Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 674

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A review of evidence about use and performance of species distribution modelling ensembles like BIOMOD

Open access
Hao, Tianxiao, Elith, Jane, Guillera‐Arroita, Gurutzeta, Lahoz‐Monfort, José J.·2019·Diversity and Distributions
DOI 10.1111/ddi.12892
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Aim: The idea of combining predictions from different models into an ensemble has gained considerable popularity in species distribution modelling, partly due to free and comprehensive software such as the R package BIOMOD. However, despite proliferation of ensemble models, we lack oversight of how and where they are used for modelling distributions, and how well they perform. Here, we present such an overview. Location: Global. Methods: Since BIOMOD is freely available and widely used by ensemble species distribution modellers, we focused on articles that apply BIOMOD, filtering the initial 852 papers identified in our structured literature search to a relevant final subset of 224 eligible peer‐reviewed journal articles. Results: BIOMOD‐based ensembles are used across many taxa and locations, with terrestrial plants being the most represented group of species (n = 72) and Europe being the most represented continent (n = 106). These studies often focus on forecasting distributions in the future (n = 109), and commonly use presence‐only species data (n = 139) and climatic environmental predictors (n = 219). An average of six models are used in ensembles, and approximately half of ensembles weight contributions of models by their cross‐validation performance. However, discussion about choices made in the modelling process and unambiguous information on the performance of ensemble models versus individual models are limited. The use of independent data to validate model performance is particularly uncommon. Main conclusions: We document the breadth of ensemble applications, but could not draw strong quantitative conclusions about the predictive performance of ensemble models, due to lack of unambiguous information reported. Understanding how and where ensembles are best used when modelling species distributions is important for enabling best choices for different applications. To enable this objective to be achieved, we provide recommendations for thorough reporting practices in a BIOMOD‐based ensemble workflow.

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.12892

Cites

58 of 58 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

Cited by

See all 674

Metadata

Authors
Hao, T., Elith, J., Guillera‐Arroita, G., & Lahoz‐Monfort, J. J.
Venue
Diversity and Distributions
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-01-22
Volume
25
Issue
5
Pages
839-852
ISSN
  • 0967-9952 (ISSN-L)
  • 1366-9516
  • 1472-4642
DOI
10.1111/ddi.12892
OpenAlex
W2912766985
Cited by
674
References
58
FWCI
73.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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.