seifert, S. N., & Shaffer, H. B.
Venue
Diversity and Distributions
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-12-16
Volume
20
Issue
3
Pages
334-343
ISSN
  • 0967-9952 (ISSN-L)
  • 1366-9516
  • 1472-4642
OpenAlex
W2157135469
Cited by
284
References
2
FWCI
4.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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.