The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Opening the black box: an open‐source release of Maxent
Abstract
This software note announces a new open‐source release of the Maxent software for modeling species distributions from occurrence records and environmental data, and describes a new R package for fitting such models. The new release (ver. 3.4.0) will be hosted online by the American Museum of Natural History, along with future versions. It contains small functional changes, most notably use of a complementary log‐log (cloglog) transform to produce an estimate of occurrence probability. The cloglog transform derives from the recently‐published interpretation of Maxent as an inhomogeneous Poisson process (IPP), giving it a stronger theoretical justification than the logistic transform which it replaces by default. In addition, the new R package, maxnet, fits Maxent models using the glmnet package for regularized generalized linear models. We discuss the implications of the IPP formulation in terms of model inputs and outputs, treating occurrence records as points rather than grid cells and interpreting the exponential Maxent model (raw output) as as an estimate of relative abundance. With these two open‐source developments, we invite others to freely use and contribute to the software.
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.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“If a predictor value is common, and presence points rarely occur, these values will be down-weighted so that they have a lower probability of occurrence [86].”
From Advancing predictive modeling in archaeology: an evaluation of regression and machine learning methods on the grand staircase-escalante national monument (2020) · cites this paper as [86]
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
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 · cited 2×
“Species distribution models based on Maxent and IPP remain an active area of research, as new methods are developed to accommodate the challenging nature of occurrence data and species distributions (Fithian et al. 2015, Merow et al. 2016). The open-source release of the Maxent Java code, together with the maxnet R pa…”
Self-citationAdvances in global change research require open science by individual researchers
Wolkovich, E. M., Regetz, J., & O'Connor, M. I. (2012) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02693.x · Cited by 111
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 28
- Aarts G., 2012, Comparative interpretation of count, presence–absence and point methods for species distribution models, Methods Ecol. Evol, 3, 177, 10.1111/j.2041-210X.2011.00141.x · DOI
- Aiello‐Lammens M. E., 2015, spThin: an R package for spatial thinning of species occurrence records for use in ecological niche models, Ecography, 38, 541, 10.1111/ecog.01132 · DOI
- Anderson R. P, 2013, A framework for using niche models to estimate impacts of climate change on species distributions, Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci, 1297, 8, 10.1111/nyas.12264 · DOI
- Barry S. C., 2002, Generalized additive modelling and zero inflated count data, Ecol. Model, 157, 179, 10.1016/S0304-3800(02)00194-1 · DOI
- Boria R. A., 2014, Spatial filtering to reduce sampling bias can improve the performance of ecological niche models, Ecol. Model, 275, 73, 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2013.12.012 · DOI
- Diggle P, 2003, Statistical analysis of spatial point patterns, mathematics, biology
- Elith J., 2006, Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data, Ecography, 29, 129, 10.1111/j.2006.0906-7590.04596.x · DOI · Paper page
- Elith J., 2011, A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists, Divers. Distrib, 17, 43, 10.1111/j.1472-4642.2010.00725.x · DOI · Paper page
- Fithian W., 2013, Finite‐sample equivalence in statistical models for presence‐only data, Ann. Appl. Stat, 7, 1917, 10.1214/13-AOAS667 · DOI
- Fithian W., 2015, Bias correction in species distribution models: pooling survey and collection data for multiple species, Methods Ecol. Evol, 6, 424, 10.1111/2041-210X.12242 · DOI
- Friedman J., 2010, Regularization paths for generalized linear models via coordinate descent, J. Stat. Softw, 33, 1, 10.18637/jss.v033.i01 · DOI · Paper page
- Guillera‐Arroita G., 2014, Maxent is not a presence absence method: a comment on Thibaud et al, Methods Ecol. Evol, 5, 1192, 10.1111/2041-210X.12252 · DOI
- Merow C., 2013, A practical guide to MaxEnt for modeling species distributions: what it does, and why inputs and settings matter, Ecography, 36, 1058, 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2013.07872.x · DOI · Paper page
