The DOI matches its Crossref record; 75 of the 75 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Is my species distribution model fit for purpose? Matching data and models to applications
Open accessAbstract
Species distribution models (SDM s) are used to inform a range of ecological, biogeographical and conservation applications. However, users often underestimate the strong links between data type, model output and suitability for end‐use. We synthesize current knowledge and provide a simple framework that summarizes how interactions between data type and the sampling process (i.e. imperfect detection and sampling bias) determine the quantity that is estimated by a SDM. We then draw upon the published literature and simulations to illustrate and evaluate the information needs of the most common ecological, biogeographical and conservation applications of SDM outputs. We find that, while predictions of models fitted to the most commonly available observational data (presence records) suffice for some applications, others require estimates of occurrence probabilities, which are unattainable without reliable absence records. Our literature review and simulations reveal that, while converting continuous SDM outputs into categories of assumed presence or absence is common practice, it is seldom clearly justified by the application's objective and it usually degrades inference. Matching SDM s to the needs of particular applications is critical to avoid poor scientific inference and management outcomes. This paper aims to help modellers and users assess whether their intended SDM outputs are indeed fit for purpose.
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
Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions
Phillips, S. J., Anderson, R. P., & Schapire, R. E. (2006) · Ecological Modelling · doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.03.026 · Cited by 15,396
Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data
Elith*, J., H. Graham*, C., P. Anderson, R., Dudík, M., Ferrier, S., Guisan, A., J. Hijmans, R., Huettmann, F., R. Leathwick, J., Lehmann, A., et al. (2006) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/j.2006.0906-7590.04596.x · Cited by 9,088
Self-citationA 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
Self-citationPredicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models
Guisan, A., & Thuiller, W. (2005) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00792.x · Cited by 6,587
Modeling of species distributions with Maxent: new extensions and a comprehensive evaluation
Phillips, S. J., & Dudík, M. (2008) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/j.0906-7590.2008.5203.x · Cited by 5,890
ESTIMATING SITE OCCUPANCY RATES WHEN DETECTION PROBABILITIES ARE LESS THAN ONE
MacKenzie, D. I., Nichols, J. D., Lachman, G. B., Droege, S., Andrew Royle, J., & Langtimm, C. A. (2002) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[2248:esorwd]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 4,481
Merow, C., Smith, M. J., & Silander, J. A. (2013) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0587.2013.07872.x · Cited by 3,392
Phillips, S. J., Dudík, M., Elith, J., Graham, C. H., Lehmann, A., Leathwick, J., & Ferrier, S. (2009) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/07-2153.1 · Cited by 2,996
Self-citationSelecting thresholds of occurrence in the prediction of species distributions
Liu, C., Berry, P. M., Dawson, T. P., & Pearson, R. G. (2005) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/j.0906-7590.2005.03957.x · Cited by 2,701
Occupancy Estimation and Modeling. Inferring patterns and dynamics of species occurrence
Yoccoz, N. G. (2006) · Wildlife Biology · doi:10.2981/0909-6396(2006)12[450:oeamip]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 2,300
Cited by
Valavi, R., Elith, J., Lahoz‐Monfort, J. J., & Guillera‐Arroita, G. (2019) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.13107 · Cited by 1,056
Self-citationValavi, R., Guillera‐Arroita, G., Lahoz‐Monfort, J. J., & Elith, J. (2022) · Ecological Monographs · doi:10.1002/ecm.1486 · Cited by 830
Self-citationWant to model a species niche? A step-by-step guideline on correlative ecological niche modelling
Sillero, N., Arenas-Castro, S., Enriquez‐Urzelai, U., Vale, C. G., Sousa-Guedes, D., Martínez-Freiría, F., Real, R., & Barbosa, A. M. (2021) · Ecological Modelling · doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2021.109671 · Cited by 456
Guillera‐Arroita, G. (2017) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/ecog.02445 · Cited by 426
Self-citationA 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
Metadata
- Authors
- Guillera‐Arroita, G., Lahoz‐Monfort, J. J., Elith, J., Gordon, A., Kujala, H., Lentini, P. E., McCarthy, M. A., Tingley, R., & Wintle, B. A.
- Venue
- Global Ecology and Biogeography
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-01-08
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 276-292
- ISSN
- 1466-822X (ISSN-L)
- 1466-8238
- OpenAlex
- W1909609512
- Cited by
- 961
- References
- 75
- FWCI
- 34.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Is my species distribution model fit for purpose? Matching data and models to applications. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/geb.12268
- The paper
- Guillera‐Arroita, G., Lahoz‐Monfort, J. J., Elith, J., Gordon, A., Kujala, H., Lentini, P. E., McCarthy, M. A., Tingley, R., & Wintle, B. A. (2015). Is my species distribution model fit for purpose? Matching data and models to applications. Global Ecology and Biogeography. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12268
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.
