Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 314

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Projecting future expansion of invasive species: comparing and improving methodologies for species distribution modeling

Open access
Mainali, Kumar P., Warren, Dan L., Dhileepan, Kunjithapatham, McConnachie, Andrew, Strathie, Lorraine, Hassan, Gul, Karki, Debendra, Shrestha, Bharat B., Parmesan, Camille·2015·Global Change Biology

Abstract

Modeling the distributions of species, especially of invasive species in non‐native ranges, involves multiple challenges. Here, we developed some novel approaches to species distribution modeling aimed at reducing the influences of such challenges and improving the realism of projections. We estimated species–environment relationships for Parthenium hysterophorus L. (Asteraceae) with four modeling methods run with multiple scenarios of (i) sources of occurrences and geographically isolated background ranges for absences, (ii) approaches to drawing background (absence) points, and (iii) alternate sets of predictor variables. We further tested various quantitative metrics of model evaluation against biological insight. Model projections were very sensitive to the choice of training dataset. Model accuracy was much improved using a global dataset for model training, rather than restricting data input to the species’ native range. AUC score was a poor metric for model evaluation and, if used alone, was not a useful criterion for assessing model performance. Projections away from the sampled space (i.e., into areas of potential future invasion) were very different depending on the modeling methods used, raising questions about the reliability of ensemble projections. Generalized linear models gave very unrealistic projections far away from the training region. Models that efficiently fit the dominant pattern, but exclude highly local patterns in the dataset and capture interactions as they appear in data (e.g., boosted regression trees), improved generalization of the models. Biological knowledge of the species and its distribution was important in refining choices about the best set of projections. A post hoc test conducted on a new Parthenium dataset from Nepal validated excellent predictive performance of our ‘best’ model. We showed that vast stretches of currently uninvaded geographic areas on multiple continents harbor highly suitable habitats for parthenium. However, discrepancies between model predictions and parthenium invasion in Australia indicate successful management for this globally significant weed.

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/gcb.13038

Cites

5 of 5 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 5 references

Metadata

Authors
Mainali, K. P., Warren, D. L., Dhileepan, K., McConnachie, A., Strathie, L., Hassan, G., Karki, D., Shrestha, B. B., & Parmesan, C.
Venue
Global Change Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-11-06
Volume
21
Issue
12
Pages
4464-4480
ISSN
  • 1354-1013 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2486
OpenAlex
W1919815506
Cited by
314
References
5
FWCI
10.89
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: Projecting future expansion of invasive species: comparing and improving methodologies for species distribution modeling. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/gcb.13038
The paper
Mainali, K. P., Warren, D. L., Dhileepan, K., McConnachie, A., Strathie, L., Hassan, G., Karki, D., Shrestha, B. B., & Parmesan, C. (2015). Projecting future expansion of invasive species: comparing and improving methodologies for species distribution modeling. Global Change Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13038

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.