The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparing species distribution models constructed with different subsets of environmental predictors
Abstract
Aim: To assess the usefulness of combining climate predictors with additional types of environmental predictors in species distribution models for range‐restricted species, using common correlative species distribution modelling approaches. Location: Florida, USA Methods: We used five different algorithms to create distribution models for 14 vertebrate species, using seven different predictor sets: two with bioclimate predictors only, and five ‘combination’ models using bioclimate predictors plus ‘additional’ predictors from groups representing: human influence, land cover, extreme weather or noise (spatially random data).We use a linear mixed‐model approach to analyse the effects of predictor set and algorithm on model accuracy, variable importance scores and spatial predictions. Results: Regardless of modelling algorithm, no one predictor set produced significantly more accurate models than all others, though models including human influence predictors were the only ones with significantly higher accuracy than climate‐only models. Climate predictors had consistently higher variable importance scores than additional predictors in combination models, though there was variation related to predictor type and algorithm. While spatial predictions varied moderately between predictor sets, discrepancies were significantly greater between modelling algorithms than between predictor sets. Furthermore, there were no differences in the level of agreement between binary ‘presence–absence’ maps and independent species range maps related to the predictor set used. Main conclusions: Our results indicate that additional predictors have relatively minor effects on the accuracy of climate‐based species distribution models and minor to moderate effects on spatial predictions. We suggest that implementing species distribution models with only climate predictors may provide an effective and efficient approach for initial assessments of environmental suitability.
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
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
Pearson, R. G., & Dawson, T. P. (2003) · Global Ecology and Biogeography · doi:10.1046/j.1466-822x.2003.00042.x · Cited by 4,252
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
Elvidge, C. D., Baugh, K. E., Kihn, E. A., Kroehl, H. W., Davis, E. R., & Davis, C. W. (1997) · International Journal of Remote Sensing · doi:10.1080/014311697218485 · Cited by 941
Cited by
Collinearity in ecological niche modeling: Confusions and challenges
Feng, X., Park, D. S., Liang, Y., Pandey, R., & Papeş, M. (2019) · Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1002/ece3.5555 · Cited by 438
Kaky, E., Nolan, V., Alatawi, A., & Gilbert, F. (2020) · Ecological Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ecoinf.2020.101150 · Cited by 432
Metadata
- Authors
- Bucklin, D. N., Basille, M., Benscoter, A. M., Brandt, L. A., Mazzotti, F. J., Romañach, S. S., Speroterra, C., & Watling, J. I.
- Venue
- Diversity and Distributions
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-08-21
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 23-35
- ISSN
- 0967-9952 (ISSN-L)
- 1366-9516
- 1472-4642
- OpenAlex
- W1966743036
- Cited by
- 194
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 6.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparing species distribution models constructed with different subsets of environmental predictors. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/ddi.12247
- The paper
- Bucklin, D. N., Basille, M., Benscoter, A. M., Brandt, L. A., Mazzotti, F. J., Romañach, S. S., Speroterra, C., & Watling, J. I. (2015). Comparing species distribution models constructed with different subsets of environmental predictors. Diversity and Distributions. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12247
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.