The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
What do we gain from simplicity versus complexity in species distribution models?
Open accessAbstract
Species distribution models (SDMs) are widely used to explain and predict species ranges and environmental niches. They are most commonly constructed by inferring species' occurrence–environment relationships using statistical and machine‐learning methods. The variety of methods that can be used to construct SDMs (e.g. generalized linear/additive models, tree‐based models, maximum entropy, etc.), and the variety of ways that such models can be implemented, permits substantial flexibility in SDM complexity. Building models with an appropriate amount of complexity for the study objectives is critical for robust inference. We characterize complexity as the shape of the inferred occurrence–environment relationships and the number of parameters used to describe them, and search for insights into whether additional complexity is informative or superfluous. By building ‘under fit’ models, having insufficient flexibility to describe observed occurrence–environment relationships, we risk misunderstanding the factors shaping species distributions. By building ‘over fit’ models, with excessive flexibility, we risk inadvertently ascribing pattern to noise or building opaque models. However, model selection can be challenging, especially when comparing models constructed under different modeling approaches. Here we argue for a more pragmatic approach: researchers should constrain the complexity of their models based on study objective, attributes of the data, and an understanding of how these interact with the underlying biological processes. We discuss guidelines for balancing under fitting with over fitting and consequently how complexity affects decisions made during model building. Although some generalities are possible, our discussion reflects differences in opinions that favor simpler versus more complex models. We conclude that combining insights from both simple and complex SDM building approaches best advances our knowledge of current and future species ranges.
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
Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso
Tibshirani, R. (1996) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1996.tb02080.x · Cited by 51,482
Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach.
Guthery, F. S., Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2003) · The Journal of Wildlife Management · doi:10.2307/3802723 · Cited by 41,495
Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine
Friedman, J. H. (2001) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/aos/1013203451 · Cited by 30,731
The Elements of Statistical Learning
Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., & Friedman, J. (2009) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-84858-7 · Cited by 25,970
Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R
Wood, S. N. (2017) · doi:10.1201/9781315370279 · Cited by 13,852
Wood, S. N. (2006) · doi:10.1201/9781420010404 · Cited by 4,953
F. Dormann, C., M. McPherson, J., B. Araújo, M., Bivand, R., Bolliger, J., Carl, G., G. Davies, R., Hirzel, A., Jetz, W., Daniel Kissling, W., et al. (2007) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/j.2007.0906-7590.05171.x · Cited by 3,433
The art of modelling range-shifting species: The art of modelling range-shifting species
Elith, J., Kearney, M., & Phillips, S. (2010) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.2041-210x.2010.00036.x · Cited by 2,813
Self-citationLearning and evaluating classifiers under sample selection bias
Zadrozny, B. (2004) · Twenty-first international conference on Machine learning - ICML '04 · doi:10.1145/1015330.1015425 · Cited by 800
Prevalence, thresholds and the performance of presence–absence models
Lawson, C. R., Hodgson, J. A., Wilson, R. J., & Richards, S. A. (2014) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.12123 · Cited by 194
Cited by
Valavi, R., Guillera‐Arroita, G., Lahoz‐Monfort, J. J., & Elith, J. (2022) · Ecological Monographs · doi:10.1002/ecm.1486 · Cited by 830
Self-citationNorberg, A., Abrego, N., Blanchet, F. G., Adler, F. R., Anderson, B. J., Anttila, J., Araújo, M. B., Dallas, T., Dunson, D., Elith, J., et al. (2019) · Ecological Monographs · doi:10.1002/ecm.1370 · Cited by 573
Self-citationUncertainty in ensembles of global biodiversity scenarios
Thuiller, W., Guéguen, M., Renaud, J., Karger, D. N., & Zimmermann, N. E. (2019) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-019-09519-w · Cited by 513
Self-citationHao, T., Elith, J., Lahoz‐Monfort, J. J., & Guillera‐Arroita, G. (2020) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/ecog.04890 · Cited by 477
Self-citationJoint Species Distribution Modelling: With Applications in R
Ovaskainen, O., & Abrego, N. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108591720 · Cited by 394
Metadata
- Authors
- Merow, C., Smith, M. J., Edwards, T. C., Guisan, A., McMahon, S. M., Normand, S., Thuiller, W., Wüest, R. O., Zimmermann, N. E., & Elith, J.
- Venue
- Ecography
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-09-16
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1267-1281
- ISSN
- 0906-7590 (ISSN-L)
- 1600-0587
- OpenAlex
- W2129435498
- Cited by
- 683
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 22.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: What do we gain from simplicity versus complexity in species distribution models? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/ecog.00845
- The paper
- Merow, C., Smith, M. J., Edwards, T. C., Guisan, A., McMahon, S. M., Normand, S., Thuiller, W., Wüest, R. O., Zimmermann, N. E., & Elith, J. (2014). What do we gain from simplicity versus complexity in species distribution models? Ecography. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.00845
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.