Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 477

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Testing whether ensemble modelling is advantageous for maximising predictive performance of species distribution models

Open access
Hao, Tianxiao, Elith, Jane, Lahoz‐Monfort, José J., Guillera‐Arroita, Gurutzeta·2020·Ecography

Abstract

Predictive performance is important to many applications of species distribution models (SDMs). The SDM ‘ensemble’ approach, which combines predictions across different modelling methods, is believed to improve predictive performance, and is used in many recent SDM studies. Here, we aim to compare the predictive performance of ensemble species distribution models to that of individual models, using a large presence–absence dataset of eucalypt tree species. To test model performance, we divided our dataset into calibration and evaluation folds using two spatial blocking strategies (checkerboard‐pattern and latitudinal slicing). We calibrated and cross‐validated all models within the calibration folds, using both repeated random division of data (a common approach) and spatial blocking. Ensembles were built using the software package ‘biomod2’, with standard (‘untuned’) settings. Boosted regression tree (BRT) models were also fitted to the same data, tuned according to published procedures. We then used evaluation folds to compare ensembles against both their component untuned individual models, and against the BRTs. We used area under the receiver‐operating characteristic curve (AUC) and log‐likelihood for assessing model performance. In all our tests, ensemble models performed well, but not consistently better than their component untuned individual models or tuned BRTs across all tests. Moreover, choosing untuned individual models with best cross‐validation performance also yielded good external performance, with blocked cross‐validation proving better suited for this choice, in this study, than repeated random cross‐validation. The latitudinal slice test was only possible for four species; this showed some individual models, and particularly the tuned one, performing better than ensembles. This study shows no particular benefit to using ensembles over individual tuned models. It also suggests that further robust testing of performance is required for situations where models are used to predict to distant places or environments.

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/ecog.04890

Cites

29 of 29 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 29 references

Cited by

See all 477

Metadata

Authors
Hao, T., Elith, J., Lahoz‐Monfort, J. J., & Guillera‐Arroita, G.
Venue
Ecography
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-01-27
Volume
43
Issue
4
Pages
549-558
ISSN
  • 0906-7590 (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-0587
OpenAlex
W3003960167
Cited by
477
References
29
FWCI
88.18
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Testing whether ensemble modelling is advantageous for maximising predictive performance of species distribution models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/ecog.04890
The paper
Hao, T., Elith, J., Lahoz‐Monfort, J. J., & Guillera‐Arroita, G. (2020). Testing whether ensemble modelling is advantageous for maximising predictive performance of species distribution models. Ecography. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.04890

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.