- Merow C., 2016, Improving niche and range estimates with Maxent and point process models by integrating spatially explicit information, Global Ecol. Biogeogr, 25, 1022, 10.1111/geb.12453 · DOI
- Muscarella R., 2014, ENMeval: an R package for conducting spatially independent evaluations and estimating optimal model complexity for Maxent ecological niche models, Methods Ecol. Evol, 5, 1198, 10.1111/2041-210X.12261 · DOI · Paper page
- Phillips S. J., 2008, Modeling of species distributions with Maxent: new extensions and a comprehensive evaluation, Ecography, 31, 161, 10.1111/j.0906-7590.2008.5203.x · DOI · Paper page
- Phillips S. J., 2004, A maximum entropy approach to species distribution modeling, Proceedings of the Twenty‐First International Conference on Machine Learning
- Phillips S. J., 2006, Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions, Ecol. Model, 190, 231, 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.03.026 · DOI · Paper page
- Phillips S. J., 2009, Sample selection bias and presence‐only distribution models: implications for background and pseudo‐absence data, Ecol. Appl, 19, 181, 10.1890/07-2153.1 · DOI · Paper page
- Radosavljevic A., 2014, Making better Maxent models of species distributions: complexity, overfitting and evaluation, J. Biogeogr, 41, 629, 10.1111/jbi.12227 · DOI · Paper page
- Reddy S., 2003, Geographical sampling bias and its implications for conservation priorities in Africa, J. Biogeogr, 30, 1719, 10.1046/j.1365-2699.2003.00946.x · DOI
- Renner I. W., 2013, Equivalence of Maxent and Poisson point process models for species distribution modeling in ecology, Biometrics, 69, 274, 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2012.01824.x · DOI
- Renner I. W., 2015, Point process models for presence‐only analysis, Methods Ecol. Evol, 6, 366, 10.1111/2041-210X.12352 · DOI
- Soberón J., 2004, Biodiversity informatics: managing and applying primary biodiversity data, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, 359, 689, 10.1098/rstb.2003.1439 · DOI
- Syfert M. M., 2013, The effects of sampling bias and model complexity on the predictive performance of MaxEnt species distribution models, PLoS One, 8, e55158, 10.1371/journal.pone.0055158 · DOI
- VanDerWal J., 2009, Abundance and the environmental niche: environmental suitability estimated from niche models predicts the upper limit of local abundance, Am. Nat, 174, 282, 10.1086/600087 · DOI
- Warton D., 2010, Poisson point process models solve the “pseudo‐absence problem” for presence‐only data in ecology, Ann. Appl. Stat, 4, 1383
- Wenger S. J., 2008, Estimating species occurrence, abundance, and detection probability using zero‐inflated distributions, Ecology, 89, 2953, 10.1890/07-1127.1 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A checklist for maximizing reproducibility of ecological niche models
Feng, X., Park, D. S., Walker, C., Peterson, A. T., Merow, C., & Papeş, M. (2019) · Nature Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1038/s41559-019-0972-5 · Cited by 323
The global distribution of known and undiscovered ant biodiversity
Kass, J. M., Guénard, B., Dudley, K. L., Jenkins, C. N., Azuma, F., Fisher, B. L., Parr, C. L., Gibb, H., Longino, J. T., Ward, P. S., et al. (2022) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abp9908 · Cited by 194
Circuitscape in julia: empowering dynamic approaches to connectivity assessment
Hall, K. R., Anantharaman, R., Landau, V. A., Clark, M., Dickson, B. G., Jones, A., Platt, J., Edelman, A., & Shah, V. B. (2021) · Land · doi:10.3390/land10030301 · Cited by 115
Yaworsky, P. M., Vernon, K. B., Spangler, J. D., Brewer, S. C., & Codding, B. F. (2020) · PLOS One · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0239424 · Cited by 104
Yousefi, M., Naderloo, R., & Keikhosravi, A. (2022) · Global Ecology and Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2022.e02266 · Cited by 19
Metadata
- Authors
- Phillips, S. J., Anderson, R. P., Dudík, M., Schapire, R. E., & Blair, M. E.
- Affiliations
- Center for Biodiversity and Conservation, American Museum of Natural History New York NY USA
- Dept of Biology, City College of New York City Univ. of New York New York NY USA
- Microsoft Research New York NY USA
- Venue
- Ecography
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2017-05-09
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 887-893
- ISSN
- 0906-7590
- 1600-0587
- Cited by
- 2,729
- References
- 2
- Language
- en
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
