The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Accounting for imperfect detection and survey bias in statistical analysis of presence‐only data
Abstract
Aim: During the past decade ecologists have attempted to estimate the parameters of species distribution models by combining locations of species presence observed in opportunistic surveys with spatially referenced covariates of occurrence. Several statistical models have been proposed for the analysis of presence‐only data, but these models have largely ignored the effects of imperfect detection and survey bias. In this paper I describe a model‐based approach for the analysis of presence‐only data that accounts for errors in the detection of individuals and for biased selection of survey locations. Innovation: I develop a hierarchical, statistical model that allows presence‐only data to be analysed in conjunction with data acquired independently in planned surveys. One component of the model specifies the spatial distribution of individuals within a bounded, geographic region as a realization of a spatial point process. A second component of the model specifies two kinds of observations, the detection of individuals encountered during opportunistic surveys and the detection of individuals encountered during planned surveys. Main conclusions: Using mathematical proof and simulation‐based comparisons, I demonstrate that biases induced by errors in detection or biased selection of survey locations can be reduced or eliminated by using the hierarchical model to analyse presence‐only data in conjunction with counts observed in planned surveys. I show that a relatively small number of high‐quality data (from planned surveys) can be used to leverage the information in presence‐only observations, which usually have broad spatial coverage but may not be informative of both occurrence and detectability of individuals. Because a variety of sampling protocols can be used in planned surveys, this approach to the analysis of presence‐only data is widely applicable. In addition, since the point‐process model is formulated at the level of an individual, it can be extended to account for biological interactions between individuals and temporal changes in their spatial distributions.
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
A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists
Elith, J., Phillips, S. J., Hastie, T., Dudík, M., Chee, Y. E., & Yates, C. J. (2011) · Diversity and Distributions · doi:10.1111/j.1472-4642.2010.00725.x · Cited by 6,699
ESTIMATING ABUNDANCE FROM REPEATED PRESENCE–ABSENCE DATA OR POINT COUNTS
Royle, J. A., & Nichols, J. D. (2003) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2003)084[0777:eafrpa]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 1,364
Cited by
Global hotspots and correlates of emerging zoonotic diseases
Allen, T., Murray, K. A., Zambrana-Torrelio, C., Morse, S. S., Rondinini, C., Di Marco, M., Breit, N., Olival, K. J., & Daszak, P. (2017) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-017-00923-8 · Cited by 1,124
Guillera‐Arroita, G. (2017) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/ecog.02445 · Cited by 426
Predicting Distributions of Invasive Species
Elith, J. (2017) · Invasive Species · doi:10.1017/9781139019606.006 · Cited by 106
Botella, C., Joly, A., Bonnet, P., Munoz, F., & Monestiez, P. (2021) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.13565 · Cited by 17
Metadata
- Authors
- Dorazio, R. M.
- Venue
- Global Ecology and Biogeography
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-08-08
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1472-1484
- ISSN
- 1466-822X (ISSN-L)
- 1466-8238
- OpenAlex
- W1572253537
- Cited by
- 254
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 9.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Accounting for imperfect detection and survey bias in statistical analysis of presence‐only data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/geb.12216
- The paper
- Dorazio, R. M. (2014). Accounting for imperfect detection and survey bias in statistical analysis of presence‐only data. Global Ecology and Biogeography. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12216
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.